Fill and Sign the Creative Curriculum Weekly Planning Form Template

No 27 No. 27 ISSN 1180-2987 Legislative Assembly of Ontario Assemblée législative de l’Ontario Second Session, 38th Parliament Deuxième session, 38e législature Official Report of Debates (Hansard) Journal des débats (Hansard) Thursday 1 December 2005 Jeudi 1er décembre 2005 Speaker Honourable Michael A. Brown Président L’honorable Michael A. Brown Clerk Claude L. DesRosiers Greffier Claude L. DesRosiers Hansard on the Internet Hansard and other documents of the Legislative Assembly can be on your personal computer within hours after each sitting. The address is: Le Journal des débats sur Internet L’adresse pour faire paraître sur votre ordinateur personnel le Journal et d’autres documents de l’Assemblée législative en quelques heures seulement après la séance est : http://www.ontla.on.ca/ Index inquiries Reference to a cumulative index of previous issues may be obtained by calling the Hansard Reporting Service indexing staff at 416-325-7410 or 325-3708. Renseignements sur l’index Adressez vos questions portant sur des numéros précédents du Journal des débats au personnel de l’index, qui vous fourniront des références aux pages dans l’index cumulatif, en composant le 416-325-7410 ou le 325-3708. Copies of Hansard Copies of Hansard can be purchased from Publications Ontario: 880 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, M7A 1N8. e-mail: webpubont@gov.on.ca Exemplaires du Journal Des exemplaires du Journal sont en vente à Publications Ontario : 880, rue Bay Toronto (Ontario), M7A 1N8 courriel : webpubont@gov.on.ca Hansard Reporting and Interpretation Services Room 500, West Wing, Legislative Building 111 Wellesley Street West, Queen’s Park Toronto ON M7A 1A2 Telephone 416-325-7400; fax 416-325-7430 Published by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario Service du Journal des débats et d’interprétation Salle 500, aile ouest, Édifice du Parlement 111, rue Wellesley ouest, Queen’s Park Toronto ON M7A 1A2 Téléphone, 416-325-7400; télécopieur, 416-325-7430 Publié par l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario 1293 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO Thursday 1 December 2005 The House met at 1000. Prayers. PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT (INSULIN PUMPS FOR DIABETICS), 2005 LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L’ASSURANCE-SANTÉ (POMPES À INSULINE POUR DIABÉTIQUES) Mr. Gravelle moved second reading of the following bill: Bill 15, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act / Projet de loi 15, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l’assurancesanté. The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Gravelle, you have up to 10 minutes. Mr. Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay–Superior North): Bill 15 is a very straightforward, simple and quite short, one-page piece of legislation. However, if this bill is supported by my colleagues today, and subsequently receives the support of the government, the impact its passage will have on the lives of thousands of people with diabetes will be nothing short of dramatic. By making the provision of an insulin pump and its supplies a covered service under the Ontario health insurance plan, we will be improving the day-to-day life of people with diabetes by helping them better manage their glucose levels, which is the key to preventing the serious complications that are the frightening reality that people with diabetes live with as they struggle to manage this debilitating and insidious disease. While the insulin pump may not be suitable or helpful to every person with diabetes, there are thousands of Ontarians who would greatly benefit from it today, who are not able to access this service because they simply cannot afford it. In fact, the Canadian Diabetes Association receives calls every day from people who have been told by their physician that they should be using an insulin pump, but unless they have employer or private health insurance, they are simply not able to purchase it. ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO Jeudi 1er décembre 2005 I will acknowledge that the costs seem substantial. The pump itself costs $6,000 and monthly supplies can run anywhere between $300 to $400 a month. However, I believe the price of not covering the pump under the OHIP plan is far more substantial. Let’s just look at some of the facts. Diabetes is expected to cost $2.13 billion in direct costs to the health care system in 2005. Diagnosed diabetics comprise 6% of Ontario’s population but they account for 51% of new kidney dialysis. Dialysis costs about $50,000 per person per year and of course is covered by OHIP. They account for 70% of amputations in the province. A leg amputation costs $70,000, and, again, it’s covered by OHIP. They also account for 43% of heart failures. In fact, 80% of diabetics die from cardiovascular disease and its complications. Type 1 diabetics, who are most likely to benefit from the insulin pump, are approximately 10% of Ontario’s diabetic population but account for 40% of the direct costs of diabetes in Ontario—over $800 million. This is not even taking into account the indirect costs to the health care system and our economy, such as rehabilitation after hospitalization, depression, lost productivity, lost wages, sick days and unemployment. The facts, as unpleasant as they are, go on and on, but the fact that I want to focus on today is that the provision of an insulin pump can change all those cold and rather grim statistics. Today there are approximately 3,000 Ontarians living with an insulin pump to help manage their disease, and their lives have changed immeasurably for the good. Many of them are with us today in the gallery, and each and every one will tell you how much better their lives have been since they became pumpers. And while that improved quality of life is clearly the greatest benefit of the insulin pump, there is no denying that the health care system is also very much the beneficiary of their being able to access that service. Just imagine the benefits if all those who needed the pump could have ready access to it. So far, I’ve spoken about statistics. For a moment, let’s talk about people. Since I began this quest to see our government provide the insulin pump under OHIP, I’ve spoken with hundreds of people—some with a pump, many without it. I’ve heard from literally thousands of people by e-mail. They all have their own story to tell— sometimes uplifting, sometimes heartbreaking—but in each and every case there is a common thread: Their lives have been altered by their struggle with diabetes. Those who have been able to access an insulin pump invariably have a life-changing story to tell. One of the most remarkable stories—and I return to it—may be that 1294 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO of Paul Beckwith, who is in the Legislature with us today. I met him when I first introduced this legislation last year. Diagnosed with diabetes in 1966 at the age of 13—I know my colleague from Simcoe North will want to talk about him as well—Mr. Beckwith spent 30 years struggling to manage his condition, with mixed results. At the time he was finally able to access the insulin pump, I guess about seven years ago, he was in grave danger of having his foot amputated and was not able to work regularly. However, once he began insulin pump therapy, his quality of life improved dramatically. The amputation was averted and he was able to return to work—certainly a wonderful story, but also an instructive one. The long and short of it is that the insulin pump can make an extraordinary difference in a person’s life. Perhaps less dramatic, but no less inspiring, is the story of my constituent Derek Lawrence, a teenager who went on the pump over three years ago. When I met with him, I was struck by how unobtrusive the pump actually was, but more significantly, I was moved and impressed by how the pump allowed Derek to lead a normal teenage life, something he could not do before, something he had been totally denied