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

March 30, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2006-Mar-30 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 30 March 2006 Jeudi 30 mars 2006

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION

MANDATORY DECLARATION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 EXIGEANT

UNE DÉCLARATION AU SUJET

DU DON D'ORGANES ET DE TISSU

SWIMMING POOL SAFETY ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DES PISCINES

ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION

MANDATORY DECLARATION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 EXIGEANT

UNE DÉCLARATION AU SUJET

DU DON D'ORGANES ET DE TISSU

SWIMMING POOL SAFETY ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DES PISCINES

ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION

MANDATORY DECLARATION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 EXIGEANT

UNE DÉCLARATION AU SUJET

DU DON D'ORGANES ET DE TISSU

SWIMMING POOL SAFETY ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DES PISCINES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AGRICULTURE FUNDING

HATE CRIMES

MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION

PROPERTY TAXATION

REGENT PARK

ONTARIO BUDGET

KIDNEY DISEASE

PUBLIC TRANSIT

ONTARIO BUDGET

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO WORKERS'

MEMORIAL ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE MONUMENT

COMMÉMORATIF DES TRAVAILLEURS

DE L'ONTARIO

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

TUITION

PROPERTY TAXATION

EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE

TO BUSINESSES

HEALTH SERVICES

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

ONTARIO BUDGET

AGRICULTURE FUNDING

ONTARIO FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRY

ONTARIO BUDGET

DEMOCRATIC RENEWAL

PUBLIC TRANSIT

ONTARIO BUDGET

PETITIONS

ORGAN DONATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

MACULAR DEGENERATION

ORGAN DONATION

IDENTITY THEFT

GASOLINE PRICES

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

LONG-TERM CARE

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

HIGHWAY 35

CHILD CARE

CURRICULUM

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ORDER OF BUSINESS

MORE TIME TO APPEAL ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 PORTANT PROROGATION

DU DÉLAI D'APPEL

MORE TIME TO APPEAL ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 PORTANT PROROGATION

DU DÉLAI D'APPEL

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION

MANDATORY DECLARATION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 EXIGEANT

UNE DÉCLARATION AU SUJET

DU DON D'ORGANES ET DE TISSU

Mr. Klees moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 67,

An Act to amend various Acts to require a declaration with respect to the donation of organs and tissue on death / Projet de loi 67, Loi modifiant

diverses lois pour exiger que soit faite une déclaration au sujet du don d'organes et de tissu au moment du décès.

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

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I'm proud to rise today to discuss an issue that I believe, and am very hopeful, will find common ground in this

place. It's not often, I think, that all three parties can see an issue from the perspective of the good that it can do and the lives that it can save. I believe we have before us today a bill that

should have the confidence of every member of this House.

Before I go into the details of this bill, I want to recognize individuals in the galleries today who are with us and who are playing a very important role in

ensuring that the issue before us is implemented. There are those who have benefited from organ transplant, tissue transplant. I want to first of all recognize Dr. Frank Markel from the Trillium

Gift of Life Network, who is here with us today, along with Jennifer Tracey. In that context, I want to recognize my colleague Elizabeth Witmer, who, then the Minister of Health, had the privilege

of introducing the legislation that gave life to the Trillium Gift of Life Network.

I also want to recognize today Ms. Janet Bick, the Kidney Foundation's director of government and professional relations; Ms. Riva Grinshpan, president of the

central branch of the Kidney Foundation; and Mr. Wayne Sampson, who is a transplant recipient and volunteer for the Kidney Foundation. The Kidney Foundation is here in the Legislature today to give

focus to the important work of that foundation and, obviously, to the application of the very subject that we're speaking to today to individuals in this province.

The origin of this bill is with my constituents. When I introduced this bill initially, I did so in honour of a good friend, Don Cousens, who is a former member

of this Legislature and the current mayor of Markham. He himself is a recipient of a kidney transplant and, as we speak today, is again on a waiting list, this time for a double transplant.

I also want to recognize in the gallery today Mr. Geoffrey Risen and his wife, Sandra. Mr. Risen is also a recipient of a kidney; Mr. Glenn Wood as well. These

are folks who sat across from me in my constituency office and spoke to me about their challenges, their anxiety, their frustration with a system in this province that, quite frankly, is

unconscionable, given the nature of our province, the wealth of our province and the boasting that we do about one of the best health care systems in the world. Yet every three days one person dies

on a waiting list awaiting a transplant in this province. It is not because people in this province don't want to be organ donors, because an Environics poll tells us that 96% of people, when

asked, support organ donation, yet only 40% or so actually ever sign a donor card. So I suggest to you, Speaker, and I ask members of this Legislature to consider why it is that we are falling far

behind many other jurisdictions in the availability of organ donations. I suggest that this bill before us goes in some direction to alleviating that concern.

The bill before us will require, when implemented, that every person 16 years of age and older in the province of Ontario, as a matter of course of making

application for or renewing a driver's licence or a provincial health card, make a declaration regarding their intentions concerning organ donation. That declaration will be a standard part of the

application form for the driver's licence or the provincial health card.

I want to make it very clear that what this legislation does not do is force anyone to make a decision to be an organ donor, and it doesn't force anyone to say

no. In fact, what the application allows for is a yes, a no or an undecided. It should be of no offence to anyone. It's simply a declaration that, "I have given thought to this." I believe it's

important that we have a built-in mechanism in those two important provincial documents that actually forces people to confront this very important issue periodically in the course of their life,

to give consideration to this life-giving issue.

Every person in this province has the ability to give life and to sustain life. I believe we, as legislators, have an opportunity here, through this legislation,

to make that a possibility and ensure that people don't miss that important opportunity to give life and to sustain life. I believe that it's very important that individuals have the right to make

that very personal decision. I do not believe that anyone should be presuming that that is a decision that people make.

I want to, at this point in time, thank my colleague Peter Kormos for his initiative through his private member's bill. I also want to recognize that there are

other bills in this place. Mr. Levac has introduced, I believe, a very important bill as well that relates to introducing an education program beginning in the elementary school level to ensure

that young people understand the importance and the implications of organ donation, and I would support that.

I'm not suggesting that this legislation before us holds all of the answers, but I do believe it's a very important part of ensuring that we take the important

step to ensure that people in our province have the opportunity to have their lives saved, have the quality of their life improved. If we can do that, why not?

I want to recognize as well in the gallery a constituent, Gerri Seely, and her husband Dennis. Gerri is a recipient of a transplant, a living transplant. This is

an incredible story of a friend who came forward to offer herself as a donor. I believe that in all of this we have an example that life is a miracle, and we can pass that miracle on to others if

we just have an open mind to it.

In the gallery as well is Heather Dunlop. I want to welcome her in a special way, because her husband, just a week ago, I believe, received a lung transplant.

Mr. Dunlop wrote me not too long ago, about two weeks before his transplant: "My name is Dave Dunlop. I have been waiting for a lung transplant since January 2004. I am on oxygen 24/7. I attend the

hospital four times weekly for physiotherapy." He appeals and he says this: "Please keep us all in mind. These legislative changes are urgent. People are dying on the waiting list. You have the

power to help."

I say to my colleagues in the Legislature today that you have the power to help. If there's anything we get elected for, if there is any opportunity we have to

improve the quality of life of the people we represent, then this is an opportunity to do that. I appeal to you for your support. I appeal to the government that, should this legislation pass as a

private member's bill, we have the support of the government as we move through the committee stage and that the government will see this indeed as a non-partisan issue, that this is not something

we should have political debates about, but because it's the right thing to do, they would move quickly to implementation because it is practical, it is doable and it will save lives.

I thank you, Speaker. I thank members of the Legislature. I look forward to hearing from you, I look forward to hearing any advice you may have for improvement

to this bill and I ask for your support.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I'm delighted to take

part in this debate. Organ donation is certainly a serious issue in

this province. Close to 2,000 people are waiting for an organ donation in Ontario. While this waiting list has nearly doubled in the past 10 years, the number of volunteer donors has remained

virtually the same.

According to the information received from the Trillium Gift of Life Network, every three days a person dies waiting for an organ transplant. In fact, while the

majority of Ontarians support the idea of organ donation, less than 45% of those who have already signed their organ donor card got their families to agree to the transplant issue.

This bill does not go far enough to improve the situation for organ transplants in this province. This is why, on March 2, I introduced Bill 79, the Trillium

Gift of Life Network Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006. My bill would create an organ donor registry that will be operated by the Trillium Gift of Life Network. This registry will allow Trillium to

quickly and easily access organ donor information once an individual has died. My bill proposes that a consent form be distributed with every application for or renewal of a person's health card or

driver's licence. Upon the death of a person, the consent is binding and is full authority for the use of the body's organs or tissue unless the person has explicitly withdrawn the consent in

writing or has orally withdrawn the consent in the presence of and attested to by two witnesses. A registry containing the consent information will be created and maintained by the Trillium Gift of

Life Network.

Encourager les Ontariennes et les Ontariens à déclarer leur consentement à donner leurs organes, et à en discuter avec leur famille, n'est

qu'une première étape. Il est impératif que les consentements soient cueillis et qu'un registre soit créé afin que les donneurs potentiels puissent être facilement

identifiés. Ce registre faciliterait le processus pour ceux et celles en attente d'organes.

I am pleased to support Bill 67 today because it is a positive step towards educating Ontarians about organ donation. I encourage the members of this Legislature

to look beyond party lines and vote in favour of this bill today.

Mr. John Yakabuski (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): It's my pleasure to join in here this morning to support my colleague Mr. Frank Klees from Oak

Ridges on his private member's bill, Bill 67.

I think that Mr. Klees's bill strikes the right balance. It covers all of the salient points that I think are necessary in this bill. Mr. Klees's bill allows

people to make that choice. It allows people to take into consideration all of the things that they might be concerned about. It certainly allows people to take into consideration their personal or

religious concerns with regard to organ donation or anything else, because it leaves those options. It's a yes, a no or an undecided. I think Mr. Klees has been very, very thorough in preparing

this bill.

I think it's appropriate that today, Kidney Health Day here at Queen's Park, we are debating this bill.

I want to talk a little bit about some personal stuff. When my brother passed away suddenly in 1997, several of his organs, including both his kidneys, were

donated, and five or six lives were continued and saved because of his organ donation.

I must say that in my personal situation, the current circumstances that force you to make a decision to say you're going to donate your organs -- for many

years, while I was a person who believed in the importance of organ donation, I didn't have my card signed. I didn't have that decision down pat. I would hope that if something had happened to me,

my family would have made the decision, but that's not a guarantee. Today I have that card signed, but I think the situation that Mr. Klees is working on is much better. It would compel me, at the

renewal or issuance of a driver's licence or OHIP card, to make that decision at that time.

I want to say I greatly respect the members for Niagara Centre, Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and Brant for their passion on these causes. I was very pleased to

support the member for Brant's private member's bill last year, which is now law, with regard to anaphylactic students and children. I understand the passion that they have, and I do believe that

Mr. Klees's bill strikes the right balance and is the optimum choice to make in this particular circumstance.

