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

May 30, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-May-30 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 30 May 2002 Jeudi 30 mai 2002

ATTACK ON THE UNITED STATES

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TOMMY DOUGLAS ACT

(PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS), 2002 /

LOI TOMMY DOUGLAS DE 2002

SUR LA DÉCLARATION

DES DROITS DES PATIENTS

FIREFIGHTERS' MEMORIAL ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LE MONUMENT COMMÉMORATIF

EN HOMMAGE AUX POMPIERS

TOMMY DOUGLAS ACT

(PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS), 2002 /

LOI TOMMY DOUGLAS DE 2002

SUR LA DÉCLARATION

DES DROITS DES PATIENTS

FIREFIGHTERS' MEMORIAL ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LE MONUMENT COMMÉMORATIF

EN HOMMAGE AUX POMPIERS

TOMMY DOUGLAS ACT

(PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS), 2002 /

LOI TOMMY DOUGLAS DE 2002

SUR LA DÉCLARATION

DES DROITS DES PATIENTS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

INTEL INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE

AND ENGINEERING FAIR

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

DAVE BROADFOOT

EMERGENCY SERVICES

INJURED WORKERS

TRAFALGAR MORAINE

HEALTH CARE

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 58

VISITORS

JACK WILKINSON

WORLD CUP SOCCER

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

STUDENT OPPORTUNITY ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

OFFRANT DE NOUVELLES POSSIBILITÉS D'ÉDUCATION POSTSECONDAIRE

AUX ÉTUDIANTS

HEALTH PROTECTION

AND PROMOTION AMENDMENT ACT

(FOOD HANDLERS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION ET LA PROMOTION DE LA SANTÉ (PRÉPOSÉS

À LA MANUTENTION DES ALIMENTS)

COLLECTION AGENCIES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES AGENCES

DE RECOUVREMENT

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

AND SECURITY GUARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES ENQUÊTEURS PRIVÉS

ET LES GARDIENS

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO ONE

COMPETITIVE ELECTRICITY MARKET

EDUCATION FUNDING

HYDRO ONE

ONTARIO BUDGET

SPECIAL EDUCATION

EDUCATION FUNDING

HYDRO ONE

MINISTRY OF HEALTH CONTRACT

TOURISM

LONG-TERM CARE /

SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE BOARD

PETITIONS

HYDRO ONE

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

YOUNG OFFENDER FACILITY

HYDRO ONE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

HYDRO ONE

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

EDUCATION FUNDING

HYDRO ONE

PODIATRIC SERVICES

HYDRO ONE

USE OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES

IN SCHOOLS

EDUCATION FUNDING

WEARING OF HOCKEY JERSEY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROHIBITING PROFITING

FROM RECOUNTING CRIMES ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 INTERDISANT

LES GAINS TIRÉS

DU RÉCIT D'ACTES CRIMINELS

STUDENT PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LA PROTECTION DES ÉLÈVES

Thursday 30 May 2002 Jeudi 30 mai 2002

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ATTACK ON THE UNITED STATES

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga Centre): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: At 10:29 this morning in New York City there will be a solemn ceremony to

mark the removal of the last piece of debris from the terrible events around September 11. I seek the unanimous consent of this House to stand at 10:29 of the clock this morning for one minute of

silence in honour of those who gave their lives to the people of this country and this world on that terrible day and at those terrible locations where those events occurred.

I ask also that the clock stop for that one minute in recognition of the fact that at that point in time, time did indeed stop.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Agreed? Agreed.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TOMMY DOUGLAS ACT

(PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS), 2002 /

LOI TOMMY DOUGLAS DE 2002

SUR LA DÉCLARATION

DES DROITS DES PATIENTS

Ms Martel moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 27,

An Act to promote patients' rights and to increase accountability in Ontario's health care system / Projet de loi 27, Loi visant à promouvoir les

droits des patients et à accroître l'obligation de rendre des comptes dans le système de soins de santé de l'Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for Nickel Belt has 10 minutes to make a presentation.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): It's my pleasure this morning to debate second reading of Bill 27, the Tommy Douglas Act (Patients' Bill of

Rights). With this bill, New Democrats are taking the first step to put the focus of our health care system back where it belongs; that is, on patients and their families. We believe that our

health care system has to be far more responsive to the needs of the people it was originally designed to serve. So our bill will put into law what Ontarians can expect from our health care system

and it will ensure both the development of and accountability for health care standards for patients.

Before I deal with the provisions of the bill, I'd like to point out that this is the third time the New Democratic Party has introduced a patients' bill of

rights in the Ontario Legislature. In 1998 my colleague Marion Boyd, the former MPP for London Centre, introduced Bill 50. It was debated at second reading on October 15, 1998, and during the

debate it was endorsed by members on all sides. Regrettably, while the government members voted in favour of Bill 50, the government then blocked it from being sent to the standing committee on

social development for further consideration. Ms Boyd reintroduced the bill in April 1999, but it died on the order paper with the call of the 1999 election.

I'm introducing the same bill that was put forward by my colleague Ms Boyd. There are two changes that have been made to it. Let me tell you what they are.

The first is a change in the title of the bill. It is no accident that I have named the patients' bill of rights after Tommy Douglas, the founder of medicare. He

waged a tremendous battle as the Premier of Saskatchewan to bring in publicly funded, publicly administered health care coverage for the residents of his province. That model of the single-payer

health system was subsequently adopted across this country.

Medicare today continues to give Ontario and, frankly, Canada an enormous social and economic advantage and we cannot underestimate that fact, nor can we take it

for granted. New Democrats believe that an overwhelming majority of Ontarians continue to support medicare and they want an expansion of publicly funded, publicly administered health care

services.

The second change comes in the

section including the health care standards commissioner. It increases the number of health care organizations and health care

providers with whom the health care standards commissioner should consult while developing standards of care.

Otherwise, the bill remains unchanged from the one that was introduced by Ms Boyd. In that regard, I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge the tremendous amount

of work and effort she put into developing those bills. They were drafted after much consultation with the Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario Nurses' Association, the Registered Nurses

Association of Ontario, CUPE, OPSEU and SEIU. Frankly, the provisions developed in 1998-99 are as important today as, if not more important than, they were then.

I want to describe some of the provisions of Bill 27. The

preamble makes it clear that the principles of the Canada Health Act should be extended to include not

only hospitals and doctors' offices, as the act now covers, but should also include public health and long-term care, both in the community and in facilities. This extension of the Canada Health

Act would recognize the objectives of health care policy applied to every stage of life and across every sector of the health care system.

What Ontarians can and should expect from their health care system is codified in the patients' bill of rights. The most important provision is the right to

receive all necessary health care services in a health care system that is accessible, universal, comprehensive, publicly funded and publicly administered, one that ensures timely treatment, one

that ensures choice of treatments, one that recognizes that every provider of health care services is a valued member of an interdisciplinary team and one that does not permit income to determine

access to health care services.

Other rights of patients include the right to give or to refuse consent to treatment; the right to obtain full information regarding who will provide health care

services and what their qualifications are; the right to participate in developing plans of care; the right to make complaints without fear of reprisal; the right to receive information about the

rules and policies which affect health care providers, and so on.

Health care standards, clinical best practices and standards for health facility management would be developed by a health care standards commissioner, and he or

she would be appointed as an officer of the assembly, like the Ombudsman or the Provincial Auditor. The bill outlines the many health care professionals and health care organizations which would be

involved in developing those same standards. The commissioner would also be responsible for implementing a complaints process so that patients whose rights have been violated or who are concerned

that standards of care are not being met have somewhere to go to have this investigated and dealt with.

Every year, the commissioner would have to report to the Legislature on the complaints that have been dealt with and would also make recommendations to the

government on changes to health care laws and health care policies. In this way, there would be accountability with respect to health care standards for patients. The onus would be on the

government of the day, on health care facilities and on health care providers to make the best effort to respond to both the concerns and the recommendations made by the health care standards

commissioner.

The final section, on whistle-blower protection, is aimed at allowing health care providers to come forward when the system is failing patients and their

families without fear of reprisal from their employers. Patients are very vulnerable when they are ill or when they are injured. Too many will not speak out because they fear losing the few

services that they have.

So providers must have a mechanism to advocate for patients when they see that their employer is failing to meet standards, clinical practices and the health

care needs of these same patients. That mechanism must include being able to come forward and not be disciplined, not be demoted or not be fired as a result.

I would encourage all members to support this bill. I urge the government members, in particular, to support this bill and to support sending it to a standing

committee for further development. I say that because this government, despite repeated promises, has not brought forward its own patients' bill of rights. That was first promised by Minister

Witmer in 1997, when she spoke to an ONA-RNAO convention and said that she intended to present a patients' bill of rights.

That promise was repeated in 1998, after Ms Boyd introduced Bill 50. The promise was repeated again in the 1999 Conservative election platform, the 1999 throne

speech and the 1999 budget. It was repeated again in the 2000 throne speech and the 2000 budget. In fact, in the 2000 budget the government announced $10 million would be spent that year to

implement a patients' bill of rights in Ontario.

The fact of the matter is that a government bill has not come forward. In light of that, I am asking government members in particular to work with the bill that

I have brought forward today. Work with me and work with this bill so that we can finally put in place legislation which does protect patients and does ensure that the health care needs of

Ontarians are recognized and then are met.

In conclusion, I said at the outset that the Tommy Douglas patients' bill of rights puts the focus of health care back where it belongs: on patients and their

families. I encourage all members to support it and to support its referral to a standing committee.

The Acting Speaker: I'd like to bring members' attention to a visitor we have in the west members' gallery. Tom Wells, the mayor of Haileybury,

is with us.

Further debate?

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): It is indeed my pleasure to rise today to address the member for Nickel Belt's private member's bill, which was

introduced just recently here, on May 23.

It's really a two-page bill. I would say at the very outset I wholeheartedly support the bill and I must inform her that our government is already developing a

patients' charter of rights and responsibilities.

As she has mentioned in her remarks, there has been a lot of work done by this government and commitments have been made. More specifically, the April 2001

speech from the throne outlined our core goal of ensuring accountability in the health care sector. A patients' charter not only letting people know what they have a right to expect from the health

care system but outlining their responsibilities in return is very much a part of this government's agenda of accountability, as you've heard before.

The patients' charter of rights and responsibilities is but one in a series of initiatives this government is implementing as part of its accountability agenda

to improve Ontario's health care system.