before and now he could do. But sadly, for every uplifting story, there are many more stories of lives compromised by diabetes, of people who struggle daily with managing this disease, people such as my constituent, who contacted me recently from his hospital bed, a gentleman who could not afford the insulin pump but who certainly would benefit from it, yet for now is a brittle diabetic who is frequently in the hospital, often for several days at a time. 1010 It’s not my intention today to harangue or to guilt our government into supporting this legislation. Indeed, I am incredibly conscious of the financial pressures that face both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance as we struggle to manage the ever-growing demands on our health care system in Ontario. We and all those concerned with the management of diabetes in the province are grateful for the financial support the province provides to fight this disease. Included in that support was the announcement earlier this week of a new investment of $15 million for the development of 69 new diabetes education and care teams across the province. Personally, I was pleased to announce that almost $2 million of those new funds will be provided to the Thunder Bay region. These funds are a good investment and much appreciated. But today I ask the minister to once again look positively on the overwhelming benefits that insulin pump therapy does and will provide to people with diabetes and to the enormous cost savings that would result if all people who could benefit from the pump were able to access it. As for the Minister of Finance, I acknowledge the challenges he faces as he prepares next spring’s budget. Having said that, I note with some interest that he personally has advocated for this specific legislation himself. In June 2003, while still in opposition, Minister Duncan introduced this exact same legislation into the House. Although it never got beyond first 1 DECEMBER 2005 reading, it certainly indicated that he recognized the enormous benefit of insulin pump therapy. In fact, it was he who first encouraged me to bring this legislation forward for the first time last year. As we move this legislation forward today, I hope the minister will give serious consideration to including the necessary funding for coverage of the insulin pump and the supplies associated with it in next year’s budget. Clearly, there is great support for this legislation amongst my colleagues on all sides of the House. I am grateful for that, as are all the advocates with us in the public galleries and those watching the proceedings today across the province. Yes, the upfront costs may be substantial. I was speaking with the Ontario Diabetes Action Partnership in terms of their advocacy for children with diabetes and type 1 diabetics, and they’re looking at potentially somewhere between $6 million and $15 million. But it would make such an enormous difference. The reality is that the benefits both to the quality of life and to the health care system clearly outweigh those initial costs. I only hope that today’s debate and the support that we expect we will receive at 12 noon when we vote on this will be a crucial step in seeing the insulin pump become a health care reality under the Ontario health insurance plan. To many of us, this has taken on the quality of a crusade. Indeed, that may be an accurate description of this campaign, and that is because all of us who are waging this campaign have seen the enormous difference an insulin pump can make in the lives of people with diabetes. We want to see those benefits extended to everyone in this province for whom a pump is recommended therapy by their physician. In the little bit of time I have left, I want to close with a quote from a friend of mine in Thunder Bay. But I want to recognize the great support we’ve had across the province. We’ve got some wonderful people in the galleries today, and I do want to acknowledge some of them. Suzanne Sterling, the regional director of the Canadian Diabetes Association, northwest division, Thunder Bay, is here, as are her colleagues Gary O’Connor, area executive director for the GTA-central south, and Alan Marks, the GTA regional chair. Whitney Binns, the marketing and communications officer, is here as well. I mentioned Paul Beckwith, from the Ontario Diabetes Action Partnership, and Terry Anne Thomson, the coordinator for ODAP. Zachary Smith, a great young lad, and Lyla-Kay Collins are here as well, who are both on the pump, and their lives have been changed in a remarkable way. Let me close by quoting Maggie Bellefountaine, a manager of Diabetes Health Thunder Bay: “It is time to provide people with diabetes equitable access to improved treatments to manage their diabetes. Insulin is not a cure. Managing diabetes is like juggling balls while walking a tightrope between two cliffs, not an easy task at the best of times.” Let’s make that challenge less perilous today by passing the legislation so that people with diabetes can have a fighting chance. 1er DÉCEMBRE 2005 ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I am very pleased to rise today to support the member from Thunder Bay–Superior North, Mr. Gravelle, in private members’ time, on the reading and debate on Bill 15, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act. I think it’s important to note that the main section of the bill is section 11.2 of the Health Insurance Act, and it is amended by adding a following subsection: “(1.1) The provision of insulin pumps and supplies for the pumps are insured services.” That’s what Mr. Gravelle asked for in Bill 55 and that’s what he’s asking for today in this piece of legislation. I can tell you that from my own perspective, I support it wholeheartedly. Just to let you know, I have with me today four folks who came up to my office. I welcome everyone who is in the Legislature today to lend us support to the bill, but I wanted to put some faces to the names and tell you a bit of the history of these folks. Mr. Gravelle mentioned that Paul Beckwith is here. Paul is a person from my township, a resident of my riding. He has been on an insulin pump for eight and a half years. He has had type 1 diabetes for 38 years of his life. Also with me today from the town of Penetanguishene is Glen Heatherington, who also has a pump. He has had type 1 diabetes for 40 years of his life. As well, we have Melanie Hellstern. Melanie doesn’t have an insulin pump, but she has a 14-year-old son who has had an insulin pump for the last four years. Having the pump has allowed Melanie to go back to work. She wasn’t able to do that previously because she had to care for her son. It has allowed her to go back and work at full employment and pay taxes. Finally, we have a registered nurse with us today, Karen Lyn. Karen has type 1 diabetes. She has been on an insulin pump for six years. I want to show you, with the consent of the House, Mr. Speaker—I’ll get this right back to Karen; I won’t take it anywhere—one of the insulin pumps we’re talking about, with a $6,500 value. I thought it would be nice to show people just how small it is. It’s a very expensive device, but this is making people’s lives much more healthy and convenient. The member already mentioned some of the savings. My understanding is that the cost of dialysis now—you said $50,000; I understand it’s closer to $65,000. Just to remove a limb costs $74,000 in upfront costs, but there are all the ongoing costs of the health care associated with that. Paul Beckwith is a strong advocate for this. I have to give Paul so much credit, because at times his health hasn’t been 100%. Let me give you examples of how an insulin pump over the last eight and a half years has changed Paul’s life. Before I get on to that, I want to just very briefly say that Paul presented petitions to me. Paul and his group of people presented over 9,000 petitions to me in my office. I presented about half of them yesterday in the House— the balance will be presented today—in support of Bill 1295 15, previously Bill 55. The intent here is that this is a very important issue to a lot of people in Ontario—not just the people who have diabetes but their families, who are affected by this as well. We’re asking for that strong support here. Here is the story of Paul. He presented this to me. At a period of time when he had four to six injections per day of two different insulins, Paul had over 4,000 shots of laser to each of his eyes. Since he has been on an insulin pump, there has been no laser treatment done on his eyes in the last eight and a half years. Think of that: 4,000 shots. He mentioned that before the insulin pump, his sick days from work were too numerous to count. He was off all the time. In eight and a half years since he has been on the insulin pump, Paul Beckwith has had one sick day. It’s an incredible story. He had two motor vehicle accidents because of low blood sugar, previous to the insulin pump, and since then, thank God, he has had no motor vehicle accidents. Under the injection system, Paul had his licence suspended three times. Since he’s been on the insulin pump, he’s had a perfect record. In the eight and a half years, he’s had no suspensions. 