When I go throughout my riding, I can't count the number of people whose lives have been saved and prolonged by being the recipient of an organ, yet we see the

waiting lists. The kidney waiting list, of course, is the longest by far: some 1,346 people on the 2005 waiting list for kidneys in this province, and a total of 1,920 people on a waiting list.

We have to do what we can in our power to alleviate and to shrink that list. I think the choice we make today with regard to the member from Oak Ridge's bill

will go a long way to ensuring that the wishes of the 96%, as you've heard, who believe in organ donation will actually be carried out. Through the process of elimination, if you want to call it

that, they will not have to make that conscious choice. They will be making the choice when they renew those licences or when people over the age of 16 get licences; they will make that decision

then and there. And it does leave the option. Anyone who believes that for their personal reasons they cannot support organ donation has that option, but for the rest of us who do believe in organ

donation and have not made that choice, this will come compel us to make a choice. If we're unsure at that time, we can make that choice and fill in the undecided portion of that card.

As I say, it covers the bases, it strikes the balance, and I think it gives us and our families every opportunity to ensure that our wishes have been carried out

in the event that we are in a position to donate our organs to save someone's else's life. I just can't believe there's a greater gift we can offer to the rest of mankind.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): My opportunity today is to tell something to Mr. Klees that I made a commitment to do, and I'm going to do that right

now. I think it's a good bill. I'm going to be supporting the bill, and I think it's taking us in the right direction in the province of Ontario. That said, I want to make some other points.

The first one is that I do have my organ donor card. I would suggest every single person in the province take a look for this card, and if it's not in your

wallet, find a way to put it in there. Sign it and have the discussion with your family to ensure that those organs get where they belong.

Number two, there's another little sticker that you can put on other cards that acknowledges that the organ donor card is signed. That's another indication to

those people in the hospitals who know what's going on. That's the second thing I want to bring up and make sure that everybody understands.

We want to talk about the bill. What has it done? It has done one thing that I think all the bills that are presented before us do to take the momentum and move

forward, and that is to spark the debate. We've had that debate, we're having that debate and we're going to continue to have the debate to find a way in which all of us can make sure the gift of

life is provided.

Right now there are four bills, but we've had bills since 1999 that I'm aware of, since I've been here. I want to make sure that everyone is aware of those, so

let's go through them: Bill 17, a private member's bill, May 5, 2003, by Mr. Gilchrist; Bill 156, December 2, 2004, by Mr. Kormos; Bill 33, mine, November 21, 2005 -- I'll review that for two

seconds; Bill 61, February 16, 2006, by Mr. Kormos; Bill 79, March 2, 2006, by Mr. Lalonde. There seems to be a theme here. People understand that there's something going on about organ donation,

but guess what? None of these bills has been passed. It's time for us to start passing some bills to make sure that we tighten, improve and correct laws.

Another thing has happened recently that I'm very happy about -- and I report to the House that we have continued to move forward -- is that the Minister of

Health enabled a

section of the Trillium Gift of Life Network Act which notifies the network of the 16 A hospitals that have been identified so that, upon death, the Trillium Gift of Life Network

is notified that that death has taken place. It has tripled donations. So there are steps being taken even now. But you know what? It's not good enough. I agree with the member opposite; I agree

with Mr. Klees that we need to do more.

In my own riding, I support on a regular basis -- and I know our community does. Some private enterprise, along with public institutions, get together to do

curling bonspiels for the Gift of Life. That's supported across our riding, and I know it's supported across the province. Those are other things that are happening. Not only are we getting those

recipients -- and we celebrate them at lunchtime. We celebrate them to say how many years it has been since they've had their organ donations. We've had some people with amazing anniversaries, and

quite frankly, those anniversaries would not have been celebrated without organ donation. Sadly, I have to present this piece of information that makes us act even more: Every three days someone

dies waiting for an organ -- every three days. So three days from now, know this: Someone is going to die waiting for an organ.

Science has moved us further and further into the realm of unbelievable reality. Almost every single organ is now able to be transplanted. Multiple organs are

being transplanted, and we're extending our lives. That is truly remarkable. That, to me, is why we should be moving forward.

Getting back to Bill 33 for just a moment, as I do support the bill, I think we need to change the culture. How do we change the culture of organ donation? I

don't believe, personally, that we radically force that cultural change down somebody's throat. What I honestly believe in is the example that MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, gave us. A bunch

of mothers got together and said, "Enough is enough with drinking and driving." So they formed an organization, a group that put in front of the decision-makers the horrible face of drinking and

driving. Before MADD came along, people did those horrendous things, drinking -- they couldn't even walk. They got into a car and drove and killed somebody, and they weren't getting convicted by

the juries because that was them on Saturday night. But Mothers Against Drunk Driving said, "Enough of this." We've changed the culture. Talk to anyone out there who says that drinking and driving

is okay now. We changed a culture of behaviour.

Seat belts: a 97% use rate. There was a furor about forcing people to wear seat belts. Now, it's a culture change.

I believe this is what we need to do here. Bill 33 basically says that in the school system across the province of Ontario we must have an educational program

that makes it clear what organ donation is about before the 16th birthday comes when you sign that card. I fully believe in this bill. I fully believe that the dialogue needs to continue, but we

need to take action. I want to tell the member that I will be supporting his bill. I will be working alongside him and the others who have bills of the same nature to improve and to change the

culture, because it's a disgrace that Ontario has the record it has for organ donation. It's time to act. I will be supporting the bill, and I encourage each and every one of us to support the type

of legislation we see before us today. Get that organ donor card signed and the tickets on the other cards for notification, and speak to your family about that organ donation that you so

desperately give, because the people are wanting to us do this.

Thank you to the Kidney Foundation, and thank you to the Trillium Gift of Life Network and to all of the other organizations that are giving the gift of

life.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): I'm pleased to participate. I've been looking forward to this opportunity. I'm going to make it very clear

right off the bat that New Democrats support this legislation, support the Klees bill, and indeed expect that it's going to go to committee, not for some phoney one-day hearing so that it can be

sloughed off and thrown out into legislative orbit, into that big black hole, that repository of so many private members' bills, and even more than a few flawed government bills, but for a

meaningful committee process so that the bill has a good chance of -- because what happens, folks, is that once today is over, the bill is no longer the property, regrettably, of the private

member. It becomes the property of the government. The government controls when it's called for third reading. I anticipate that this bill will pass today, so I say to you folks, don't bug Mr.

Klees from today forward; put the pressure on Mr. McGuinty, because it's him and his office that are going to decide that this bill gets called for third reading.

The Klees proposal is what's referred to as the mandated choice model and it's one that's recognized as being capable of improving and enhancing the number of

organs available. We've got such a short amount of time for private members' public business. I've got to tell folks, because I've had no personal experience with organ transplants -- nobody in my

family, none of my friends, nobody who has been close to me. But I've got to tell you again, it's something that, all of my adult life, I've been thinking, "Well, of course you use organs after

somebody is dead." But I've got to tell you, it was George Marcello -- all of you will remember this -- and young Kristopher's Wish campaign that provoked my interest in, yes, my friends, radical

approaches to increasing the number of organs available for transplant. I want to thank him and I want to acknowledge his tremendous work. George Marcello, as a lay advocate, is as passionate and

as effective an advocate as we have seen in this province and in this country for organ donation and organ donation reform. Young Kristopher was and is a delightful and courageous young man.

I also want to indicate that none of us sit down at our personal computers at night -- I almost said "typewriters," Mr. Levac -- and write these bills; we rely

upon legislative counsel. We also rely upon legislative research and library research. I have got to tell you, there's a pile of material available there: debates amongst ethicists, debates within

the medical community, statisticians, legal debates around this matter, focused not just in Canada and the United States but of course internationally, because of the radical reforms that have

taken place in Europe. So I want to thank the Legislative Assembly staff who helped me acquire this huge package of material: Lorraine Luski, who is the research officer, assisted by June Pae,

research librarian, and by Andrew Reid, legislative learner.

Mr. Klees and I did one of those talking head shows the other day down at CTS; On The Line, a good show, quite frankly, a very good topical, lively debate around

public affairs issues. Of course, every time he and I -- either individually or, more often than not recently, together -- do one of those or a radio show, we get the e-mails.

I got a delightful e-mail from a woman I'm just going to call Yvette, who complimented all of us on this debate, on provoking thought around the issue. She

didn't appreciate my -- see, I talk about organ donation as basically a waste diversion system. I'm sorry to be crude, but when you're dead, you have no use for the liver, the kidneys, the heart,

the lungs -- no use whatsoever. All they are is dead weight for the pallbearers; all they do is get in the way of the embalmer. We have gone to great lengths to discourage people from taking

recyclable bottles to landfill sites. What a crime, in terms of scarce landfill sites. It's similarly a crime, in my view, to bury or burn good organs that the owner no longer has any use for. The

owner isn't even there. Yvette, in her e-mail, said that she wished I wouldn't refer to organs as being selfish.

I don't know. I came from down in Niagara region. I remember when I was 16 years old, my first vehicle was a 1946 Chev pickup; I bought it for $85. I went to

O'Bireck's every day for -- we called them quarts then -- recycled oil, because it used more oil than gasoline. Where I come from, when you needed a new alternator or a new starter motor, you went

to O'Bireck's scrapyard and salvaged a used one. The vehicle was dead, rusted out and the motor was gone, but the alternator, the starter motor, was perfectly usable.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): And the generator, too.

Mr. Kormos: Look, Mr. Ruprecht, if you want to join me, we'll go to the tattoo parlour, line up the belly and write, "Upon death, cut here. Take

what you need." I have no qualms whatsoever. The liver may have some bad spots that are going to need cutting out, but maybe one or the other of the kidneys can be used.

I apologize to Yvette for being perhaps somewhat coarse about these things, but I also remark on what Yvette had to say. Again, I'm not critical of her. This is

so typical of so many people I've heard from. She said that, "Donating organs and tissue is a selfless act." I understand what she is saying, and so many others have said it, but I profoundly

disagree. You see, a live donor of a kidney, that's a selfless act. I just bought one of those $100 CNIB lottery tickets. That wasn't a selfless act. I was looking at the picture of the Porsche

Boxster that I was capable of winning. Giving somebody $100 without expecting anything back, that's the selfless act. You see, it doesn't cost anything to be an organ donor. It costs you nothing.

They open you up and then they sew you up, neat as a bow, and nobody knows it's gone. It's true.

I know there are folks watching this who are going to be e-mailing my office saying, "How dare you talk about organs that way?" And I say this: How dare we let

2,000 people a year languish on waiting lists in Ontario alone when good organs are being buried and burned on a daily basis? Mr. Klees will remember that one of the callers to this phone-in show

said I was trying to bully people into giving up their organs after their death, and I admitted readily, "You bet your boots." When we've got 1,800 to 2,000 people a year languishing -- some of

them kids. We met some of them two weeks ago, over at Sick Kids Hospital, during Smitherman's press conference. When you see these kids flirting with death on a daily basis, desperately waiting for

that pager to buzz, and good organs are being buried and burned, I say, hell's bells, you bet your boots I'm trying to bully people into giving up their organs when they no longer have any use for

them.

