CONTENTS
Monday 5 October 1992
Advocacy Act, 1992, and companion legislation
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
*Chair / Président: Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East/-Est ND)
*Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
Mahoney, Steven W. (Mississauga West/-Ouest L)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
Runciman, Robert W. (Leeds-Grenville PC)
*Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre ND)
*Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Abel, Donald (Wentworth North/-Nord ND) for Mr Morrow
*Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND) for Ms Akande
*Sterling, Norman W. (Carleton PC) for Mr Runcima
*Sullivan, Barbara (Halton Centre L) for Mr Mahoney
*Wilson, Jim (Simcoe West/-Ouest PC) for Mr Harnick
*In attendance / présents
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes: Fram, Steve, legal counsel, Ministry of the Attorney General
Perlis, Linda, policy analyst, Office for Disability Issues, Ministry of Citizenship
Sharpe, Gilbert, director, legal services branch, Ministry of Health
Clerk / Greffière: Freedman, Lisa
Staff / Personnel: Beecroft, Doug, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1550 in room 228.
ADVOCACY ACT, 1992, AND COMPANION LEGISLATION / LOI DE 1992 SUR L'INTERVENTION ET LES PROJETS DE LOI QUI L'ACCOMPAGNENT
Consideration of Bill 74, An Act respecting the Provision of Advocacy Services to Vulnerable Persons / Loi concernant la prestation de services d'intervention en faveur des personnes vulnérables; Bill 108, An Act to provide for the making of Decisions on behalf of Adults concerning the Management of their Property and concerning their Personal Care / Loi prévoyant la prise de décisions au nom d'adultes en ce qui concerne la gestion de leurs biens et le soin de leur personne; Bill 109, An Act respecting Consent to Treatment / Loi concernant le consentement au traitement; and Bill 110, An Act to amend certain Statutes of Ontario consequent upon the enactment of the Consent to Treatment Act, 1992 and the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 / Loi modifiant certaines lois de l'Ontario par suite de l'adoption de la Loi de 1992 sur le consentement au traitement et de la Loi de 1992 sur la prise de décisions au nom d'autrui.
The Chair (Mr Mike Cooper): I'd like to call this meeting of the standing committee on administration of justice to order today on orders of the House which state: "After routine proceedings on the committee's first regularly scheduled sitting day of the fall meeting period of the House, the Chair of the committee shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispense with all remaining sections of the bills and any amendments thereto. The committee shall be authorized to sit beyond the adjournment of the House."
We'll proceed by first of all dealing with the out-of-order amendments.
Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I'd like to withdraw my amendment to section 25.1 of the Advocacy Act. It's an addition, subsection (3).
The Chair: Okay. Thank you.
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I would also like to withdraw section 25.1.
The Chair: Thank you. Okay.
Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Mr Chairman, I'm sure we will want to have a look at the implications of the withdrawal of the government motion on 25.1. I would like to suggest to you that this once again follows a pattern of confusion and unpreparedness in terms of dealing with the issues before this committee. As a result of changes which have been made to Bill 109, I too have some amendments to withdraw, but in the course of doing so I want to make a point that has been made in a singularly effective series of letters to the Premier with respect to Bill 74.
The first one comes from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, and it says in the body of the letter:
"When new amendments which dramatically change the intent and direction of these bills suddenly appear in the midst of clause-by-clause debate, as they did in the case of Bill 74, it only confirms the growing fear that these bills are not being carefully considered.
"Many of these amendments were withdrawn the same day and then reintroduced in yet another amended version a week later. Hurried telephone conversations with Ministry of Citizenship officials trying to amend the amendments in order to meet some arbitrary deadline is not consultation."
The college goes on to say:
"The Ministry of Health had announced its intention to pursue this matter" -- that is, the matter of the confidentiality of patient records -- "in a considered and consultative fashion under separate legislation. Yet the Ministry of Citizenship appears to be literally making up the government's policy on confidentiality on the fly.
"The college's concerns about the government's ability to produce workable, understandable and consistent legislation have only increased in the past few weeks. The rushed atmosphere and confusing process to which these bills have been subjected have done little to guarantee that the interests of patients or vulnerable people will be protected. It has only served to alienate and frustrate those groups who must work with and implement this law in its final form."
The Chair: Mrs Sullivan, excuse me.
Mrs Sullivan: Mr Chairman, on my point of order: I want to continue because it relates directly to the parliamentary assistant's withdrawal of section 25.1. This evening the Minister of Citizenship will be meeting with the Ontario Hospital Association. Tomorrow morning the minister will be meeting with the College of Physicians and Surgeons. This afternoon I understand the minister will be meeting with the Ontario Medical Association. Other organizations, such as the College of Nurses of Ontario, the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, the Ontario Nurses' Association, the Ontario Friends of Schizophrenics and the Ontario Nursing Home Association, have not at this point been invited to any meetings. Clearly, what is occurring here is that a consultative process is going on when we are now in the final stages of voting in committee process on these bills. This is absolutely irresponsible and unconscionable.
