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

October 5, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Oct-05 (PDF)

L052 - Tue 5 Oct 2010 / Mar 5 oct 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 5 October 2010 Mardi 5 octobre 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NARCOTICS SAFETY

AND AWARENESS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

ET LA SENSIBILISATION

EN MATIÈRE DE STUPÉFIANTS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

LOBBYISTS

LOBBYISTS

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

HYDRO RATES

ENERGY POLICIES

LONG-TERM CARE

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

LONG-TERM CARE

GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS

COURT INTERPRETERS

DISASTER RELIEF

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

SOLDIERS’ REMAINS

MUNICIPALITIES

PENSION PLANS

DEFERRED VOTES

NARCOTICS SAFETY

AND AWARENESS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

ET LA SENSIBILISATION

EN MATIÈRE DE STUPÉFIANTS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SCENIC CITY ORDER OF GOOD CHEER

WORLD JUNIOR BASEBALL CHAMPIONSHIPS

NATIONAL FAMILY WEEK

DO THE MATH CHALLENGE

EVENTS IN GLENGARRY–PRESCOTT–RUSSELL

DEVONSHIRE COMMUNITY PUBLIC SCHOOL

ORGANIC FARMERS

PEEL MULTICULTURAL COUNCIL

IMMIGRANTS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GOOD GOVERNMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA SAINE

GESTION PUBLIQUE

G20 PUBLIC INQUIRY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 CONCERNANT

LA TENUE D’UNE ENQUÊTE PUBLIQUE

SUR LE SOMMET DU G20

TONUM LTD. ACT, 2010

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT

(TENANTS’ RIGHTS), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA LOCATION

À USAGE D’HABITATION

(DROITS DES LOCATAIRES)

MOTIONS

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

GOOD GOVERNANCE /

LA SAINE GESTION PUBLIQUE

WORLD TEACHERS’ DAY /

JOURNÉE MONDIALE DES ENSEIGNANTS

ORGANIC WEEK

GOOD GOVERNANCE

WORLD TEACHERS’ DAY

ORGANIC WEEK

GOOD GOVERNANCE

WORLD TEACHERS’ DAY

PETITIONS

PENETANGUISHENE

SECONDARY SCHOOL

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

KIDNEY DISEASE

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

TAXATION

KIDNEY DISEASE

PARKINSON’S DISEASE

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

CHRONIC CEREBROSPINAL VENOUS INSUFFICIENCY

TAXATION

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENHANCEMENT OF THE ONTARIO

ENERGY AND PROPERTY TAX CREDIT

FOR SENIORS AND ONTARIO

FAMILIES ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’AMÉLIORATION

DU CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT DE L’ONTARIO

POUR LES COÛTS D’ÉNERGIE

ET LES IMPÔTS FONCIERS

À L’INTENTION DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES

ET DES FAMILLES DE L’ONTARIO

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

WIND TURBINES

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord’s Prayer, followed by the Jewish prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

NARCOTICS SAFETY

AND AWARENESS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

ET LA SENSIBILISATION

EN MATIÈRE DE STUPÉFIANTS

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 30, 2010, on the motion for second reading of Bill 101,

An Act to provide for monitoring the prescribing and dispensing of certain controlled substances / Projet de loi 101, Loi prévoyant la surveillance des activités liées à la prescription et à la préparation de certaines substances désignées.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s always an honour to stand and represent the people of my riding and the people of Ontario. It’s interesting that we’re talking about controlled substances. I know that I’m not alone in this because as the caffeine starts coursing through my system and wakes me up, I recognize that we are all addicted to something. Quite frankly, the most common addiction of all is caffeine. Western society would cease as we know it were we not to drink our coffee or tea. Really, what we’re talking about is addiction to controlled substances, to those substances that we have deemed illegal.

I want to give a shout-out before I begin to some phenomenal people in my own riding from the Parkdale drug strategy. We started this about four years ago in my riding, soon after I was elected for the first time. We brought together all of the care providers across Parkdale who deal with anybody with mental health and addiction issues. This included wonderful people from St. Joseph’s, St. Christopher House, Parkdale Activity Recreation Centre and others. We wanted to institute and put into place in our own riding the phenomenal work that Toronto has done.

I want to herald what Toronto has done on the Toronto drug strategy force. They’ve looked at prevention, education, harm reduction and then enforcement. We’ve sought to actually put into place those four pillars in Parkdale. We’ve done such things as a five-cent-a-drink campaign, which I know Senator Kirby tried to bring in across Canada.

The five-cent-a-drink campaign is a wonderful idea that we put into place—we do it once a year in Parkdale—where five cents of every drink from contributing bars that want to take part goes toward drug rehab and other programs run by those who are members of the Parkdale drug strategy. We’ve done educational events and, hopefully also, preventative events. We are trying to put into place those four pillars.

I want to commend all the members of the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions because one of the hopes that we had in the Parkdale drug strategy, and I know that Toronto had as well with their drug strategy, is that the province step up, because it was quite obvious to us that the province was absent on this issue. This report is a wonderful document. I certainly suggest that people at home take time to read it. Its recommendations, all 23 of them, are all absolutely apropos. It worked as a committee of this House should work; that is, together; not at odds but together to move forward on this most intractable issue.

Now, the sad reality is that in seeing this bill, which is, quite frankly, a good bill—we’re going to support it—it’s such a tiny step. Why, oh why couldn’t this government act on all 23 of these recommendations?

A wonderful group that I’ve also had the pleasure of working with—Tragically OHIP, they were called—a group of parents whose children suffered from mental health and addiction issues and couldn’t get help anywhere in the province, most of whom had mortgaged their homes to be able to send their children to provinces where they did have rehabilitation services or to the United States at incredible expense because there was literally nothing here for them—hose parents would love to see these recommendations put into place.

There are some very famous drug addicts. I think of a personal hero, in terms of writing: William Burroughs. I think of Sigmund Freud; William Halsted, the father of modern surgery, who apparently performed most of his surgeries while high on morphine. Keith Richards. We could go on and on. Lindsay Lohan. People with money can find services; that’s my point here. What we’re talking about is the great and vast majority of people with mental health and addiction issues who, in this province, where we’re supposed to enjoy medicare, can’t find services.

I know for the folk in Parkdale and in High Park—because addiction doesn’t know the difference—for my folk who would like to get into rehabilitation, there’s usually at least a six-to-eight-month wait. Now, a six-to-eight-month wait means for many, quite literally, death. A six-to-eight-month wait to be able to tackle their problem isn’t good enough, and when they get into rehabilitation, if they’re the lucky ones, usually it’s a few weeks that they’re looking at. We know from studies that it takes a few months, at least, of residential treatment before you are ready to go out into the world, back to your community, and even then you need follow-up.

By the way, another shout-out to those incredible people who provide the self-help that is the 12-step movement. Certainly, the 12-step movement across North America and around the world has been responsible for saving as many lives, or more, as the invention of penicillin. This was a reaction to the absence of treatment and to the stigma of addiction that’s in our communities. Those who are involved in 12-step groups know that, first of all, many, many people need residential treatment. That’s simply not there for the vast majority of people who need it.

I think of a very touching story. The last time I was in the emergency ward, for a minor injury, I overheard a young doctor—because you’re separated only by a curtain—in one of the next cubicles. I listened to the entire transaction between him and his patient, who are both, of course, anonymous. She was saying that she was in a methadone program but she just couldn’t last until the next treatment; that she was in pain. This young doctor prescribed her Percocet—oxys, the poor man’s heroin.

My concern about this bill, if I have one—because all it really does is tell us where the prescription is happening, who’s getting the prescription, and what doctors are writing more and what pharmacists are filling more—is that it doesn’t take into account what you do with that information. This young doctor wrote her a prescription for Percocet to last her until her next methadone treatment. This was a woman in pain—not the pain of a physical injury, but the pain of addiction, which is also painful. I wonder, when these doctors who deal with patients in pain or patients with addictions are flagged, what are we going to do with this information? I’m a little wary about that.

There’s a good reason that enforcement is the fourth pillar of a drug program and a drug strategy, not the first. First is prevention, then education, then harm reduction, and then enforcement. When everything else fails, that’s when you get to enforcement. If we rush to enforcement first, all we do is drive the addict somewhere else. As William Burroughs said, “If you are an addict, you will find your drug, if you have to travel a whole world to find it.”

The problem is addiction at its core. We have to start with treatment of the addict, not with enforcement on the prescribers and the dispensers, or even police action. That’s when everything else fails. Unfortunately, right now most of our money goes to the enforcement end, not to the prevention end, not to the education end and certainly not to the treatment end.

To conclude, I’d simply say that this is a wonderful document with fabulous recommendations; would that the government would bring them all in. This is a small step. I’m a little bit wary about how it might be used. Is it going to be used to really come down upon our doctors and our pharmacists, or is it going to be used to simply point out the magnitude of the problem so that we can immediately rush to put into place the rehabilitation and the treatment centres we so desperately need in this province? That is the only real answer to the problem of addiction—not simply to know and not simply to enforce.

I thank you for the opportunity. Again, I want to say congratulations to all of those who’ve been active on the Parkdale drug strategy committee that’s still ongoing—and to the wonderful work at city hall in Toronto on the drug issue. My prayers go out to all of those who struggle with addiction and to all of those who struggle with the very few means we give them out there—the doctors, the nurses, the pharmacists, the social workers—to deal with a very large problem.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Questions and comments?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I listened to the member from Parkdale–High Park for the last 10 minutes. I listened to her talk about the strategy in Parkdale. Congratulations on that strategy. I wish that you could provide us with the details. Maybe we can learn more about it.

She spoke about many different things. She spoke about our strategy to control narcotic substances in the province of Ontario. She was focusing on the addiction issue and talking about all the different things that we have and places to treat people. I agree with you. It’s an important issue. That’s why we have our colleague, the member from Oakville, Kevin Flynn, to chair the mental health addictions strategy across Ontario. You mentioned that he came up with a detailed report.

The whole issue here is that we’re talking about how we can control prescriptions, how we can control those substances, not how to treat them in the end. It is a very important step to first go to the doctors and the pharmacies and see how we can control those prescriptions by working together, by respecting them and giving them the chance to work with the Minister of Health in order to control those substances, not allowing them to be prescribed left and right. I hope she agrees with us.

I know she doesn’t think the bill went far enough, but it’s an important and fundamental step toward correcting the direction of our Ministry of Health in order to support and help many different people across the province.

I hope the member continues her support to implement all the suggested strategies—I think she was a member of the committee—by our colleague, the chair of the committee, the member from Oakville.

Again, I’m looking forward to speaking more on this important issue because in the past I had the privilege and honour to introduce a private member’s bill about this very important issue.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I am pleased to make just a few comments on the remarks made by the member from Parkdale–High Park, with which I agree.

