Gary Carr

[Quarantine Act, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I know people who were quarantined during the SARS crisis. They were in their homes with telephones and the media reporters could not get close because obviously they did not want to get the disease. The media was photographing people as they were on the phone talking to reporters. They were being asked what it was like and what was happening? It was very powerful to see those people quarantined not knowing what was happening to them being on the phone speaking and relating what it was like. I remember those images of people in their homes.

The member asked what it would be like. We cannot imagine what it would be like to not know if they had the disease because they did not feel bad, but they had the potential. To a person, what struck me, is that the people were not concerned about themselves when asked what was their biggest concern. Most of the people were concerned about whether they had infected a family member, whether it be a child, a spouse, a mom or dad, an aunt, an uncle, or a grandparent. They were not concerned about themselves, but for the people they were in close proximity to.

I was struck at that time how Canadians, when they were down to the crunch facing the disease themselves, were more concerned with what it was going to do to their children. The people being interviewed were not concerned for themselves or what may happen to them but were concerned for family members. That is what Canadians are all about. In a time of need, they are still more worried about other people than themselves.

However, later, the people in quarantine began to ask about compensation. We need to take a look at that because they were concerned, if they had to take days or three weeks off in a quarantine, what that would do to their families and income. That needs to be addressed. Hopefully, that will answer the member's question.

[Quarantine Act, May 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said privately to the hon. member, I have followed the member's career and I have always admired him because he has come to this place and he always asks the tough questions, even of his own government. I think that is what he was sent here to do. Part of his background is the municipal sector, where those tough questions are asked. I am happy to respond to his question because I know he has done that in a number of fields, certainly, including the environment. I want to say how much I respect the hon. member.

During my speech I did not have a chance to talk about other diseases. We focused a little on SARS because it was the most recent, and on the avian influenza, but there is also the West Nile virus. I did not have an opportunity to talk about the West Nile virus as well. This is another disease that was of major concern during that period of time, particularly in Ontario.

The answer to the question is, what happened during that period of time? On February 2 in the Speech from the Throne, the government committed to modernizing the health protection legislation as an ongoing objective. What happened as a result of some of these concerns is that the government in the throne speech in 2004 said it was going to take a look at that.

Then, Dr. David Naylor, chair of the National Advisory Committee on SARS and Public Health, also recommended legislative changes to government to better address the risks posed by new or re-emerging infectious diseases. I apologize that I did not get into that part of my remarks, because I wanted to. Unfortunately we do not always have enough time, but I think this is very critical.

I think it is critical because Dr. David Naylor, as chairman of the national advisory committee, is the person who is in the best position to tell us as legislative people what we should be doing. That is the reason the government acted; it was not only in the throne speech based on what happened with the provinces and the concerns expressed to the federal government by the Ontario government, particularly over SARS, but also because of Dr. David Naylor's concerns. I think everyone in this House has a tremendous amount of respect for him and is very pleased to have him in that role. He is one of the people who recommended the legislative changes.

I say to those members who may be reluctant to take a look at this that when we have someone with the expertise of Dr. Naylor recommending these legislative changes in this act, I think we should listen very carefully.

I will say to the hon. member that this is one of the big reasons. It is because of what Dr. David Naylor said. An update to the Quarantine Act will address these urgent issues regarding the spread of communicable diseases.

In one last point, I have listed a few of the diseases and I may have missed a couple, but the concern is that there are new diseases springing up all the time. These are diseases that we may not know about.

I thank the hon. member for his tough questions and hitting right to the point as he usually does. I hope I have answered the member's question.

[Quarantine Act, May 5th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate and talk about this very important quarantine bill.

I want to start by speaking about what I consider probably the most important issue facing this great country today, and that is health care. I want to couch this in the context of what this Quarantine Act means to the Canadians as it relates to health care.

I was one who pushed the government and the Prime Minister on the issue of the health care accord. When the Prime Minister was in my during the election campaign, I sat and listened to a group of cancer patients from Cancer Care Ontario who talked about some of their concerns and related some of the problems. This is one reason why I pushed it.