1020 Glucose control 1.2 mmol—I’m not medical. I don’t even know what that means, so I’d better not get into that. I’ll pass that over to the physician on the other side; maybe he will understand that better. He suffered from hypoglycemia unawareness and now he does not have that. Finally, 911 was being called two to three times a week previous to the insulin pump; no 911 calls in eight and a half years. There’s one example. There’s a lot more detail on this page than just what I have mentioned here today. But I can tell you that it has changed the lives of people like Paul, and it has changed the lives of the other three folks who are here today as well. They’re here strongly advocating that we proceed with this legislation. We’ve been here before. I hope that in this House today everybody will support this bill. I hope we will send it off to a committee and that at the committee it will get debate. But what is more important is, after the debate and after the committee hearings, that we bring it back for the final reading so that we can actually vote on this bill in this House. It might even be able to be done as early as the end of this session, and if not then, hopefully at the end of the next session. What is important is that we have an opportunity to provide this assistance to these residents of our province. And what’s really important is that we don’t not call it. If we have this thing go through committee, to have it sit there on the order paper and to die I think is a mistake. So let’s make sure that all members of this House—we can send letters to the Minister of Finance. As you mentioned earlier, the Minister of Finance introduced this bill originally. Possibly it’s an opportunity for him to show strong advocacy as well if he pushes this ahead in the spring budget, saying we’ll cover it. I think it will be a cost saving to the province of Ontario. I can’t see how it cannot be. However, maybe 1296 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO there is some data out there that I don’t understand, and maybe the Ministry of Finance could send it to all members of this House and tell us why it shouldn’t pass. But from my perspective, after listening to this debate a number of times in this House and after talking to my friend Paul Beckwith, who is in my office about once a week advocating on behalf of this piece of legislation, I want to tell you that I think it’s important for the citizens of this province that we proceed with it and support Mr. Gravelle’s bill. We know the Ministry of Health has a huge budget. We know there are all types of demands on the ministry, but this appears to be one that’s affecting a large number of people in the province. I understand that Quebec has just moved forward with covering the supplies around the insulin pumps. I’m not sure of the full details on that yet. But I think we have to take this very, very seriously in our country. We have a lot of strong advocates here today—and we have a lot of strong advocates for whom it wouldn’t even be possible to attend today—who belong to all the diabetes associations across our province. These people are out hosting golf tournaments, hosting luncheons, and every time you go to one of their events, Bill 15 or Bill 55 comes up: “When is the government going to pass this piece of legislation? When are we going to see action on this?” I would urge the government members here today— I’m sure you’ll be supporting the bill—in your caucus meetings to ask the Minister of Finance, to ask the government to bring it forward. I’m sure you’ll get 100% support in this House. I’m sure that it will be a positive story for the government and, God knows, you need a positive story once in a while. Interjection. Mr. Dunlop: The fact of the matter is that you do need a positive story, but let’s make this bill actually work. Let’s get it passed today. Let’s get it into committee. Let’s get it into third reading, and let’s pass this bill in this House so that the people who are here today advocating on behalf of the thousands of people in Ontario who have diabetes can have some satisfaction and some comfort in knowing that the government of Ontario and this Legislative Assembly supports their needs. Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins–James Bay): To my colleague the member from—I don’t remember Mr. Gravelle’s riding. The Deputy Speaker: Thunder Bay–Superior North. Mr. Bisson: Thank you very much. I was going to go by the old riding name. That’s my problem. I’ve been around here too long, and I get the ridings mixed up with what they used to be. I just want to say to the honourable member, first of all, that we will be supporting his bill. We think this is a good idea, something that’s very necessary, as has been spoken to already by both Mr. Gravelle and the previous speaker. Certainly those people watching the debate today and those people who are with us today can speak 1 DECEMBER 2005 volumes on the need to do this, because we do know it’s a huge expense to families to be able to provide an insulin pump, and the benefit that is gained from those insulin pumps is immeasurable. I know, in my own constituency, a number of people whom I’ve dealt with over the years who have had to go on insulin pumps talk about what it has done for their lives after being on the pumps. I want to say up front that we support this. I want to turn the debate to something that’s tied to what we’re talking about but speaks more of the process that we’re in here in the Legislature. That is, I believe that private members’ hour is becoming more and more the model of how we should run this place. I want to say, with all sincerity, that far too often the work that is done in this Legislature by way of government bills tends to be pretty one-sided. I don’t care if it’s Liberal, Conservative or NDP; all governments have their bills, and the majority, which is the government, decides what they want as far as business of the House. Far too often, even backbench members of the government are stuck in debate on bills that they may not feel very strongly about. I find that private members’ hour is one of those times in this Legislature where we can really do meaningful work. An example of this morning: Mr. Gravelle brings to the floor of this Legislature an issue that’s important to a number of people in this province. What better way for us as legislators to spend our time than trying to do something to improve the lives of our constituents and make the greater constituency of Ontario a better place for people to live in? That’s the point I want to make. One of the things we need to do at one point in a future Parliament is take a look at how we’re able to increase the participation of members by way of introducing bills into the Legislature, and being able not only to debate them and pass them at second reading but actually get the bills passed into law. It seems to me that’s what this Legislature was supposed to be all about. It was supposed to be about members being elected individually in their own constituencies, coming to this place, raising the issues that are important for their constituents and having actual legislation, or motions or initiatives passed in order to affect what happens to the people back home. Instead, what has happened over the years is that the Office of the Premier—and I don’t care which government it is; it’s always the same—decides what the direction is, and 99% of the time of this assembly is then taken up by the business of the inner cabinet and the Premier and, quite frankly, we as legislators are here doing the business of unelected advisers who work for the Premier. Basically, that’s what it comes down to. We’re here to do their political work, and the people in the backrooms make all the decisions. It seems to me that’s an inverted situation. This Legislature should be about 103 members coming to this House, introducing at their occasion bills that are important for their constituents and having a debate among the elected officials about what the agenda of this Legislature should be. I just think that it’s high time that we try to figure out a way to make that happen. 