Essentially, we are very pleased that the government has chosen to bring this bill forward now. It is important that we move forward and create the database so that we can stop some of the prescription drug abuse that’s rampant in many communities across Ontario. She did comment on the work that was done by the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. I was very privileged to have been a member of that committee. Recommendation number 11 does indicate that we are calling on the government and the Minister of Health to immediately address the issue of prescription drug abuse.

We are happy that this has been brought forward but, of course, there are many other steps that need to be taken. There are 22 other recommendations contained in this report that address the problem of not having the same types of resources across the province for people who are suffering from mental health and addiction problems and also the serious lack of addiction facilities that we have in Ontario, which is to the point of many families, particularly with young people experiencing these problems, having to go to other jurisdictions in order to get treatment, principally in the United States.

She did also mention some of the initiatives like the Nickel-a-Drink campaign. There are others. We do have ways of addressing gambling problems with the monies that we have that are going into casinos and so on, but we don’t have any directed funds to help with respect to mental health and addiction problems.

I think it is incumbent on this government to put not just this one recommendation in place; we need to have all 23 of the recommendations implemented. Certainly, for our part on this side of the House, the Progressive Conservative Party as official opposition, we will be continuing to press the Minister of Health and the McGuinty government to implement all 23 recommendations contained in this report.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I want to congratulate my colleague from Parkdale–High Park for emphasizing many of the things that our critic from Nickel Belt mentioned in her speech, and that is that we’ve got to do much more than just one of the five key strategies that have been recommended by the committee. The only one the government is moving on, member from London–Fanshawe, is the creation of an electronic database that will collect, monitor and analyze information. While all of that is useful, important and agreeable—in the sense that we all agree on this as well—we need to do a little more.

We can’t just simply criminalize addiction; we’ve got to be able to deal with addiction. But we have very few treatment facilities in the province, and unless you deal with that, you’re simply going to always deal with that individual as a criminal. We’re going to put him away or put him in institutions without ever dealing with the problem itself. That’s what we have to do.

I’m going to be speaking in a few moments just to elaborate on some of the very points that my colleague has made, but we need to do what she and the member from Nickel Belt have said, and that is employ all of the five pillars that have been recommended by the committee. If we don’t actively engage ourselves in all of the pillars that deal with the narcotics that we are all taking into our system in one form or another, we’re going to make the situation worse. While this is a useful little step, we’ve got to do much more. I thank the member from Parkdale–High Park for her comments.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. Pat Hoy: I’m pleased to join in this conversation this morning, and that seems to be exactly what it is: a conversation about how we deal with the abuse of prescription narcotic drugs. There are good ideas coming forward from all sides of the aisle.

I think it’s quite true that we need to do more when it comes to those who are addicted. But then, of course, we should be looking at things that will prevent them from becoming so. That’s what this bill is looking forward to.

I have people who come to my office, who come to me and want to know how they can manage their pain without taking drugs and find places and avenues of dealing with pain that might be lifelong without having to turn towards drugs, which is one alternative. But to this particular bill, I think that education could be an important component as well.

Those of us who maybe have had a prescription drug in the past for, let’s say, a sore throat or cold or something of that nature, we get this little bottle and it has a little sticker on it that says, “Don’t drive a car or drive heavy machinery.” I’ve never driven heavy machinery while on those, nor am I likely to. However, perhaps the warning of these narcotic drugs could be made more clear to patients when they take them. I know, anecdotally, that doctors try to prescribe that and warn people about the drugs that they are taking, but perhaps it would be something that we can all embark on: an education process as to the risks and hazards of prolonged use of these particular drugs.

It is unfortunate that Ontario has the highest level of narcotics use among all of the other provinces on a per capita basis. So this particular legislation is very timely. I suspect it will go to committee, as do most, if not all, of our bills, and we will have a more fulsome discussion at that time.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Parkdale–High Park has two minutes to respond.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Thank you all for your comments.

Wouldn’t it have been nice, though—just to echo the words of the member from Whitby–Oshawa—if all 23 of the recommendations had been acted on? At the rate that we’re going in this Legislature, with one coming forward in one session, it’ll be another 23 years before we actually have a workable mental health and drug addictions strategy in Ontario. That’s very sad. It’s a sad commentary on the amount of work that went into this document, which is a phenomenal document, a document that we’ve needed for a long, long time.

Also, to hearken back to the member from Whitby–Oshawa, she mentioned gambling, which I haven’t had time to touch on. But isn’t it ironic, at the very least, that here is a government acting in the smallest possible way on the largest possible document here, in some senses, and yet rushing headlong into something that’s phenomenally addictive: online gambling.

So, on one side, they’re making one tiny little baby step towards amassing data on addiction for controlled substances, and on the other side, they’re taking a giant leap into the unknown with online gambling purely, let’s face it, for money. It’s about money—making money. We know that’s wildly addictive.

Just to summarize, I want to say thank you to the committee for coming up with this wonderful work. Also, thank you to the city of Toronto for their four-pronged drug strategy, which we’ve been working with in Parkdale for four years now, and actually trying to implement on the ground. To the Parkdale drug strategy: hello and thank you for your efforts. And here’s hoping that it doesn’t take 23 years to see all of the recommendations of this excellent piece of work put into place. People are dying waiting.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I’m honoured and privileged to stand up in my place and speak about this very important issue, which all of us in this House are concerned about, and we’re trying to find a solution to it.

As I mentioned at the beginning when I spoke for two minutes, a long time ago, almost four years ago, I introduced a bill in this House to control the excessive use of OxyContin, which is being prescribed loosely by some doctors, which causes a lot of trouble, a lot of problems, in many different parts of Ontario. Many members spoke about those prescriptions eventually creating an addiction for some people and killing people.

This issue was important to me. A lady came to my office because she lost her husband and lost her son. She came to my office almost five years ago. She was talking about her husband, who was sick with some kind of disease. He was being ordered to take OxyContin on a regular basis to control his pain. In the end, he killed himself. The same issue, the same disease, happened with her son. He was taking OxyContin for many years and became addicted to it. He was in a lot of pain. He threw himself off the Galleria Mall in London and killed himself.

This issue is important. It’s important for all of us to see how we can control narcotic substances. I believe the minister acted on the recommendations of the committee on mental health and addictions, which I think was comprised of members from all three parties, a non-partisan committee, to study addictions and mental health issues across the province.

You see a lot of people on the streets across Ontario suffering from mental health issues, which nobody can ignore. It’s our obligation and duty to put forward a positive solution to deal with this issue.

I had the chance to meet with many different experts in this field in London, and we have been working on it, and I know many parties and many governments before worked hard to find a solution to this very, very severe issue which all of us suffer from in this province. When you talk to the police and to the hospital officials and doctors, they tell you how important this issue is.

So now we are talking about addictions. I have a friend who is a pharmacist. In London, Ontario, he has one methadone clinic to deal with prescriptions from certain doctors to help people withdraw from addictions to narcotic drugs. He came to my office and said, “I know a lot about this issue. I know a lot of doctors who prescribe narcotics left and right without thinking, just to get people out of their office or give them some kind of medication to quiet their pain for a certain time.”

But what happens, as everybody knows, as all the experts in this place know and all the experts in Ontario know, and the whole world, is when you’re given certain medications, you become addicted, and addictions create a lot of problems, sometimes mental issues, because it becomes excessive and people take it left and right when they feel a little pain. That’s why the Minister of Health is coming up with a strategy, first to create a partnership with health care providers.

I was listening to my colleague from Oak Ridges–Markham speaking last week about this very issue. As you know, she’s a doctor. She was the medical officer of York region, and she knows about a lot of this stuff.

The most important thing is not to enforce it by force but to create that level of understanding among the health providers, the doctors and nurses who have the ability to prescribe those medications, to see how we can control it. Instead of giving it left and right, we’ll know exactly what we’re doing, and we’ll try as much as possible to deal with it in different ways.

Also, the dispensing fee and dispensing those drugs is important. By creating a database, we’ll have control; we’ll see which doctor is dispensing a lot or less and why. The excessive dispensing and the excessive prescribing of those medications is not good. As I mentioned at the beginning, it costs us a lot of money and it costs us a lot of lives—a lot of wonderful people who go for treatment and come out addicted to certain drugs.

I think if we find an alternative way to deal with these issues instead of giving medication left and right, especially narcotic substances like OxyContin and Percocet—today, early in the morning when I was watching the news, I listened to very important news coming from a Canadian medical journal, talking about codeine: Codeine is not good for your health; codeine might create addictions; codeine is not good. Every one of us in this House and in the province of Ontario has taken codeine for certain pain.

With the medical journal coming out with this warning today, I think it is our obligation and our duty, as a government, as elected officials, as the Minister of Health, to create a strategy to control those narcotic substances for the sake of the people of Ontario, for the sake of our health in this province, and also to create a safe haven for all of us in this province.

Thank you for allowing me to stand up and speak.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Comments and questions?

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s a pleasure to respond to the comments on this bill.

I applaud the work of the select committee that worked on the addictions and mental health. I have that excellent report on my desk here. All sides tend to agree on this. One of the recommendations by the select committee which was unanimously adopted is about the addictive painkilling medication. Mostly, you hear about OxyContin.

The pharmacists today have a system when they record prescription drugs, and I think they’re going to formalize that process.

Initially, when the government started the eHealth application, one of the goals was to integrate the nine different modules—long-term care, the pharmacists, the hospitals, the CCACs etc.—to link them all together to monitor, to avoid duplication and to create some efficiencies. I know they recognize that they squandered a billion dollars on eHealth when George Smitherman was the minister—I think that’s probably cleaned up now—but that money could easily have put that system in place.

So let’s not forget to keep our eye on the ball. Watch the Premier; watch the Minister of Health, so that we get this right and don’t waste any more money—because this ultimately will save lives. We see that suicide rates are related to these addictive medications. We need to get this right.

We’re onside with this. Our leader, Tim Hudak, has made it very clear that we want to move forward quickly with this but we don’t want to waste any more money.

The member from London–Fanshawe knows full well, because I believe his wife is a physician, and as such she would know and be able to advise him on these subjects, if it’s the right thing to do—which we support.

I’m anxious to hear our next speaker, Mr. Miller, who will be speaking on this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Thank you to my colleague the member from London–Fanshawe, who described very well the depth of the problem, how widespread the problem is, and why it’s necessary to do this.

I want to comment on this issue of the narcotics strategy. There are five elements to the narcotics strategy, one of which is the tracking, which is what we are addressing in the legislation. The reason this bill only addresses the tracking is because that’s the only component of the strategy for which legislation is required.