The Blueprint pledged a patients' charter and other elements of a comprehensive accountability framework, including patient satisfaction surveys, hospital report

cards and regular reporting to citizens on the performance of their local hospital. Budget 2000 contained a commitment to the patients' charter, hospital report cards and related accountability

mechanisms. In fact, we have already begun to issue hospital report cards to let the public know how their hospitals are performing.

We have consulted on the health care system on a scale that has never been seen before in this province. We went to the public through our public dialogue to

find out what they thought about the health care system. It turns out patients indicated that although they could see improvements, they were generally satisfied with the health care system,

specifically those receiving treatment.

There are many out there that are not in the system, or demanding from the system, that are clearly stakeholders that are staking out their territory.

So our strong commitment to accountability to patients and to providers in the health care system is already on the record.

Something as important to health care and its future sustainability as a patients' charter of rights and responsibilities must have public discussion. As we move

forward, we will consult on the specific elements of the charter to ensure it works for both patients and providers. We will also be asking for advice on the proposed elements of our charter,

incorporating both the needs of Ontarians and the needs of a sustainable health system for our collective future. In this respect, we welcome Ms Martel's contribution to the discussion.

Many of the elements of Bill 27 are already found in the proposed charter, such as the right to give or refuse consent for health care services; the right to all

information necessary to make fully informed health care choices; the right to be dealt with by health care service providers without mental, physical, sexual or financial abuse; the right to make

complaints, raise concerns, and recommend changes without fear of interference, coercion, discrimination or reprisal -- in other words, a whistle-blowing clause.

However, it is important to note that patients not only have rights but, on the other side of the equation, responsibilities. We need to encourage all Ontarians

to participate in discussions with their health care providers to ensure that they know the options available to them. It is also important that the people of Ontario use the health care system

responsibly. That is why, a number of months back, the Minister of Health announced that people would be receiving statements on their health care use -- a long-called-for accountability mechanism.

These are not bills, but statements that would indicate the true cost of health care services.

I think the biggest problem today is that many perceive the system is free. However, there is more to using the health care system responsibly. From ensuring

that medical appointments are kept or cancelled in a timely manner to improving awareness of healthy lifestyle, patients also have responsibilities.

In many ways, Bill 27 is a duplication of our already initiated objectives. But it doesn't go far enough. It only addresses one side of the equation. We must

recognize, for the good of our health care system, that patients have rights and responsibilities.

In the remaining moment or two, I think it's important to put on the record the many current initiatives that Minister Clement is working toward. I think the

family health network system, which has been endorsed by the OMA, a phenomenon in health care that includes a very comprehensive, one-stop approach for patients and their physicians, provided with

other health care providers, can make a truly comprehensive health care system work for all Ontarians, whether they're in urban areas or rural areas like my riding.

Just recently I met with Dr Ruth Wilson, who's the head of the Ontario Family Health Network, in my role as PA to health, and I'm convinced that this is the

solution for the future in primary health care reform, and indeed health care. But it starts with rights and responsibilities.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): I'm very pleased to stand in support of this bill by Ms Martel and hope that we can, in fact, have one day

in Ontario a patients' bill of rights. As the member from Nickel Belt mentioned, it is a very familiar story to be talking about a patients' bill of rights because I too remember then-Health

Minister Witmer discussing the potential of having this bill back in 1997. I would ask the people of Ontario this morning what they have noticed has changed about the health care system in Ontario,

other than a greater and greater need every year to have a patients' bill of rights. I disagree wholeheartedly with the members opposite who would suggest today that people are very pleased with

the care health system.

What has happened in Ontario is that people have begun to expect less. People with money have been encouraged to go elsewhere for health care. That's what has

happened in Ontario. So while I certainly will vote in support of this bill today, I am very cynical about what we can expect to come out of such a bill regarding health care in Ontario.

I ask the question of the government, what rights do patients have? What rights do ordinary citizens have to health care? I would ask anyone opposite to come and

spend some time in my own home riding of Windsor. I would ask the members of the Conservative Party to come and I would ask them, how long is too long a wait on a cardiac care list for angioplasty?

I would ask the members opposite, how long is too long a wait to get in to see a neurosurgeon where I come from? I would ask, how long is too long a wait to get to see an ob-gyn? We have a raft of

specialists who no longer practise in my city. They've moved or they've been enticed to go south of the border.

You can't access a family doctor in my town if you've just moved to my city, where we have an average now of some 30,000 to 40,000 to 50,000 people -- they can't

guess how many -- without a family doctor. We've heard this government go on and on about primary care reform since 1995, as long as I've been here, and we still have, today in Ontario, 2% of

family doctors participating in rostering or in some form of primary care reform -- 2% of family doctors. While this government is famous for making many, many announcements, nothing comes to

fruition in terms of improving health care.

Here is a very telling example. Within this past month I've sat with a whole number of nurses who work in all parts of Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital in my hometown,

and we talked about how after these many years people cannot expect to have better care, because they can't access it. The number one issue for people in Windsor is access. So we said, "How can it

be that people in Windsor still wait hours and hours in our emergency room?" Surely the government would know by now that there would be a solution to this. By the government's own policies,

they've created longer and longer waits right across the board in accessing health care service.

When I spoke of the people who still call my office today and say, "How can it be that they could sit in a waiting room that long a time for something as simple

as a shoulder dislocation, which surely won't kill them but is probably one of the most painful experiences an individual could have?" one of the nurses piped up and said, "We have resolved some of

that issue." "Oh, and was that resolved?" "We decided to start administering some pain therapy while they're waiting in the emergency room." So in fact local professionals somehow have had to

devise a way to mitigate what is a terrible length of time to wait in an emergency room by starting to give them shots while they're still sitting by the front door, instead of accessing a doctor

and getting them into a hospital bed when that's required. We'll hear many, many stories now of more codes that are being implemented to try to deal with this.

When we heard about emergency vehicles being turned away and redirected across Ontario, the government's answer to this resulted simply in changing how they

started counting what they call "code 7." So instead of these ambulances waiting and counting the amount of time they waited, they were now asked to give ambulances a 15-minute grace period before

starting to count the amount of time the ambulance had to wait.

So I would question, even when we pass this bill today, which surely we'll be passing, what will change in this patients' bill of rights? We need to account; we

want better accounting in the health care system. But if professionals are constantly called on to change how we count instead of the government being held to account for how they service the

public, what will really change? The people in my hometown still will wait and wait for services. This is the kind of health care system that is unacceptable.

In honour of Tommy Douglas, and with that name I'll also throw in that of Paul Martin Sr, who brought medicare to the nation, thanks to the work Tommy Douglas

did in his home province, I'm proud to support this bill and I encourage all my colleagues in this House to do the same.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): It is indeed a privilege and an honour to stand here to speak in favour of this bill. I am very happy to

see that it appears it's going to receive all-party approval.

Tommy Douglas has been called many things, but one of them is the father of medicare. In his name, this is an excellent bill. As the member for Nickel Belt so

correctly pointed out, this had its roots in rural Saskatchewan in the 1930s. People were finding that they were losing their homes, they were becoming bankrupt over medical costs and they were

unable to get basic medical services or find a doctor. Tommy Douglas fought very long and very hard for decent and affordable, universal medicare for the people of Saskatchewan. He did so for many

years and through a great deal of turmoil. There were doctors' strikes; there were problems in the hospitals that had to be massaged out and worked on until it became acceptable in that

province.

Medicare went on to become a national movement. Yes, I heard the previous speaker and, yes, it was a Liberal government in Ottawa that brought that about, but

they in no small way brought it about because Tommy Douglas was by then the leader of the New Democratic Party, its first leader, and campaigned quite effectively on the need to have a universal

national program for all Canadians.

I remember as a young student growing up in Ontario those 1960s debates, and the emotion of all the debate on whether or not it was possible or feasible or

whether we should go ahead and try to do that. There were many people in the early 1960s who said that it could not be done and should not be done, that it would destroy relationships between

doctors and patients. With the hindsight of 40 years we can see that much of that argument was false. In fact, today most Canadians will tell you that the institution of government they like best

in this country, the institution they most respect and the institution they will fight hardest to preserve is that 40-year-old tradition of universal health care, which was brought about in the

1960s in this country.

Mr Romanow is travelling the country, trying to get input, and almost universally he is hearing this same message: people want the system to be protected, they

want it to be expanded, they want to have input in it and they do not in any way want something to come between them and the health care system that works for all Canadians.

The bill before us today is an excellent bill. It is a bill that is long overdue. It is a bill that has been promised literally for years.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. By unanimous consent of the House, we will all rise and observe one minute of silence -- the galleries are

welcome to participate -- in honour of remembrance and acknowledgement of the horrific events that took place at the World Trade Center in New York City, as they remove the last piece of debris.

The clock will be stopped for one minute.

The House observed one minute's silence.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

The member for Beaches-East York.

Mr Prue: This is a bill whose time has come, just as surely as national medicare's time came in the 1960s. It is a time when we can extend, and

need to extend, the rights of patients especially to know what they can expect in the system. We already know what the institutions are expected to deliver. We already know what the medical

practitioners -- the doctors, nurses, chiropodists and everyone else involved in the medical system -- are supposed to do, but this is an opportunity for ordinary people to understand how the

medical system is to work for them.

They will have the opportunity to know their rights. They will have the opportunity to know what they can expect when they walk into a doctor's office, when they

walk into a hospital, when they walk into a home for the aged or from home care in their homes. Those are the places where people go, or to whence professionals come to their homes, to get medical

care.

I'd like to digress for just a moment to talk about some of the problems that ordinary people are encountering in some of those institutions. Recently, the

Toronto Star, Canada's largest newspaper, has run day after day, page after page, a synopsis of what takes place at Toronto East General Hospital. That is located in my riding of Beaches-East York,

and it is a community hospital that is universally accepted in the community. People call that their community hospital. They go there for any range of ailments, for emergencies; they go there for

minor operations. It is one of Canada's largest birthing centres. Many, many babies are born in that hospital, including my two brothers, who were both born there. It is a hospital that the

community respects and it is a hospital that they support. In fact, every year when there is fundraising, you can count on the community to spend a lot of money in support of their community

hospital, because they believe it belongs to them. It is part of their community; it is part of their health system.

But we have seen in the Toronto Star articles over the last week or so some of the cracks that are appearing in that hospital system, and some of the patients

who believe they are not getting the kind of care that they always thought they should have gotten. We have seen the workers who are stretched to the limit. There aren't as many of them now as

there once were. The demands upon them are getting worse and worse, being stretched to provide the kind of human care, the kind of one-on-one relationship with the patients that the patients have

come or should reasonably come to expect.