The Prime Minister then signed the accord, which we know provides $41 billion over the next 10 years. Some of that money will go to help out with things like the Quarantine Act. Looking at the health care system, it is my belief we have a number of concerns. One is the quarantine situation, which is a relatively new concern. My hon. friend last time highlighted the situation of SARS. We have the avian flu situation. It is relatively new in terms of the consciousness of Canadians.

There were a lot of concerns about the waiting list times and what we would do with regard to long term waiting lists for key areas like heart surgery, knee surgery, sight replacement. Those were on the public's mind. Some of the issues relating to quarantine are relatively new. Bringing this bill in will highlight to people just how important the health care system is as it relates to quarantine.

As I have dealt with and looked at this bill, a number of questions have come up from a number of people. I would like to talk a bit about the bill and what I see as an important part of it. I also want to answer some of the questions I have received from people who have talked about their concerns.

One concern raised is why there is no protection or compensation for people who are quarantined. I asked the hon. member that question on the last round. It is my understanding that the Department of Justice is looking at compensation and considering the proper wording.

Members who have concerns regarding that issue should rest assured that is definitely part of the concerns of the ministry and it will deal with the issues of compensation for people who are quarantined. Everything from Workers' Compensation situations to employment insurance are things that make this a encompassing and detailed act.

The other question that comes up is, why is the bill is so urgent at this time? As I mentioned, we could talk about the SARS scenario. It offers authorities related to people departing Canada as well. My hon. friend from Peterborough made a valid point. It is not only people coming into Canada who are the concerns. It is also people leaving.

I am from Ontario. We know what happened during SARS outbreak. It affected everything, including tourism. People were not coming to Canada. As we well know, we have a country built on tourism. We have a tremendous amount of support, for example, from people in the United States who come to Canada. As a result of this legislation, I think we will ensure that people continue to come in this great country.

The next question is, why so little consultation? There was a lot of consultation with the public and the provinces. We can always do more in that regard. I want to commend the health committee that looked at this. I did not have the opportunity to sit on that committee, but I did have the opportunity to read some of Hansard . I know the committee did some fine work in terms of consultation.

It is always difficult in committee to do the type of consultation that is needed because there is always so little time, as there is in this House, to pass things. However I do want to say, in a non-partisan way, that the committee had some good consultations on this.

We have attempted, as a government, to work with the public health community as a first step. I want to commend the minister in that regard. I know she has done an excellent job in dealing with a lot of the public health community groups that are out there that have given us, I think, some very good ideas.

We also want to consider the minimum requirements to allow flexibility to handle further public health emergencies because, as I said, this is an all-encompassing act that would look at a lot of those areas.

We want to continue to work with the stakeholders as we continue to go through what I consider phase two.

The Quarantine Act impacts on other sectors. One of the questions that has been asked, particularly by people on the financial side, concerns the financial impact of those costs.

I know that when it comes to the health care deal, the $41 billion over 10 years is a tremendous amount of money but getting virtual unanimity from all political parties and all provincial and territorial premiers to sign the deal was not an easy thing to do. However, when we are talking about the $41 billion, cost becomes a very important part of it because so much goes into the areas I have mentioned and people want to know what the cost will be for this particular impact and what the cost impact will be as a result of this legislation.

I believe, having looked at it and having had some discussions with people in the financial field, the act is consistent with the initial norms in managing serious infection scenarios. The cost of having inadequate tools is much greater.

I will highlight that. To this day the cost and the impact on the economy, by not only lost wages of people but lost tourism, was absolutely tremendous. We have a tremendous amount of tourism because we are blessed with having one of the most beautiful countries in the world. We have everything from oceans to mountains to beautiful scenery. Tourism is very important and when we look at the cost, the cost of this Quarantine Act is far less than if we were hit with just one serious situation.

I know some people look at the financial cost but most of us are more concerned about the human impact. However the financial impact has been taken into consideration.

What do we know about the public's receptiveness for this act? I know in the public opinion polls health care is the number one issue and it has been for the last number of years I have been in politics. I was at the provincial level for about 13 years and it has been the number one issue going back to the early 1990s bar none.