The Ministry of Health currently collects information about prescriptions and dispensing related to the Ontario drug benefit, but it only has the legal authority to use that information for billing. This bill gives them the authority to use that same information for the purpose of tracking inappropriate use of prescription narcotics. In addition, it gives the Ministry of Health the authority to collect the same information for patients who are not on the Ontario drug benefit; that is, for whom the government is not paying the bill.

So the purpose of the bill is to give the government the legal authority to do what it has to do. It has nothing to do with the authority to write software. The rest of the strategy, which includes working with pharmacists, working with doctors, working with patients, expanding the capacity to treat addictions—none of those things require legislation. That’s why they’re not in the bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. Jeff Leal: I always enjoy the remarks from my good friend the member from London–Fanshawe because he certainly brings a wealth of experience to this issue. It has been noted that his wife is a physician working in London, Ontario.

Seeing the negative impact of the misuse of narcotic drugs such as OxyContin and Percocet, and having the opportunity to be a member of the select committee on mental health services in the province of Ontario indeed was an eye-opener for me personally, along with my colleagues who had the opportunity to serve on that committee and hear representations from people from every part of the province, from Cochrane to Kenora, to Cornwall, to Peterborough, to Petrolia.

These people came forward to share very personal stories, and I must commend those individuals who came forward to share those personal stories because it indeed is a very difficult thing to do, particularly when a family member—a son or daughter or other loved one—committed suicide because of the misuse and overuse of narcotics, Percocet and OxyContin.

I think this bill is a real opportunity to build on the good work of the select committee.

By and large, I think we should have the opportunity to have more select committees in this Legislature as an opportunity for members to come together in unison to look in depth at a particular problem in the province of Ontario and come up with a number of recommendations. I think the last select committee was one on alternative fuels, many years ago. It indeed also had very good recommendations for the policy-makers to look at.

I think the select committee is a very important mechanism that we need to use more often in this Legislature.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

The member from London–Fanshawe has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I want to thank the members from Durham, Guelph and Peterborough for their comments.

I know it’s important for all of us, from both sides of the House, to be talking about the importance of this strategy to control narcotic substances from being prescribed loosely in the province of Ontario, through doctors or pharmacies.

I also want to tell the member from Durham: Yes, my wife is a medical doctor. When I get a headache, I always try to take Advil. She goes crazy and nuts. She tells me, “No, no, don’t take it. Try as much as possible to deal with it without Advil or Tylenol. Just go relax and don’t”—

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Go relax? Does it work?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Well, it works. When I go sleep a little bit and come back again, it’s a lot better than taking drugs. It’s very important. You try as much as possible to avoid taking those drugs, because drugs are not good in general.

As I mentioned earlier, and my colleague from Guelph and the member from Peterborough mentioned, those narcotic drugs that are being prescribed and taken for a certain time might cause suicide. Many people kill themselves as a result of that, when they get addicted and they cannot find those narcotic drugs.

I had mentioned my friend the pharmacist who’s always telling me that some people are taking those narcotic drugs, not because they want them but to sell them in the street. So it’s overprescribing and dispensing of those narcotic substances. They’re not good all the time, and they’re not being used in the right direction most of the time.

That’s why the minister is coming out with a strategy to create the database to monitor those dispensing. I think it’s a very important step toward controlling our drug habits in the province of Ontario and the dispensing of those drugs.

The only way we can control it and be successful is when we work in partnership with the pharmacists, with the doctors, because those are the people on the front line who are dealing with patients in order to have success for this strategy.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. Norm Miller: It’s my pleasure to have an opportunity to speak for a few minutes to Bill 101. I know it’s winding down and will likely wrap up this morning. I just wanted to comment briefly about Bill 101,

An Act to provide for monitoring the prescribing and dispensing of certain controlled substances.

“The act seeks to improve the health and safety of Ontarians by permitting the monitoring, analyzing and reporting of information, including personal information, related to the prescribing and dispensing of monitored drugs in order to:

“

(1) Contribute to and promote appropriate prescribing and dispensing practices for monitored drugs in order to support access to monitored drugs for medically appropriate treatment, including treatment for pain;

“(

b) identify and reduce the abuse, misuse and diversion of monitored drugs; and

“(

c) reduce the risk of addiction and death resulting from the abuse or misuse of monitored drugs.”

It’s obvious that all three parties support this. As we know, this bill has come in part from the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions, on which, from our side of the House, the member from Whitby–Oshawa and the member from Dufferin–Caledon played an important role. In fact, that committee got started, I believe, from a resolution put forward by the member from Whitby–Oshawa, and from that resolution, the House decided to form the select committee. I think they should be commended for the good work they have done.

I agree with the past speaker that the Legislature should make more use of select committees. I know I was involved with the Select Committee on Alternative Fuel Sources, and a number of the recommendations from that committee have been adopted.

This bill has really come from the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions, on which members of all sides of the House participated. Recommendation 11 from that report is, “The Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care should immediately address the problem of addiction to prescription painkillers.”

We’ve certainly seen a huge rise in the problem of people being addicted to painkillers like OxyContin. In fact, there’s a report prepared by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario called Avoiding Abuse, Achieving a Balance, and it says, “There has been a steep and unprecedented increase in the number of individuals seeking treatment for oxycodone addiction since controlled-release (long-acting) oxycodone products became available in 1995.

The number of admissions at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) Medical Withdrawal Management Service seeking treatment for opioid detoxification related to controlled-release oxycodone went from 3.8% of opioid admissions in 2000 to 55.4% in 2004.” That’s just a huge increase.

The report also noted that “CAMH found that among Ontario high school students, one fifth reported using opioids or at least one prescription drug without a doctor’s prescription in 2009, compared to only 12% of students surveyed who reported smoking cigarettes.”

The report contains statistics concerning fatalities. “Deaths due to oxycodone rose from 35 in 2002 to 119 in 2006,” an increase of 240%. So we’re seeing a huge increase in the province. In communities across Ontario, the trafficking of prescription narcotics by both individuals and organized crime groups has resulted in a doubling of prescription drug arrests in Toronto between 2005 and 2008 and a significant increase in pharmacy robberies and thefts of prescription narcotics.

The problem with the abuse of prescription narcotics is particularly acute in many First Nations communities, especially in more remote locations where an OxyContin tablet that may sell on the streets of Toronto for $45 costs several hundred dollars.

The cost of these drugs within our health care system is rapidly increasing. In 2009-10, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care spent $156 million on narcotics for Ontario drug benefit program recipients—for 3.9 million prescriptions. This equates to an average of six prescriptions per person, at an annual cost of $260 per person.

It’s obvious from the college of physicians’ report that there is a big problem out there. I think it’s good to see the factual information, but I think we all see it in our communities, and it affects all communities across Ontario, whether they’re small rural communities I spent a lot of time at hockey rinks with three of our children who played hockey. I spent 15 years, just virtually every weekend, in hockey rinks, and you meet a lot of families over that time frame and get to know their kids. I know of at least one family whose daughter became addicted to OxyContin.

It’s just tragic the way that addiction rips apart a family and an otherwise very nice person; a very nice girl becomes somebody that she isn’t because of this terrible addiction. It rips the fabric of a family apart. It rips the fabric of a community apart.

I’m happy to see that the government is taking an initial step, sort of step one of many, to at least know what’s going on out there so that people can’t shop around at different pharmacies to fill their drug addiction and so that there’s some sort of knowledge among doctors that other doctors are prescribing this same drug. This is basic knowledge we need.

Obviously, it’s important that the government implement this in a way that works and that is cost-effective, because they do have a bad track record. It’s about electronic health records, and we know that they’ve spent an awful lot of money on eHealth without much to show for it. The $1-billion figure is tossed around. Obviously, as the opposition, we’ll be watching the way they implement this legislation.

As I say, it’s step one of many. There are 23 recommendations from the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. This is number 11, but one recommendation from the committee’s report. So we look forward to the government following up with further steps to further control this problem that does rip the fabric and the heart out of communities and families across this province.

With that, I will conclude my remarks. I thank you for the opportunity to have a brief moment to make comments on Bill 101.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Comments and questions?

Mr. John O’Toole: I was listening intently—until my phone rang—to the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka. I did realize that he was reporting on our leader Tim Hudak’s advice to caucus on this bill, and I commend him for that because we see this as an appropriate reaction to a chronic situation, as the member has said, that has caused deaths and suicides.

Each of us as members, in our ridings and in our riding offices—Madam Speaker, you would be the same, I’m sure—hear from families on occasion who are affected by this, either directly or indirectly. They have children or friends who could be overcome by these addictive substances. This is a serious, serious problem.

I can tell you that, in my own riding, there was some talk of a physician who himself became addicted to this situation. Out of complete compassion—I believe his motives were compassionate—he was helping people who had either work-related injuries or other accidents where these pain medications, like OxyContin, were prescribed.

Now, here’s the issue: I think, in their code of ethics and behaviour, they need the monitoring as well, because on compassionate grounds, they are doing the best they can for their patients. I think that’s laudable. But when you look at the statistics of the increases that the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka spoke of, it’s evident that there is some abuse in the system. As such, it warrants the actions recommended by the select committee. Indeed, I commend the Premier for taking a lead role, I might say, in moving this forward.

Our concern is, is it far enough and will it be properly implemented? That’s a fair question. I would expect that there should be some hearings, especially with First Nations, and other users of the system. Let’s make sure we get this right, not like the—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. Further comments and questions?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Thank you for the opportunity to add a few comments to the bill that is being debated today.

As my colleague from across the way, from Peterborough, said, and my other colleague from Guelph, I’ve had the opportunity also to serve on the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. I have to say that it was an eye-opening experience, travelling the province and hearing from deputant after deputant after deputant on the issue of OxyContin being overused throughout the province. I think all the speakers around have clearly stated that it is a problem, and the government is making this particular move to try to control that problem.

But let me tell you, I had a family member just recently who had been ill, and in going to the hospital emergency, they actually prescribed OxyContin and other painkillers in an open prescription with open repeats. So our medical community needs to be educated about this problem and we need to work with them very closely. I think this bill is going to do that job for us, along with the Ontario Medical Association. I’m hoping that we will definitely be able to curb the abuse of this particular narcotic.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Any further comments? The member from Etobicoke North.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Yes, Etobicoke North, and proudly.

It’s a privilege and responsibility to speak not only as a parliamentarian but also as a physician. The issue of narcotic prescription, as well as overuse and dependence, is of course something that we as physicians have known about for quite some time. It’s an issue that comes up in medical school.