We need something in those hospitals. We need something so that the patients who are lying there in the beds, the patients who are waiting in the emergency

rooms, the patients who are waiting to see doctors, can look on the wall and see what they can reasonably expect; that they can expect to be seen in emergency within an hour or two, that they can

expect that the doctor will use sympathy with them and be sympathetic to the ailments that they may have, that they can expect that if there are prescriptions or medicine needed at the end of their

visit, it will be properly prescribed, that they can expect that their medical practitioners and all those who are involved will do everything possible to make the experience, if not pleasant, the

least onerous possible, the least troubling possible.

We believe that this is a good bill, because it covers not just hospitals, not just clinics, not just doctors' offices, but home care and nursing homes and

community-based care. Surely we have to start worrying about the aging population in this province. For any of you who have gone into nursing homes -- I'm sure most of us have in the last couple of

years -- one has to know that the frail elderly who are living in those homes are older than they were a generation ago. We have to know that they suffer many ailments that, a generation ago,

simply were not seen, because the people are living so much longer. The level of dementia, the level of Alzheimer disease and cognitive inability in our nursing homes is now up to 60% and 70% and

80% in some of them. Those people do not have the wherewithal to understand what they should expect, and they rely upon their families, they rely upon their caregivers to make sure they get it.

We need a patients' bill of rights in those nursing homes. We need it for the patients, even if they cannot understand it, so that their families can

understand it, so that the caregivers can understand it, so that the people who go in to assist and the volunteers can understand it. We need the same for home care, so that it is available to them

when someone comes to their home after they have been discharged from hospital, so they know what the nurses and the nurse practitioners and the doctors who come are going to do for them and how

they are going to do it, and the minimum level of service that they can expect on each and every visit. We need it in the community-based health care centres, where people often go when they do not

have a doctor of their own, where they go to get medical expertise.

This bill will go a long way to providing an Ontario health care standards commissioner, someone who will look at all of the care facilities, who will look at

all the practices and who will be able to make recommendations that the government would be bound to, after consultation, in order to improve what patients and the general public can expect.

This bill also does one other thing which is really, really important. I'd just like to focus in my last few minutes on that. That is, it provides

whistle-blower protection for those who work in hospitals, those who work in home care, those who work particularly in nursing homes, so that people who work there can be the eyes and ears of those

who have no one else. For those of you who have gone into nursing homes to visit loved ones, as I do every Sunday to see my mother-in-law, you will know that some of the people in those homes have

no visitors. They have no relatives, they have no friends who come to visit them. They have no one to speak on their behalf, save and except those who work in the facility.

It is important to have whistle-blower protection. It is important for workers to feel empowered enough that they can come forward and speak when things go

wrong, when someone is abused, when someone is not getting the kind of care that he or she deserves, when someone is not being treated in a human or humane way. They need the kind of protection of

being able to come forward and to voice that without fear of reprisal and without fear of losing their jobs.

We have to remember that many of the workers in these institutions earn, although not minimum-wage salaries, they do not earn high-wage salaries. They are jobs

very often associated with drudgery: cleaning bedpans, washing and mopping up floors. They are jobs that need to be done and are essential for the smooth running of the hospitals and the nursing

homes. They are the eyes and ears of so many people. They are there and they can make a very real difference, but they cannot be afraid of losing their means of livelihood in doing it. So many

public employees in the history of this country, in the history of this province and in the history of this city have been fired for blowing the whistle. People are afraid of losing their gainful

employment, especially since in the majority of cases it is the best employment they have been able to find, either because they like the kind of work or because it is giving enough money to

sustain themselves and their families. They cannot be afraid of saying that something is going wrong and being fired for saying it.

An essential element of this piece of legislation is to remove that fear and make people secure that, when they do complain on behalf of someone who is frail

or elderly, someone who has cognitive disabilities, someone who cannot read or cannot understand what is happening to them, someone who is under the influence of just having had an operation and

may have drugs to ease the pain and cannot understand what is happening to them -- they are the people who are there on the front lines and they must be protected.

I'd just like to close with a quote. I think it's a very apt quote that deals with an analysis of the patients' bill of rights. It comes from Colleen Flood and

Tracey Epps of the University of Toronto faculty of law. They produced a draft paper and they have spoken about patients' rights vis-à-vis health care professionals. The quote goes as

follows:

"We envisage that a bill of rights in Ontario would therefore include not only rights in health care, but would also include rights to health care. It could do

the latter by setting rights in terms of guaranteed maximum waiting times. A commissioner or ombudsperson could be charged with the task of investigating complaints in relation to access and

timeliness and reporting annually as to progress in meeting the targets set. What is a `reasonable' waiting time will depend on the severity of the condition, the total level of resources available

to the health care system and societal values.... Thus, for example, it may be reasonable to say in Ontario that patients should expect to wait no more than a year for non-urgent elective surgery

like hip operations. It will still be up to physicians to triage patients on the basis of the acuity of their condition, but in general no patient should expect to have to wait, for example, for

more than a year. By providing for a right to timely care, the goal is to reorient the system partially towards the justified concerns of patients and to impose some measure of accountability on

the part of funders/managers for ensuring the delivery of timely care."

This bill is appropriate for the time. It marries, finally, the rights of individuals with the rights of doctors and with the sometimes brilliant work that is

done in our hospitals, in home care and in our nursing homes. It all needs to come together. It needs to give ordinary people the right to know what they can expect and the right to complain if

those expectations are not met. It protects the rights of workers from being fired or disciplined for standing up for those who have no one else to stand up for them.

I commend Ms Martel for bringing this forward. I commend the members who have spoken from the other two parties for supporting this bill. I look forward to its

speedy passage.

Hon Carl DeFaria (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): I rise today to just briefly address the member for Nickel

Belt's, Ms Martel's, Bill 27. I'd like to indicate that from this side, I support the spirit of the bill. I would like to inform the House, however, that our government is developing a patients'

charter. We are on the record, not just from the April 2001 speech from the throne but also from our Blueprint pledge of a patients' charter, on this issue.

I am very pleased today and would like to commend the member for being very strong on this issue. It's of major importance to Ontarians to have a patients'

charter, and I am glad to see the member defending it in this House.

We as a government will be consulting on this issue. We feel that there should be public discussion on this issue. We want to consult on the specific elements

of a charter to ensure that it works both for patients and for providers. We want to make sure that the needs of Ontarians are served, and also the needs of a sustainable health care system for our

collective future. In this respect, we welcome Ms Martel's contribution to this discussion. What is lacking in the private member's bill is the other side of the equation, which is the

responsibility of patients to ensure that there is no abuse of our health care system, to make sure that taxpayers' dollars are spent properly.

I agree with the member for Beaches-East York, Mr Prue, that such a charter should have a whistle-blower clause. I strongly believe that patients in the health

care system often are not in a position to complain about the services they are getting, and it would be very appropriate for the people in the health care system -- the employees, the nurses -- to

be able to be advocates on their behalf and to bring it to the attention of the authorities if there are abuses or concerns about the level of care that patients are receiving.

With that caution, that we must provide in the charter some responsibility on the side of the use of our health care system, I'll be pleased to indicate to the

member that I do support in spirit her bill.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I, too, will be supporting the bill. I wanted to devote my remarks at the outset to the economic

advantages of our health care system to Ontario and why it is so imperative that we maintain and strengthen our health care system. I always carry around with me the government's own document on

why you should do business in Ontario. In the very front of it, it says, "Ontario is one of North America's most peaceful and secure communities, and our remarkable health and education systems are

publicly funded and open to everyone." Later on in the document, they talk about the enormous cost advantage for our businesses because of the way we've chosen in Ontario and in Canada to manage

health care. It points out in this document that manufacturers in the US pay about $3,100 per employee for the kind of health care coverage that is provided in Ontario for a cost to our

manufacturers of roughly $500. In other words, there's a $2,500-per-employee cost advantage to doing business in Ontario.

In addition to being an enormously central part of our social well-being and something that I think sets Canada very much apart from the US, for our business

community this is an enormous advantage. That's one of the reasons why we have said it is wrong to proceed with corporate taxes in Ontario 25% below the US. How do we have this way of funding

health care? How do we have this enormous cost advantage? It is because we have said to ourselves that we will collectively fund health care through our taxes. But we've now decided in Ontario to

have corporate taxes 25% below the US. Corporate taxes in the US, according to the government, are 40%; in Ontario, they're 30%. That is roughly $4 billion of forgone revenue in the province of

Ontario -- $2.2 billion in Ontario and $1.8 billion of the Ontario federal income taxes, so $4 billion. How are we going to make that up if we want to have this cost advantage in the way we fund

health care? Does it mean that the government is going to increase sales taxes? How are we going to make that up? That's why we've argued, saying, "Listen. Our policy should be that corporate taxes

are totally competitive with the US." My leader, Dalton McGuinty, has enunciated that always. But not 25% below the US. I think it is a fundamental mistake, and for our business communities what it

will mean is that health care costs will shift and they will end up paying a higher and higher percentage.

We talked recently with the CAW, and they pointed out that one of the enormous advantages in Canada is the way we fund health care. It is a terrific advantage

for our auto sector. It is a major arguing point for why you should locate in Ontario. But we've now decided that we're going to take $4 billion less in corporate taxes. How will we fund health

care? So I say to the people of Ontario, you can't have it both ways. We can't have a significant cost advantage on the way we fund health care for our companies and still have corporate taxes 25%

below. The math doesn't add up.

One of the things, among other things, that I appreciate in the bill by Ms Martel is the independent commissioner. I've always felt that the Ministry of Health

has a conflict of interest. On the one hand, they are like an insurance company. They are trying to manage health spending. On the other hand, they are setting health policy, and I think they often

get into conflict. I've often said the Ministry of Health's fundamental operation is that they never say no, but they never say yes. They find ways of delaying improvements in health care because

they know they are going to, in many cases, have to invest some money in it. So I appreciate the independent commissioner that will help the Legislature.

I would say on health standards that the Liberal Party has argued for many years now that our budget -- by the way, we're the only province in Canada that

still doesn't have a budget. It's absolutely ludicrous that here we are now well into the fiscal year -- I remember Mr Ernie Eves promised in 1995 that you would have a budget presented before the

fiscal year started -- still no budget. Still no budget. But to conclude, one of the things we have argued for many years is that the budget should include some standards on health measurements. I

think that would also strengthen this bill.

So I will be supporting the bill and look forward to the vote later this morning.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I'm very pleased to stand in this House today and speak on this bill, which I will be

supporting. This is private members' hour and I hope there are members on the government side who will be supporting this as well.