1er DÉCEMBRE 2005 ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO However, with this particular bill, I’m afraid the possibility exists—and it’s a great possibility—that, yes, we will pass this bill at second reading, we will probably get it into committee, I would think we might even get some hearings on it; but the likelihood of a private member’s bill becoming law is a really small one. Just look at the history of the last two years: Of all the private members’ bills that were introduced in this Legislature— I’m the whip of our party; I don’t even think there’s one that’s actually passed. Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls): Anaphylactic. Mr. Bisson: Anaphylactic. That was a bill that Mr. Levac originally brought forward in previous Parliaments. It was a huge amount of work, and there was one for yourself, Mr. Speaker. The point is, it took those members four, five, six, seven years to get those bills passed, and it didn’t happen on the first attempt. Normally, they get it passed at second reading and it dies on the order paper. They bring it back the next time they get a ballot item. They put it in a second time and the same thing happens: The bill gets passed but dies on the order paper, but eventually, members persist, and this is what Mr. Gravelle is doing. He wants to have his bill passed, and I just think it’s a shame that members are put in the position where they’re really not able to get the legislative time they need in this House to deal with these important matters. This is an opportunity for to us to raise it, because I think his bill is a primary example of how we can do some good work in this Legislature. 1030 I just say to members across the way that we, as individual members, at some point need to take control of this Legislature. We need to take the control away from those unelected people who work for Premiers and ministers. We end up doing their bidding, but it should be the other way around. I think there are a couple of ways we can do that. I believe the best way is to change the way that we elect people in this place. The first-past-thepost system that we have in Canada, as we do in Great Britain, is a tried-and-true system, but it’s getting kind of old. If you look at most modern democracies, they’ve moved to a system of proportional representation, the idea simply being that if a party is elected with, let’s say, 42% of the vote in a general election, they will get 42% of the seats, and each of the other parties are apportioned seats according to the percentage vote they got. That means that for any government that gets elected—the Liberal Party in the last election would obviously be the government because they were at 42% and they had more votes than anybody else, but they would have to work with the opposition parties. But it would also mean that they would work with their own backbench, and that’s the point I really want to make. Far too often in government, backbenchers are not taken seriously. They need the backbenchers to sustain the government but do not do enough, I believe, to support the needs of the backbenchers. I know that because I’ve sat in government, as has Mr. Gravelle, and I’m saying that from the experience on sitting on both sides 1297 of the House. In a funny way, you have much more freedom and latitude to get more done in opposition than you do as a backbencher. That’s always amazed me. I always used to think, “Man, it’s a lot better to be on the government side.” It is, from a satisfying point of view, but when it comes to being able to raise the issues of your constituents, it’s a lot easier to do it from the opposition benches. Far too often, a government backbencher has to be mindful of what his party and his Premier have to say. If they want to get into cabinet, they really have to toe the party line. That’s why I think we need to change the way we elect people around here, so that every member is taken as an individual member. You may be a Liberal or a New Democrat or a Conservative or a Green or whatever you might be, but at the end of the day, your vote counts. That means that the vote of the people in your constituency counts in the end. Second, when you come into the Legislature as a representative, the government can’t take you for granted. That’s one of the ways that we can fix this. Another way is possibly to try to find a way of increasing the time we get for private members’ business. I think that would be a thing well done. The third part is that we need to take control of the assembly in some way so that members are able to get their bills actually passed into law. It should be a decision of the majority of the assembly, not necessarily those people in the back rooms of the corridors of power, as we say. Back to the issue of diabetes. I needed to put that on the record, Speaker, and I know you were being somewhat patient with me. It is related. I think you agreed with me and that’s why you didn’t rule me out of order. Back to the issue of diabetes itself. I represent a constituency in northern Ontario called Timmins–James Bay. In my constituency, diabetes is a huge problem, especially in the northern communities of the Mushkegowuk Cree and also the Ojibways in Martin Falls and Constance Lake and other places across northeastern and northwestern Ontario. Part of it is lifestyle, genetics, but the other part of it is diet. Trying to eat a full, healthy diet in a place like, let’s say, Attawapiskat is pretty difficult to do, when a head of lettuce will probably cost you $5 or $6 and doesn’t look very appetizing. So people tend to eat foods that are maybe not necessarily as good as they need to be for their health. We have a huge problem with diabetes. I’ve got to say with some pleasure that, I believe next Friday, Minister Smitherman is going to be coming up to Moose Factory to officially open our dialysis unit. It has taken a lot of years. As the member for Timmins–James Bay, we’ve been working with Weeneebayko hospital and James Bay General Hospital and other people in the health field in the area for a long time to try to get this dialysis system and up and running and funded. I give the government credit for having listened to the arguments we’ve made and for finally having funded the dialysis system at the Weeneebayko General Hospital in Moose Factory. I can 1298 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO tell you, it makes a huge difference. It means that those people who live in the Moosonee, Moose Factory area are able to stay home. They don’t have to travel and live in Timmins or wherever it might be to survive. That’s really what it comes down to: You’re not able to survive without dialysis if needed. Obviously it’s still a problem for communities further up the coast, because there are no dialysis services in communities like Fort Albany, Kashechewan or wherever it might be. One of the things we’re going to have to think about as we move forward in