There's a wealth of information available. The mandated-choice model has not been successful in some jurisdictions. One of the examples in the research material

is the state of Texas. But I insist that that has as much to do with the cultural attitude and the values of that community, that it has more to do with that than does the mandated-choice proposal.

That's why, while we have to adopt the mandated-choice proposal of Mr. Klees -- look, I'm old enough to remember the first heart transplant and so are most of the people in this chamber. The

recipient didn't live that long, but it was still considered -- it was a miracle. In those days, not that long ago, well within the lifetime of anybody in this chamber who was born in at least the

1950s, in that period, at the very beginning of this phenomenon, donating on organ was an exceptional thing because receiving one was an exceptional thing. Since then, however, organ transplant

technology has become as mundane in many cases as appendectomies and tonsillectomies. It's simply a matter of supply.

I say, why should we then consider the donation of the organ to be the exceptional thing? I say the denial of the organ should be the exceptional thing. Only

half-jokingly, in response to Mr. Klees's proposal around using the driver's licence renewal -- because you do that publicly, right? You line up. As a matter of fact, one of the Texas observations

is that people are cranky when they're lined up for their driver's licence renewal. Maybe that's not the best possible time in the world to make them check off on a mandated choice, but that

doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

You know what? The person who checks "no" should feel as self-conscious as the guy who's caught in the adult

section of Blockbuster video by his neighbour. There

should be red lights flashing, sirens, bells ringing. Somebody should announce, "At aisle 3 there is an Ontarian who just said no to somebody getting his or her organs when he or she dies and has

no use for them whatsoever." I believe we should stigmatize the denial of the provision of an organ.

What is this sense of, "It's my right to decide whether or not my organ is used by somebody -- my right"? It's your right to decide whether or not somebody lives

or dies because you want to bury or burn something that's of no use to you whatsoever, that has no value whatsoever, that in no way adds to the dignity of your funeral process, of the burial? I

fundamentally disagree.

I believe it's imperative. If people are offended and shocked -- well, I'll let you in on something: It won't be the first time I've offended or shocked people

-- so be it. I think we've got to talk radically about this stuff. We've got to support the Klees bill. The government's got to make it law, because the mandated-choice model adds to the status

quo. It certainly does. But if we're going to make more than dents in the waiting lists of people who desperately need organs, we've got to fundamentally change the culture around organ

donation.

Donation implies everything that it implies. It implies that you're making a sacrifice of something. You donate money. You donate time. You donate furniture. A

donation implies that you're sacrificing something for the betterment of somebody else. Letting somebody use or salvage an organ that is merely the content of a cadaver -- because that person is no

longer there; their soul has gone off to whatever his or her heaven happens to be -- to somehow suggest that there should be post-death control over a liver or a kidney to the point of denying it,

I say is morally wrong and does not reflect the kinds of values and value system that we ought to be embracing, encouraging and promoting in Ontario and Canada.

Thanks, folks, for letting me participate in this debate.

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga West): It's a pleasure to join in this debate and to speak to the bill by my colleague and friend from Oak Ridges.

We've had the opportunity to get to know one another, and very often, while we can occasionally tease the other about being ideologically misguided, neither of us, I'm sure, questions the other's

commitment to Ontario nor his sincerity in representing his constituents. In this case, I should say at the very start that I intend to vote for this bill. I certainly support the cause advocated

by the member from Oak Ridges.

Very much like the member from Niagara Centre, who himself has a bill on much the same subject before this Legislature, I'd like to discuss some of the

implications of this and perhaps the member from Niagara Centre's bill and another to be debated from the member from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

There are some issues with this bill that deserve some discussion. Referring to Bill 67 from the member from Oak Ridges, the forced choice at the time one

registers for a health card or a driver's licence does create an artificial environment for perhaps an unwarranted number of "no" or "undecided" responses. This may not be what the member intends,

but it may indeed be the outcome. Perhaps the person hasn't had time to fully consider the implication of organ donation or time to fully reconcile the decision with his or her upbringing at home

or with what they've learned at work or, in fact, with what peer pressure from friends or family may impose upon the person. This should be a personal, and it should be an informed, choice. As the

member from Niagara Centre has said, with his tongue in cheek but very powerfully, it should be a choice in favour of organ donation. We'd like to create the climate for all Ontarians to

voluntarily make that choice.

Staff in the Ministry of Transportation offices or staff who handle health card registration may perhaps not be the best people to get involved in a discussion

about the personal, legal, moral or ethical implications of organ donation. As the member for Niagara Centre has said, this may not be the kind of discussion you want from the person ahead of you

while you've been standing in line to renew your driver's licence and waited for the last hour while this person says, "I'm here to renew my driver's licence; I'm not here to discuss organ

donation." Again, it's not a criticism of the intent of the bill, with which I think every member here agrees; merely of an unintended impact of requiring this choice at the time that you renew

your driver's licence.

We ask, for example, what the implications would be under the Canada Health Act if a person was denied a health card or, similarly, a driver's licence, for

refusing to make a declaration, as the member from Oak Ridges would require in Bill 67. The member himself was once the Minister of Transportation and highways, and he knows that organ donation is

not part of the mandate of the Ministry of Transportation and highways, and especially not the contentious issue of the personal, ethical or religious implications of organ donation made at the

choice, perhaps without a great deal of advance notice and perhaps without the ability to consult, to discuss or to reconcile it with the donor's personal beliefs. It may require a little bit of

study.

To that end, while I am supporting Bill 67, I'm urging the member to send his bill to the same committee that the other two private bills are referred to, so

that one comprehensive set of public hearings in one committee can be held to discuss this one very important issue to Ontarians and, in so doing, can come up with a proposal from whichever

committee that is that will help this government come up with a piece of legislation that can start saving lives in Ontario and that can educate Ontarians in what a great gift of life a donated

organ can be.

I thank you for the time to speak to the bill.

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I want, in the short time I have available, to make it clear that I fully support this bill. I'm very

pleased the member from Oak Ridges has brought it forward.

I also think it's important to know that the medical community supports this bill, so I wanted to read into the record parts of three letters that indicate

that support. They're addressed to Mr. Klees. The first is from the London Health Sciences Centre. It states, "I fully support your bill that would require individuals getting health cards or

driver's licences to declare their wish to donate organs at the time of death. If this bill is passed, and if the vast majority of Ontarians declare that they wish to donate, that will be a major

step forward in raising the organ donation rate in this province. Lives will be saved as a result....

"I also view it as being complementary to the educational bill (Bill 33) that is currently being put forward by David Levac. He wishes to have a course on

organ donation implemented in all of Ontario's secondary schools. A well-educated public will recognize the need for donation and respond positively to the bill proposed by you."

That's from William Wall, MD, director, multi-organ transplant program, London Health Sciences Centre.

From the Ontario Medical Association -- just one paragraph in the time I have available: "The OMA advocates for a strong health policy supported by all

provincial parties. We believe such a bill would go a long way to improving and saving the lives of so many that need organ and tissue donations in Ontario." That's signed by Greg Flynn, president

of the Ontario Medical Association.

From Jeff Zaltzman, director, renal transplant, St. Michael's Hospital:

"Dear Mr. Klees:

"I want to congratulate you on your vision and determination in the introduction of mandated choice legislation for the people of Ontario. As director of the

transplant program at St. Michael's Hospital, I deal in a daily basis with those who face waiting times of seven to 11 years for a kidney transplant....

"While mandated choice has been put forward by others before I believe that this is a great opportunity to educate the public, allow donor decisions to be

registered and increase the organ donation rate.

"The ability to provide education in advance and mandate a choice of yes, no or undecided is key to the success of the program."

I wanted to get that on the record. I believe this bill makes a lot of sense. It can save lives and make a real difference here in Ontario. I would hope that

it is non-partisan and supported by all parties and that the government actually uses their power and brings this logical idea into effect.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased to rise today to lend support to my colleague from Oak Ridges, Frank Klees, for a

very worthwhile bill. He has explained the background of how the bill came about and has worked closely with all the groups. I appreciate the Kidney Foundation group being here today, it being

Kidney Health Day here.

There have been many bills that have been introduced about organ donations in the past. I want to commend the member in front of me here, Elizabeth Witmer, who

was Minister of Health in 2000, who brought in the Trillium Gift of Life Network Act. There have been several private members' bills, as we know, since then.

Ontario has certainly been the world leader in successful transplants, with the world's first heart valves being transplanted in Toronto in 1956. I had the

opportunity of nursing at Toronto General. I nursed on the cardiovascular, where we used organ donations for some of the heart valves, and then went down to surgical intensive care, where I saw

heart transplants, lung transplants and kidney transplants. Thinking back, it's been 16 years since I worked in nursing in the transplant field, and changes have increased very positively. There

are more transplants being done, but there is still that void, with only 40% of people signing their driver's licence cards. People aren't thinking enough about it. The member from Oak Ridges has

seen that void and has introduced this bill, which sounds like it's getting support from all sides of the House. We need to encourage people to sign their donor cards and discuss organ donation

with their families. The demand for organs is certainly outstripping the growth in donors.

Science, as I said, has come a long way in the 16 years since I worked with transplants. I remember receiving a friend, when I worked in surgical intensive

care at Toronto General, who ended up being an organ donor, and watching the family. If they discussed among themselves, in the family, what happens if certain circumstances occur, I think all the

family members would feel better. By being able to sign a card and having a discussion with the family, I think that's a lot less pressure on the families. I don't even need to say it's a very

difficult and strenuous time when incidents occur and donation questions are asked.

I think, overall, this is going to improve donations and improve the awareness of why we need to donate and why transplants need to occur more. When you say

they improve the quality of life, it's interesting to read the statistics. These are the success rates in Canada at one year after transplantation: kidney at 82% to 92%, depending on how closely

related the donor is; heart at 83%; liver transplants at 77%; single-lung at 58%; double-lung at 72%; and heart-lung combination is at 72%. Those are just amazing statistics of success that I think

we need to promote out there.

There's been a lot of discussion. I know Mr. Kormos has brought in legislation too, but this private member's bill gives the choice. It's the yes, the no or

undecided. I think people have to have the right to choose. If it just gets them thinking about it, more people, in this day and age, with the promotion of the success rates, are going to say,

"Yes. We want to make a difference in someone else's life if something tragic happens to us."

In the past few days, the Toronto Sun has been running feature stories focusing on organ and tissue donation. They introduce you to individuals: Jo-Ann

Robinson, a single mother in Mississauga who is awaiting a kidney transplant and is worried that she will not live long enough to receive a kidney. Jo-Ann says, "The chances of me getting a kidney

on the list is extremely slim, as the waiting list is close to 10 years." It's just unbelievable that the waiting list for kidneys can be 10 years. A few days later we learned about Ron Giles, an

auto worker who donated his bone marrow to a stranger in 2003. Last year, Ron got to meet the young man who received his life-saving gift. Since then, he has been working to encourage people to

join the bone marrow registry.