As a result of some of the things, the influenza, the SARS outbreak, I think we have seen probably over the last little while even more concern relating to health care and certainly during that period of time. I guess it was the springtime during that period of time that in terms of the public opinion poll it would have even been greater than it was at any other time.

The number one issue for people in this country is health care. I therefore think the Quarantine Act has broad support right across this great country, which is why I am a little concerned with the opposition not wanting to get this legislation through.

Why do the provinces feel they are not being respected in their jurisdiction? That is something that comes up on a lot of the bills that we deal with. I know it is an important issue to all provinces, and certainly having been a provincial MPP for 13 years I know the jurisdiction questions. I know jurisdiction is important to provinces like Alberta and Quebec. Some people in this country believe that the way to deal with that is to simply send the money from the federal government off to the provinces and let them deal with it because it is their jurisdiction.

I am not one who believes we can do that. When we are talking about the Quarantine Act and about dealing with something right across the country, we cannot talk in isolation. It does not just affect Ontario or Alberta or any of the other provinces. It affects the entire country and we cannot do it in isolation.

This is one of the cases where I believe that the federal government can play a coordinating role. I say this to my hon. friends, particularly in the Bloc who come from Quebec and want to respect the jurisdictions, we all believe in that but there are times when we have to look at things from a national perspective. It is a very delicate balance.

I think the Quarantine Act tries to respect the provinces' jurisdiction while at the same time ensuring that a nation-wide plan is in place. I think Ontario raised that concern. I was there during that period of time. I happened to be sitting in the chair and I remember the member who was the health minister coming in every day. I used to ask him if he was okay because he was losing so much weight working on this. One of the concerns was that we needed a national plan. The provincial government was saying that it needed to make sure that the federal government was ready for the next time and God forbid there is a next time that something like this happens.

The Government of Ontario and the federal government worked very hard during that initial crisis but we need to learn from that. For people who have concerns about this act dealing with the provincial governments on the health care issue, they only need to look at the health care deal that was signed with the other provinces.

Every province and territory, every Liberal New Democrat and Conservative premier signed the deal, with flexibility by the federal government for the Quebec government to sign the deal. I think the same thing can apply to the Quarantine Act. There can be flexibility, protecting the jurisdictions of the provinces, that are very mindful of their jurisdiction, but ensuring that there is both money and a plan through this act to deal with it at the national level.

If we look at the situation I firmly believe that one of the big concerns relating to the provincial governments is the cost factor. I am hopeful the $41 billion that will go to the provinces with these deals, and with the agreement with Quebec that was specially put together knowing the concerns that it has, that we can come up with a Quarantine Act that will protect provincial jurisdiction.

Under the British North America Act health care was given to the provincial governments because it said in one line something about hospitals going to the provincial jurisdiction. We never realized in those circumstances that the health care system would become the number one spending priority of all provinces. In Ontario, health care has gone from 24% to, I believe, easily 35% and may go to 50% of the cost.

If we do not have the federal government involved both with money and with acts like the Quarantine Act, I do not believe the province of Ontario could solve all the health care issues. When we talk about waiting lists, sometimes we may have to give the provinces the money and allow them to do with it what it needs to do. It may be for example that Ontario has problems in one particular area that are good in another area. Manitoba may be strong in one area. Wait lists may be longer for knees and not so much for heart. We need to ensure that the provinces have the flexibility to make the decisions of how they are going to deal with it.

However when it comes to things like the Quarantine Act , it is the one issue that transcends all borders. In the past it was not as big a problem because people were not travelling as much. Now within 24 hours we can have any type of disease spread right around the world just simply by people getting off a plane and bringing a particular disease into any particular country.

I am very mindful of the jurisdiction of the provinces but I believe that the Quarantine Act will protect that.

The big concern I have heard from people, and some of the members have mentioned it as well in their speeches, is that the minister appears to have extraordinary power to make interim orders and what checks and balances are in place.