the integration of our health care system in the James Bay—as members in this House know, we are now in a process of merging the federal hospital, Weeneebayko General, and the provincial hospital, James Bay General Hospital, into one provincial system. It’s high time we did that because I think the federal government is abysmal at running things. When it comes to running hospitals, schools or reserves, you just need to travel in my constituency to find out the degree to which they’re ill-suited to manage those services. We have very competent, hard-working people in our aboriginal education system and in the Weeneebayko General Hospital. Pat Chilton, for example, as the executive director, has done an amazing job. But the federal government, I believe, is not well suited to support the work that needs to be done in health care on the James Bay. I really and truly believe that at the end of the day, integration is the way to go in the provincial system for a couple of reasons: (1) These people are residents of Ontario and they should be part of the provincial hospital system; and (2) the province has the wherewithal to run hospitals. We understand health care because we are the deliverers of health care in Ontario. The federal government is not. They are sort of at the edges of the system. I think we’d be better served. The key is, we need to make sure the federal government, on the transfer of the hospitals to the province, doesn’t just all of a sudden walk away from its fiduciary responsibility and say, “Well, too bad, so sad. Now it’s a provincial hospital. We’re not giving you any more money.” They have a fiduciary responsibility to First Nations and we need to keep the dollars on an annual basis in the budget. The dollars that the province brings into the system can then be used to do real health care planning, such as making sure all of our communities on the James Bay have proper health facilities. For example, there’s no long-term care. Imagine if there were no long-term-care services in the community you live in, and once you need them, you have to move out of your community. That happens in some of our communities. It’s just down the highway, and kids can go visit their moms and dads 50 or 60 miles away. If you live in Peawanuk, Martin Falls, Kashechewan or wherever it might be and you need long-term-care service or to live in an institution, you’ve got to travel out of the community and go to Timmins, Cochrane or wherever it is. For families, it’s traumatic. You’re basically talking about a person in their 70s or 80s, who was born on the 1 DECEMBER 2005 land, who speaks Cree and probably doesn’t speak very much English. A lot of people don’t realize that. Many of my constituents don’t speak English. Their language is Cree or Ojibwa. All of a sudden, they’re put into a setting where nobody speaks their language. They don’t have any of their friends with them in the institution and they find themselves very lonely and, quite frankly, die a lot quicker. They’re away from their families, and that’s the key thing. As we move to an integrated provincial health system, we are able to plan and make sure that we have longterm-care beds in provincial institutions that are already existing, in places like Fort Albany and Attawapiskat, but also make sure that those types of services are available as we take over the federal system in Kashechewan, Martin Falls, Peawanuk and those places, making sure that services like dialysis are available in those communities as well. I say to the member, a job well done. You will have our support. We think this is a good bill. We will support you through the process. I only hope this bill not only gets second reading but ends up as a bill that gets passed. It’s going to take a lot of work, as you know, Mr. Gravelle. You’ve been here a long time. You understand, as I do, the difficulty and challenges in being able to get a private member’s bill passed. Whatever we can do from our side of the House to help you, we are more than pleased to do so. I have to say that we’ve not always been on the same side on all issues. Certainly on the forestry file, we’re miles apart. Mr. Gravelle: No, we’re not. Mr. Bisson: Well, you may not be apart. This goes back to my original point that sometimes when you’re in government, you’ve got to keep quiet. The point is that I think this is one we can work together on. Private members’ hour is one of those times when we demonstrate that members of all parties are able to work well together—even though we might be sparring on other issues—for the better good of not only the constituents of your riding but, at the end of the day, the constituents of my riding and everybody else’s. I congratulate you for bringing in this bill. Mr. Craitor: I had the pleasure and honour of speaking to this bill when it was originally introduced in April 2004, so I’m grateful to have the opportunity, along with five of my colleagues, to speak on the bill again. Congratulations to the member from Thunder Bay– Superior North, Michael Gravelle, for bringing this bill forward. I think every day in the hallway we bump into each other and the first thing I ask Michael—and he’ll tell you—is, “How are we doing? Where’s it going?” 1040 When I spoke on this bill the first time, I mentioned a couple of names. One was Patrick Cummings, a very close friend of mine for the 10 years I sat on city council. Patrick had diabetes and has since passed away. That’s when I really learned what diabetes was all about. I also mentioned an e-mail that I received back then from a Wendy Anderson, who said the passage of the bill is a 1er DÉCEMBRE 2005 ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO life-and-death issue for her and the insulin pump therapy is a necessity, not a choice. I want to add a couple of other faces and voices to this bill. My good friend Al Greatrix from Niagara Falls has diabetes. My wife’s brother, who is seriously ill, is a diabetic. I recently received a letter from Susan Crane of Niagara Falls. I spoke to her, and she’s given me permission to read into Hansard her comments to me. She writes: “Mr. Craitor “I am a single mother of three daughters. The youngest daughter (age 13) is an asthmatic and type 1 diabetic. “It is very difficult for me to understand why it is taking so long for Bill 55 to have its second reading. People with type 1 diabetes have not chosen this medical condition, but the cost in controlling it is huge. I cannot understand why our government, whom I think the world of, cannot get this bill passed through so that children with diabetes can get medicines free. “My daughter’s syringes cost $1 apiece, four times a day. Multiply that by 30 days per month and the cost is out of this world. My family and I will go without a lot of things to ensure she is kept healthy. “We have approached all of the service clubs in Niagara Falls to ask for their assistance in obtaining a pump. A pump would enhance her young life and give her more freedom to do some of the things her friends are able to do. Thus far we have received a $1,000 donation from the Niagara Falls Kiwanis Club. The total cost of the insulin pump is $6,600. “I don’t know if you can help to push this bill through the parliamentary procedures, but if you can it would mean a lot to her and our family.” I know this assembly is listening. I know it wants to help. I will also share with the House that two weeks ago the Minister of Finance was in St. Catharines and conducted a round table meeting to discuss our upcoming budget. A young lady made an excellent presentation about insulin pumps. I will also tell you that I could tell the minister was moved, and in fact commented on the bill. So in closing, I just want to say it’s a good start. I’m totally in support of it. Congratulations again to the member for bringing it forward. Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton–Victoria–Brock): I am pleased to rise today to speak in support once again, this time on Bill 15, the private member’s bill from the member for Thunder Bay–Superior North which would amend the Health Insurance Act to allow the insulin pump and supplies for the pump to become insured services. I’ve had many people come to me in the riding to speak about this bill. We’re following it with the Lindsay chapter of the Canadian Diabetes Association—Anne Rink was past president there—but also from the Peterborough area. I’m sure the member for Peterborough has been approached many times by people in his area supporting this. 1299 In January, Mrs. Brown, a constituent of mine, had to quit work in order to look after her child who has diabetes. She wasn’t able to get an insulin pump for her; she was a very brittle diabetic, which means unstable. She had to make changes in their lifestyle just to look after her daughter, who could have been assisted by an insulin pump. Her daughter could have much more independence, and thus she herself could have more independence to go back to work etc. We’ve written to Mr. Smitherman through the Canadian Diabetes Association, and I’m hoping the member for Thunder Bay–Superior North and other members can pressure the government to bring this to committee so we can have a fulsome discussion about the insulin pump. The insulin pump itself controls the blood sugar level. I don’t know if the member for Simcoe North held up the pump. It’s a small device with a catheter. It monitors the sugar level and delivers the insulin accordingly, so people don’t have to watch the clock; their lifestyles can be more flexible. Ron and Cathy Millen in my riding have a son who has a demanding university schedule. This has helped eliminate the chronic high and low blood glucose levels that occur with him. They paid thousands of dollars to assists their son’s medical needs, and they’re hoping the bill is passed. He’s going to be graduating soon, if he can go on to afford that, because it will affect what jobs he chooses and his whole quality of life. George and Dott Heath from my riding, both diabetics who volunteer with the Canadian Diabetes Association, have e-mailed me in support. Certainly, in my career as a nurse, I’ve seen many diabetic highs and lows and how diabetes affects people and their lifestyles. Even recently, in my profession now as an MPP, I still do a lot of medical calls when I’m out in public because they are affected. They’re passing out in public. They do have unstable levels. So it’s all around us. We’re trying to let Ontarians lead healthy, more productive lives. Statistics have shown the increase in diabetes that is going to be happening. Diabetes is the leading cause of heart disease, kidney disease and blindness in Ontario. More than 850,000 Ontarians, which is 7% of the population—when you think about it, it’s quite a lot—have this disease. They account for 32% of the heart attacks, 43% of heart failure cases, 30% of strokes, 51% of new dialysis patients and 70% of amputations. Just last week, or maybe even this week, the amputations that occur were on the news—diabetics not being able to see their lower extremities, especially, facing amputations that could have been prevented. Being able to monitor their blood glucose levels in a more effective way would certainly improve their circulation and save amputations down the road. So that’s getting more prominence in the news, the costs to the health care system, which the member from Thunder Bay–Superior North gave very good statistics on. Certainly, I believe the ounce of prevention, the money put forward now, will save the cost to the health care system down the road. 1300 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO Gilles Bisson mentioned how so few private members’ bills get passed. I was fortunate enough this year to have one of my private member’s bills get passed, and only 2% get passed. But it’s a great morning when we do nonpartisan work and try to improve the quality of life for all people in Ontario. Later this afternoon, at the Speaker’s will, I’m going to present petitions on behalf of the member from Simcoe North. There are thousands of petitions. I thank Paul Beckwith, Glen Heatherington, Karen Lynn and Melanie Hellstern for obtaining these signatures. Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Aldershot): I too rise in support of this initiative. When a person with the integrity of the member from Thunder Day–Superior North asks you to offer a few words, the only possible response is to agree. I’ve always found that the sponsor of the bill has never had to worry about giving a speech that will bring people to their feet, for his wise and thoughtful words have always served to bring people to their senses. Today is no exception. Simply put, the bill presented makes sense. It makes sense because diabetics suffer if their disease becomes unmanageable. In simple truth, research on the utility and effectiveness of insulin pumps in achieving and maintaining optimal glycemic control requires us to concede that no diabetes strategy can be comprehensive if it fails to acknowledge the importance and then ensure the broadbase use of insulin pump technology. The benefits of continuous insulin infusion with an insulin pump have been well documented. That said, the good member from Thunder Bay– Superior North has already provided a comprehensive overview of the serious complications which can result from a failure in disease management. The costs to our health care system are both staggering and growing. In Ontario, there are about 6,500 children who live with insulin-dependent diabetes. On average, each child living with insulin-dependent diabetes will cost our health care system more than $200,000, the result of disease complications. Contrasting this cost to the cost of the pump and supplies, which the member has outlined, suggests at least a 10 to one health care payback through the early provision and use of insulin pump technology. Investing these dollars to ensure proper disease management will enhance the future of these children and allow them to live healthier, happier, more productive lives. In short, it would be money well spent. 1050 Allow me to close by quoting the words of a friend, the Right Reverend Dr. Tommy Douglas, who said, “If, instead of flowers, we could plant a beautiful thought in the heart of a friend, that would be to give as the angels give.” Today we have an exciting opportunity indeed to give as the angels give, to move forward with the beautiful thought placed in the heart of this assembly this morning. Thank you, Michael. Today we can ensure that the road less travelled becomes the more common path and avoid the fate of Robert Frost’s hired hand who, in the end, “Had nothing 1 DECEMBER 2005 to look back on with pride nor forward to with hope.” I implore all members of this assembly to act with resolve to embrace this wonderful initiative. Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): It really is an honour for me to say a few words today in support of Bill 15 and support my good friend the member from Thunder Bay– Superior North. Today in our audience we have a number of fourth-year nursing students from Trent University: Nicole Anderson, Julia Wadsworth, Lai Jeet Yeo, Amarpreet Sikand, Melissa Bennett, Jennifer Nash, Spring Numan and Meredith Alexander. These individuals have been circulating a petition in my community of Peterborough to bring forth support for Bill 15. My friend from Haliburton–Victoria–Brock has mentioned the son of Ron and Cathy Millen, who I know very well, and Dorothy MacDonald, the executive director of the local diabetes chapter in my riding of Peterborough. In bringing this bill forward today, the member is truly part of the great legacy of Thunder Bay-Superior North, along with C.D. Howe, Robert Andras, Lyn McLeod and others. There is a great tradition of leadership from that part of northwestern Ontario, and this fulfills that great legacy. Secondly, I believe that Bill 15 is just a logical extension of the legacy here in Ontario of Banting and Best, to bring forward and support this bill to have OHIP support these insulin pumps. I want to talk about the two First Nations communities in the riding of Peterborough. Chief Greg Cowie, of Hiawatha First Nations