I know that in the Cavan area of my own riding of Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, there's a young man who is 14, and from somewhere else in Ontario -- I believe

it's southwestern Ontario -- he got a bone marrow donor, so that he could have a chance of fighting his illness. We've all been following his case and fundraising. That's the type of example of a

person not related to the family who saw the need and donated his bone marrow.

I want to compliment the member from Oak Ridges on the fine job he has done in the preparation and introduction of the bill, a much-needed bill, and I

encourage everyone in the legislature to support this bill today.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I want to congratulate my colleague Frank Klees, the member for Oak Ridges, for bringing forward

this bill, Bill 67, the Organ and Tissue Donation Mandatory Declaration Act, 2006. As you have heard, it was our government that first introduced legislation, the Trillium Gift of Life Network Act,

which regulates the donation of organs and tissues in the province of Ontario. However, we know there are over 1,900 people in this province who are waiting for organ donations. We know that many

hundreds die waiting.

Certainly the time has come when we need to raise public awareness of organ donation, the benefits we can give to others in order that they can live healthy

lives. This bill, I can tell you, is very strongly supported by the constituents in my riding, who have indicated their support. It gives everybody the opportunity, each and every time they renew

their driver's licence, to thoughtfully consider and raise their awareness, and they can make a choice. I think that is important, that individuals have the opportunity to personally make that

decision. So this is important. I know that my own daughter, when she got her driver's licence, made the decision. I think that with Mr. Levac's bill, which will introduce a course into our

schools, we have the opportunity, certainly in the future, as result of the initiative undertaken by Mr. Klees, to see many more people make the decision, and I congratulate him.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Klees, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Klees: I want to thank my colleagues in the House for their encouragement, and I also want to thank the many constituents who led me to

this place to bring this bill forward. I want to recognize, among those, Sue Good from Aurora who is here with us today; also Mr. Mark Gregory who is in the gallery -- he's a Toronto resident and

someone who is on the waiting list; we wish you well -- as well, Mr. Jeremy Beaty who is a transplant recipient who is here; and Mr. George Marcello, who is in the gallery as well, for all his

activism and good work on this important issue.

We have before us, I heard from members, some of the potential complications in terms of implementation. There are always issues that have to be worked out,

and that is why I look forward to this bill going to committee. I believe this is such a practical piece of legislation. As a former Minister of Transportation, as my colleague said, I'm well aware

that the Ministry of Transportation has nothing to do with organ transplants. I'm also aware that everyone in Ontario who drives a car has to fill in an application to do so. What a tremendous

opportunity for us to bring these people face-to-face with this important issue of organ donation. So it is doable.

I will be imploring the government to support this. It appears from the speeches we've heard that when the vote is put -- I will be asking for a recorded vote

on this so that people can see where everyone stands. I look forward to the implementation of this bill.

SWIMMING POOL SAFETY ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DES PISCINES

Mr. Rinaldi moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 74,

An Act respecting safety around swimming pools / Projet de loi 74, Loi traitant de la sécurité autour des piscines.

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

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): It gives me great pleasure to debate second reading of Bill 74. Before I get into that, though, I must tell

you that it's a real honour to sit in this place and be able to do something your community asks. I'm going to guess that probably a year ago I had a call in one of my offices from a constituent.

Truly, I'm not even sure this constituent is in my riding. But I felt so interested in what she wanted to talk to me about that riding boundaries really don't matter when it comes to helping

Ontarians. She came to my office. She wanted to talk about protection around swimming pools or, better still, the lack of protection around swimming pools. We had a good discussion. It certainly

got my attention. It's something we take for granted many times. In today's society, we see swimming pools go in backyards more frequently. So we started working on the process that led us here

today to debate this.

I want to thank Mrs. Kelly Shields, her husband, William, and their daughter, Kaitlyn, who are here with us in the east gallery. They believe in this so

strongly that they made the trip from Frankford in the city of Quinte West to be here today to lend me some support on what Mrs. Shields initiated over a year ago.

I refer to things best as personal experiences. Some 30 years ago -- I know that shows my age a little bit -- when we lived in Pickering with four little kids,

we had a swimming pool in the backyard. It was fenced off, but we had some neighbours' kids who knew how to get in through the fence, who participated, along with my kids, when my wife was out

there watching them. One day after I came home from work, my wife came to me and said, "I should be going to work." I said, "Why is that?" She said, "It's a full-time job trying to keep an eye on

the backyard for kids. We don't want to deprive them of swimming, but somebody has to look after them because you just can't leave them back there on their own." So it becomes a burden; it becomes

a responsibility. Of course, it's all to do with keeping these kids safe.

I am bringing this bill forward today. I'm hoping that all members from all sides of the House will support this through the process. I'm certainly prepared to

listen to recommendations. I know there are some concerns, especially in rural Ontario, with ponds that some farmers use and those types of things. But I'm sure that once the wheels get in motion,

we should be able to address some of those concerns.

Just to give you some sense of the magnitude of the lack of protection around swimming pools, I'm going to read some information for the record. According to

data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information, drowning is the second leading cause of accidental death among Ontario children under the age of five. In 2002-03, for every child who

drowned in Ontario, there were six to 10 more who almost drowned and required hospitalization; 42 children in total were involved in drowning or near-drowning swimming pool accidents in our

province during that year.

The organization Safe Kids Canada, which is the national injury prevention program of the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children, shares those concerns. These

folks contacted me to congratulate me on this legislation. They've also recognized that it's a lack of protection that we need to address.

From June to August, at least one child will drown every two weeks in Canada, and each day there will be a near-drowning incident. More than half of all

drownings or near-drownings happen to children under five. They are at risk because they're attracted to water but don't understand the dangers. Toddlers and preschoolers can drown quickly and

silently. These tragedies often happen during a brief lapse of adult supervision. You know what it's like. I think we've all done it. We're just going to sneak away for a few seconds.

Pool fencing offers a proven method to reduce the incidence of children drowning. Safe Kids Canada recommends four-sided fencing around backyards with

self-latching gates, accompanied by bylaws and provincial legislation.

Some facts that come from Safe Kids Canada -- and this is a group that's really committed to the safety of children -- 32 children will drown this summer

alone, 52 deaths in a full year; 83 will be hospitalized for near drownings. There were 145 hospital admissions in a full year that dealt with either drowning or near drowning. For every child that

drowns, there will be three hospitalizations for near-drownings. Children who survive a near-drowning frequently have long-term effects from brain injury due to the period of time without

breathing. Drowning at public pools and lifeguarded beaches is rare in Canada. That just proves that the more protection we introduce, the less the risk.

Drowning is the second leading cause of death for kids under five, and that's just behind motor vehicle crashes, so you can see the importance. More than half

of drowning deaths and non-fatal drownings happen to children under five -- approximately 16 deaths and 42 hospital admissions each summer. Thirty-three per cent of toddler drownings happen in

backyard pools. Most toddler drownings occur when the child is walking or playing near water, not swimming or intending to swim, just by mere accident.

Some people will lead you to believe that possibly this type of legislation will create some hardships for some municipalities that already have bylaws to

prevent access to swimming pools, but this legislation, if passed, will only complement the bylaws that those municipalities have in place already. We're really asking municipalities that don't

have that type of bylaw in place to look to the examples of municipalities that have already done a lot of work. There are a lot of municipalities and cities -- London, Ottawa and many more across

the province of Ontario -- that have taken a leading role.

The Canadian Institute of Health Information released a statement in July 2005 -- that's just this past summer -- noting that seven people per day visit

Ontario emergency departments with water-related injuries in the summer months and that children under the age of five are involved in more drowning and near-drowning incidents than those in any

other age group, at a rate of 5.24% for every 100,000 population -- more than four times the rate for those over the age of 19. The second most-at-risk age group is that of children aged five to

nine. As you can see, younger kids are at more risk. They're the ones we need to try to provide some extra protection.

Overall, more than 1,000 people -- to be specific, 1,166 -- visited an Ontario emergency department in 2002-03 because of injuries sustained in a water-related

accident, and 68% of those were from drownings or near drownings.

In the very short time that I've had the opportunity to bring some light to the subject in this House, you can see how important this is. I'm not suggesting

that my bill, if passed, would cure all those deficiencies that I've talked about, but how can we ignore any potential to alleviate some of these circumstances? I look forward to hearing what my

colleagues have to say from all sides of the House, and if they can help me improve this and get it through this House, I will certainly appreciate it.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I'm happy to rise and speak to the bill,

An Act respecting safety around swimming pools. I think it's a

motherhood issue. I don't think anyone would be opposed to providing more safety and more security around swimming pools to protect our young people.

I have here a little pamphlet that gets passed out every time someone in Oxford county gets a permit to build a swimming pool. First of all, there are some

facts they put in here -- and this was printed in 1998:

" -- 13 toddlers, (1-4), drowned in home swimming pools in Canada. Seven of these were in Ontario.

" -- 34% of all toddler drownings occurred in home pools.

" -- 34% were in-ground pools, 38% above-ground pools and 31% unspecified.

" -- 75% of the children who drowned in home pools were alone at the time of the incident.

" -- 19% were under supervision of a minor.

" -- 6% were with an adult.

"All toddler home pool drownings in 1996, 1997 and 1998 were in pools without self-latching gates."

I think "without self-latching gates" is rather important because the present legislation before us does not include the self-latching definition of the lock

on a gate. I think it's very critical that that be put in place.

In the same pamphlet, they also provide steps to prevent a tragedy before it occurs. I think that's so important, and we'll get back to that when we get back

to the legislation. "Install a fence completely around the pool. Check with your local municipality" -- I think that's important, because this is a municipal jurisdiction under the Municipal Act --

"for pool-fencing standards." Again, that's important because in my opinion this bill does not have any standards. It just says it must be a fence, and I have some problems with that.

"Maintain the gate to ensure that it closes and latches easily and spontaneously.

"Place latch release three inches below the top of the gate, on the side facing the pool. To prevent a child from reaching between the gate and the barrier the

gap should be no larger than half an inch.

"If the house forms one side of the barrier around the pool, then doors leading from the house to the pool should have alarms, which produce a loud sound when

the door is unexpectedly opened.

"For above-ground pools, steps and ladders should be secured and locked, or removed when the pool is not in use."

The reason I bring this up -- as I said, it's kind of hard not to speak in favour of anything that will improve the safety of our pools or the safety of our

backyards, particularly for our children, but I think it's also very important to make sure that we don't present false security for the parents, who now think we have a provincial law that says,

"All pools must be fenced," and now all yards will be equally safe.

I have some comparisons here and I'll just go through them very quickly. The only thing this bill does -- and I stand to be corrected, but in my estimation, as

I look through it -- is, "The owner of the swimming pool shall ensure that the fence surrounding the swimming pool is constructed and maintained in a manner" -- and I don't know what the manner is

-- "that is sufficient to keep children away from the area immediately around the pool and is equipped with a gate that locks." Then of course, it realizes further down that in fact it is a

municipal jurisdiction and that a lot of municipalities already have it. I would suggest that what we should be doing is making sure that all municipalities have their municipal bylaw, as opposed

to having one that's different for some in the province than it is for others.