Some of the drivel we've heard from the government members -- and I'm very disappointed in the new Minister of Citizenship, who says he supports the spirit of

the bill but doesn't support the bill. What absolute nonsense is that? In 1999, during the election campaign, Mike Harris promised, if re-elected, to implement and pass a patients' bill of rights.

This is your opportunity to do it. Why aren't you doing it?

Then to listen to the other member who spoke earlier talking about responsibilities, that patients have responsibilities. Of course patients have

responsibilities -- absolutely they have responsibilities. So why aren't you passing the Public Sector Accountability Act, which was introduced with such great fanfare back in 1999 in your throne

speech and hasn't seen the light of day since then? Yes, people have responsibilities, but what does that have to do with the right people should have to the best health care system available for

them here in Canada?

Take a look at the bill. What does the bill say? The bill says that everyone in Ontario should have the right to have an "accessible, universal, comprehensive

and publicly administered and funded" health care system. It should offer "freedom of choice," that patients should have the "right to all information necessary to make fully informed" health

decisions, the "right to receive publicly funded health care of high quality in the home and in the community as well as in health care facilities." There's absolutely nothing in this bill that

couldn't be supported by every member in this House.

As the member from Scarborough has already mentioned, it talks about the implementation of a health care standards commissioner. We all know we spend more of

the public's money on health care than in any other area as far as the government is concerned. We hear these figures all the time. It's 35%, 40%, 45%, and yet we don't have any officer who really

looks after the needs of the patients, who is responsible to this House in the same way that some of our other officers of the Legislative Assembly are responsible to us to ensure that the health

care system is run in an efficient way and is run in a way that is accountable to the people of Ontario.

I find it amazing that the members opposite can take the position that, "We're doing the best we can and, therefore, by that alone the patients' bill of rights

is already there." It isn't there. This is your opportunity to actually set some standards and to implement the thing you promised in 1999.

Another reason that was given by Mr O'Toole earlier was that the bill somehow doesn't go far enough. If the bill doesn't go far enough, let it go to committee

and bring in amendments that will implement the type of things you would like to see in the bill. This will give the people of Ontario an opportunity to discuss this bill, it'll give the parties an

opportunity to make necessary changes to the bill so that there can be further discussion about it and so that changes can be made to actually improve the bill.

I would ask every member to examine within themselves the reasons why they shouldn't support a very important bill like this. Is it because it came from an

opposition member and the government somehow wants to own this bill? OK, rename the bill. Do whatever you want. If you want credit for it, take the credit for it, but ultimately we are responsible

to the citizens of Ontario, and they demand a patients' bill of rights.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I'm pleased to add a few comments here this morning. I feel forced to do so after the interjection of

the previous member more than anything else.

I certainly will be voting in favour of this bill. I applaud the member for reading the Conservative Blueprint in the last election and getting this bill on to

the order paper before the government did. I am quite prepared, in the principle of supporting private members' bills, to see this one go forward because I think this is representative of the kind

of initiative that should constitute what we debate here every Thursday morning. Far too often what comes from the other side, including the member who just spoke, is nothing but rants and

anti-government positions that do nothing to move forward this province. It seems to me with all of the petitions that you introduce in this place you would find other initiatives worthy of

legislative support or reform. I applaud the member opposite for identifying an area where there is a need for further protection, for government and, in this case, the opposition to move forward

with legislation that will improve the lot of patients in this province.

I would suggest to members opposite that if this hour is going to be as productive as it possibly can be, this is the sort of bill that we should be talking

about.

I applaud the member. I can tell her that it is consistent with what the government is doing, but I'm not going to take anything away from the fact that she

did get a bill on to the order paper first. For that I congratulate her, and I look forward to supporting the bill later this morning.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? If not, the member for Nickel Belt has two minutes to respond.

Ms Martel: Let me begin by reminding the member from Scarborough East that this very bill was first introduced by my colleague Marion Boyd in

1998. We certainly didn't follow your Blueprint. We were way ahead of you. It was reintroduced in 1999 and we are here again today because in five years your government has not brought forward a

patients' bill of rights.

Let me remind the government in particular that it was your minister, Ms Witmer, who told a conference in 1997 that it was her intention to bring forward a

patients' bill of rights. Here she is on June 25, 1998, in Hansard in this House: "I would indicate to you that our government is working on a Patients' Bill of Rights: we're working on a patients'

safety" net.

I heard the member from Durham today say his government is developing a patients' charter, that many provisions of the government's patients' charter are

actually provisions that are in the bill that I brought forward today. I say to the government, if you're working on a patients' charter, it's the best-kept secret of your government. Who are you

consulting with? Who are you talking to? Please do not try and pretend before this House today that you are actually delivering on something.

Let me go back to what Mr Klees said in the debate on Bill 50, this same bill, in October of 1998. He said, "One of the things we will have to do is to take

into consideration the recommendations that were made by the member here," Ms Boyd. "It will be very helpful in the discussions we're having with our minister to ensure that some of these very

important issues are incorporated in the government legislation." The government hasn't brought forward any legislation, not since the first promise made by this government in 1997. That's why this

bill, the Tommy Douglas Act (Patients' Bill of Rights), is before us today.

I say to the Minister of Citizenship, yes, we need more consultation, even though this bill was developed with a number of stakeholders. The way to do that is

to get it out to a legislative committee and have a full and open debate about what patients need in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: The motion will be decided upon at 12 o'clock noon.

FIREFIGHTERS' MEMORIAL ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LE MONUMENT COMMÉMORATIF

EN HOMMAGE AUX POMPIERS

Mr Wood moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 113,

An Act to honour firefighters who have died in the line of duty / Projet de loi 113, Loi visant à rendre hommage aux pompiers

décédés dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member has up to 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Bob Wood (London West): A few minutes ago we observed a moment of silence for those who lost their lives in the tragedy of September 11,

2001, in New York. That, I think, was an instance of where some good did come out of a great tragedy. In the most dramatic and high-profile way, what firefighters and other emergency workers do day

in, day out, year in and year out was demonstrated to the whole world.

Firefighting is very exciting, very exhilarating and very exacting work. I had the honour of trying it myself along with some other MPPs, MPs and city

councillors in London some five years ago. You don't realize how true that statement is until you actually try going through smoke-filled rooms, going down into manholes and other places in order

to, in our case, learn and in the case of the firefighters who actually do it, help the public.

I think the firefighters also recognize that this is very dangerous work. We know that in the most difficult way possible because every year or two in Ontario

we do indeed lose a firefighter in the line of his or her work, as we did a few days ago in Barrie. I think the firefighters do it because they enjoy it, because they want to serve the public and

because they are those kinds of people who want to make their community, their province and their country a better place in which to live. They do it, however, knowing the danger they face every

day. They understand, each time they go to work, what the dangers are and the very difficult conditions they're going to face.

We have with us today in the gallery a number of guests I'd like to introduce to the House: Chief Milt Wilson, the president of the Ontario Association of Fire

Chiefs and the fire chief for the city of Oshawa; Robert Kirkpatrick, who is a captain with the Mississauga Fire and Emergency Services and author of the book entitled Their Last Alarm; and also Mr

Greg Colton, president of the Toronto Professional Fire Fighters Association. I think we're going to be joined later by Mr Henry Watson, president of Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association;

and Fred LeBlanc, executive vice-president of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association.

There probably is a reasonable consensus around the idea of a memorial to fallen firefighters. I think, however, the question does have to be asked, and

appropriately answered, why this memorial should be in the precincts of Queen's Park. The answer to that question lies in the vision of the original creators of this building and this precinct.

Their idea was that this building would celebrate and showcase who we have been as a people, celebrate and showcase who we are as a people and show our people what the great potential was for the

future.

When the MPPs of the 1890s created this building, they got off to a very good start. The building of course now attracts many thousands of visitors, both from

Ontario and elsewhere, every year. However, creating and achieving their vision is an ongoing process, and I would suggest to the House and to the people of Ontario that a key part of this precinct

should be a memorial to fallen firefighters. They demonstrate the best qualities that we, as Ontarians, have. Surely a memorial to them would fit perfectly into what this precinct is about and

should be about.

I'd like to emphasize that in proposing a memorial here, I am not in any way detracting from memorials elsewhere, particularly the one in Gravenhurst. This

memorial is intended to complement all the other memorials to fallen firefighters in Ontario.

The proposal seems to have been well supported to date. I've had about 75 indications of support from across the province for this proposal. I was also very

pleased to note in the throne speech that the government has agreed to support the proposal as well. I'd like to thank the new Premier of the province for that.

If this bill is passed, I'm going to ask that it go to the Legislative Assembly committee in order that that committee might receive public input. After that

input, hopefully the bill might receive final passage.

The reason I suggest this is that I think there are some important issues with respect to this memorial on which we should hear the public's input. I'd like to

suggest a few which would be of particular interest to me. Who, precisely, should be honoured? Should it be only those who actually died while they're on duty? Should it include those who

contracted diseases because they were firefighters and their lives were shortened because of that? What should be the design of the memorial? What should be the location of the memorial? Whom

should we call on to assist in the design of the memorial? Who should be responsible for the cost of the memorial?

The 21st century, more than any other, is going to be, and is, the century of communications. Surely we should include as part of what we communicate to

ourselves and to visitors to Ontario something that indicates the best that Ontarians have been and can be.

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): I rise today, first to tell the people of Ontario why we're debating this bill and why this bill has come before us in

terms of the construction of the memorial itself. Unfortunately, we had to stand in the House this week to honour Bill Wilkins, a firefighter, only 32 years old, who was tragically killed in the

line of duty. We lose more lives in this profession, firefighting, than in any other in Ontario.

I was very proud to ask for support of Bill 107, my bill,

An Act to proclaim Firefighters' Memorial Day. I am proud to say that I've spoken with the members on

the other side, and they supported that bill, and that bill became law back in 2001.

I have letters here that I probably could go through to explain clearly that back in August and September 2001 I had approached and asked the fire marshal and

the government side, the minister at that time, David Tsubouchi, to support building a wall of recognition at Gravenhurst, where the memorial stands today. I basically was told that that memorial

is there and that's what we do and that's what it's there for.

So I'm very proud of the fact that Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals had proposed this particular bill some time ago, and of the fact that we did get government

support on the memorial day, that it was very acceptable. We're very pleased on behalf of the firefighters.

So I rise today to support the private member's bill that Mr Wood is putting forward. The building of this memorial will be centralized; it will be focused.

I've been in contact with firefighters across the province and, generally speaking, all are in favour and they basically agree that this is something the people of Ontario should witness, that they

should have an opportunity to honour those brave men and women who have given the ultimate sacrifice in the line of their duty.

