Ontario Hansard

April 20, 2005

SEXUAL REASSIGNMENT SURGERY

Ms. Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): My question is for the Premier. The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal's hearing on transsexual people's right to sex reassignment surgery has just concluded. Your government forced this hearing because your Minister of Health broke his promise to the community to restore funding for the medical procedure last spring, a decision that puts into question your government's commitment to fight for the rights of individuals who face extreme discrimination on a daily basis.

Members of the transsexual community are here today. They want to know where you stand. Premier, do you view sex reassignment surgery as a medically necessary procedure?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): To the Attorney General.

Hon. Michael Bryant (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs, minister responsible for democratic renewal): I thank the member for her question. I hope it's fair to say that on the issue of discrimination and equality, the member and I agree more than disagree on issues. This is a particularly difficult one.

The member said in her press release that sex reassignment surgery "is not a casual decision for either the individual or the health care team involved," and I agree. I respect and acknowledge that. The issue that's before the tribunal is what OHIP will cover and what it will not cover. The submissions have been made before the tribunal, and it is now almost complete. We'll let the tribunal do their work and then take a good look at the decision.

Ms. Churley: Premier, when the Tories cut funding, transsexual individuals lost access to health care that had been recognized as a medical procedure in Ontario since 1969 and continues to be funded in other provinces such as Alberta, BC etc. The impact of that decision has been particularly devastating for individuals who were undergoing related procedures at the time. Their lives have been in limbo ever since.

Martine Stonehouse, one of these individuals, is here today. She has expressly written to you, Premier, calling on you to recognize that sex reassignment surgery is a medically necessary procedure and is not a casual decision made by individuals and the health care professionals involved. I will send over a copy of her third letter to you.

I ask you, if the tribunal rules in favour of reinstating funding, will you ensure that your government respects the ruling and reinstate the funding immediately after that ruling?

Hon. Mr. Bryant: I refer the supplementary to the Premier.

Hon. Mr. McGuinty: I want to be very, very direct to the member's question: Yes.

Ontario Hansard

Monday, February 21, 2005

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Premier. Mr. Rick Sgroi of Richmond Hill will die without enzyme replacement therapy. His wife, Mara, wrote you a letter and I want to quote from that letter: "It has now been a month since my last letter to you and ...I have not had a personal reply from you.” She goes on to say, “I have stopped asking for your compassion—you have none.... I say, for shame to you all when costs and discrimination dictate who lives or who dies. I charge you with pulling the plug on the life support system of Fabry patients and that is a premeditated criminal act!”

This is from Mara, whose husband, Rick, will die without enzyme replacement therapy. I’m going to ask you—because they’re watching this afternoon and they know that I’m asking this question—to stand in your place, look at them, and tell them why you aren’t prepared to instruct the Minister of Health to do what has to be done to ensure that Rick has the medical attention that he needs to live.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty (Premier, Minister of Inter­governmental Affairs): The Minister of Health.

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I think obviously we all express concern around patients who are feeling in these circumstances. We also have some responsibilities that are very challenging from time to time. This is one of those.

We’re operating under a regime, frankly, with respect to the honourable member, that his party helped bring in our country, and that is, utilizing a common drug review so that all provinces and territories could have the benefit of working together with a view toward determining the clinical efficacy of any product before it’s listed on our formulary. This is the process that was established. The company didn’t like the way it worked the first time around, and upon application and at their instigation, a further review is ongoing.

I think the thing that has shocked us is that the company has decided to treat different Canadians in different fashions. There has been an unequal view on their part. They began offering this product on a compassionate basis. I believe that if they believe as fervently in their product as they claim to, they should continue to support it while this process is ongoing.

AUTISM TREATMENT

The Kingston Whig-Standard

Mon 18 Apr 2005

McGuinty promised hope but delivers disappointment

…Ontario's Superior Court recently ruled that the provincial government violated the constitutional rights of autistic children by cutting off funding for IBI at age six. That means the number of children eligible for funding has dramatically increased.

The government response was to appeal the decision, arguing the courts are effectively and inappropriately telling the government how to spend its money. The Liberals are also fighting an Ontario Human Rights Commission ruling that found the cut-off rule discriminatory.

Parents of autistic children are outraged because McGuinty, before the election, agreed that ending therapy funding at six was "unfair and discriminatory."

"The Ontario Liberals support extending autism treatment beyond the age of six," he wrote in a Sept. 17, 2003 letter to the parent of an autistic child.