It probably does not receive the adequate amount of training that we should actually receive in order to better serve the public, so I look forward to the unfolding of this particular legislation and all the various initiatives so that prescribers themselves will appropriately prescribe and deal with and manage patients who are in chronic pain situations. Of course, these are scenarios that come to us on a very, very regular basis: post-surgical, post-accident, cancer etc. But nevertheless, in order to avoid dependence and ultimately abusive situations, I think it’s certainly in the public interest.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments or questions?

The member from Parry Sound–Muskoka has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Norm Miller: It was a privilege to have the opportunity to speak. I thank the member from Durham for adding some comments, and the members from Scarborough–Rouge River and Etobicoke North as well.

The member from Scarborough–Rouge River mentioned that he was a member of the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. I’d certainly like to commend him for the work that he did, along with the other committee members.

Certainly we recognize that prescription drug abuse in Ontario is an urgent problem and a growing problem; there’s no question that it needs to be addressed. This legislation is just the first step in a multi-faceted problem.

We agree with the underlying principles of the bill. We will be asking for full committee hearings, including, as in the report I cited in my comments, committee hearings in northern Ontario and in aboriginal communities where I think the problem is much worse. I think we need to hear from all those communities that are affected by this problem because it does do great damage to families and great damage to communities. It’s a problem that needs to be addressed, and we look forward to this first step being taken and then input at committee and further steps being taken in the future to address this very serious problem we have in our communities.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It is a pleasure to speak to this bill because I wanted to emphasize a couple of things that my friend from Parkdale–High Park mentioned, including our critic from Nickel Belt. I want to say that I, too, like the member from Parkdale–High Park, am pleased with the report that was produced by the participation of all three political parties. It’s significant, because we don’t always do this, but when we do, it means that all three political parties are ready to do something about it. And if that is true, we can be bold; the government can be bold.

If all three political parties agree and 21 recommendations came out of this report, that means that the government could have taken the time to do this right and implement all 21 recommendations. It still can, of course. But the government proceeded to implement but one recommendation.

Mr. Jeff Leal: So far.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: And that’s okay, member from Peterborough; of course that’s okay. I worry that, because we are going to be in an election next year, not much is going to happen over the next year. And after this session, I can guarantee that not much will happen in the next session—guaranteed, member from Peterborough. Mark my words. That’s why I worry. When the member from Peterborough says, “It’s true; it’s one strategy at this time,” suggesting that there will be more, I’m worried that there may not be much more in this regard for the who-knows-when future.

Given that we had an opportunity to do a little more, the government takes the picayune step and pats itself on the back, which is fine, but we could do so much more. That’s really the point, isn’t it? I understand, when you’ve got political opposition—I do—and if you’ve got Tories and New Democrats opposing you, then moving, as you often do, at a snail’s pace would be the appropriate response. But when you move at a snail’s pace and you’ve got all three political parties on board, I don’t get it. I just don’t understand it.

You move at a snail’s pace even when you have support from the other two political parties. How do you explain that modus Liberal operandi? How do you explain it? I can’t explain it. I just don’t get it.

I know the member from Guelph says the same thing, that this is the one bill that deals with this issue. I understand. The other issues don’t require a bill, she commented, or could, but it would be done at another time, I’m assuming. So the argument I make is that when we have an opportunity to do much more, we should seize it, as opposed to just letting things slip out of your hands, as is so typical of what you guys do on a regular basis. It’s a bit saddening.

Here is the background: On August 27, 2010, the Minister of Health announced a narcotics strategy. Member from London–Fanshawe, here’s the strategy. Numero uno: The creation of an electronic database that would collect, monitor and analyze information related to prescription narcotics and controlled substances. That’s number one. There are four others, and you only implemented the one out of the five pillars that the minister said is part of a narcotics strategy.

The other four recommendations that I’m going to read will have to wait for another day: work with health sector physicians and nurse practitioners to raise awareness about appropriate prescribing; work with health sector pharmacists to raise awareness about appropriate dispensing; engage in patient education to address excessive use and misuse of prescription narcotics; and focus on addiction treatment and services.

The problem is that because the issue is so big, we’ve got to do a little more. When I look at some of the stats, it’s horrifying. CAMH—this institution is in my riding—has done a study of 12- to 17-year-olds and found that 20% of these young men and women—12- to 17-year-olds—use opiates. This is crazy and frightening. The study also shows that only 12% of students reported smoking cigarettes in 2007. So 20% use opiates of one form or another and 12% smoke, which means young men and women are probably addicted to drugs more so than they are addicted to smoking. This is scary stuff.

So how are we dealing with this? Okay; the first strategy is to have an electronic database. It’s an important tool; we understand. But when you read on, and you know that Ontario has the highest use of opiates in Canada and you say, “What are we doing about it?” and you know that we’ve got 150 service providers for addiction services, but in spite of those 150 service providers, Ontarians are not getting the assessment, the treatment and the services that they need to deal with this addiction, you know you’ve got a problem. There are 150 service providers for addiction services, and we’re not getting the assessment, the treatment and the services they need to deal with this addiction.

This legislation aims to reduce the supply of illicit narcotics, but we can’t simply cut off the supply and think of nothing to help cure the addiction. This is where the main problem stems from. Unless we deal with why it happens, and unless we treat the problem—monitoring this issue is good, having the electronic database is fine, and, yeah, they recognize as Liberals that this is a good first step, but, my God, we’ve got to do something quick and fast, and this strategy is something that we have to engage in right away. So I say, why wait? And when is the rest of the strategy coming?

When is the government going to implement the other 21 recommendations that the other two political parties agreed to? We’ve got to move fast.

I remember a friend of mine, Dr. Allodi, who did a study in the late 1960s and early 1970s that talked about the high number of women who were working at home—that was their job, as homemakers, at the time—and were addicted to Valium. That was the prescription that was prescribed on a regular basis for so many women who were on the outskirts of Toronto and/or beyond. They were alone at home and suffering with so many problems and suffering all alone, addicted to Valium prescribed by doctors on a regular basis. What did we do about that? And what are we doing about that today?

They introduce one part of the strategy, and all I can hope for is that we deal with the bigger strategy of addiction and the bigger strategy of chronic pain. We’ve got about two to three million people that suffer from chronic pain, and there is no chronic pain management strategy across the province. While there are some specialists in some parts of the province doing a good job of this, there is no chronic pain management in some parts of the province at all. In the north, in particular, we’ve got very little by way of service for this particular problem of chronic pain. There’s no strategy for it.

The member from London–Fanshawe keeps saying that this is the first part and the member from Guelph keeps saying that this is the first part, and I understand that. We know that the problem is huge. What we know is that we’ve got to move on this quickly, and what I know is that you’ve got three political parties interested in working with you to make this happen today. All I can hope is that this government will move on this quickly. Let’s, yes, get into committee, debate this, see what other folks have to say, and then let’s move on to dealing with the other recommendations that are made with the support of all three political parties and deal with the problems.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I would just like to note that when you look at the select committee report and the recommendations in here, the only recommendation that said we need to do this immediately is to deal with prescription narcotics. That’s what we are doing here: dealing with the required legislation immediately.

I would like to note that what I said was that the only part of the narcotics strategy which required legislation was the tracking. I didn’t say that it was the only part we were doing. In fact, we are working with the regulatory colleges for doctors and dentists to do better education around prescribing practices. We are already working with the College of Pharmacists to look at dispensing practices. The tracking will enable us to figure out which patients actually need education about drug use. So the fact that this is the only piece that requires legislation doesn’t mean that we aren’t working on the other strands of the strategy. We are.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: I listened intently to the member from Trinity–Spadina. He brings fire and enthusiasm to the issue, which is important to push the government into some sort of action as opposed to delay.

We saw yesterday—they passed the retirement homes regulation bill; yet, they’ve done nothing. We saw it in a report in the Toronto Star. This bill needs the urgency that the member from Trinity–Spadina brings.

The member from Guelph said—and I want to emphasize this. It says here that the College of Physicians and Surgeons issued a report called Avoiding Abuse, Achieving a Balance. These are their words: “There has been a steep and unprecedented increase in the number of individuals seeking treatment for oxycodone addiction since controlled-release (long-acting) oxycodone products became available in 1995.” That’s the call to action that the member from Trinity–Spadina is talking about—bringing some urgency. Let’s get on with this.

If you need to have hearings to get this right, to make sure that we consult with the various stakeholders—including the college, including the First Nations people, and I would say the physician community as well as the pharmacist community. We need to get this right. We don’t need to superimpose a new solution onto the technology solution of tracking, reporting and tracing the issuance of prescriptions and the issuing of the medication itself, and tracking the outcomes—whether or not it’s an appropriate prescription—and working with the college to make sure that they’re getting it right.

When you have people dying from a system that’s out of control, I think the Premier has an eminent responsibility to act. The member from Guelph doesn’t see this as an integrated solution, and that’s wrong. Even the select committee report makes it clear. Almost every one of the 23 recommendations talks about the addictions portion of it, and this is an eminent one.

Let’s get on with it. We’re prepared to work with you. Our leader, Tim Hudak, has made it very clear to our caucus. We’re here to support it. Let’s get on—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. Further comments?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I listened to the member from Trinity–Spadina speaking about this very important issue. He talked about addictions as a general issue in the province of Ontario. There’s no doubt about it: Addictions are a problem.

We’re talking about two different things as a result of addictions. First, addictions come from maybe opium drugs, hash and marijuana, which come from the street and which have nothing to do with the Ministry of Health. Maybe it will be talked about in the policing issue. And we talked about the drugs being prescribed by doctors and dentists and being dispensed by pharmacists. That’s what we’re talking about in this particular bill, which we can control.

That’s why we’re trying to control—to make sure that, in conjunction with a full understanding between the Ministry of Health, the doctors and the pharmacists, we can create a database and monitor prescriptions, and also, by creating a full understanding with the pharmacists, control the dispensing of those narcotic drugs for the sake of the people of Ontario.

Addictions as a whole is an important issue that we should deal with, but, as I mentioned, there are two parts to it: one through the Ministry of Health and one through the policing.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments? The member has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I thank the speakers in reaction to what I said. We’ve got to move on this quickly. We need a comprehensive strategy, and we need it today.

Now that we are allowing online gambling—something that Premier McGuinty said he wasn’t going to do but changed his mind on, saying that that’s okay now—it’s going to make addiction even worse. This is the worst plague that could befall Ontarians. Online gambling means that more and more people are just going to gamble in the comfort of their little homes at their little computers. This is nuts. It truly is nuts. The government is afraid that they’re going to lose money to other jurisdictions doing it. If other jurisdictions are doing it, they’re equally nuts. Everybody’s nuts on this issue.