I repeat again that this profession is the number one killer of its own people, because of their bravery and because of the things they have to do day in and

day out: to sacrifice in order to protect. We're not talking property here; we're talking life. Many, many lives have been saved.

I also remind the government that during that time I brought to their attention the very important issue of funding for fire departments across the province

and also for equipment needs across the province. My challenge is and will be -- and somewhere down the line I know it's going to get done, and I'd love this government to take that lead -- to make

sure that every single fire department and absolutely every single community has access to, and is given by the province of Ontario, thermal imaging.

Thermal imaging is a lifesaver. Since the Scott pack, it's the best innovation for firefighting, bar none. You get to literally see in blackness. It has in my

community -- where I was very proud to sponsor and run a campaign that raised $110,000 and we bought three thermal imagers for our fire departments, for each of the houses -- saved lives. I had a

firefighter friend of mine call me up and say, "You've done it." I said, "What to you mean?" "You've done it. We saved two lives today using the thermal imager. We were able to see."

Until that time, when the thermal imager was used, firefighters were using methods that were hundreds of years old, where they would crawl on the ground inside

a house and touch and feel their way through, room by room. Four minutes less, you can't save a life. A thermal imager can scan an entire room in seconds.

So my challenge would be to the government: it's a fantastic idea to honour our firefighters, but let's make sure they've got the equipment to do the job so we

might not have to use this memorial as often as we do. I would say to you that we need to debate and discuss and ensure that the people of Ontario are protected by the wonderful work that our

firefighters do.

In my closing seconds, I also want to make mention of the families of our firefighters. The firefighters don't necessarily want this. The firefighters don't

necessarily even want a memorial day, but we must give them that. But what we really must do is to ensure that their families -- their wives, their mothers, their fathers, their children -- are

appreciated and understood, that they know that that firefighter, every single day on the job, could give the ultimate sacrifice.

I'm asking for support for this bill. I'm asking for the government to step forward and say, "We understand the job, we appreciate the job, and now we're going

to fund the job." Let's make sure we get a thermal imager in every single community in Ontario.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): The New Democratic Party caucus supports this bill enthusiastically and supports the proposition that it go

to committee; the Legislative Assembly committee is not an inappropriate one.

Minutiae around names that might or might not be engraved on the statue are but that -- small details. I envision a monument that is a piece of statuary that

is as bold and courageous as the women and men who serve in our firefighting services on a daily basis. I envision a monument that inspires members of the public who look at it, that draws their

attention to it from as far away as possible, that is bigger than life because, yes, firefighters are bigger than life.

Earlier this week, we painfully paid tribute to a fallen firefighter. It was a painful experience that none of us want to repeat but one we know we'll be

called upon to repeat. As I said earlier this week, it's a tragedy when any worker dies in the pursuit of his or her job, vocation or profession, but firefighting is a calling wherein the

firefighter knows there is the inevitable risk of injury, disease or death. Every call that a firefighter is sent to carries with it that tragic potential.

As I also said earlier this week, firefighters like Bill Wilkins in Barrie remind us of our own shortcomings. The courage of firefighters, the courage of Bill

Wilkins, the bravery, the commitment, the professionalism -- because while others like us flee from danger, firefighters rush to it, and they do it for the single purpose of savings people's lives

and preventing injury to victims of fire and so many other catastrophic situations.

I'm not by any stretch of the imagination advocating that firefighters no longer be called firefighters, but they are far more than firefighters. Whenever

there is a catastrophe, whether it's a motor vehicle collision, whether it's a natural disaster, whether it's the collapse of an arena roof or whether it's an attack by terrorist forces on a very

public building, like in New York City, it's firefighters who are called upon and it's firefighters who respond.

They don't hesitate and pause and reflect on the element of danger that may or may not be present in a potential call or a potential scene. They don't have the

time for that. Besides, it's not part of their job, not part of their consideration. So I, on behalf of New Democrats, look forward to this monument.

The monument has got to be more than a piece of brass or steel or iron or marble. The monument must be so imposing that it serves as a constant reminder to us

-- all of us, quite frankly, as taxpayers -- that we had better be prepared to invest in the women and men who serve every community in this province, who serve every member of every community in

this province; that we shouldn't expect our firefighters to go out there with broken or obsolete tools; that we shouldn't expect our firefighters to respond to a call with anything less than the

most complete training that could be provided, whether it's big-city fire services or small-town fire services; and that we shouldn't expect our firefighters to serve in understaffed firefighting

services. We shouldn't call upon our firefighters to earn less than a decent salary proportional to their training, to the task they perform and to the danger they encounter. That means we've got

to make those choices, we've got to make those decisions. I, for one, would be pleased to see my tax dollars invested in firefighters and in firefighting services.

It's labour-intensive, no two ways about it. At the end of the day, all the technology in the world, the slickest high-tech gadgetry, can't replace or make

obsolete the personal attributes that every woman and man in firefighting services possesses and has nurtured by virtue of their training and experience. It's a labour-intensive job. It's a

labour-intensive service. It's about people. It's about special people. It's about people who are bigger than the rest of us. It's about people who are braver than the rest of us. It's about people

who are more committed than the rest of us.

So that monument had better be within the realm of Queen's Park. Why? If only because it's Queen's Park that attracts those huge numbers that have been spoken

of and we want as many people, be they Ontarians or other Canadians or visitors to this country, to see that monument to our firefighters.

That monument has to be a monument not only to firefighters who have died in the course of performing their duties but, as importantly, a monument and a

tribute to the firefighters who continue to serve us. That monument has to be an inspiration to all of us to ensure that we make the kind of investments that firefighters deserve and need, and that

monument should be a statue of such magnificence that it serves as some solace to the mother of Bill Wilkins. That monument has to be so grand that it serves as some comfort to the brothers of Bill

Wilkins in Barrie. That monument has to be so overwhelming that it helps ease the grief of the young fiancée, wife-to-be, of Bill Wilkins, yes, for years to come. And that monument has to say

to firefighters still performing their duties, every one of them risking that tragic fate, that their community appreciates them, that their community respects them, that their community

acknowledges their special skills and their special commitment.

It's not inappropriate that joining me in speaking to this on behalf of New Democrats will be Michael Prue, because he will be a member of the Legislative

Assembly committee and considering the bill when it reaches that committee. He is from big-city Ontario. I'm from small-town Ontario.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Small town?

Mr Kormos: I come from places like Thorold, Pelham, Thorold South, Crowland and Welland, where people still leave their doors unlocked.

I come from a community that has some of the best firefighters in this province, in this country. I come from a community that has seen firefighters nurtured

generation after generation. I come from a community where my good friend Henry Labenski, succeeded his father as a professional firefighter. I remember his father well, Jack Labenski. Jack lived

on Wallace Avenue, but two blocks away from the small old Crowland fire station, near Lyons Avenue. We could hear the sirens wailing and Jack Labenski would be rushing that two blocks to the fire

hall to get that truck going. The firefighters would be donning their coats and their hats as the truck was already wheeling out of the station -- just a small station, as small as any could be.

But Jack Labenski, who was a big man in so many ways, also gave us two sons who are incredibly skilled, competent, professional and committed firefighters. John, now retired, is a former chief.

Henry serves his community and also serves his fellow firefighters in his role in the association.

So this monument is going to be a tribute to the fallen, to those firefighters whose lives have been stolen from them by the dangers of firefighting, but it's

also going to be a tribute and a monument to the living. It will remind us on a daily basis that among us in our communities, in our neighbourhoods, in big cities and small towns, live heroes,

firefighters who save lives and protect people, who save kids, who save grandparents, who save spouses and brothers and sisters, and who make our communities a far better place.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I consider it a privilege this morning to be able to rise in support of Bill 113. The fact that this

is

an act to honour our firefighters who have died in the line of duty is so important to all of us in this province. There is an irony, of course, that this week we have lost Bill Wilkins, another

firefighter. The bravery of all of the men and women who serve in that very highly specialized profession is something of which we are all in awe.

We in Mississauga have just honoured our firefighter of the year. This is an annual event when we honour both our firefighter and our police officer of the

year. I've always felt that it was very little for us to do in return for the courage and the bravery with which both police officers and firefighters enact their responsibilities for our

protection. In this case, in Mississauga, actually on an evening in September of last year, a young woman who was unconscious in a basement apartment tucked away in the back, in a small washroom,

was rescued by two individual firefighters. But I think what is so significant about this award and recognition in this particular incident is the fact that not just the two who went in to rescue,

resuscitate and save this young person were recognized but also the two crews who worked on that event. From my observations of the firefighting that we read about on an almost daily basis in all

our media, and certainly the enormity of the 9/11 tragedy, it only works because firefighters are always a team.

When we talk about having a permanent memorial, it is going to be a marvellous, tangible thing. It will represent for everyone in a tangible way the fact that

these people risk their lives every time they go to protect people who are in danger from a fire.

In Mississauga, the firefighters of the year were Captain Allan Thompson, Firefighter Gerald Lacasse, Firefighter Peter Perrone, Firefighter David Middleton,

Acting Captain John Hill, Firefighter John Watts, Firefighter Edward Nelson and Firefighter Larry Jackson.

Their courage resulted in the saving of one life. They are the exemplary role models for all people who work in that service and for us, as citizens, who are

the beneficiaries. I believe this memorial will remind all of us of the fact that that is part of their job and part of their responsibility that they are willing to do on a daily basis -- day in,

day out, year in, year out.

My privilege again is to say thank you on behalf of my constituents of Mississauga South to all the men and women who serve as firefighters in this province

and to extend to all of the families whose lives have been affected by the loss of a loved one in that service my deepest sympathy and all our ongoing support.

Mr Bradley: I am privileged to participate in this debate and to indicate my strong support for the bill that is before the House today, which

will provide appropriate recognition and honour firefighters who are unfortunately and tragically killed in the line of duty.

There aren't many jobs in our society that are such that when you leave your own home, your family and those close to you to go to work, you are actually

placing your life on the line. This is certainly true of those who are involved with our fire departments across the province of Ontario, because they are dealing, almost invariably, with dangerous

situations where the lives of others are on the line and where there are individuals who are injured.

I think also that with the advent of the 911 number in many places in the province -- probably in most places now -- we find that it is firefighters who are

there first on the scene, whether it's for a fire or a medical emergency or some other circumstance that is considered to be an emergency.

I know the danger that these firefighters place themselves in. Many of them are personal friends of mine who have related stories about having to rescue others

in many cases, having to go into a home where there are children who have been killed, and then go back home with sadness and dire memories, try to sleep and try to keep their own lives going. I've

known individuals who have had to extract kids they knew from a car in an accident, kids who unfortunately didn't make it. So it's a very serious occupation.