community, and chief Keith Knott, from Curve Lake First Nations community, in fact have shown leadership roles as Peterborough has had the opportunity to work with the Kashechewan people in the last number of weeks. They’ve certainly indicated to me that diabetes is a very serious problem in their communities and they see the funding, through OHIP, of this pump as a very significant step forward in order to manage diabetes in their communities. When you look at the statistics, over a million people in Ontario with either diagnosed diabetes or undiagnosed diabetes is a very serious situation, causing $2.1 billion in health care costs in Ontario. I think funding the insulin pump through OHIP would be a dramatic step forward to manage this difficulty. Mr. Khalil Ramal (London–Fanshawe): I’m honoured and privileged this morning to stand up and support Bill 15, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act. The honourable member from Thunder Bay–Superior North, for the second time in this place, has brought forward an important initiative, an important bill, that will affect thousands and thousands of people across Ontario. Before we start talking about this bill, let me introduce the people who came from London to be with us this morning to watch the debate about this important bill: Jannet Mundt, Jennifer Kish and Christine Turner. Thank you for coming from London. Along with the wonderful people from London, many other people from the province of Ontario are watching 1er DÉCEMBRE 2005 ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO us today to see how this debate is going to unfold. I believe this initiative is very important for many families, for many kids, for many people who want to live their lives normally, like everybody else, like you and I. They’re going to wake up in the morning healthy, they can go to work, and they can be productive in our community. That’s why I am supporting this bill, because the insulin pump is a very important initiative, a very important technique to give us a positive initiative to keep us alive, going to work and doing whatever we want with comfort. Also, many people talked about it from both sides of the House, from three different parties: Liberal, Conservative and NDP. I believe that everyone is going to support it. I know the insulin pump is going to cost the government, the Ministry of Health, some kind of money at the beginning. But in the end, in the long run, this will save health care a lot of money, and not just money, but also to create a way for the diabetic people in this province to live their lives normally, like everyone else. I learned from many people who spoke before me that there are almost a million people who are diabetic in this province, who suffer from this disease. Many people are looking at us today, especially today, to support them, and they want us to pass this bill. I feel that this bill is going to pass in the future, hopefully. It was first introduced by our Minister of Finance when he was in opposition in 2003. Second, it was also introduced last year by the honourable member from Thunder Bay–Superior North, who has again presented it in this House, seeking support from many members of this House. I believe that passing this bill will mean a lot to all of us, it will mean a lot to our health care, and it will mean a lot to many thousands of people in this province. I want to continue supporting this bill, and hopefully we will see the passage of it. Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward–Hastings): It is also my pleasure to speak this bill. As others have mentioned, we’ve spoken to it before. I hope to speak to it again, but at third reading this time rather than second reading. I think the fact that it’s back before this Legislature is a wonderful tribute to Michael Gravelle; Michael proves that good things do come in small packages. Thank you, Michael. It’s also a tribute to parents, grandparents and community advocates who have not let this bill go away, because they know the goodness that exists within it. As engineers, when we design a structure, one of the factors we have to consider is, what happens if the structure fails; what are the implications? So when I look at a bill I say, what happens if this bill doesn’t pass? It’s difficult at times for governments to find funding for what are truly preventive programs, because there isn’t that immediate payback that you can calculate and say, “Boy, it’s going to save this many dollars.” They’re long term. But if this bill fails, what are the long-term costs? Let’s look initially just at money down the road. 1301 I have been told that if an individual has a heart attack, it’s basically $100,000 when they enter the hospital and the bill goes up from there; insulin pumps substantially reduce that. Vision: The loss of vision for the individual is a loss of independence. It’s not just not being able to read but it’s losing their independence. There is a high rate of amputations among individuals with diabetes. There’s the need for dialysis. All of these represent dollar losses to our province and represent independence loss to our individuals. But folks, to the province it represents the loss of the talents and the contributions that these individuals would have been better able to make had they had not suffered this. From a financial viewpoint, the pumps are a pretty small cost. All of us are lobbied on a regular basis. When I was first appointed, I was lobbied about insulin pumps, but the impact was really made on me when I was at an event and saw a child with an insulin pump. I know that juvenile diabetes affects more than children, but my first contact was with a young man wearing an insulin pump. I realized that this pump enabled that person to live the same life as all his peers and colleagues, to take part in sports and not go through the challenges of having the needles all the time. I believe that a child has a right to a childhood. This insulin pump bill, when passed, will enable children to have the childhood they deserve. It will enable them to take part in all the activities and to live as close to a normal life as humanly possible. I hope, as all of us do, that ultimately a cure for diabetes will be found. But, folks, we have the opportunity here to make life better for innumerable children and adults in this province, and we must not waste this opportunity. The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Gravelle, you have up to two minutes to reply. Mr. Gravelle: I want to begin by thanking my colleagues who spoke today and all others for being so articulate, so passionate and so supportive of this legislation, particularly the members for Simcoe North, Timmins–James Bay, Niagara Falls, Haliburton– Victoria–Brock, Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Aldershot, Peterborough, London–Fanshawe, and Prince Edward–Hastings. You all were wonderful and I appreciate the great support. I am most grateful to the Canadian Diabetes Association and the Ontario Diabetes Action Partnership for the great support you’ve shown. I mean, you won’t give up. You shouldn’t give up, and we won’t give up as well. We believe this is something very important that should happen, and I’m really confident that we’re going to succeed. I don’t want this to be misunderstood, but sometimes when you’re in this business, when you’re a politician, you feel like you are spinning your wheels or you feel like you’re not accomplishing a great deal. I must admit, when I first became involved with this particular issue and brought it forward as a private member’s bill, I did recognize that this was going to have a positive impact 1302 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO on a lot of people in the province. It would be something that would make a true difference. Truly, that is why we all come here. We come to Queen’s Park or get into elected office or seek public office because we truly want to make a difference. I think that goes for all people of all parties. This is something that, if we are successful not only in getting passage today but in getting our government to support it—very soon, we hope—will make a huge difference in people’s lives. That does make a difference. So I thank you all. I do want to thank those people who came here to try to lend that support. I’m thinking of Zachary Smith and Lyla-Kay Collins. Thank you so much. I know the pump has made a real difference, and I also know what a challenge it has been for you to manage the costs. Hopefully today, with the tremendous support we’ve received, we will be successful in seeing things change and this legislation will go through and the pump will be available through OHIP in the future. Thank you so much, everybody. 