It ought not to be about money. It ought to be about the fact that when people gamble, most of them lose. The majority lose and only a couple of people win. When those people lose, they’re going to turn to drugs because that’s all they’ve got to comfort their problems. They’re going to hurt themselves and they’re going to hurt their families. I know Liberals are looking at me saying, “Yeah, we made the same arguments in our caucus meetings and we couldn’t convince our Premier McGuinty to do otherwise.” I know you’re looking at me funny because we probably had the same debates in 1990-92. I’m telling you, it’s the wrong thing to have done.

We need a comprehensive strategy aujourd’hui because the problem of addiction is going to get worse. Simply monitoring, through an electronic database, how we are prescribing is simply not enough. We’ve got to get ready for this.

All the good doctors who are in the Liberal caucus: You’ve got to push Premier McGuinty to move on this. All three parties are on the same team. Let’s move on it.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate? Seeing none, Ms. Matthews has moved second reading of Bill 101. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

This will be deferred until after question period.

Second reading vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Orders of the day?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: No further business, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): This House stands recessed until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1011 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I want to recognize three really good friends who are visiting Queen’s Park. In our members’ gallery, from Ottawa: Meg Hamilton, who’s the executive director of the Council of Heritage Organizations in Ottawa; Mike Steinhauer, who’s the director of the Bytown Museum, which is located in the great riding of Ottawa Centre; and Andrea Miller, who’s the executive director of the Ottawa Museum Network. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I’d like to introduce here today Tom Reitz, the manager/curator of the Waterloo Region Museum, and also Bev Dietrich, the curator of the Guelph Civic Museum, McCrae House.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I’d like to introduce Michaela McGuire from my riding of Toronto Centre. She’s just come down today because she’s interested in seeing how the Legislature works. She’s joining us here in the members’ gallery.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity, on behalf of page Audrey Steele and the member from Sault Ste. Marie, to welcome her brother, former page Alexander Steele, to the Legislature today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

On behalf of page Brigid Goulem and the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, we’d like to welcome her aunt Keri Johnston to the Legislature today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

On behalf of page Shanthos Thangalingam and the member from York South–Weston, we’d like to welcome mother Mary, father Thangalingam and sister Sharanja to the galleries today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Seated in the Speaker’s gallery this morning is Mr. Chung, former Prime Minister of South Korea. He’s accompanied by Dr. Li and Reverend Kim. Our guests will be unveiling a memorial garden and statue at the Toronto Zoo in remembrance of Dr. Schofield’s life and dedication to the people of Korea. Please join me in warmly welcoming our guests. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is for the Premier. One year from tomorrow, Ontario families will have a clear choice between my team of Ontario PCs, who will fight to ensure that tax dollars are focused on services that families need and care about, like front-line health care, or a tired Liberal government that presided over an eight-year feeding frenzy of Liberal-friendly consultants.

Tomorrow is also the one-year anniversary of the member for Don Valley East being dumped from cabinet and forced to carry George Smitherman’s dirty laundry in the $1-billion eHealth boondoggle.

Premier, will you kindly update us: Since you dumped the minister to cover for Mr. Smitherman, how much more money have you wasted in eHealth Ontario experiments?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I will agree that Ontarians have a genuine interest in what is going to happen approximately a year from now, but I think they have a greater continuing interest in the quality of the public services today, and we’re not going to take our eye off that ball. Among other things—and I would ask that my honourable colleague acknowledge these at some point in time—we have, in fact, made some progress. About a million more Ontarians now have a doctor. We’re building 18 new hospitals. Not only are we measuring wait times, we’re actually getting them down in the province of Ontario.

We’re putting in place 200 family health teams. We’re putting in place I think 30 nurse-practitioner-led clinics. Those are all about delivering good-quality services right to the front line to help Ontario families to ensure they’ve got access to the best health care possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, as you know, a year ago you forced the member for Don Valley East to walk the plank to cover for George Smitherman and your own waste of $1 billion in the eHealth boondoggle. Now, a year later, page 76 of eHealth Ontario’s recent report shows that not even a scathing auditor’s report into your waste at eHealth Ontario stopped you from making Ontario families pay another $343 million into eHealth last year alone.

It took them six years to waste the first billion dollars at eHealth. Now you’re on pace to burn through the next billion dollars in three years alone.

Premier, after spending $1.5 billion, can you at least say that eHealth is up and running? Can I access my electronic health record today?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thanks to the member opposite for the opportunity to talk about what’s happening at eHealth. You’re absolutely right: There were some problems there, and we have taken corrective action.

Before I talk about that, though, I want to talk about how important it is that we move forward and that we move forward aggressively with eHealth. It is not an overstatement to say that the future of our health care system depends on us getting results when it comes to eHealth. We do have new leadership at eHealth Ontario. We’ve got a new chair, Ray Hession, and we’ve got a new CEO, Greg Reed. We’ve reduced consultant use from 394 to just under 100. We’ve got tough new procurement rules; they’re in line with government directives.

We’ve got expense rules; expenses are now reviewed by the Integrity Commissioner and posted online. We are working very hard, and in the supplementary I’ll talk about some of the achievements.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: The minister answering for the Premier says that “there were some problems there.” Minister, it was a billion-dollar boondoggle at a time when families were waiting to get a loved one care in an emergency room, when families were waiting to get a loved one into a long-term-care home for years. You say, “There were some problems there.” It was a boondoggle. It was a scandal and a tragic waste of scarce health care dollars. Shame on you for saying, “There were some problems there.”

What have we seen since? We’ve seen $343 million more poured into the eHealth abyss and $250 million into your bloated health bureaucracies—the LHINs—which don’t spend a single minute with patients and don’t do a single surgery or MRI.

Now the PC caucus has found out that not only is eHealth not up and running, they haven’t even begun the procurement process for figuring out who is going to do that. What—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m very pleased to talk about some of the progress that we’ve made.

We now have close to four million Ontarians who have physicians with electronic medical records, and we’re moving forward; we’re looking to double that number.

Telemedicine is a huge part of eHealth Ontario. Telemedicine allows people in Moose Factory to have a consultation with a specialist in London. Telemedicine is a growing part. I trust that the members opposite understand the value of telemedicine. Over 100,000 remote medical consultations took place this past year. That’s double what it was the year before—on telemedicine alone. We’ve got 345 new sites added to telemedicine and upgrades at 92. That means that far, far more Ontarians are able to get access to specialists without leaving their home communities. There’s—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: Premier, a year from tomorrow, Ontario families will have a clear choice between my team of Ontario PCs, who are focused on transparency and accountability in government, or Premier McGuinty adding to his seven-year legacy of only acting when his hand is caught in the cookie jar, handing out untendered contracts to Liberal-friendly consultants.

Premier, six months ago, we brought forward legislation that would expand FOI to hospitals and require that contracts and hospitality expenses be posted online. We would have put a stop to your consultant feeding frenzy.

My colleague the member for Whitby–Oshawa has a motion before the House today to end the practice of consultants billing hospitals, long-term-care homes, your LHINs etc., taking money out of front-line care. Premier, will you support the motion standing in the name of our health critic?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m pleased to speak to the whole issue of transparency and accountability. I would ask, rhetorically somewhat, why it is that on every single occasion when we moved to introduce greater transparency and more rigorous accountability, the leader of the official opposition and his party stood in the way of that and voted against those very measures. I think he’s got to ask himself that.

For example, when it comes to the sunshine list, we expanded that to include OPG and Hydro One, and they opposed that. Still, to this very day, I can’t understand that. We expanded the Auditor General’s role to value-for-money audits in the broader public sector: hospitals, universities and schools. They opposed that.

In each and every instance—and I’ll take the time in supplementaries to go through more—they opposed our efforts to introduce more transparency and more accountability.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: No doubt, after seven years, Dalton McGuinty has changed. The rot—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just remind the honourable member about the use of names. Titles, please.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier McGuinty has changed. The rot and culture of waste in the McGuinty government has set in deep.

This is the anniversary of the billion dollars you blew at eHealth Ontario, a feeding frenzy for Liberal-friendly consultants like the Courtyard Group. Instead of care for cancer patients at Cancer Care Ontario, you spent money on cupcakes. At WSIB, support for injured workers went into a GPS system for your chair so he could find his way home after months and months of travel—and $10,000 to the Disney corporation to entertain your bureaucrats at the LHINs.

Premier, you have changed. Will you do the right thing and support the motion of my colleague Ms. Elliott to end this practice of—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague knows, again, and I think it’s important that Ontarians understand, that every time we’ve moved to introduce greater accountability and transparency, they have opposed that.

My honourable colleague is given to rhetoric. He seems to enjoy and luxuriate in that particular forum. But I think results actually count to Ontarians.

Let me talk a little bit about what we’ve done in health. We have funded 2.1 million new procedures in order to reduce wait times. Angiographies, for example: Wait times are down by 52%. Angioplasty: 46%—that means down 13 days. Cataract surgeries are down 195 days. Hip replacements are down 176 days. Knee replacements are down by 255 days.

I’ll put our record up against their rhetoric any day of the week.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: A clear pattern has developed where Premier McGuinty only talks about accountability when his government gets caught with their hands in the cookie jar and families are forced to pay the bill. Premier, you know the reality: You only banned expenses after we caught you; you only banned sole-sourced contracts after we caught you. And now, hopefully you’ll do something about lobbyists being paid through hospital budgets, but it comes after you got caught out yet again.

Here is your chance, Premier. We have a motion standing before the assembly today to prohibit hospitals, local health integration networks, community care access centres, Cancer Care Ontario—we want those dollars to go into front-line care, not in the pockets of lobbyists. Premier, will you support the Ontario PC motion?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I would ask Ontarians to ask themselves why it is that when we asked the Auditor General to begin to do value-for-money audits for our hospitals, the official opposition opposed that. Again, there’s rhetoric and results, and I’ll take results any day.

Here are a few more: One million more Ontarians have access to family doctors. We have 19 new MRI machines in place and double the number of MRI hours of operation. There are now 2,300 more doctors practising in the province of Ontario. We have 170 family health teams; we’re on our way to 200 in total. Those 170 are seeing 2.3 million new patients. We’ve hired over 10,000 new nurses. We’ve increased our hospital funding—100 hospital infrastructure projects, and so on and so forth. Again, at the end of the day, it’s about results, not rhetoric.

LOBBYISTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier said that hospitals don’t need to hire lobbyists. Does he feel the same way about colleges and universities?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think what we’re talking about here is a new era of accountability and a new era of transparency. We’re making it very clear that the rules that were deemed to be acceptable by the former NDP government, the rules that were deemed to be acceptable by the former Conservative government, are not acceptable to us. They’re not in keeping with Ontario’s standards and they’re not in keeping with our values. That’s why we have put in place a number of new rules that heighten accountability and introduce greater transparency.