It's a good group of people who are involved in our community. Our firefighters are invariably involved in community organizations. Our volunteers so often are

involved in charitable activities, as well as being involved in those things that are in their line of duty.

With new chemicals that they face, with new kinds of structures that they deal with, they indeed place themselves in danger each and every time they go out on

a call.

This memorial came to mind this week particularly when we learned of the death of Bill Wilkins, a 32-year-old individual, a person in the prime of life who,

while doing his job as a firefighter, lost his life.

I believe we owe it to firefighters in our province, and I know those in St Catharines would agree with me -- because we have an excellent fire department and

great firefighters in our community -- that this is appropriate and the location is appropriate, in the Queen's Park area, where the public can see it, where the public comes together, just as we

have a police memorial here at the same time.

I am pleased to be able to support this legislation. I hope it will move quickly. I hope we'll see the memorial there. And I hope each year, when a special day

is set aside at that memorial, that indeed all of us will be part of that memorial service.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I too rise to support this memorial. It too is an idea whose time has come.

We are committed to the men and women who work in the fire services in all of the municipalities of this great province. We are committed to what they do and

understand only too well the risks that are involved each and every day when they go to work.

The memorial is essential. It is essential to honour those who have died and paid the supreme sacrifice for protecting us all. But it is also important for

those who live, for those who must go back to work the next day. I think of Bill Wilkins, but I also think of his brothers and sisters in the fire hall who are back at work today. They have lost a

colleague and a friend but they are back doing what they need to do to protect the residents of Barrie. We need to remember always not just those who have died but those who go on to fight fires,

those who go on to protect people.

We need to commit ourselves as a province and we need to commit those who work in municipal government to constantly be vigilant to do the very best we can for

those men and women. Of course they need the best equipment, but they also need understanding. They need the understanding of municipal officials of the dangers they encounter every day. They need

understanding of the stresses of their job -- not just the dangers of the job but the stresses of shift work, the stresses of being away from family, the stresses of danger and the stresses and the

very real dangers of going into fires and going into places where there are carcinogens. We need to understand and make commitments to them, just as Manitoba has recently done, that this is a

dangerous job and if you do it for long enough, you're likely to develop forms of cancer that other people will not, and we need to be able to compensate and look out for that.

We need to recognize their community involvement. We need to recognize that the firefighters were among the very first Canadians to simply go to New York. They

didn't ask; they weren't asked; they simply went there. They knew their duty.

We need to compensate them for a very difficult job. They do so much more than fight fires. As has been said, they are the first ones on the scene of literally

any accident. They have a commitment in this great city of being there within four minutes, and they make it nine times out of 10.

I am honoured to stand here and support this memorial. We support it not only for those who have died and undoubtedly for those who will, but for those who

continue to do what --

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): It's an honour to be able to stand here and support this bill. I want to thank my friend and colleague

Bob Wood, who has brought forth Bill 113,

An Act to honour firefighters who have died in the line of duty. It sounds like I can congratulate him, even thought it hasn't already passed, because he

has received support from all sides of the House.

We are grieving the loss this week of Bill Wilkins, a firefighter who died in the line of duty in Barrie. The Toronto Sun so aptly described it yesterday when

they said, "Firefighters grieved ... as they stood outside the charred and blackened home where firefighter Bill Wilkins died while trying to stop the home from burning to the ground." The scene

describes reality.

But it's not just firefighters who die in the line of duty that I think we need to pay some attention to, and I would hope that Mr Wood would be amenable to an

amendment in committee. I had a very good friend, a childhood friend, who died a young man in his 30s. His name was John Divo. He died as a result of contracting cancer while fighting a chemical

fire in the city of Kitchener. At that time it brought home to me, even though I knew from my exposure in the insurance business what a dangerous job firefighting was, much more clearly what a

dangerous job it was when someone could contract an illness a couple of years subsequent to fighting a fire. We miss his smile, his laugh, as the families of the firefighters all around this

province do.

The time has come to ensure that the heroism and dedication of firefighters like Bill Wilkins and John Divo and other firefighters who have lost their lives be

recognized, because they make our lives safer.

It's ironic that the bill has been brought forward for second reading today, because this is the day that we recognize the heroism of the firefighters in New

York.

The time has long passed to establish this memorial in the Queen's Park precinct to honour these outstanding men and women who have been at the front lines of

protecting our communities. Their bravery, their skill and their dedication under extreme conditions have saved countless lives with very little attention to their own.

The firefighters' memorial is a small yet very symbolic manner though which we can say thank you to those firefighters who have made the ultimate

sacrifice.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): Our caucus, I think, is very prepared to support this bill, like we were all here to support the member

for Brant's bill when we spoke about memorializing those firefighters who have died in active duty.

I say to the members of the firefighting service who are here today -- the chiefs, the members of the professional firefighters association represented here in

the House today -- this is what I want: I'd like to see all firefighters die of old age. I think most people want to see firefighters die of old age. Unfortunately, it's not the kind of profession

where that happens. As this government may well put a shovel in the ground to start building a memorial, I'd like to see the numbers of people who have to be memorialized less in every year. That

is only going to happen when direct action is taken to help the real issues that firefighters face, and that people like Henry Watson, representing thousands of them, come forward to the government

with every day. Namely, there are health and safety issues. There are families of stricken firefighters with brain cancer, all of those firefighters who were fighting the same fire in a certain

area suddenly being afflicted with brain cancer, and here are these families going begging to the Ministry of Labour to have that designated as a work-related illness. Why would these families have

to go begging for something that seems so obvious to the rest of us?

One of our colleagues in the House brought forward a bill that actually encourages more use of volunteer firefighters, so-called part-timers who are paid up to

$28 an hour -- directly opposite to this team approach that your own colleague just spoke about in the House today.

We have real issues that firefighters face, be they those kinds of work issues or health issues, that with each shovel in the ground, as we build this

memorial, this government has an obligation to resolve the real issues. Cynics out there may see this memorial as just more pap or pablum being served to try and pacify the firefighters. "Look what

we've done for you: we've built you a memorial to all those who died in the line of duty." But what we see every day, in our own communities, are real issues that firefighters deal with, that their

representatives have come to us on a regular basis on since I've been in this House -- real issues that deserve attention. If this government is serious about memorializing firefighters with every

shovel that goes into the ground, they'll deal with the real issues that firefighters face.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): I first want to start by saying that my approach would be more respectful. I would like to recognize again those

present here, the association president of the chiefs of police, Chief Milt Wilson, who's actually from Oshawa, very close to my riding, and Henry Watson and Fred LeBlanc and Robert Kirkpatrick as

well as Greg Colton, president of the Toronto Fire Fighters Association.

We know there are lots of issues in every sector. I think today, this morning specifically, is about respecting and paying respect to the initiative here

brought on by Bob Wood in his private member's bill, introduced October 18, 2001, and, I might say as well, with respect to the work done by Dave Levac from Brant on this. I'm very confident that

all members will support this. That's what this is about. Of course there are a lot of other issues.

It's my privilege to represent the riding of Durham, and it's not just about my riding; it's about firefighters and respect for them this morning. It's my

experience that firefighters are respected both for their community commitment as well as their professional commitment to their community.

Last year in the House, you may recall, I paid tribute to the Scugog fire department's auto extrication team that finished third overall at the international

fire extrication competition. They were led, of course, by District Chief Dave Ballingall, and he was their coach as well. Chief Richard Miller from the Scugog group, as well as Deputy Chief Rob

Gonnermann, were part of that team. I know the community was proud of them and supported them, and that's what this is about. It's a celebration of people who give not just to their community but,

in many unusual circumstances, give of their lives.

I also want to look at my riding in terms of Clarington. It's a great community under the leadership of Chief Mike Creighton, as well as the members that I run

into in regular course of business: Sheila Roman and Gord Weir and Bill Reid of the Clarington fire department, responsible for a project last year raising $30,000 to assist local charities. Of

course, the very successful program that they have is called the junior firefighters' program. It's a very successful program.

I like to think that part of the work that's outside of their fire duties, fire prevention and those difficult duties -- they also contribute enormously to the

Muscular Dystrophy campaign each year. I know the firefighters in my community of Clarington and Scugog are part of a team raising in excess of $2 million.

I also want to say that we are investing additional training for police and firefighters and front-line emergency workers. This monument is a tribute to all of

those who have given the supreme sacrifice, but also to those who have to get up every day and face the risks to their own lives and their families worrying. Unfortunately, the occupation of

firefighting is extremely dangerous. While we must make every effort to protect front-line emergency workers, tragedies occur, and in all respects we should work together to find solutions to put

an end to that.

My reason for supporting Bill 113 is because I'm confident that it has the support of firefighters, their families and, more specifically, the people in my

riding. They want to say thank you and they want to make that a permanent monument of thanks.

In Clarington, Grant Bradley is the president of the Clarington Fire Fighters Association, local 3139. He's among the community firefighters who support this

proposal. Just this morning I read in the paper that on the weekend there was a blaze at Kirby on Highway 115. Captain Robert Payne was quoted in that

article as being on the site to make sure that

there was no risk to life and property.

But it's about real people. I conclude here by quoting from the speech from the throne: "We must not forget firefighters who have lost their lives ensuring

people's safety. This year, your government will work with the fire services community to create a firefighters' memorial on the grounds of Queen's Park." I am pleased to lend my support to the

bill.

In conclusion, this is not only in response to September 11 or the untimely death of Bill Wilkins, but for those who continue to fight and put their lives at

risk on our behalf.

I go back to the comments made by the member from Windsor. There are issues, and I respect that. I believe that Minister Runciman is prepared to continue his

work in support of those emergency service workers -- police, fire, ambulance and all of the emergency routine -- so that we strengthen the training with the commitment to the college and the

profession itself.

This monument is what we're talking about this morning, and I call on all members on all sides of the House to drop the rhetoric, support the bill and work

together to pay respect to the firefighters who give on a daily basis to the citizens in their communities at great sacrifice to themselves personally and to the members of their families. I say

thank you on behalf of the Ernie Eves government. The private member's bill by Bob Wood sums it all up. Please support it.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise in support of this bill. I want to welcome the firefighters who are here, in particular Henry

Watson, who happens to be one of my constituents. I'm pleased that he is here, along with the other chiefs and gentlemen.

Certainly this is a very important bill. Every profession has its risks, every profession has difficulties, but there are certain professions where that risk

is much greater. Every call you respond to, every emergency situation, every fire has the potential danger for great physical harm, or, as we have seen tragically in Ontario with Bill Wilkins, for

loss of life.