When the Minister of Health was here during the member's speech I briefly had an opportunity to share some of my thoughts with him. I was pleased to have been able to spend some time with the Minister of Health on some of these issues. When the Prime Minister was kind enough to take some of the new members aside he asked me what the difference was between the federal House and the provincial House. I told him that in all honesty, in the short period of my mandate, within six months, I had spent more time with the Minister of Health as a federal member than I did in the 13 years in the provincial legislature.

As part of my MBA, I put together a strategic plan for the ministry of health and actually gave the plan to the minister of health, a very fine lady and a good friend of mine, Elizabeth Witmer. She looked at me as though I was crazy for putting a strategic plan together for the provincial ministry of health. She must have thought I was a bit of a keener but it was as a result of putting together my MBA.

However I must say that the federal minister has spent more time with backbenchers like us asking questions on this particular bill and has been able to allay some of our concerns, one dealing with the interim orders.

There are examples of scenarios where ministerial orders would be critical, declaring public emergencies. We all hope and pray, of course, that this will never be needed, but the minister is required to table the order in Parliament in 15 days. There is a fine line between giving enough power to get the job done by the minister of health and then also ensuring that the minister of health of any political stripe does not have too much power. It is a very difficult and very delicate balance.

What is being proposed is that the minister would be required to table the order in Parliament in 15 days, which I believe would allow the people in the House to then deal with it.

I will say in a critical way but not in a non-partisan way that I do not blame any particular side. Although as hon. members would imagine, I obviously have a bias on which side I think is making the House work.

One of my concerns is that when we see the antics that are being played with the bill, we need to ensure that if we give more power to the House, we do the right thing. One of the right things is passing the bill, not playing political games because we are looking at the other picture.

I have been outspoken throughout my career about wanting to give more power to the people. I know a lot of my hon. friends feel that way as well, but there is a fine balance.

I do not think anybody in the House believes that the Quarantine Act is not important, but we still get caught up in the politics of wanting to adjourn the debate, move on and not deal with it. We rise on points of order but there is a time and place for that. When it comes to acts that are so important, so critical to the future of the country, we need to get away from the political games.

On the one hand, I am one of those who have fought for 13 years for giving more power to the legislature, which this will do through the order in Parliament in 15 days. The trouble is that this is my first minority government and, unfortunately, sometimes the political games hon. members play make this place not work the way it should. However I am sure everyone would come through in any type of crisis.

I want to say to all members of the House that this is a very good legislation. We need to work on it to ensure it puts in place the health care of our citizens, which is so important. Let us work on the bill. Let us put all the partisanship aside and get on with the job we were sent here to do, which is to help people by passing the amendments to the Quarantine Act.

I thank all the members for patiently listening to me. I look forward to their comments and questions, because at the end of the day we are all here to help improve the safety and the health of all of the citizens we were sent here to represent.

[Quarantine Act, May 5th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I know my hon. friend did not have a lot of time to prepare this excellent presentation but I am always amazed by his great wealth of wisdom.

The question I have relates to some important aspects of the bill. I agree wholeheartedly with what my hon. friend said about SARS. Like a lot of us, we were concerned that the opposition, through procedural wrangling, would try to prevent the debate on the bill from taking place.

I was particularly struck by what the member said regarding some of the diseases that we in Ontario face, particularly as it related to the SARS outbreak last year. We all remember people wearing masks during flights as a result of the scare at that point in time. As a result of some of those activities, we are now dealing with this legislation.

My question deals with protecting and compensating people who are quarantined. I wonder if the member could inform us what is going to be done regarding protecting or compensating people who are quarantined as a result of this legislation.

I want to say again how proud I am to have listened to some of my colleague's comments. As usual, he has given great insight into this issue.

[Quarantine Act, May 5th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I hope the member will forgive me if I did not understand the concern properly. In listening to some of the concerns that were put forward, I may have misunderstood what the member was saying, but it seemed that a lot of the concern related to the fact that it was the Senate that was leading this particular issue.

Did I read the member wrong? Is her major concern that it is coming from the Senate?

[Mayor of Milton, May 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize that 2005 marks Milton Mayor Gordon Krantz's 25th year serving the town of Milton as mayor.