We will continue to look at these things. We’ll continue to look for ways to make progress. In each and every instance that we do so, I ask again: Why is it that both opposition parties stand in the way of that progress? They stand in the way of our efforts to introduce more accountability and more transparency to benefit Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Freedom-of-information requests show that Laurentian University spent $102,000 for the lobbying services of former Liberal staffers David MacNaughton, Andrew Steele and Katie Telford. And York University has three lobbyist contracts worth $300,000. Why do publicly funded universities feel the need to hire well-connected lobbyists to get things done in this province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. John Milloy: I agree with the leader of the NDP: They have no reason to hire lobbyists. I want to make it very clear that our government—my ministry, my office—has a very good relationship with all of the province’s colleges and universities. I meet and speak regularly with presidents and senior officials, as do members of my staff and members of the ministry. In fact, I would hazard to guess that members of my ministry speak with these institutions on an ongoing basis, probably on a daily basis.

The fact of the matter is, there is no need for a lobbyist to have contact with my ministry or the government, and as the Premier has indicated, we want to bring in a new dawn of transparency here in Ontario and certainly make it clear that spending public funds on lobbyists is not acceptable.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Lakehead University spent more than $30,000 on lobbyists last year. Wilfrid Laurier University spent almost $70,000 on lobbyists. Something is very, very wrong here. Ontario students pay the highest tuition fees in the entire country. Why are universities spending that money on high-priced, well-connected, insider lobbyists?

Hon. John Milloy: The leader of the NDP can’t take yes for an answer. It’s simply not okay to spend public money on lobbyists. The Premier has sent that signal. We have sent that signal; myself and other ministers are looking at ways that we can work with our institutions to make sure that this does not happen. I repeat, again, I am in constant contact with all the institutions, as are members of my staff and my ministry. You do not need to have a lobbyist to make representations to this government.

We’re moving forward. I ask: Where were the NDP and the Conservatives when they were in power? They certainly did nothing to address this practice, and I’m proud of the leadership of the Premier in this area.

LOBBYISTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Our publicly funded colleges are also hiring lobbyists. The Ontario College of Art and Design paid $54,000 for the services of the same lobbyist that Laurentian used; Mohawk College has a $31,000 contract with the Pathway Group; Lambton College had a contract with the Capital Hill Group for $55,000.

Why are publicly funded colleges turning to well-connected insider lobbyists to get their issues on the McGuinty government’s agenda?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. John Milloy: As I said, I’m very proud of the ongoing relationship between myself, as minister, my office and my ministry with Ontario’s colleges and universities. It’s resulted in some of the most significant progress in post-secondary education in decades. We now have 140,000 more students in our colleges and universities. We’ve seen investments in the billions in infrastructure at our colleges and universities. We’ve seen an increase in terms of graduation rates at colleges and universities. That has been done in partnership between my ministry and these institutions.

They do not need lobbyists to make that progress. As I said, I’m proud of the leadership that the Premier has shown in this regard, and we will certainly be following suit in my ministry.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We found nearly a million dollars being diverted from students to lobbying. These public dollars should be invested in student aid and top-notch researchers, not handouts for well-connected insider lobbyists.

When will the Premier put an end to this practice and put a ban on lobbyists in the public sector once and for all?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, I am very proud of the close relationship that we have between this government and Ontario’s colleges and universities. We are a government that has invested in our students. We are a government that has introduced supports for tuition. We are a government that has made research and innovation one of our cornerstones.

It’s a little passing strange to have the leader of a party that, when they were in power, cut student aid, increased tuition and cut funding to institutions standing up and not talking about the strength of the system—a system that has been built on the very close relationship between us and the institutions directly.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The reality is that this government has created a culture that forces colleges and universities to rely on high-priced lobbyists. With tuition fees rising and our public institutions being told to do more with less, we can’t afford to spend our precious public dollars on fat contracts for insider lobbyists.

Will the Premier do the right thing? Will he finally do the right thing and ban this practice, or will he continue to let his well-connected lobbyist friends cash in with public dollars?

Hon. John Milloy: I am very proud of the progress that has been made in our colleges and universities, but I reject the assertion that they’ve been asked to do more with less. College and university operating grants have increased by $1.9 billion, or 73%, since 2002-03. We’ve invested over $1.5 billion in additional student support. We have invested billions and billions of dollars in infrastructure. This progress has been made through a close partnership between our government and our ministry and colleges and universities.

I agree with the leader of the NDP: There is no need for them to be spending public money on lobbyists. My ministry will be working to make sure that message is sent loud and clear to the college sector, something they neglected to do when they were in power and something the Conservatives neglected to do when they were in power.

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Premier. One year from tomorrow, Ontario families will have a clear choice between the Ontario PCs, who will ensure that what they pay goes to front-line care, or the sweetheart deals for Liberal-friendly consultants and lobbyists that didn’t end with the eHealth scandal. For example, the Ontario PC caucus obtained documents that show Courtyard moved on to William Osler health services, one of the hospitals paying consultants to lobby the McGuinty Liberals. Six months ago, we proposed legislation that would have stopped the waste, but they voted against it.

Will Premier McGuinty admit his mistake, support my motion and finally take real action on a real issue that matters to Ontario families?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I understand that the member from Whitby–Oshawa has put forth a motion. We all look forward to the debate. But let me tell you as clearly as I possibly can that it is simply not okay to use money intended for patient care to hire lobbyists to lobby government. That is not okay. I’ve been as clear as I can be on that. The Premier has been as clear as he can be on that.

My question to you is: Will you support us as we move forward to make the changes that are necessary? We have not had your support in the past when we have moved to increase transparency and accountability. Will you be with us this time when we make those important changes?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Sadly, nothing has changed; hence the need for our motion. We’ve uncovered even more proof that the same Liberal-friendly consultants who got rich from the eHealth scandal are now getting rich from hospital consulting and lobbying deals. Courtyard and Accenture have moved on to University Health Network. We also uncovered that Sudbury hospital is paying for McKinsey and Company’s contract to give this government advice on health care cuts. It’s the same contract we asked about months ago. It’s the same hospital, Sudbury media is reporting, that has been putting patients in a bathroom when emergency departments get too busy.

This government has had seven years. Will they give Ontario families the change they are looking for and support our motion to put a stop to McGuinty Liberal waste?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Once again, I don’t think we’re arguing about anything here. I think we all agree that change has to happen. I can tell you that the member opposite has recommended that that change come in the form of a memo. I can tell you, we are not talking about change in the form of a memo. We are talking about doing something much stronger than a memo.

Again, will you support us, unlike when we came forward with other transparency issues? Will you support us as we move to make sure that money intended for patient care goes to patient care?

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Peter Tabuns: To the Premier: Mauro Orlandi writes about his hydro bill:

“I am writing from Ottawa, Ontario, and am one of the unfortunate few who is being billed using the smart meters (time of day) as well as paying the HST.

“Even after only doing laundry on weekends,” as you’ve recommended, Premier, “and running the dishwasher on off-peaks, my hydro bill has gone up $130 per month to $328 monthly.

“This billing is completely out of control. It has effectively eaten any disposable income I had.”

Premier, is Mr. Orlandi going to see some relief or is he going to get hit even harder when the OEB announces the new hydro rates a couple of weeks from now?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I think our government very clearly, through the leadership of the Premier, about a week or so ago, displayed that we do understand that Ontario families are going through challenging times. That’s why we came forward with an initiative that’s going to provide relief for those families and relief for seniors through our energy and property tax credit, which is good news for all middle-income families in the province.

It also requires us to make very tough decisions when it comes to ensuring that we do what we need to do in conservation and do what we need to do to build a strong system of energy in this province. The member opposite joined me last week when we were at an event in his riding, in partnership with the lung association, as we celebrated the removal of four coal units from our system, cleaning our air, building a stronger system of energy, a more reliable system—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The Premier didn’t have a good answer on that one. I’ll try the second part.

Reema Bindari writes: “I have noticed about a $150 increase on my hydro bill on a monthly basis and have had to take my child out of his extracurricular activity to maintain our lifestyle.

“I can only imagine what other people are going through. This is unfair and unjust.”

The people of Ontario want an honest answer. Is Ms. Bindari going to get hit even harder when the OEB announces the new hydro rates a couple of weeks from now?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to go back to the event that the member and I attended just last Friday. I want to share with the Legislature a story about a lady who attended that event. She’s an ambassador with the lung association. She introduced me to something that she said was her best friend: It was her respirator.

She said to me, “Brad, I want you to express to the Premier my appreciation for the courage that he’s expressing, for the courage that he has demonstrated, in taking the decisions necessary to get us off coal, to clean our air and help the thousands of Ontarians like me suffering from a respiratory illness.” I appreciated the member joining us in the celebration, but it requires decisions in order to get there.

My question to the member opposite and his leader: Do you also have the courage to make the necessary decisions to help this lady and the thousands like her suffering from a respiratory illness across this province?

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Bruce Crozier: My question is to the Minister of Energy as well. Southwestern Ontario has one of the most highly skilled workforces anywhere in Canada. When the Green Energy Act was introduced, there was a lot of buzz in my part of the province around the jobs that would be coming to Ontario and the economy that would be built around clean energy. I know that many large-scale projects are in progress or coming online across the province, creating opportunities. This is good for the environment, and it’s good for the economy.

My question is this: Can the minister provide some tangible examples of jobs and investment in southwestern Ontario as a result of the Green Energy Act?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to thank the member for joining myself and a number of members in this Legislature, from all sides of the House, ironically, as we celebrated this very, very important day, not only for clean energy in this province, but an important day for our economy, as we talked about, announced and moved forward with initiatives that are creating thousands of jobs across this province, and more particularly in southwestern Ontario.

I want to thank the member opposite for his leadership. I want to thank my colleague the member from Lambton as well, who joined us and was very supportive of the initiatives that were taken. I suggest the member opposite have a little talk with his leader, who does not support those very important jobs that we’re working so hard to create, not only in his riding but in all of southwestern Ontario. It was—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Bruce Crozier: Being home to the largest online solar farm in the world is something that southwestern Ontario can take a great deal of pride in. It’s physical proof of the direction this government is taking while looking at the future of energy in this province. There’s no doubt about the advantages that clean renewables hold for Ontario. The Green Energy Act makes this clean energy a reality and creates an economy to go along with it.

My question is: On top of the thousands of manufacturing and construction jobs, and bringing clean energy online, what other benefits does the Green Energy Act hold for people in southwestern Ontario?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I can tell the member that one of the big added benefits for the people of southwestern Ontario—all Ontarians—is the fact that we’re bring renewable energy online and that that’s helping us shut down coal plants in this province.