Firefighting is a very special profession. It's a unique profession. I remember being in New York City at Ground Zero. From everything I saw, the most moving

and most difficult part for me was seeing the temporary tribute that had been set up for fallen firefighters, seeing the notes from the kids of these firefighters who never came back home, seeing

the teddy bears with pictures of their kids, seeing kids writing, "Dad, I'm never going to be able to play baseball or catch a football with you again." It just brought home in a stark, real sense

what these courageous women and men face every day as part of their job.

I remember walking by a small fire station in New York City where they had a memorial outside. That fire station had 30 people in it; 15 of those died that day

from that one fire station. That's the reality that our firefighters in this province face every single day. These are the people who are first on the scene of an accident, a chemical spill, a fire

at an industrial plant, not knowing what chemicals or dangers they're facing. These are the folks who, as people are trying to escape a burning building, are going into the building, trying to save

lives.

I think it's appropriate that we honour the sacrifice, that we honour the work they do. Firefighters across Ontario deserve recognition because of the work

they do. It's always a very sad occasion, as we saw this week with Bill Wilkins, when one of those individuals -- and it really is a brotherhood and a sisterhood. There's a bond among firefighters.

When one dies on the job, as Mr Wilkins did, every single firefighter in Ontario feels that a part of them has died, that one of their family members has passed away.

It's important for us to recognize that with this memorial and this tribute. There's nowhere more appropriate than right here outside of this Legislature to

have a permanent memorial. We have the memorial to police officers. When you walk by, you can't help but notice and stop and look and think for a minute or two about the sacrifice those people are

out there making every day and the risk they're taking. When they come home at the end of the day to their family, their kids, their brothers and sisters, their moms and dads, I think they really

appreciate the fact that they were able to go home that night at the end of their shift. Unfortunately, not everyone does that. Tragically some of these people didn't get a chance to go home to

their family at the end of their shift.

It's appropriate for this Legislature to unanimously support this. I want to thank Mr Wood and Mr Ouellette for the work they've done on it.

The Acting Speaker: Response.

Mr Wood: I'd like to thank all the members who participated in the debate, both for their participation and for their support. I'd like to

assure members that I at least am open to any ideas that may come forward at the committee hearing.

I would like to indicate to members that I share the ambition of the various members who spoke that this be the best memorial possible. That's easy to say, but

it's really the hard part. Frank Lloyd Wright, the great architect, used to say, "The most difficult thing about architecture is to eliminating everything except the most essential." That really is

what we have to do when we undertake a project of this nature. The input we get is going to be very key for us to be able to give direction and to achieve the kind of memorial that the fallen

firefighters deserve and that the people of Ontario deserve.

I would like to ask all MPPs to assist in spreading the word that this fall there is going to be a legislative hearing and ideas are going to be solicited.

I've had indications from a number of people already that they want to come forward with ideas, either by way of presentation or in written form. I hope we'll invite every Ontarian to come forward

and give their ideas. If we do that, we can be reasonably assured of doing the best possible for our fallen firefighters and for our citizens as a whole.

I would like to suggest as well that it's important that this project not get lost in the great rush of business we always have before this Legislature. I

would like to invite all of us to commit ourselves, hopefully publicly, to actually having this memorial done one year from today, so that on May 30, 2003, this memorial will be here in the

precincts of this Legislature at Queen's Park.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debate on this matter.

TOMMY DOUGLAS ACT

(PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS), 2002 /

LOI TOMMY DOUGLAS DE 2002

SUR LA DÉCLARATION

DES DROITS DES PATIENTS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now turn to ballot item number 45. Ms Martel has moved second reading of Bill 27,

An Act to

promote patients' rights and to increase accountability in Ontario's health care system. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. We will take this division following dealing with ballot item number 46.

FIREFIGHTERS' MEMORIAL ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LE MONUMENT COMMÉMORATIF

EN HOMMAGE AUX POMPIERS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Now ballot item number 46: Mr Wood has moved second reading of Bill 113,

An Act to honour

firefighters who have died in the line of duty. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Bob Wood (London West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to ask that this matter be referred to the Legislative Assembly

committee.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

TOMMY DOUGLAS ACT

(PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS), 2002 /

LOI TOMMY DOUGLAS DE 2002

SUR LA DÉCLARATION

DES DROITS DES PATIENTS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell to deal with second reading of Bill 27.

The division bells rang from 1155 to 1200.

The Acting Speaker: Ms Martel has moved second reading of Bill 27.

All those in favour will stand and remain standing until your name is called.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Churley, Marilyn

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Marland, Margaret

Martel, Shelley

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, Al

McMeekin, Ted

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Parsons, Ernie

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ruprecht, Tony

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tsubouchi, David H.

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed?

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 72; the nays are 0.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Pursuant to standing order 96, this matter will be referred to the committee of the whole

House.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like the bill referred to the standing committee on finance and economic

affairs.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Please be seated.

All those in favour of the referral will stand and be counted.

All those opposed will please stand.

A majority is not in favour of the referral. Therefore the bill is ordered to committee of the whole House.

This completes the business before the House during private members' public business. The House will resume sitting at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1204 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Part two of the Walkerton report, released last week, reveals the drastic mistake that Premier Ernie Eves

made when he was Minister of Finance in slashing the overall budget for Ontario's 36 conservation authorities by a damaging 70%.

In January 1996, the Conservative government, in its infamous, massive omnibus bill, Bill 26, limited the mandate of these authorities and facilitated their

dissolution and the sale of their lands.

Justice O'Connor has recommended that conservation authorities play a central role in the protection of groundwater supplies, but these organizations can do so

only with a substantial investment of funding in their operations.

The damaging cuts by Ernie Eves have severely restricted authorities in their efforts to carry out their full mandate. I call upon the government to restore

immediately the funds that were mindlessly chopped in 1996. At a time when the Eves government has spent over a quarter of a billion dollars on self-serving partisan advertising and is providing a

tax gift of $2.2 billion to their corporate friends, surely they can afford this investment in environmental protection.

The commission recommends an investment of up to $48 million for groundwater studies that can be undertaken by utilizing the expertise of such bodies as the

Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority.

I agree with the commissioner when he says, "I support capacity building among conservation authorities, and the MOE should provide assistance in this

area."

INTEL INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE

AND ENGINEERING FAIR

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): I have a statement today dealing with the international recognition of students who are involved in the

Intel International Science and Engineering Fair.

Today I would like to proffer outstanding recognition and congratulations to Ontario students who competed at the Intel International Science and Engineering

Fair, considered the Olympics of science fairs, which was held recently in Louisville, Kentucky.

Thirteen Canadian students, aged 14 to 18, collected nearly US$700,000 in prizes and scholarships. They competed against 1,200 students from 40 countries,

winning nine grand awards and six first-place titles.

The science fair winners from Ontario, which includes a University of Louisville scholarship award recipient, are:

Ms Eva Vertes, 17, of Dundas. She won a university scholarship for her project which studied the inhibition of programmed cell death by purine derivative

RPI-069. This study offers a potential treatment for Alzheimer's disease.

Spencer Hughes, 16, of Timmins advocated the concept of turning abandoned mines into power generating stations, even going so far as to use bioleaching to

extract residual gold that was originally missed.

Three other Ontario students from Toronto won recognition for their accomplishments, including the eventual creation of nanorobots.

Crystal Pinto, 18, won a fourth-place award in microbiology. Another student won a third-place award in medicine and health with his project designed to deal

with computers and biology.

Finally, I would like to salute these science fair winners because they are the future pathway of innovation and advancement for Ontario and Canada. By

fostering and challenging these young minds, what they could do is limitless.

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): June 2 has a special significance to Italians around the world. In the national referendum of June 2,

1946, the people of Italy voted to abolish the monarchy, establish a democratically elected assembly and create a republic.

This new constitution drafted by the elected assembly guaranteed the right of Italians to self-determination, freedom and dignity of existence. This step made

Italy a staunch democracy, a leading industrial nation, a founding member of the European Union and a vital strategic partner in NATO. Tomorrow evening, the Italian consulate is hosting a reception

to celebrate this history.

Canadians of Italian origin are one of the largest immigrant groups to settle in Canada. This has had a significant impact on the cultural, political and

economic sectors in this country. In the early 1950s, Ottawa entered into a bilateral agreement with Rome to foster and process large-scale Italian immigration to Canada. There followed an

aggressive Italian labour recruitment for the Canadian market. The year 1958 saw Italian immigration to Canada surpass the number of British immigrants to Canada. This historic celebration is

significant to the heritage of Canadians of Italian origin.

DAVE BROADFOOT

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): I rise today to talk about a recognized Canadian tourism attraction. He has earned a multitude of awards,

including the Lifetime Achievement 2000 and Canada's Comedy Hall of Fame. He is a Juno Award winner and a Gemini Award nominee. He has performed for the Queen, has been on the Ed Sullivan Show and

has ongoing guest appearances with the comedy troupe he co-founded, the Royal Canadian Air Farce. He is that great icon of comedy, Dave Broadfoot.

Canada's ambassador of laughter is returning to the Red Barn Theatre, in my riding of York North, on June 6, 7 and 8 at 8 pm. After 50 years of writing and

performing his own special brand of humour with his legion of characters, Mr Broadfoot still delivers a performance that leaves his audiences roaring with laughter. Dave's First Farewell Tour

explores topics that audiences are most concerned with, from world events to the basic frustrations of daily life.

Fans are advised to get their tickets early for this show or any other show throughout the summer series. Enjoy the show and visit Canada's oldest professional

summer theatre, the Red Barn, on the south shore of Lake Simcoe. Fans can contact the Red Barn at 905-722-3249 or 1-888-RED-BARN.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): Ontario hospital emergency rooms continue to experience serious pressures

because of a lack of resources. It is regrettable that the Quinte Healthcare Corp has had to issue zero tolerance toward aggressive behaviour in the emergency ward. In yesterday's news release, the

corporation states, "Aggressive behaviour and coarse language will not be tolerated.... Hospital security personnel and the police have been and will be brought in to deal with any aggressive

individuals, and charges will be laid in situations that put our staff, patients and family members at risk."

Certainly aggressive behaviour of any kind is completely unacceptable. However, the need for this policy begs the question, why is it that people are

increasingly moved to acts of aggression in emergency rooms? Perhaps it is because they've had to wait for hours on end in an ER because they cannot find a family doctor, or because a parent can no

longer bear to sit in a waiting room while their sick child suffers in fever and pain, or maybe because a senior loved one has been lying in misery on a gurney in a hallway for days, with no

privacy, before getting a bed.