Using that paragraph, I also don't know how you would have any municipal bylaw that would not be at least as strict as that. We have to remember that this

bylaw only applies to swimming pools, and this is in the definition: "`swimming pool' means an in-ground swimming pool." If you look at the statistics I read when I started, 38% of the drownings of

toddlers occurs in pools that are not in-ground pools. They are not covered by this bylaw. In areas where they are dependent on this law, a provincial law, we would immediately assume that this

provincial law is more stringent than the municipal bylaw. We're going to find that they're not covered in anything except for in-ground pools.

The other part that gives me some problem is, "Every person who contravenes or fails to comply with

section 2" -- which is that fencing of the pool -- "is

guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $500." I see nothing in this bill about when this is going to happen. As I interpret the bill, this is going to happen

when there has been a drowning. Under the municipal bylaw, we have the municipal bylaw enforcement officer who goes around and checks the swimming pools in the area, in the municipality for which

they are responsible, to make sure they're all fenced. This law will have no enforcement. I don't envision the Ontario Provincial Police going into people's backyards to see if they have a fence

around their pool. So this implies that when we have a problem, that someone didn't do it, we will fine them $500, but this law does not make anyone do it, because in fact we have put nothing in

place to even notify the people who are going to build a swimming pool that the fence is required.

Again, I think if we're going to have some provincial connection to it, we should include it in the building code. Every person constructing a swimming pool in

Ontario has to apply for a building permit. If it said in the building code that you have to apply for the permit, then the building official will tell you the fence that you have to build or what

fence is required or not required, and then it would be enforced by the municipal bylaw enforcement officer. I think that would deal with having equality across the province, and we would be trying

to solve the problem before the accident occurred.

With that, I think it's a good bylaw. Yesterday, as I was looking at the

schedule and realizing I had the opportunity to speak to this, I did get a number of

bylaws that presently apply. I was somewhat surprised to see this legislation before us, because, having remembered my days as a municipal politician -- I became a municipal politician in 1980, and

at that time there was a fencing bylaw for our swimming pools in place in our municipality, and there's been one there ever since. So I took the opportunity to get a copy of it for the debate this

morning from the municipal clerk.

This bylaw was put in place on April 6, 1976, so this isn't something that they've just done. I presume that, although I live in a very progressive

municipality, a lot of people had one before this, and I expect there have been a lot of other ones, including some of the other ones that I have here that have been implemented since that time.

There are a couple of things that I think are very important when you look at the difference between the law that we're debating here this morning and the municipal bylaws. They're reasonably

consistent as we go through all the different ones that are there.

We'll start with the definition. As I said in the law before us today, the definition is any "in-ground swimming pool." A definition of "swimming pool" in the

township of South-West Oxford bylaws is "privately owned outdoor swimming pool means any body of water located or to be located outdoors on privately owned property, contained by artificial means

and of a depth at any point in excess of one (1) foot, which is intended or used for the purpose of swimming, diving or bathing." Again, putting that in this law would in fact make it all swimming

pools in backyards.

Instead of saying that it must be fenced in satisfactorily, to keep people out, and not being able to identify whether that is satisfactory until somebody has

gotten in, and then the answer is, "No, it wasn't," the enclosure is defined as, "The owner of a privately owned outdoor swimming pool shall erect and maintain an adequate enclosure surrounding the

entire swimming pool area and sufficient to make such body of water not readily accessible to small children."

And " ... notwithstanding, where a privately owned outdoor swimming pool is above ground, four (4) or more feet in height, and entrance to the pool is by a

ladder or steps, only the ladder or steps must be enclosed." Again, you can just fence the steps going in.

"In cases where only the ladder or steps providing entrance to an above-ground privately owned outdoor swimming pool is enclosed, the enclosure shall be a

square with sides of not less than six (6) feet in length.

"All above-ground privately owned outdoor swimming pools less than four (4) feet in height and containing water to a depth of more than one (1) foot must be

enclosed." Again, it's just as easy for a small child to be walking in the dark in the backyard and fall over an 18-inch pool and drown in that water as it is to fall over the edge of a pool. It's

very important that that's in there. It goes on with the different descriptions for the enclosures, from (

a) to (g).

It does the same for the type of fencing. We can say that we have a fence to keep children out of a pool, but if you put all the six-inch pine boards

horizontally, it's like a ladder for a child, and over they go. It's very important that you make sure that all the fences that are being constructed are going to be constructed in such a way that

makes it difficult for toddlers to get into the pool. It goes on to describe the type of fencing that's required.

At the end of it, the last item in the bylaw, 6, says, "A building permit may be refused if the fences or gates do not comply with any bylaw." It becomes the

responsibility of the chief building official to make sure that all the requirements in the bylaw are complied with before they can get a permit to put the pool in the yard. That's so important,

because it seems to me that if we pass this bylaw and it becomes the law of the land, everyone is going to assume that it's all looked after now and we don't need to worry. But no one is checking

on the pools that don't have a fence because the municipalities don't have a bylaw. The municipalities that have bylaws will keep enforcing their bylaws, but the other ones, if that happens to be

one of those that a member is the member for, if they don't have a bylaw, they will now deem that they don't need one because we have a provincial law that requires it, but we have absolutely no

one out there to enforce it. In fact, they're only going to enforce it when the disaster occurs and someone falls in the pool and drowns.

That's why I really think that we're going to do more harm than good in passing this law and building a false sense of security for the population who are not

presently covered by the municipal bylaws. I think we would be better served if we were encouraging, if not mandating, that all municipalities have the bylaw to protect the children in their

backyards in their swimming pools.

With that, I think we should not pass this, but we should encourage the member to work towards getting municipal bylaws in place so that everyone is covered

for that safety.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): Indeed, I'm pleased to have the opportunity this morning to take a few minutes to comment on Bill 74,

An Act

respecting safety around swimming pools.

First of all, I want to compliment my colleague from Northumberland. This is the second bill, I believe, that he has brought forward targeted at safety

measures for our children in this province of Ontario. I believe that his previous bill was dealing with children riding in the back of pickup trucks. That was an issue that was brought forward by

his constituents regarding the safety of children on that particular occasion. Again, today, he has brought forward a bill dealing with the safety of children around swimming pools.

I also know, just again complimenting the member from Northumberland, that he is excited and he will be sharing some information with us in the not-too-distant

future about the new owners of World's Finest Chocolate in Campbellford, Ontario, in his riding. We'll also be pleased to hear about that, as I know the member very ably represents his constituents

on a variety of issues.

Getting back to Bill 74, I recall a number of years ago, former Premier David Peterson and his wife, Shelley, had a farm just south of London, Ontario. At that

particular time, the Petersons were absent from their house, and a young child had got into their backyard, went under the cover of a pool and drowned. It was a very serious tragedy that happened

on the Peterson farm, and I think it highlights the issue of fencing around pools in the province of Ontario. I know that this has some implications for municipalities across the province, but it's

my feeling that the thrust of this bill is for this legislation to complement the municipal bylaws across the province. Indeed, I think the member from Northumberland's bill this morning will start

a debate across the province perhaps to have a common standard for fencing bylaws across the province. So I see this as a very complementary piece of legislation. Having spent some time in the

municipal field and having gone through a fences bylaw review in the city of Peterborough, it's interesting -- and I think the member from Oxford talked about it today on his bylaw, brought in in

1976. It shows perhaps the need to refresh some of these bylaws in the province of Ontario, because circumstances clearly have changed. No doubt if it goes to committee -- a chance to have a

discussion -- we'll also deal with above-ground pools and in-ground pools.

I quite recall when we went through the fences review in the city of Peterborough. You get information from other jurisdictions. Certainly there's a hodgepodge

right across the province. In some jurisdictions, some municipalities, there may be a bylaw that requires a fence of four feet; others, five feet; others, six feet; and some, three feet. I think

the thrust today is an opportunity to bring together all the existing bylaws across Ontario and have a look at them. This legislation today, as it moves forward, can be a real catalyst to bring

that about.

Fences are always very sensitive issues within the municipal framework. When you start the discussion of fences, it certainly brings out some very interesting

opinions from people who may be ultimately impacted. But at the end of the day, this is about the protection of our children. I know, as the parent of an eight-year-old and a six-year-old, you're

always on red alert when you take a child or children to a swimming pool because in a moment's notice something very tragic can happen. I think this legislation certainly highlights the need for

parents, caregivers and others to be very sensitive with regard to safety issues around swimming pools.

We all know that if one is fortunate enough to have a swimming pool in one's backyard, it really becomes a magnet for the whole neighbourhood. People, in those

hot days of June, July, August and even September, often know where their neighbourhood pool is, and they simply drop the kids off and often it's left to the pool owner to provide a significant

amount of supervision for a whole number of children. It's something that we need to be very constantly aware of.

I want to commend the member for bringing this forward. As I've indicated, I think it will bring about a thorough discussion in the province of Ontario. He has

provided a background sheet to us, and when you look at the very sobering statistics about the number of young people who have had tragic accidents in pools right across the province -- this

legislation is timely and it will lead to further discussions. I'm very pleased to support my good friend the member from Northumberland.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): I'm pleased to rise today to speak to the bill that the member from Northumberland has brought

in,

An Act respecting safety around swimming pools. I'm certainly saying that we support the bill in principle. Many thoughtful and effective safety initiatives have found their way into our laws

that had started as private members' bills here. I think that the member from Northumberland has brought this bill in today in respect to that: increasing the laws and safety. Children under the

age of 16 in Ontario, for example, are required to wear bike helmets. That was because of a private member's bill initiated by Dianne Cunningham, a former Conservative member from London.

When we think of children falling into pools, we tend to divide the incidents into two categories: Did the child die or did the child survive? Thanks to

advances in CPR training, children often survive. I know of an incident in the Oakwood area of my riding last summer where, if it wasn't for the quick response of CPR to a young child who had

fallen into a swimming pool, that child would not have survived.

We forget that in cases where a child survives there is often severe permanent brain damage that could affect the child and the family for the rest of their

lives. There is no question that drowning is a risk, especially for small children. According to the Red Cross report released in 2003, the highest rates of hospitalization for near-drowning are

for toddlers and infants up to age four.

When we think of bills that are brought in -- a lot has been mentioned by the member from Oxford and the member from Peterborough about the bylaws that are in

place municipally and the fencing laws that are there. I see that in the city of Toronto it's six pages long for the municipal fencing codes. The purpose here is to provide more safety to the

swimming pool aspects, but we maybe need to look at the Ontario building code and the requirement for fencing that could be implemented through the building permit process. My colleague from Oxford

has extensive experience in the municipal sector and brought some good examples of what occurred in Oxford and how we can maybe implement this bill. By making it clear to municipalities that they

must pass bylaws with regard to pool fencing, it could ensure that all municipalities have such laws. It would also encourage the expertise that already exists at the municipal level with respect

to such bylaws to be shared by other municipalities -- safer bylaws, more public education -- to ensure that people are aware of the law and obey it.

I'm pleased to support this bill today in the Legislature.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Clearly the author of this bill has a legitimate and sincere concern around public safety, especially when

it comes to kids, children, young people and swimming pools. His bill, I understand, or at the very least I infer, is designed to create a minimum provincial standard. There are any number of ways

to give effect to that: suggestions that the provincial building code be the guide. Clearly the author of the bill contemplates that municipalities that have higher standards than what the bill

imposes should be able to enforce those higher standards.