1100 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (DRINKING AND BOATING OFFENCES), 2005 LOI DE 2005 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (INFRACTIONS RELATIVES À L’ALCOOL ET À LA NAVIGATION DE PLAISANCE) Mr. Zimmer moved second reading of the following bill: Bill 209, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to the suspension of drivers’ licences / Projet de loi 209, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne les suspensions de permis de conduire. The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Zimmer, you have up to 10 minutes. The floor is yours. Mr. David Zimmer (Willowdale): Bill 209 is aimed at saving lives and preventing bodily injury and ensuring boat safety. As a society, we now understand the message that driving a car while impaired is dangerous. Through the hard work of organizations like MADD Canada, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and our law enforcement authorities, the message has been clear: If you drink, don’t drive. As well, through a strategic campaign of advertisements, RIDE programs and punitive deterrents within our justice system, the culture of Ontarians has been changed and impaired driving is now considered antisocial behaviour. The result has been that thousands of lives have been saved and thousands of injuries have been prevented. But there is another alcohol-related issue that has long been ignored. Driving an automobile or a snowmobile while impaired has been deemed unacceptable behaviour, but driving a motorboat on our vast waterways seems to have escaped this labelling. Every boating season, there 1 DECEMBER 2005 are serious accidents involving boating and alcohol. Lives are lost needlessly due to impaired boaters. I’m a cottager. I am familiar with the lakes and waterways of our province, as are many, many other Ontarians. Unfortunately, it’s not unusual for individuals to choose to operate a motorboat while impaired. The attitude that it is acceptable to operate a motor vessel while impaired is prevalent among many boaters. Alcohol and recreational boating is an extremely bad mixture. Alcohol impairs cognitive function, judgment and reaction time, and diminishes an individual’s ability to survive in cold water. Yet society maintains a much greater level of tolerance for riskier behaviour in boats than in motor vehicles. According to a Red Cross report that looked at drownings between 1991 and 2000, the statistics are even more appalling. Between 1991 and 1995, 26% of drowning victims were above the legal alcohol limit. Between 1996 and 2000, 23% of drowning victims were above the legal limit. Boating and alcohol, snowmobiling and alcohol and the non-use of personal flotation devices accounted for a significant number of these drowning fatalities. Over the summer break I had the opportunity to visit police units around the province in order to understand the perspective of local authorities. Whether I was in Peel, Bracebridge or Orillia, the message was clear: We need to change the culture that believes drinking and boating is acceptable. The Ontario Provincial Police statistics effectively illustrate the extent of this problem. Between April 2003 and December 2003, the OPP marine units issued almost 2,000 charges and warnings involving the use of alcohol and boats. During that same period, 33 impaired boating charges or warnings were issued; 33 Criminal Code charges were also issued regarding blood alcohol of more than 80 milligrams per 100 litres of blood. Here are the facts: 37% of boaters in Canada admit to consuming alcohol on every boat trip; 66% report that they drink alcohol sometimes while boating. Alcohol is a factor in over 40% of recreational boating fatalities. These statistics about the dangers of impaired boating are compelling by themselves, but it is sometimes easy to detach ourselves from the numbers. It is very difficult to ignore the personal tragedies that are faced by families across the province who lose their loved ones to individuals who are driving a boat while impaired. Pete Crompton, for instance, a 27-year-old man, died tragically two years ago in a boat collision where alcohol was a factor. Ken Crompton, Pete’s father, inspired the introduction of this bill. I spoke at length to him. No family should have to endure the loss of a loved one due to the impairment of a boater. I’m committed to ensuring that something positive emerges from the loss that families suffer, such as the Cromptons have had to face. What will the bill do? The premise of this bill is based on the belief that there should not be a distinction between an impaired driver of an automobile and an impaired operator of a powered vessel. When an individual chooses to drink and drive in any vehicle, they become a weapon and they put the safety of others at risk. 1er DÉCEMBRE 2005 ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO Bill 209, if passed, will amend the Highway Traffic Act so that the penalties that apply to individuals convicted of impaired driving of an automobile will also apply to boaters who drive powered vessels while impaired. Right now, law enforcement authorities have the ability to issue convictions for drinking and boating, but for law enforcement, spotting an impaired boater is much more difficult than spotting an impaired automobile driver. Therefore, it is important that there is an effective deterrent that will prevent boaters from drinking in the first place. As well, theoretically, if an individual who is convicted of driving a motor vessel while impaired is brought ashore by the local police, there is nothing preventing them from going to their car and driving away, in spite of their alcohol-related conviction, because their driver’s licence is still in effect. This bill is about giving law enforcement authorities the tools they need to effectively address this problem. It’s about giving the municipalities, especially those municipalities on our waterways and in cottage country, the tools to further ensure the safety of citizens and tourists. It’s about ensuring that the millions of tourists and Ontario residents who enjoy boating can go out on our waterways without having to fear for their lives due to impaired boaters. If passed, this bill will (1) suspend the driver’s licence of individuals convicted of an alcohol-related offence while operating a vessel; (2) give enforcement authorities the ability to enact 12-hour driver’s licence suspensions if persons are caught operating a vessel while under the influence of alcohol; and (3) the registrar of motor vehicles will be able to enact an immediate 90-day suspension of a driver’s licence for an offence involving alcohol and the operation of a vessel. 1110 This legislation is long overdue, and it is not the first time it has been introduced. Bills similar to Bill 209 have been introduced at least four times in this Legislature, and each time the bill has died on the order paper, despite support from all political parties. I want to thank my colleagues in the House for considering this bill. I hope you will be able to review this bill expeditiously so that I can introduce it. As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure safety on Ontario’s waterways and roads. People who drink and boat present a safety risk not only in a boat but also if they choose to get into their car following the conviction or a warning for a boating offence. As a province, we do suspend drivers’ licences for offe