Emergency rooms in Ontario have become battle zones where patients struggle with illness, and they, their family or friends are literally beginning to fight

for the medical attention and service they deserve. Sadly, this is the legacy of the Tories' health care policy.

INJURED WORKERS

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Saturday, June 1: Injured Workers Day. Thousands of injured workers from across this province are going to

be rallying here at Queen's Park, beginning at 11:00 am. Injured workers, women and men, from every conceivable workplace in this province have been misserved, to say the least, by this government.

Their rallying cry is, "Justice for injured workers," and they're here not only fighting for the rights of injured workers; they're fighting for the rights of all workers. They're condemning a

government and its policies that would contribute to yet more workplace deaths, homicides, slaughters, mutilations and poisonings.

The Tories' agenda of a longer workweek, the Tories' agenda of fighting and defeating unions at every step of the way, the Tories' agenda of maintaining the

minimum wage at the stagnated level of $6.85 an hour, the Tories' elimination of the requirement of on-site labour inspector workplace inspections; and the blank cheque that this government has

written to the corporate interests, their close friends, with huge corporate tax cuts, all being paid for on the backs of workers, all workers, and particularly injured workers.

Trade unionists will be joining those injured workers, people of justice and generosity will be joining them, and of course New Democrats will be there on

Saturday, June 1, at 11 am at Queen's Park, Injured Workers Day.

TRAFALGAR MORAINE

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): I'd like to pay tribute today to the brave and courageous citizens of Oakville who belong to an

organization called Oakvillegreen, who for four years have blocked the bulldozers from paving the Trafalgar moraine. These brave citizens, against all odds, have so far been successful in stopping

the Trafalgar moraine from being paved over. But unfortunately last night at Oakville council, the majority of council voted in favour of developing the Trafalgar moraine. Now, there were five

members of Oakville council who had the guts to stand up to the development industry and say no last night. Unfortunately, the majority of Oakville council last night caved in to the developers and

paved the way for over 55,000 people to be housed on this precious, natural green corridor.

This corridor, as you know, is filled with forests, natural streams, rare species of birds like the red-shouldered hawk and other fabulous natural species.

This provincial government can no longer stand on the sidelines supporting developers and allow this natural watershed to be paved over. This provincial

government can no longer just talk about smart growth, talk about stopping sprawl; it's got to do something to protect this moraine in Trafalgar. We need to protect it, just like we protected the

Oak Ridges moraine. We can't wait three years before this government moves, like we had to wait before they recognized the Oak Ridges moraine. We need the Trafalgar moraine protected now.

HEALTH CARE

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): As parliamentarians, we are typically involved with the issues of the day that face us. Some might

accuse us of lacking an historical perspective. That is why I am rising to speak today.

Comparing the actions of government today with those of the past lets us know whether or not we are making progress as a society. In terms of my riding of

Scarborough Centre, I would suggest that such a comparison shows that great strides have been made in providing better health care to the residents of Scarborough Centre.

From 1985 to 1994, I served as a member of the board of governors of Scarborough General Hospital. During that time, numerous pleas were made to the provincial

government for the local provision of services like renal dialysis. And no wonder -- at that time, patients were required to travel to Oshawa or downtown Toronto several times a week, in good

weather and in bad. That was then, when Ontario endured 10 lost years of Liberal and NDP rule.

Compare that sad state of affairs to today. Now my constituents enjoy the convenience of two sites in Scarborough Centre for their dialysis treatments. By

comparing the actions of the current government with past governments, we learn a valuable lesson. The Eves government is clearly doing far more to address the health care needs of Ontario's

citizens than did both the Liberals and the NDP.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Yesterday the member for Beaches-East York gave me notice of his intention to raise a point of privilege relating

to his dealings with the National Advertising Standards Council. The member subsequently provided me with additional material, which I have now reviewed. I want to advise the member that I stand by

my remarks yesterday in which I emphasized that members' peripheral, subsidiary duties as a people's representative, as opposed to their primary duties as a legislator in this chamber or a

committee, cannot normally give successful rise to a valid point of privilege. The situation of which the member complains involves a civil federal regulatory body and the rules it applies in

adjudicating public complaints about advertising. In no way does this agency's treatment of the member equate to a violation of his privileges, and specifically his freedom of speech, as the member

contends. His freedom of speech is not absolute or unrestrained. It applies to his work as a legislator in the conduct of parliamentary business, but not beyond that to advocacy or representative

roles unrelated to the business of the House.

I therefore reiterate my finding of yesterday that a prima facie case of privilege has not been made out by the member for Beaches-East York.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 58

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that pursuant to standing order 69(b), the House leader of the official opposition, the

member for Windsor-St Clair, has notified the Clerk of his intention to file a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 58,

An Act to amend certain statutes in relation to the

energy sector. The order for second reading of Bill 58 may therefore not be called today.

VISITORS

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We have very special guests in the gallery today from Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk Catholic

District School Board. The teachers are Charmaine Hanley, Kerry Davidson, Lianne Chopp, Sherry Wensil, and the bus driver, Lori. They bring to us very special students from Brant to learn about our

parliamentary procedures and our behaviour in this House. This special class that has been established is very appropriately here to watch the workings of this fine place and this institution.

Their principal, Dom DiBartolomaio, is a very good friend of mine and actually put the class together and coordinated this very unique class. Thank you for being here.

JACK WILKINSON

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd ask all members to join me in congratulating Jack Wilkinson,

who was today elected president of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers.

WORLD CUP SOCCER

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As I understand, the members' statement time is over, is

it? We haven't done all of them. I didn't get my turn.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just a quick second and I'll see what happened at the table. Maybe what I could do is ask for consent. I thought

we'd been through it, but apparently we didn't. Unanimous consent for the member's statement from the member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale? Agreed.

Mr Gill: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Many proud and loyal Bramptonians and Ontarians with roots in England, Italy, Germany, Brazil, Denmark, Spain,

Ireland, Slovenia, Paraguay, Sweden, South Africa, Costa Rica, Poland, Croatia, Russia, Argentina, Nigeria, South Korea, Japan, Portugal, Uruguay, Turkey, Cameroon and France, as well as Canada,

are waiting with anticipation for the beginning of the soccer World Cup.

As of 7:30 am Toronto time tomorrow this great series will start and run for 30 consecutive days, dominating our televisions. While Canada's own national team

is not in the series, unfortunately, the passion for this beautiful game runs deep.

During the 64 games, passionate soccer fans will bring Ontario's multicultural neighbourhoods to life. Thousands of fans sporting their team colours, wearing

flags and blowing horns will flock to neighbourhoods such as Little Italy and Little Brazil to cheer on their teams. We should not be surprised to see the national flags of many of these teams

being flown across our province as fans proudly display their support. World Cup soccer brings out the best in our province.

During this time of celebration I would like to extend best wishes to the fans and their teams competing for this most coveted prize: soccer's World Cup.

Thanks to the members.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Following on the heels of that unanimous consent, I too ask for

unanimous consent, given what he just said, that we the House resolve to find a way to make sure that people are able to watch World Cup soccer in those bars --

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Licensed places.

Mr Marchese: -- in those licensed places so as to permit all the fans like me who love soccer to be able to do so.

The Speaker: Just so the members are clear, you're asking for unanimous consent for what?

Mr Marchese: To permit the soccer fans of the World Cup to be able to see the games in licensed establishments and that they open until 5

o'clock in the morning to be able to do so.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

STUDENT OPPORTUNITY ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

OFFRANT DE NOUVELLES POSSIBILITÉS D'ÉDUCATION POSTSECONDAIRE

AUX ÉTUDIANTS

Mrs Cunningham moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 65,

An Act to enact, amend or revise various Acts related to post-secondary education and opportunities / Projet de loi 65, Loi édictant, modifiant

ou révisant diverses lois liées à l'éducation postsecondaire et aux possibilités en la matière.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1352 to 1357.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Beaubien, Marcel

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Ecker, Janet

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Kormos, Peter

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Marland, Margaret

Martel, Shelley

Maves, Bart

McDonald, Al

McLeod, Lyn

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Sampson, Rob

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

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

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 65; the nays are 0.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

HEALTH PROTECTION

AND PROMOTION AMENDMENT ACT

(FOOD HANDLERS), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION ET LA PROMOTION DE LA SANTÉ (PRÉPOSÉS

À LA MANUTENTION DES ALIMENTS)

Mrs Pupatello moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 66,

An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act to require that a certified food handler be present at all times during the operation of a

food premise / Projet de loi 66, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection et la promotion de la santé en vue d'exiger qu'un préposé agréé en manutention des aliments soit

présent en tout temps pendant l'exploitation d'un dépôt d'aliments.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member for a short statement?

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): All of us will be aware that recently, over the last couple of months, there have been several outbreaks

of E coli and various forms of food poisoning and we're not certain of their origins.

While we realize that public health units are required to provide food certification courses for people who work in the food industry -- it doesn't mandate

people from restaurants, for example, to take these courses. What this bill endeavours to do, and it is being requested by various public health units across Ontario, is to mandate people from that

service sector to take these courses.

It is very modest in terms of what money requirements there may be because the courses are already being offered by the public health unit. It gives the public

a great deal of satisfaction to know that they are going out and having food, prepared for the public, that is at its best.

COLLECTION AGENCIES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES AGENCES

DE RECOUVREMENT

Mr Sergio moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 71,

An Act to amend the Collection Agencies Act / Projet de loi 71, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les agences de recouvrement.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member for a short statement?

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): The bill amends the Collection Agencies Act by specifying that certain behaviours are prohibited practices and

prohibited methods in the collection of debts.

The bill establishes a discipline committee and an appeals committee to deal with complaints concerning engaging in prohibited practices or applying prohibited

methods in the collection of debts.

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

AND SECURITY GUARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES ENQUÊTEURS PRIVÉS

ET LES GARDIENS

Mr Sergio moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 79,

An Act to amend the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act / Projet de loi 79, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les enquêteurs privés et les

gardiens.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The member for a short statement?

educational and other standards.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You will rule on whether it's a point of order, but in St Catharines on

Tuesday night at this dinner where they paid $225 a head to the Ontario PC fund, the Premier of Ontario referred to all of those who cheered for the Ottawa Senators as losers. I would like to

request unanimous consent for the member for Lanark-Carleton to respond to that particular insult.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): I move the following amendments be made to the membership

of certain committees: Mr Prue replace Ms Churley on the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, and Ms Churley replace Mr Prue on the standing committee on general government.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of Environment and Energy, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without

notice regarding private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

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

public business: Mr Kwinter and Mr Gerretsen exchange places in order of precedence.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

POST-SE