On Friday, as I said earlier, I was with the Ontario Lung Association to announce the permanent closing of two coal units at Nanticoke and two coal units at Lambton, a coal plant that the member would certainly be quite familiar with. I was joined by physicians, nurses and average Ontarians, young and old, who, frankly, are having difficulty, many of them, just simply breathing.

I want to quote the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, which said: “Nurses are pleased with today’s announcement because it will save lives. We know up to 250 deaths each year are directly related to the burning of coal. Getting rid of toxins such as mercury and lead would reduce the estimated 100,000 asthma attacks and other illnesses that people suffer as a result of pollution from coal.”

Mr. Speaker—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Premier. One year from now, Ontario families will face a choice to ensure their tax dollars are spent for front-line care. Premier McGuinty has made no effort to stop putting his expensive health experiments ahead of priorities that matter to Ontario families. Children whose parents need long-term care want a leader who is focused on their priorities: creating long-term-care beds or options for appropriate alternate care.

You created bloated regional health bureaucracies and paid them a quarter of a billion dollars to deal with long-term care. The money is spent, but wait-lists for beds have doubled. What will it take for Premier McGuinty to change the direction he is taking Ontario long-term care in?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question.

When it comes to long-term care, we are making significant investments. We’ve now opened over 8,000 new long-term-care beds. In fact, just this past weekend we opened a long-term-care home in London, Ontario. We’re adding more capacity in long-term-care beds: We’ve got plans to open another 1,600 or more beds.

But what we are really doing that is innovative and really making a difference for seniors is, we are investing in keeping people at home as long as they possibly can be. What we are doing is, we’re making strategic investments so that people can delay or avoid altogether moving into long-term-care homes.

We are seeing results. I had the pleasure of meeting Keith Cooper, who actually had moved from long-term care into his own home because of the work of—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Your priority is making work for Liberal friends; the priority of children with elderly parents is making sure mom or dad have at least one bath per week. Your priority is to ensure your bloated bureaucracies are able to hire Disney actors and entertain them while they live it up at the Windsor casino; their priority is ensuring that mom and dad don’t have to wait 24 hours for someone to pick them up if they fall. Your priority, on the other hand, is to defend LHIN consultants, like Jay Connor, who bills for Starbucks in Tennessee; their priority is to make sure mom and dad don’t have to eat food that’s left on the counter to go bad.

Why do you think your priorities matter more than the priorities of Ontario families?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have to say that the rhetoric contained in that question was nothing short of astonishing. It comes from a party that is publicly committed to cutting $3 billion out of health care. I don’t know where they’re going to find $3 billion, but let me tell you, it is not going to result in better care for people.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Members will please come to order. The government side is shouting down their own member, and I’m trying to hear the minister’s answer.

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We have increased funding for long-term care by over $1 billion a year since we were elected in 2003. We are working very hard with long-term care to see improved quality of care, and we’re seeing remarkable results: fewer falls, fewer people with pressure ulcers, fewer cases of depression. We’re seeing excellent results as we build the capacity outside of hospitals and outside of long-term care.

Our plan is working for the people of Ontario; their plan is to cut back.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, you know that the Abitibi paper mill in Iroquois Falls is one of the most efficient plants in the chain of Abitibi when it comes to operating paper mills. Why? Because they generate their own electricity, and it’s a lot cheaper than buying it from you.

There is now a situation where Abitibi is looking at selling those dams off to the private sector to basically go into the generation business.

My question to you is simply this, on behalf of the people of Iroquois Falls and region: Will you say today categorically that you will not allow those dams to be separated from the production facility in Iroquois Falls?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I’m pleased to answer the question. Certainly our government has heard from municipal representatives, northern mayors specifically, about the potential adverse effects that they predict, should a sale occur, on the people of the communities of Iroquois Falls and Fort Frances. We’ve very aware of the historical significance of the hydroelectric stations and the arrangements in place that provide the electricity for local pulp and paper production. We absolutely share the concerns regarding how AbitibiBowater’s business decisions will have the potential to negatively impact mill workers and healthy northern communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: But Madam Minister, that is the crux of the issue. The water power lease agreements say that those dams need to be associated with the mill so we can produce paper in that community at a lesser price so that we can keep it open. There is a concern on the part of the municipal council. They responded to your letter on September 27, where they’re basically asking you for a copy of the water lease agreement because, quite frankly, they fear that this government is going to go forward with the sale of those dams and that mill in Abitibi may end up shutting down as a result.

I ask you this on behalf of the council: Are you prepared to share what’s in the water lease agreements with the municipality of Iroquois Falls?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I have met with Mayor Gilles Forget and other representatives of the town of Iroquois Falls to discuss the future of the hydroelectric dams. They’ve been very passionate about their choices to have us be their spokesperson on this issue.

Certainly MNR has not received any formal proposal around the sale of the dams, but, as I said, I’ve indicated that we’ve requested that Abitibi provide written confirmation of the guarantee that we’ve requested. Through this measure I think we’re signalling to Abitibi and the short list of bidders that our government is serious about the issue of power, particularly in Iroquois Falls, and we support those northern communities because we know how important those jobs are. We’re certainly in their corner and we’re going to be working very closely with them.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Bill Mauro: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Yesterday, the member from Kenora–Rainy River brought up an issue in his riding. A senior in Fort Frances received a letter regarding new long-term-care beds in Terrace Bay. He stated:

“Two weeks ago, she received a letter from the North West Community Care Access Centre, telling her that a long-term-care bed is open to her in Terrace Bay....

“Is this the McGuinty Liberals’ idea of quality long-term care for Ontario seniors? Send them 550 kilometres—seven hours—away from their family and friends?”

Could the minister please tell this House what this letter was all about and if people in this province are being forced to move farther away from their homes?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like to commend the member from Thunder Bay–Atikokan for being such a champion for his constituents.

I want to make it very clear: This government does not force seniors to move far away from their loved ones to go into long-term care. We do our very best to keep them as close to home as possible. That’s why we’ve opened 8,300 new long-term-care beds, including 22 beds in Terrace Bay, thanks to the member from Thunder Bay–Superior North. The CCAC was simply informing all people on their waiting list that there was a new option available. It is completely wrong to suggest that there was any forcing going on.

This is what the letter says: “We have reviewed our long-term-care home waiting lists and are notifying all clients of the opening of this new long-term-care home. Please … let us know whether or not you are interested in applying....”

Further, it says, “If you choose to apply”—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Mauro: I’m relieved, as I’m sure others are, to hear that this was simply a huge misinterpretation by the member.

I understand how important quality care is for residents and their families. In my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan, I know that residents were very concerned in 2005 when the city of Thunder Bay announced it would no longer be operating two municipal long-term-care homes. Recognizing this challenge, the LHIN and the Ministry of Health worked with St. Joseph’s health care to develop the Centre of Excellence for Integrated Seniors’ Services. In response, our government is investing in new long-term-care home beds at this centre, and I know that seniors will soon have even greater access to health care services with the construction of this new facility.

Could the minister please tell this House more about the centre and how it will benefit seniors in my riding?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m very happy to report on the progress of the Centre of Excellence for Integrated Seniors’ Services in Thunder Bay. This facility will have 336 long-term-care beds. A hundred and nine of those are new beds; the rest are redeveloped. A hundred and thirty-two supportive housing units offer more choices to seniors. They will promote their independence so they can continue to live with dignity and with respect.

The centre will respond to local populations’ increasing demand for seniors’ services, so they will also be able to provide community support services for an additional 150 clients and enhanced services for existing supportive housing units.

This is a centre of excellence that will make a profound difference for the people of Thunder Bay and will have implications right across this province as we learn from the work that is happening in northwestern Ontario.

GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is to the Minister of Consumer Services. Your regulation 440/08 is a response to the Sunrise Propane explosion. You require risk and safety management plans by the end of this year, yet there are only about four or five qualified professional engineers in Ontario to prepare them.

Minister, will you suspend this regulation and work with propane dealers to write a sensible regulation?

Hon. John Gerretsen: First of all, of course, the member would surely agree that the safety and protection of the people of Ontario is paramount. It was with that in mind that right after this unfortunate event happened two years ago, we had an expert panel convened of two of the most prominent experts in the country to deal with this situation. They wrote a report. A regulation was passed almost two years ago. Since then, we’ve been looking at the implementation of that regulation, which will happen as of January 1, 2011.

We totally agree that there are different standards that should be applied to different sizes of organizations. We are working right now with the propane industry, we’re working with the expert panel and we’re working with the TSSA to come up with a system that will be sensible for all so that these businesses can remain in operation, but also so that society and the people of Ontario can be protected to the best of our ability.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Julia Munro: Minister, each plan costs $25,000, an amount that will force 90% of Ontario’s propane refill installations to close. Rural areas depend on propane. Campgrounds and recreation vehicles depend on propane. You are destroying tourism, small businesses and small communities. Surely there is a way to address safety concerns without turning the lights off on small businesses. Minister, will you withdraw this regulation until you get it right?

Hon. John Gerretsen: As I indicated to the member before, we are working on the situation right now for both the large facilities and the smaller facilities. We are working towards a solution, but the safety of the people of Ontario is absolutely paramount. We’ve got that in mind.

We want to make sure that, at the end of the day, we’ve got a system that the fire services and municipalities can live with, that the operators can live with, that the TSSA can live with, so that the people of Ontario can be protected to the best of our ability. We’re working on that, and if the member stays tuned there will be an announcement made on that fairly shortly.

COURT INTERPRETERS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. There are more than 640,000 Chinese Canadians in Ontario. More than 70,000 speak only Mandarin. Why does this province have no accredited Mandarin court interpreters?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Attorney General.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: In fact, we have a group of interpreters in the province of Ontario who are as good and qualified as any throughout the country. What we’ve worked to do over the years—the past two years in particular—is to support and improve their qualifications. One of the things we have found in the course of that is that we need some extra in certain languages. That’s actually one of the things that has come out of the extended review of the qualifications.

We’re going to work to find and accredit as many interpreters as we can in all the necessary languages for court proceedings. We’re going to keep working on that until we have as many as we need.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This is a serious matter that could compromise the integrity of our justice system. The province is relying on unaccredited individuals to act as court interpreters. Let’s be clear: These are people who have failed the government’s

interpretation testing.

I’m sure the government wouldn’t allow an unaccredited surgeon to operate or an unaccredited pilot to fly the Premier’s plane. Why are they allowing unaccredited language interpreters in our courts?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I think the leader of the third party’s question touches the important point: that these are qualified people. The accreditation process was undertaken to support and enhance qualifications that are generally acknowledged to be as good as or better than anywhere else in the country, so the analogy drawn by the leader of the third party is not an accurate one.

We’re going to make sure we have fully qualified people to do the

interpretation at every case that’s required. One of the advantages of instituting this new approach, which has had some communications challenges, is that we’re in fact identifying where we need to do more—and we can do more and find more accredited, qualified people.