Since being elected to Milton council in 1965, Gordon Krantz has helped build the foundations and cornerstones of this community through his involvement in services provided by the Region of Halton, the Niagara Escarpment Commission, Conservation Halton and Milton Hydro.

Elected as mayor in 1980, Gordon Krantz has helped shape Milton's future with significant projects, such as the restoration of the Town Hall facility, the Milton Leisure Centre, the 401 Industrial Park, Mill Pond restoration and Rotary Park redevelopment to name a few.

Mayor Krantz demonstrates leadership, compassion, vision and commitment. He has served his constituents well and has great pride in serving as mayor.

I would like to extend my most sincere gratitude and congratulations to Mayor Gordon Krantz on 25 years of excellence, dedication and commitment.

[Milton Community Awards, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to congratulate the nominees and award recipients of the Milton Chamber of Commerce Community Awards, which were given out at the annual evening of honour and celebration on April 2 in my riding of Halton.

The 2004 awards are in recognition of their outstanding dedication, commitment and exceptional involvement within the community. This year I am pleased to congratulate: Audrea Lear-Costigan, lifetime achievement award; Karl Reichert, citizen of the year; Rita Ward, president's award; The Halton Compass, business of the year with 25 employees or less; Granite Ridge Golf Club, business of the year with 26 employees or more; Shamim Bhimji, Ramada Inn and Conference Centre, business person of the year; and Howard Mott, Milton Chamber volunteer member of the year.

Congratulations to all nominees and recipients. Their involvement and contributions to Milton are appreciated and certainly very remarkable.

[The Budget, February 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member, I must admit, is very entertaining, but I want to be very clear that is all she is because she is wrong about the budget.

The Prime Minister made a commitment and followed through on the commitment. All the hon. member's self-styled, self-serving sensitivity and assignment of blame is wrong.

I want to quote from the mayor of Toronto, who is a New Democrat. He is a fine gentleman, working on behalf of the City of Toronto. He said:

This is groundbreaking. This is the first time I know of that the federal government has committed to a sustained funding program for municipalities.

The Minister of Finance was dealing with the hon. member on the budget. It is no wonder they could not come to any agreements on things; the hon. member would not be happy no matter what she received.

I will refer to the part of the budget that dealt with municipalities. Municipalities will receive $9 billion over five years. I will repeat that the mayor of Toronto, which is the biggest city in Canada, said that this was groundbreaking. Quite frankly, I agree with the mayor of Toronto and I disagree with the hon. member.

[Food and Drugs Act, February 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Mississauga South for his work on this bill. If folks take a look at today's Globe and Mail , they will see a fine article dealing with this particular bill. It talks about how the member began the process.

I will be supporting the bill and I encourage other members to support the bill. It is good legislation. I want to say clearly that other jurisdictions have taken a look at this issue and are dealing with it. I believe we should be taking a clear look at it.

Let us look at the statistics: 45% of motor vehicle collisions are a result of alcohol related incidents; 30% of fires are a result of alcohol related incidents; 50% of family violence is related to alcohol; and 40% of falls are caused by alcohol, as well as 50% of the hospital admittances dealing with falls.

Ontario looked at this and passed a bill called Sandy's law, which deals with this particular situation. As a result of the new law, alcoholic beverages now have labels warning about fetal alcohol syndrome.

The member has put together a report on fetal alcohol syndrome. The statistics are very clear. Fetal alcohol syndrome causes permanent damage to the fetus. I encourage members to read the bill and decide for themselves on this issue.

Cigarette packages contain warning labels on the problems related to cigarettes. We are all aware of the problems dealing with drinking and driving. This will warn of those dangers as well.

I will talk a bit about fetal alcohol syndrome because it is a particular area on which many of us are not too aware. I must admit as somebody who had been involved in the provincial government for about 13 years I was not aware of all the problems of fetal alcohol syndrome. I guess it came to light when MPP Ernie Parsons' bill, which is called Sandy's law, passed in Ontario with the unanimous consent of all Ontario members. It highlights and warns people of the dangers of fetal alcohol syndrome.