But let me take a little bit of a different tack, because down where I come from we don't have a whole lot of private swimming pools, because we have a history

of public swimming pools in places like Welland. When I was a kid we went down to the old lock in the Welland Canal, which had been converted into a swimming pool. Mind you, if your folks weren't

paying attention or weren't looking, you used the Welland Canal itself; you used the old railway bridge down by Broadway Avenue.

But one of the most fundamental ways to protect young people from the tragedy of drowning deaths is to ensure that kids know how to swim. It's so fundamental.

When I was, I think, three years old -- I don't know if any of you remember, but for the first round, if you didn't pass your swimming test, you got a little sinker painted green with a ribbon tied

to it. That was your consolation prize. But you went back on those cold summer mornings, because the youngest kids were the earliest kids in the pool doing the swimming lessons, and hopefully you

learned how to swim.

My concern is that communities like where I come from are having a more and more difficult time operating these summer recreational programs, these educational

programs for kids; I'm convinced they are. The insurance issues for municipalities have become an incredible hurdle. The cost of staffing and insuring swimming programs, starting with

pre-schoolers, has become phenomenal. If we're really going to talk sincerely and seriously about water safety -- because, unlike some other parts of Canada, there isn't a part of Ontario that

doesn't have access to water, one way or another. Swimming is a part of the culture of at least young people in the province of Ontario. It seems to me that if we're going to discuss this in a

meaningful way, we've got to talk about this government's failure to address the downloading crisis on municipalities and the inability of municipalities to fund those programs that so many of us

used to take for granted -- the increasing load on property taxpayers. City councils and their mayors have to make some tough decisions this budget round. You and I both know that the cuts occur

around summer programs along with a whole lot of other things.

So while I encourage and applaud the author of this bill for his interest in the welfare of young people when it comes to the prospect of drownings in swimming

pools -- and I stand with him on the issue -- I want him to stand up with New Democrats on their call for this government -- this government had a $3-billion windfall in terms of new revenues last

fiscal year. Did they invest it in municipalities so that the downloading could be uploaded? No, $1.2 billion in tax cuts for banks and insurance companies -- as if they needed it -- $1.2 billion

of accelerated tax cuts for banks and insurance companies. And municipalities across Ontario continue to suffer, and their property taxpayers continue to suffer -- the arrogance of a government

that persists and builds on the eight years of downloading of Mike Harris and his Tory gang.

We're really interested in kids and kids' safety around the water. As I say, it seems to me that one of the most fundamental things you'd want to do -- and I

support the proposition of a province-wide standard for enclosures around pools, both in-ground and above-ground, and recognizing of course that kids drown in those little wading pools, the

inflatable ones. You can drown in just a few inches of water. It happens -- and this is a tragedy -- despite the best effort of parents. But it seems to me as well that if -- again, Mr. Rinaldi, I

stand with you in your advocacy for a province-wide standard around fence enclosures and pools. Will you stand with the New Democrats in their call for this government to end the national child

benefit clawback, the poorest families in this province having, oh, 1,500 bucks a year picked out of their pockets and, if two kids or more, almost three grand a year picked out of their pockets by

the provincial government? Because it promised before it got itself elected that it was going to end the national child benefit clawback. Dalton McGuinty's Liberals promised they were going to end

that clawback so that the poorest families in Ontario, those very families with those very kids you say you're talking about, Mr. Rinaldi, could have a few extra bucks in their pocket. But Dalton

McGuinty and the Liberals continue to pick their pockets, starting with almost 1,500 bucks a year when it comes to one kid and, for a family with two children, maybe $2,700 or more.

What about those kids --

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Niagara Centre, I know you said you were going to take a different tack, but I didn't know how far off course

you were going to go, so I would remind you it is private members' business and we're dealing with Bill 74.

Mr. Kormos: Thank you kindly, Speaker. But I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts you anticipated it, Speaker. Because we're talking about the

welfare of kids here. We're talking about making the community safer for kids. We're talking about the tragedy of kids drowning. In the instance of Mr. Rinaldi, he's talking about privately owned

swimming pools.

I'm saying to you -- this is what I'm saying to you, Speaker -- that we can't talk about that in isolation. If we're going to talk about kids, let's talk about

the one in six kids in this province that live in poverty in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario. Let's talk about the kids whose moms can't afford to send them to swimming lessons in the summertime. Let's

talk about the families that can't afford private swimming pools. Let's talk about any one of those 80,000, 90,000 or 100,000 industrial workers, manufacturing sector workers who lost their jobs in

Dalton McGuinty's Ontario in the last 13 months. I'll tell you this: They don't have to worry about what kind of fence to put up around their swimming pool because they can't build swimming pools,

because they lost their jobs in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario. The McJobs they got in replacement, the $8.50- and $9- and $9.50-an-hour jobs -- again, you don't build swimming pools in the

backyard.

As a matter of fact, I say to Mr. Rinaldi, you're hard-pressed to do one of those two-ring inflatable numbers that you put kiddies in, that you put the

toddlers in to splash around, and that you, on perhaps the hottest of days with a bottle of Niagara Dry in your hand, may well have felt tempted to plop yourself down in.

I tell you, we're with you, Mr. Rinaldi, when it comes to the safety of kids. I say, why aren't you with us with your when it comes to the welfare of children

and your government's promise to end the national child benefit clawback? Why aren't you with us when it comes to uploading the download, so that property taxpayers aren't continually hit with more

and more burden of provincially mandated programs that property tax payers have to pay for, including senior citizens, who have paid for their homes at least once -- maybe twice or thrice, if they

put kids through university -- who in their senior years are at risk of no longer being able to live in those homes because of ever-increasing property taxes in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario.

We're with you, Mr. Rinaldi. Are you with us?

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): I'm pleased to join this debate and to talk about Bill 74, a piece of legislation put forward by the

member from Northumberland that I support with regard to building fences around pools.

I actually wanted to speak about this issue primarily because I've had experience with this issue. As a former municipal politician, I had experience working

with bylaws, which in Brampton are considerably younger than those of the member for Oxford. Ours were done in the 1990s, so they're about 20 years younger and they're also out of date. I would

encourage all municipalities to have a look their pool fence bylaws and look at a way to update them and make them more current.

About 10 years ago I had the good fortune of going to the Toronto Home Show. I put a ballot in a drum and a few weeks later I had a phone call: "You've won a

swimming pool" -- an in-ground swimming pool. How wonderful, but oh my goodness, what a headache it was.

Mr. Kormos: Careful what you wish for.

Mrs. Jeffrey: Yes, you have to be careful what you wish for, because you have to fence the whole property. You have to have a self-latching

gate, you have to make sure whatever you build is not climbable by any young person.

At the beginning of the adventure, I thought how lucky I was. I can tell you that it became a nightmare. I had an unscrupulous contractor coming in to build my

free pool, who did not fence the area properly during construction, who was cavalier in his management of the safety around the project --

Mr. Kormos: Who was this gangster?

Mrs. Jeffrey: I will not name the gangster, but I certainly dealt with him a few years later when I dealt with it as a municipal councillor. I

can tell you, there are a lot of fly-by-night organizations out there that install pools. Municipal officials work very hard to try to have people comply with the existing bylaws. But once they've

dealt with you the first time, they never help you enforce it ever again.

As a homeowner, I had children showing up at my front door with a towel around their neck, children I didn't know. I had young people who were non-swimmers who

showed up at my front door and stayed for the afternoon. I can tell you, any effort that you can put in place that that will provide the homeowner with some guidance -- and certainly a fence is one

of the first steps. I agree with the previous member who spoke about education, but there are some things that you cannot prevent by education. One of the issues I would like to just briefly touch

on is that Barbara Underhill, who is a champion figure skater, spoke very eloquently on this issue a few years ago in Brampton, and speaks quite regularly on the issue of safety in the family

swimming pool. She left her gate open for a minute while she fetched a wheelbarrow to do some gardening, and her eight-month-old crawled out of the house, clambered down the gate and into the pool.

She lost her daughter, one of a set of twins, and it happened, I think, 12 years or more ago. That was in 2005, and I know that every time I hear her speak about this, she's very, very emotional

about it, and there can't be a parent out there that this fear doesn't strike.

I congratulate the member from Northumberland. I think it is the responsibility of provincial legislators to provide guidance, to set standards to

municipalities for the safety of all residents in Ontario, just like my residential fire sprinklers act. I think it is the responsibility of us in this Legislature to provide guidance to

municipalities, and I am happy to support this piece of legislation and to endorse it. I would do anything in my power, here or as a former municipal councillor, to prevent and reduce injuries and

accidental deaths of all residents of Ontario. I think this is a very proactive bill, I think it's the right thing to do and I am happy to support it. I congratulate the member from Northumberland

for his vision, because this is a great piece of legislation.

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): I'm privileged and honoured to stand up and speak in support of Bill 74. I want to congratulate my

seatmate, the member for Northumberland, for bringing in such a bill to protect the children in this province of Ontario. I have no doubt in my mind that the member from Northumberland is a great

advocate on behalf of his constituents. I listened to him many different times in the caucus and in this place, talking about his constituents and their voice in this place and also bringing some

issues to us in this place in order to fix them and solve them. Now I listen to him and listen to many speakers in this House speaking about the importance of creating some kind of protection

mechanism for the youth and the children in this province, and I think it's very important.

When I was a little boy, I was walking by a swimming pool. I saw all the kids swimming. I said to myself, "Why don't I do it?" I jumped in the water. I didn't

know how to swim and I almost drowned. In a couple of hours' time I found myself in the hospital, people around me; I didn't know what happened to me. But I know I went into the water and I almost

drowned because it was wide open. I think it's very important to put some kind of fence around the swimming pool to protect the children, especially in a place which is open for many kids. As you

know, water is very attractive to the kids, trying to swim when they see other kids around them, and then what happens? Tragedy happens. So I think this bill creates some kind of mechanism and tool

to protect our children in this province.

Also, I was listening to the member from Niagara Centre talking about downloading to municipalities, and I disagree with his opinion because our job in this

bill would never do that because we believe in the partnership between the province and the municipalities. That's why our government gave, in this last budget, billions of dollars in order to

create some kind of partnership to help municipalities build bridges, roads, etc. In the past, also, we paid many billions of dollars in order to share costs with municipalities. This bill is not,

in any shape or form, some kind of download to the municipalities; as a matter of fact, it's a very important element to help our kids to be protected. As the member from Northumberland spoke half

an hour ago, he was talking to us on his bill about what percentage of kids under five walk by a pool, jump in it and drown or else get taken to the hospital; and some of them get a brain injury. I

think, for the safety of the children in this province, we have to create a mechanism for protecting the children.

As you know, it's part of our government's mandate. We believe in the future of this province and in the kids, the future of our province. That's why we've

created so many different programs, like Best Start.