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. Dave Levac: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

On January 12, 2010, we received the shocking news that Haiti, one of the world’s most impoverished countries, was hit with a series of 7.0-magnitude earthquakes, causing catastrophic destruction. Buildings all over Haiti’s capital of Port-au-Prince were reduced to rubble, killing and injuring thousands of people.

In my riding of Brant, I witnessed an overwhelming act of charity for those affected by the devastation of the earthquake. Students in my riding who attended the Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board, the Grand Erie District School Board and the private schools took action and raised over $60,000 in support of Haiti. It is truly an amazing example of the power of charity and the compassion our children have displayed for those who need it most in a time of crisis.

I know that the member from Eglinton–Lawrence recently attended a Haiti-related announcement in his riding. Minister, would you please provide with us an update on this announcement?

Hon. James J. Bradley: That’s an excellent question.

First of all, hats off to the students of the Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board and the Grand Erie District School Board.

The earthquake, I think we all know, was a devastating occurrence in Haiti, and the support of the people of Haiti shown by communities throughout Ontario and Canada has been truly inspiring.

In my constituency of St. Catharines, I’ve received much correspondence concerning relief efforts, and I’ve witnessed the creation of many community-based initiatives in support of Haiti.

The people of Haiti needed help and Ontarians were quick to respond, none more quickly than the school kids. The unequivocal support that our children, Ontario’s students, have shown for Haitians in need is truly inspiring.

The member for Eglinton–Lawrence recently spoke at Lawrence Park Collegiate Institute, where students collected more than $12,700 for the Canadian Red Cross and Free the Children’s Haiti fund. In total, Toronto—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Dave Levac: I know it’s easy to say that I’m proud of the students in the riding, but I am absolutely convinced that every member in this House is proud of the way the students in their ridings responded and, indeed, of all of the students across Ontario for stepping up for those in need.

The youth of Ontario have shown great character. We should all be proud of the strength and leadership shown by our youth. Their actions do make a difference around the world.

As an educator, I truly believe that our children’s actions are the reflection of their parents’ and their teachers’ efforts to instill in them a sense of charity. Alongside of our government’s effort to create strong social leaders, together we are helping our students create positive local and global change.

The earthquake that destroyed hundreds of thousands of homes destroyed infrastructure through Haiti: schools, hospitals and roads. Haiti requires continued support in rebuilding after the earthquake, and in particular with the redevelopment of the infrastructure, which is the key component to Haiti’s recovery. Would the minister—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Excellent question.

I can tell the member that the province is moving forward to rebuild three public schools in Port-au-Prince. The member for Eglinton–Lawrence announced that a request for proposals to design and construct the three schools has been issued. We hope to announce the successful bidder by mid-November. All three schools were destroyed by the earthquake and have been identified by Haiti’s national ministry of education as priorities for rebuilding.

These buildings will be constructed in a manner that makes them disaster-resilient, pursuant to the internationally recognized California building code. Construction of these schools will begin in early 2011. Each school will have about nine classrooms, plus rooms for administration, meals and other supports, and access to water, sewage treatment and electricity.

It’s a matter of thanking the students in this province and the government working with those students to assist those who are devastated by the earthquake—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question?

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. There’s been a great deal of controversy over the closing of the lake sturgeon fishing industry in the entire province of Ontario as it’s listed as “threatened.”

In a recent

article in the Sault Star, it was stated that the ministry saw far more sturgeon than they ever expected in Lake Superior. Why would you close sturgeon fishing province-wide and place sturgeon on the threatened list when the data continues to clearly show that it’s not?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I thank the member for the question. My ministry works very hard with a lot of fish management zone councils to evaluate the health of fish throughout the province of Ontario, and certainly any decisions we make are on the basis of science. We use the science to inform the decisions we make, and we work with local fish management zone councils to make sure that we have the best information. We’re happy to look at all the science-based information in order to make those decisions. We work closely with the local areas and our stakeholders to make those decisions, and they are informed by the science.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: Minister, your own report, The Lake Sturgeon in Ontario, July 2009, states: “The impacts of dams and hydroelectric facilities appears to be the single largest impediment to the recovery of sturgeon in Ontario. Ironically, the threat to sturgeon as a result of the construction of large dams is expected to increase as the province of Ontario looks to increase the number of new hydroelectric sites to meet future energy demands.”

Recreational anglers had no effect on sturgeon populations, but the McGuinty government’s Green Energy Act threatens the habitat for sturgeon even more. It appears that the MNR is admitting that the Green Energy Act is going to have a detrimental effect on sturgeon populations.

Minister, why are you ignoring your own report and punishing recreational anglers?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I think that’s a stretch to make that leap. I think our quota systems and our science are all informed by the long-term sustainability of our fish populations and, ultimately, the economic viability of the commercial fishing industry and fish-based communities. We work with lots of other communities. We work with the US border communities to reach agreements on what kind of fishing stock is available, the quota and the health of those populations.

So I would say that the fluctuations in the quotas and the sustainability of fish populations are informed by the science, whether it’s the water lake levels, the temperature in those lakes, or the health and sustainability of those fish populations. We work with the scientists and we work with our fish management zone councils, and we appreciate their advice. That helps inform the decisions we make at my ministry.

SOLDIERS’ REMAINS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. On May 19, I asked the Premier if he would fund a proper archaeological excavation, burial and recognition for the fallen soldiers of the War of 1812. The Premier said, “I think there’s a legitimate issue here, and we undertake to look into it,” which left the impression of a positive outcome.

Why has the Premier allowed the funding to be refused?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know the minister is going to want to speak to this in more detail, but I think, in fairness, in trying to introduce a modicum of objectivity into the workings of this place, when my honourable colleague raised that issue with me, I did, in fact, say that I would agree to look into it. I didn’t say anything more and I didn’t say anything less.

I’ve had the opportunity to look into it, I’ve had the opportunity to speak with the Minister of Tourism, and we’ve landed on a decision. I’ll allow the minister to speak to that more directly momentarily.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: The Premier’s office quite rightly takes the lead on recognition of fallen police officers, firefighters and other emergency services, as well as Remembrance Day ceremonies. But in the case of these fallen soldiers, the Premier fobs off the funding request to the Minister of Tourism and Culture.

Why is this Premier’s office not taking the lead on and funding the proper reinterment and recognition of these fallen heroes, the soldiers of the War of 1812?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Tourism.

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you very much for the question from the honourable member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

I’m proud to advise that our government, so far, has invested $27 million in funding into the War of 1812. The War of 1812 is an important element in our history. It is said that Canada was saved because of the war.

With regard to the city of Hamilton’s request, it’s not within my ministry’s mandate. That said, our government has invested another $1 million to assist seven regional groups in planning and developing 1812 activities across the province. This includes the western corridor bicentennial alliance, which represents the city of Hamilton.

I appreciate the significance of the battle of Stoney Creek, and I encourage the city of Hamilton to discuss their project with this alliance so that we can come up with a proposal to address the situation.

MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. As governments of all levels face tough fiscal decisions in these lean times, there is a concern that the municipal budget shortfalls will translate into a reduction in services or the quality of services for Ontarians.

We all know that municipal elections across the province are rightly providing for discussion on these circumstances. I have noticed, however, that in my community and elsewhere, there is a perception and commentary suggesting that at least part of this fiscal challenge is a result of the province downloading services or costs onto municipal governments.

My question: Minister, is this correct?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I want to thank the member for Ottawa Centre for the question. He raises a very good question. It’s one that I think we should all pay close attention to.

We are in the process of uploading a variety of costs, which will provide a net benefit of $1.8 billion to municipalities by 2018. This will see more than $41 million saved in the member’s riding of Ottawa this year alone, with an estimated benefit of more than $122 million by 2018.

There are a few interesting statistics. It will see every riding under the official opposition’s watch save roughly $250 million this year alone. It will also see every riding under the third party’s watch save roughly $220 million this year alone. So I find it very, very difficult to understand why they voted against—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Ontarians can remember a time when this was not the case. I am very proud that our government has taken bold action in the last seven years to reverse the pitfalls of reckless downloading and the degradation of services that accompany that ideological approach, but my constituents know very well that the province is also managing difficult economic circumstances and is exercising a plan to recover from deficits brought about from the biggest recession since the Second World War.

Can the minister assure my constituents that this government will not, unlike past governments, look to downloading services on the backs of local governments?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Again, I want to thank the member for the question. It’s a very important one.

It is important to point out that while the two opposition parties did not support these measures—in fact, they voted against them—it is quite the landmark agreement and has received strong support from the 444 municipalities that are affected.

Our plan is to carry through with the agreement we entered into. So we are uploading Ontario Works benefits, saving municipalities $425 million, and court security costs, which will save municipalities $125 million by 2018. This year, we begin our upload on the ODSP program and are finishing that upload in 2011, which will save municipalities $340 million. The Ontario drug benefit upload will save municipalities $158 million.

So unlike the previous NDP and Harris-Hudak regimes, we are about working with municipalities—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: My question is to the Premier. Premier, about two weeks ago, in an answer to my question, you indicated that you were going to undertake a new look at the request of Nortel pensioners. I would hope that you would outline to me the process that you and your finance minister are going through with regard to their request. Would you also indicate whether or not you are going to enter into public meetings so that all Nortel pensioners and legislators here can hear the answers to the questions that the Nortel pensioners are putting to the government?

I believe the government owes these pensioners the right to have their questions answered in public so that everyone knows what the risks and benefits are for the Nortel pensioners.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: As the Premier indicated, we are undertaking a review. There have been ongoing discussions with the principals involved, representing a number of the pensioners. Just as we responded with $250 million to protect the first $1,000 of pension money, we take these all of these issues very seriously and want to work with all retirees, all former members of the plan, to try to resolve this in a way that protects the interests of as many of the Nortel pensioners as possible. We are continuing that review.

DEFERRED VOTES

NARCOTICS SAFETY

AND AWARENESS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

ET LA SENSIBILISATION

EN MATIÈRE DE STUPÉFIANTS

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 101,

An Act to provide for monitoring the prescribing and dispensing of certain controlled substances / Projet de loi 101, Loi prévoyant la surveillance des activités liées à la prescription et à la préparation de certaines substances désignées.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a deferred vote on second reading of Bill 101. Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1136 to 1141.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members please take their seats.

Ms. Matthews has moved second reading of Bill 101. All those in favour will rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

Aggelonitis, Sophia

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Best, Margarett

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Cansfield, Donna H.

Caplan, David

Carroll, Aileen

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Steve

Colle, Mike

Craitor, Kim

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Christine

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gélinas, France

Gravelle, Michael