As I mentioned, I think a lot of people are not aware of the particular concerns of fetal alcohol syndrome. Most people who are coming to understand it, understand it is a truly preventable disease. If we in this Parliament can do anything to highlight that particular concern, and if we can ensure that even one, two, three or a few people become aware of it and prevent this dreaded disease it will be extremely good work that we do in this Parliament.

We know that when somebody is pregnant, the alcohol goes right into the baby at that particular time. However the problem is that a lot of people who do not know they are pregnant will continue drinking during that period of time. These warning labels that would be put on alcohol as a result of the bill, would warn people who are trying to become pregnant of the danger.

I was particularly struck by one letter, which was quoted in Hansard , from a woman whose son had been born with fetal alcohol syndrome. She did not even know she was pregnant at the time. Many people who are trying to get pregnant do not realize the danger. This bill would warn people of the dangers. I think we all understand that one should not be drinking when one is pregnant

We hope to encourage people to talk about this issue in a way similar to what has happened with drinking and driving. Many years back, drinking and driving was not as taboo as it is today. That has changed. The reason it has changed is the public education program that now makes it totally unacceptable to drink and drive.

While we still have a long way to go in that regard, I think all members in the House would support stronger measures to ensure that we take measures against drinking and driving. We still have a long way to go, but we have come a long way, the reason being the education done during that particular process to educate people about it. I believe this bill would do that.

The bill calls for labels to warn of the risks associated with the misuse of alcohol. Specifically it calls for health warnings on containers for alcohol beverages to caution expectant mothers and others of the risk. It should be noted that beverage alcohol is the only consumer product that can harm individuals and does not provide a warning label.

I think the education process can begin. As we know, and it was outlined in this particular Globe and Mail report, this member has worked extremely hard. In past Parliaments he has had 95% support. I forget what the exact number was, but I believe it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 211, which works out to 95%. We have come so close on so many occasions. I am hopeful that in this minority Parliament all sides will come together, because this is a non-partisan issue. This is not a particular issue like those we sometimes have in the House; I honestly and truly believe this is something that can be supported by all sides.

The U.S. has warning labels. I noticed that in the article today the feeling was expressed by some people associated with the alcohol manufacturing groups that there would not be enough room on the labels. Clearly in the U.S. that is not the case. There are warning labels. The very fine picture that we see of the member in today's Globe and Mail also shows the warning labels.

There are those who say it will not work, but I believe that the education process will work, particularly when it comes to fetal alcohol syndrome, which is not very well known. I believe that putting this warning on labels will in fact cause a lot of people to take a look at this particular problem we are facing. It is a serious problem, as we can see when we look at the human tragedy on top of the social tragedy and the health tragedy which accompany it.

My friend from Mississauga South has done a great deal of work. As was stated in Hansard , he has the agreement of the Canadian Medical Association on this issue. He has the agreement of and support from the Canadian Nurses Association as well as the Addiction Research Foundation. All of them support the labelling proposed in this bill. I believe those groups are 100% correct in their support. We should be supporting these fine groups and the work they do. If we as a Parliament can pass this legislation, I think it will be good.

I want to say up front that alcohol is a legal product. A lot of us on occasion will drink responsibly, but that is what this labelling is about. It is about drinking responsibly. It is about ensuring that warning labels are there. I am also particularly concerned about the education of our young people. As we know, we spend a great deal of money on this. I was in the Ontario government when we spent a great deal of time on how to warn our young people about the ills of cigarette smoking. It did not always work, but we attempted to educate people.

I say to all members of the House that this is a good piece of legislation. It is something that can be supported. We can prevent human tragedy if we pass this bill. I would encourage members from all sides of the House to do that. In closing, I want to thank the hon. member for Mississauga South for his patience and dedication. This is a truly a good and worthwhile bill and I am pleased to support it. I look forward to the debate.

[Petitions, February 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from constituents in my riding of Halton.

The petitioners are concerned about the proposed CN intermodal facility in their community and are in opposition to that development. Therefore the petitioners call on the government of Ontario to stop the development of the proposed CN major intermodal terminal facility in the town of Milton and surrounding area.