I wish the member from Niagara Centre was here. I wish he would convince his party not to pull down the Liberal government that created a great national

daycare program, that created 25,000 spots across the province of Ontario and was going to invest $1.9 billion, all for the safety of the children, to protect the children. This is what we are

talking about.

As part of our theme as a government, as part of our direction to protect the children of this province, from child care to creating fences, to bringing in

many different programs in order to protect our children, I think the member from Northumberland, by bringing this bill forward, has created such an atmosphere and continues the same theme as the

government, in order to protect the kids and in order to invest more in the protection of our youth in this province, because we believe strongly that we have no future if we don't invest in our

youth.

I want to congratulate my seatmate, the member from Northumberland, for bringing such an important bill up. I wish and I hope that all the members from all the

different parties will support this bill.

I wish the member from Niagara Centre was here to listen to what I said about national child care. I wish he would be able to convince his party not to put

down or bring down the government and --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Further debate?

Mr. Rinaldi, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Rinaldi: First of all, let me thank all the folks who spoke to this bill: the members from Oxford, Peterborough,

Haliburton-Victoria-Brock, Niagara Centre, Brampton Centre, and my good friend from London-Fanshawe.

As I said at the beginning, this bill that's in second reading debate today has a lot of things that we have to improve. I really look forward to working with

all the members. Some excellent suggestions have been brought forward this morning that I think need to be in this bill. So I look forward, during committee hearings, to incorporating some of those

good points that have been brought forward today, and I thank them for their help.

I just need to quickly comment on some of the comments that the member from Niagara Centre brought forward when he talked about child care benefits and the

lack of, the better of or the whatever of. I guess we can talk about whatever child benefits are out there, but I would ask the member, do we want to put that against the safety of a child, to

prevent a child from drowning? Are we talking about dollars and cents? Are we talking about building something that we're trying to do all around the House? Although he wanted to go down that road,

I really don't think it's related because, at the end of the day, we're talking about the safety of children, the safety of our future. I want to focus on that, and we'll deal with those other

issues as we move forward.

To wrap up in this very short time, I want to thank the folks who helped me to bring this legislation to the House today. I think this is a good example of

when all sides are working together, when good information comes from the ground up. I'm delighted and look forward to going through the process.

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

ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION

MANDATORY DECLARATION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 EXIGEANT

UNE DÉCLARATION AU SUJET

DU DON D'ORGANES ET DE TISSU

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We'll deal first with Bill 67, standing in the name of Mr. Klees. Mr. Klees has moved

An Act to amend

various Acts to require a declaration with respect to the donation of organs and tissue on death. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will have a vote on this, but after we have dealt with ballot item 24.

SWIMMING POOL SAFETY ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DES PISCINES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We'll now deal with Bill 74, standing in the name of Mr. Rinaldi,

An Act respecting safety around

swimming pools.

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 deal with this in due course.

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

The division bells rang from 1155 to 1200.

ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION

MANDATORY DECLARATION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 EXIGEANT

UNE DÉCLARATION AU SUJET

DU DON D'ORGANES ET DE TISSU

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Klees has moved second reading of Bill 67. All those in favour, please rise.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Brownell, Jim

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Fonseca, Peter

Hardeman, Ernie

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

McNeely, Phil

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

Prue, Michael

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Scott, Laurie

Smitherman, George

Sterling, Norman W.

Van Bommel, Maria

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

Zimmer, David

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please rise.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 33; the nays are 0.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I'd ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on social policy.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill be referred to the standing committee on social policy? Agreed.

Before the next order of business, we will have the doors unlocked for 30 seconds.

SWIMMING POOL SAFETY ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DES PISCINES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Rinaldi has moved second reading of Bill 74. All those in favour, please rise.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Brownell, Jim

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Dhillon, Vic

Fonseca, Peter

Jackson, Cameron

Jeffrey, Linda

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

McNeely, Phil

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mossop, Jennifer F.

Munro, Julia

Patten, Richard

Prue, Michael

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Runciman, Robert W.

Ruprecht, Tony

Scott, Laurie

Smitherman, George

Van Bommel, Maria

Zimmer, David

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please rise.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Mr. Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 29; the nays are 0.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): I would like to refer it to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill be referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs? Agreed.

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

The House recessed from 1205 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AGRICULTURE FUNDING

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock): A week after this government's pay more/get less budget, Ontario farmers continue to be outraged

that they are not just getting less, they are getting nothing. At the time when farmers are deciding whether they can afford to plant for another year, the Liberal government is dealing a

$244-million cut to the agricultural industry.

When Dalton McGuinty asked for farmers' votes in 2003, this is what the Liberal platform promised them: "We will make agriculture a lead ministry in a Liberal

government." The only way the agriculture ministry has led is in cuts and disappointments. Instead of standing up for farmers, the Liberal government is passing the buck. When asked to account for

their Scrooge-like behaviour, they blame the federal government or the ghosts of governments past. Farmers in my riding and across Ontario don't have the luxury of scapegoats. What they have are

empty fields that they can't afford to put their crops in.

Farmers are proud people, so we rarely hear about the personal toll that is being visited on families whose incomes have collapsed. Imagine the strain on a

marriage when both partners are working off the farm and they still can't make ends meet. Imagine parents having to tell their children that they can't go to hockey or baseball this year because

there isn't enough money to sign them up or they need to stay home and work on the farm because there's no money to hire extra farm help. As one farmer told a Toronto newspaper, "A lot of guys I

know are on anti-depressants."

Our farmers deserve better than empty Liberal promises and a prescription for Prozac. They deserve a government that understands the structural challenges of

farming and delivers on its commitments.

HATE CRIMES

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): Last week, a constituent of mine, Bernie Farber, CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, launched a pamphlet to

combat hate on the Internet. CJC, in conjunction with the Centre for Research Action on Race Relations, sponsored a hate crimes information flyer to aid in the fight against hate.

On the CJC website, www.cjc.ca, the people of Ontario and Canada can anonymously report Internet hate. Today, I wear the badge produced by CJC to promote this

initiative. It says, "Stop Internet Hate."

Canadians are protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. While these laws are effective for residents of Canada or websites hosted in

Canada, they do not protect us from those hosted outside of this country.

Residents of Thornhill were recently shocked when an elderly Holocaust survivor opened her door to find a swastika spray-painted there, and some unfriendly

words. By raising awareness of one's rights and responsibilities when it comes to hate crimes, the CJC hopes to stop Internet hate. This initiative encourages us to stand up for our freedoms and

rights while protecting one of the most treasured features of our province and country: diversity.

I commend the CJC for launching this initiative and look forward to continuing to work with them to eliminate racism, discrimination and intolerance.

MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln): The members saw yesterday probably the beginning of the closing remarks of the current Minister of Education

here in the province of Ontario, moving on to the federal level, and of course wish him well. I did want to note, though, that a couple of people weren't clapping. I think their Bob Rae buttons

were getting in the way, which I found a bit curious. But all the best to the minister.

As finance critic, I am always willing and able to give suggestions every time to the Premier and cabinet on how to save money. My suggestion is, instead of

doing a cabinet shuffle for education, simply appoint the Minister of Transportation to both ministries, transportation and education. After all, if you listen to the Integrity Commissioner's

report, he's the hardest-working man in cabinet, running a ministry and maintaining a full-time job. In fact, he could probably make the offices of both the Ministry of Education and the Ministry

of Transportation at the Chalmers Group and save a lot of time and expenses.

After all, we haven't seen progress on some major transportation issues. The GTTA has been announced and re-announced, I think three times, without progress.

The rollback promise on the 407 tolls -- well, they've actually rolled up even higher. The mid-peninsula corridor seems to be dead, and the extension of the 407 east through Durham region -- we

have not heard about that in a long, long time from this government.

Another suggestion -- school closings -- well, he could pay the Edelman group to run a campaign against the school boards in Spain and then close more

schools.

This might not be like research on the sex lives of squirrels, but it might just be nuts enough to get Dalton McGuinty's approval.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Yesterday, just prior to the House beginning, the three House leaders -- the government, opposition and New

Democratic Party House leaders -- agreed that the order of today would be the amendment to the Assessment Act, and I hope the government lives up to its promise.

This is what the Canadian Press story by Steve Erwin had to say about it yesterday:

"Duncan has promised to extend the deadline to the end of June to give homeowners time to review an Ombudsman's report that recommends changes to the crown

corporation that conducts property evaluations.

"But while Duncan insists he wanted to pass the bill on Wednesday, he claims the New Democrats, which along with the Conservatives must consent to its speedy

passage, are stalling.

"NDP critic Peter Kormos, however, charged back that three parties had already agreed to debate and pass the bill Thursday and that Duncan is trying to get the

bill done a day early so he can get pro-Liberal newspaper coverage Thursday morning -- just before voters head to the polls in three Ontario by-elections.

"`Clearly Dwight Duncan is eager to get himself a headline in the morning of the provincial by-elections,' a fired-up Kormos told reporters at the Ontario

Legislature.

"`It similarly indicates to me that the Liberals are increasingly worried about any one of those three by-elections.'

"Kormos and Conservative House leader Bob Runciman say they had agreed earlier Wednesday with ... Deputy House Leader ... Caplan to debate and pass second and

third readings of the bill on Thursday."

He carried on, and he looked sincere, for the purposes of Hansard:

"`Mr. Duncan has inserted a level of cynicism into this Parliament that is disgusting and disgraceful," Kormos said.

"`I'm not convinced that he's the brightest bulb in the box. But it seems to me that he somehow thinks so; otherwise he wouldn't have overridden the decision

that his House leader made on behalf of the Liberals.'"

REGENT PARK

Mr. David Zimmer (Willowdale): On February 14, 2006, I attended phase one of the Regent Park community housing revitalization project. As a

former chair of the Toronto Community Housing Corp., this project has special significance to me. The project began under my tenure, and less than three years later, I'm deeply pleased to see a

historic new beginning for Regent Park, home for over 7,500 Torontonians.

I would like to congratulate the residents of Regent Park and the dedicated staff of the Toronto Community Housing Corp. for their courageous efforts in making

the revitalization of Canada's first and largest social housing property a reality.

I would also like to applaud Minister Smitherman, Regent Park's dedicated MPP, for his support of the Regent Park community and for all his hard work over the

years in making this dream of revitalization a reality.

This $1-billion revitalization project will transform the Regent Park community into a modern, mixed-income neighbourhood with attractive new retail space,

daycare facilities, beautiful parks and 5,100 new homes.

In the 2006 budget, we promised to create approximately 15,000 new and improved affordable housing units for Ontarians. Thanks to the inspiring efforts of

7,500 residents of Regent Park, the local community, Minister Smitherman, Minister Gerretsen and the Toronto Community Housing Corp., we are now one step closer to achieving that goal.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Mr. Speaker, as I'm sure you know, many communities, sectors and regions of our great province feel

left behind, neglected and ignored by the recent McGuinty Liberal budget.

Mr. McGuinty and his Toronto-centric Liberal government have clearly decided that good politics for them is to focus resources on one municipality to the

detriment of many others, especially small towns in rural Ontario. This strategy is not only cynical, it is in the short and long term harmful to the social fabric of Ontario.

What the Premier and his yes-men and -women in the Liberal backbenches are doing is driving harmful wedges between Toronto and much of the rest of Ontario.

Liberal backbenchers representing regions outside of Toronto are keeping quiet, but what's even worse, defending this harmful strategy and attacking those who express concern.

The McGuinty Liberal budget is not province-building. It is potentially very damaging. I urge Liberal backbenchers to do the job they were elected to do and

stand up for the people who elected them, the people depending on them. Don't turn your back on your friends and neighbours. Don't do it.

KIDNEY DISEASE

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth-Middlesex): Today I'm honoured to welcome to Queen's Park the Kidney Foundation of Canada volunteers, staff, health

professionals and especially people affected by kidney disease for Kidney Health Day. Today's events are designed to raise awareness of the risk factors for kidney disease and to talk about

strategies for prevention. I want to thank the Minister of Health Promotion and his parliamentary assistant for their participation today.

The month of March holds a special significance for those affected by kidney disease. Each year, the Kidney Foundation of Canada and its thousands of dedicated

volunteers in Ontario head out, door to door, to raise funds for research, education and to support the people affected by kidney disease.

Thanks to over $73 million in research grants since 1964, people living with kidney disease have access to better therapies and expanded treatment options,

leading to improved outcomes and quality of life. Yet the numbers affected are growing steadily.

An aging population and an increasing incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular disease are among the factors contributing to the rising demand for treatment.

There are an estimated 15,000 Ontarians on dialysis or living with a kidney transplant. Over 1,300 people are waiting for a kidney transplant, some for as long as 10 years. The number of patients

is increasing at an annual rate of 10%, with no end in sight.

Early detection and management of kidney disease can improve patient outcomes and save health care costs. As well, increasing the number of organs available

for transplant will save the lives of many Ontarians.

I would ask my colleagues to have a special welcome for our guests from my riding, Dr. Rena Orr and her son Jamie Cottle, who are here visiting with us

today.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey (Brampton Centre): Last week, Minister Duncan announced Move Ontario, a new $1.2-billion investment in public transit and

municipal roads and bridges.

As part of Move Ontario, I am delighted that Brampton is receiving $95 million to support the AcceleRide program. AcceleRide buses will better link Brampton to

Mississauga, York region, the TTC and GO Transit by enhancing transit along the east-west Queen Street corridor and the north-south Hurontario-Main Street route. This investment will put more buses

on the road at key intersections and on routes that will have queue-jump lanes and signal priority. As well, Brampton will be equipping bus stops with real-time information displays, letting

passengers know how long they will have to wait until the next bus comes long.

This multi-million dollar funding means that AcceleRide can move forward immediately, and rapid transit buses will be rolling along Queen and Main Streets by

2008-09.

This announcement is historic. It is the largest amount of funding that has ever been given to the city of Brampton. Our government recognized the need to

invest in transportation infrastructure and is committed to relieving traffic congestion. We're working with communities to seamlessly move people and goods across this great province.

Congratulations to Brampton city council and Mayor Fennell for doing their homework and putting forward a strong proposal. This investment will transform my

community and expand public transportation, not only in Brampton but across Ontario.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa-Orléans): I rise in the House today to congratulate Premier McGuinty and Minister Duncan on an excellent,

successful budget this past week. Ontarians should be proud of this government's investment in the province's infrastructure, education and health care.

Like everyone here, I believe that investing in our people is the one and only way to contribute to the prosperity of our province. That is why I was happy to

see the investments in Ottawa's education infrastructure. This budget allocated funds for Algonquin College, Carleton University, La Cité Collégiale and the University of Ottawa.

In Orléans, we were also very happy to see funding for cultural and tourism infrastructure in the city of Ottawa. The Ministry of Culture has allocated

$11 million for cultural infrastructure for Ottawa, and of that funding, $2.5 million will go toward the East End Arts Facility in my riding of Orléans.

Finally, the McGuinty government is investing in the health of Ontarians by providing more than $123 million for health care and over $500 million for health

care infrastructure in the Ottawa area. This will extend the Montfort and Queensway Carleton Hospitals, as well as the cancer centres at the Ottawa and Queensway Carleton Hospitals. It will also

provide the funding for a new, publicly owned Royal Ottawa Hospital.

This year's budget holds nothing but good news for the people of Ontario and of Ottawa. We are continuing to invest in the areas that matter most to Ontarians.

We are protecting our health, improving access to post-secondary education, safeguarding our at-risk youth and expanding training and employment services. We can now look forward to a prosperous

future because we are investing in the people of Ontario.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO WORKERS'

MEMORIAL ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 SUR LE MONUMENT

COMMÉMORATIF DES TRAVAILLEURS

DE L'ONTARIO

Mr. Ramal moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 86,

An Act to establish the Ontario Workers' Memorial / Projet de loi 86, Loi visant à ériger le monument commémoratif en hommage aux

travailleurs de l'Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Mr. Khalil Ramal (London-Fanshawe): Ontario workers are the lifeblood of this province's economy. Their talents and skills have made Ontario

the most important economy in this country, thus contributing to Canada's becoming one of the best-performing economies in the world. Our day-to-day lives are touched by Ontario's workers, whether

it be by the cars we drive, the food we consume, the buildings that house us or the streets and roads that pave our province's way to success.

Unfortunately, many of this province's workers have been lost to accidents while on the job. Ontario has become strong based largely on their efforts;

therefore we should recognize those whose lives were lost in making this province great.

I'm looking forward, when this bill comes back to the House for debate, to getting the support of all members of this House.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Christopher Bentley (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice

regarding private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Bentley: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 96(d), the following change be made to the ballot list of private members'

public business: Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Hudak exchange places in order of precedence such that Mr. Murdoch assumes ballot item 48 and Mr. Hudak assumes ballot item 28.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. John Tory (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. Premier, you have said recently that a Canadian is a Canadian when it

comes to our finances in Canada. I will assume that, by the same reasoning, that means that an Ontarian is an Ontarian.

We support investing in the GTA, although we do oppose your bogus bookkeeping. If an Ontarian is an Ontarian, can you tell me why so many ridings outside of

the GTA, many represented by your side, by McGuinty Liberals, are left out of your budget entirely?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Research and Innovation): I can only conclude from that question that the leader of the official

opposition can't be talking about the budget that we presented in this Legislature just a short time ago, because it is a budget that continues to invest in opportunity for the people of Ontario.

It adds to the first budget, which invested heavily in health care for Ontarians, and the second budget, which committed us to Reaching Higher, which is all about investing not only in elementary

and secondary education but beyond that, to post-secondary education -- again, something which benefits all Ontarians.

In this last budget, we're investing heavily in infrastructure, particularly in public transit, roads and bridges. The people of Hamilton are getting some $20

million; Ottawa, $33 million; Sudbury, $10 million; Thunder Bay, over $8 million; Windsor, over $8 million; London, over $14 million; Kitchener-Waterloo, over $22 million. So I'm not sure where the

leader of the official opposition is coming from when he says that people outside of the GTA are somehow not benefiting from this budget.

Mr. Tory: The fact is that many of your own members and their ridings have been left out of this budget. Don't take it from me; let's take it

from the London Free Press. The London Free Press represents the interests of many of your MPPs and the constituents in the London area. You referred to an amount there. What they said was this:

"Finance Minister Dwight Duncan's Toronto-centric budget yesterday offered little to the London region and kept the province in a deficit position despite revenues $2.25 billion higher than

expected." That's what the London Free Press had to say.

Clearly, there is a problem here, Premier, if an Ontarian really is an Ontarian. Either your members aren't speaking up or you're not listening to them. Which

is it? Because you have not delivered for the people of London in terms of doing the kinds of substantial things for that area of this province that they require. Which is it? Are you not

listening, or are they not speaking up, or both?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I guess it really didn't take that long for the true colours of the Ontario so-called Progressive Conservative Party to

reveal themselves to Ontarians once again. This is a party that is firmly dedicated to sowing division and discord, pitting one group of Ontarians against another group of Ontarians.

When we invest in health care, we invest in health care for all Ontarians. When we reduce class sizes in the early grades in our public schools, we do that for

all Ontarians. When we fund insulin pumps, we're doing that for all Ontario children. When we invest in 60,000 grants for young people who are going to college and university, we are doing that for

all Ontarians. That's the approach we bring on this side of the House. They may be interested in sowing discord and division; we're all about bringing people together and moving forward

together.

Mr. Tory: The Premier seems very sensitive about this. All I was doing was actually quoting the London Free Press. It wasn't me who said this,

so you should phone them up and perhaps tell them they're trying to sow division by simply speaking up on behalf of the people of London, Ontario, which is what your members should be doing. When

it comes time for 2007, we'll put some people in the Legislature who will speak up for London.

Let's move on, then, to the Stratford Beacon Herald headline from March 24, the day after the budget, where it said, "Farmers Fuming." I guess they're people

who are divisive agents in Ontario as well. The

article goes on to state that farmers in the Perth-Middlesex riding "used a post-budget breakfast hosted by MPP John Wilkinson this morning to slam

the budget." We've not heard a member's statement on that one from the member for Perth-Middlesex. We hear from him on many other things.

What is your government doing for the farmers in Perth-Middlesex and, for that matter, farmers across Ontario, other than cutting $244 million from the

spending proposed for the Ministry of Agriculture?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: A few facts are always helpful when it comes to consideration of these matters. I want to remind the leader of the official

opposition that we are proud to have invested $800 million in income support for farmers during the course of the past three years. Just recently, he will know that we put forward another $125

million to help the farmers who are in desperate straits.

I want to remind him as well that when it comes to the city of London -- again, just so we have the facts before us, because they are not entirely irrelevant

in this House -- we're investing $14.3 million for road costs, $13 million for municipal assistance -- that was assistance, by the way, that was not there under the previous Conservative program --

and $6 million for the gas tax.

I guess the other thing I would want to say to the leader of the official opposition is that it's really hard to figure out where he's coming from on this. In

his reaction to the budget, he said, "We should balance the budget. We should cut taxes. We should upload programs. We should put more money into agriculture, more money for rural Ontario, more

money for transit and more money for roads and bridges." That's how you end up with a $5.5-billion deficit.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): New question.

Mr. Tory: My question is for the Premier. In terms of magic, the only guy who has created a deficit around here of billions of dollars, when

you could have balanced the budget and should have, is you.

To the Premier again: You've basically left Sarnia out of your budget plans too. Your member for Sarnia should be up in arms and red-faced over what the Sarnia

Observer had to say: "Sarnia-Lambton received scant attention but that's nothing new." How could you and the local McGuinty Liberal member allow this to happen, and what are you going to do to fix

this for the people of Sarnia-Lambton?

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: Again, the leader of the official opposition cannot possibly be referencing the budget that we introduced in this House,

because there is all kinds of good news in there for the people of Sarnia, as there are for people throughout.

The member opposite will want to know that in this budget we're investing another $4.5 million for roads and bridges in that community. Of course, our

investments in schools will benefit the people of Sarnia. Our investments in health care will benefit the people of Sarnia. Our investments in our post-secondary institutions will benefit the

people of Sarnia. The in