I have amendments to withdraw completely as a result of amendments that were made and approved by the committee to the Consent to Treatment Act, which are reflected in Bill 74. In those circumstances it's reasonable to withdraw those amendments. It is not reasonable for amendments to be withdrawn, changed or altered simply because of the inadequate work, as I've said before, by enthusiastic amateurs in the preparation of this bill. There has never been a worse scenario of putting forward government legislation in this Parliament in its entire history. This is an absolutely ludicrous issue.
The Chair: Your point?
Mrs Sullivan: My point is that these entire bills should be reprinted. Nobody knows what's in them, nobody knows what the intent of the government is with respect to Bill 74. The amendments are conflicting and confusing. They've been put forward one day, taken away the same afternoon; another one is put forward. The drafting has been sloppy, and frankly the intention of the government, which has been ideologically driven, has been one that is -- I can't express it in any way other than by saying their performance has been unconscionable.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Sullivan, but you do not have a point of order. I understand your point of view and I'm having no direction from any of the ministers of rewriting or withdrawing any of the bills. We will proceed with the votes.
Mrs Sullivan: They're not? All right. I have amendments to withdraw to Bill 74 as a result of changes made to the Consent to Treatment Act approved by the committee. I will withdraw my amendment to subsection 3(2), I will withdrawn my alternate 2 amendment to subsection 6(1) and I will withdrawn my alternate 2 subsection 7(1)(d).
The Chair: Excuse me, which one?
Mrs Sullivan: Subsection 7(1)(d).
The Chair: Alternate 2?
Mrs Sullivan: Yes, and I ask for advice from the Chair as to whether my amendment to clause 7(1)(k.2) is indeed the same as the government amendment which has recently been put forward.
I would also like a ruling from the Chair as to whether the new government amendments to subsections 25(1) and 25(2) are in order. In my view, they change the scope of the act from vulnerable persons to all persons -- whether vulnerable, disabled, 65 or not -- and enable an advocate to access all records relating to any patient or any person, and also any kinds of records, without limitation. I think that is absolute nonsense, and frankly I believe it's been deliberately put forward.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Sullivan. On subsection 7(1)(k.2), they are different, so it's up to you whether you choose to withdraw yours.
Mrs Sullivan: I will let mine stand.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Malkowski.
Mr Malkowski: I'd like to withdraw subsection 34(2.1).
The Chair: Thank you. Seeing none further, we'll proceed. Mr Malkowski.
Mr Malkowski: Sorry; nothing more.
1600
The Chair: Okay. We'll proceed on the amendments that are either out of order or --
Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: My understanding is that with subsection 34(2.1), which is a motion put forward by the government, which would mean that "a person who refuses to allow an advocate to enter a private dwelling without a warrant for entry" would not be subject to penalty, the government, in putting forward that amendment, appears to have changed its policy. Once again it appears to have changed its policy. We cannot vote on this stuff without having any kind of indication of what the hell the policy of the government is.
The Chair: As you are aware, Mrs Sullivan, there are no comments or questions today; it's just voting?
Mrs Sullivan: I think the public has a right to know, Mr Chair.
The Chair: I agree, Mrs Sullivan, and I hope that will be done in the future.
Mrs Sullivan: Ha. Dream along.
The Chair: On the motions that are out of order, the Progressive Conservative motion on subsection 17(2), I'd rule that this motion is out of order as the identical motion was moved by the Liberals and subsequently defeated.
On the Progressive Conservative motion on subsection 18(1.1), again this motion is out of order as the identical motion was moved by the Liberals and subsequently defeated.
On the government motion on subsection 25(1), Mr Winninger?
Mr David Winninger (London South): We believe that these amendments are in order, basically for four reasons.
First of all, the access contemplated under that section is without personal identifiers, and it's no different than the access currently provided on a widespread basis for clinical and demographic research purposes.
Secondly, the access is for the sole purpose of detecting and demonstrating the existence of systemic policies or practices that may be detrimental to vulnerable persons.
Thirdly, unless there's a reference point in the records of non-vulnerable people, the abuse of vulnerable persons might be impossible to demonstrate. It is similar to the use of control groups in research.
Lastly, this access to the records of all persons is analogous to the entry rights accorded to advocates to the premises of persons who are not vulnerable, and both the rights of entry and the rights of access to records are necessary to enable advocates to provide, in the one case, case advocacy, and in the other, systemic advocacy, to vulnerable persons.
The Chair: Further?
Mrs Sullivan: We will not give unanimous consent for this motion to proceed.
The Chair: I haven't asked for unanimous consent yet. I'd like to explain my ruling.
Subsection 25(1) is out of order. It allows the advocate possible access to information of people not necessarily vulnerable and not contemplated within the scope of the bill. This amendment was also broader than the previous motion, and this section was ruled out of order. I might state that there will be another chance in committee of the whole if the government wishes to do something on this.
My understanding is that we do not have unanimous consent to allow this motion? Thank you.
On the Liberal motion subsection 25(5), this motion is out of order as it relates to a subsection that does not exist. If we could get unanimous consent, we would allow this motion to be moved under subsection 25(3).
Mrs Sullivan: Mr Chairman, I believe it was a typographical error in the drafting.
The Chair: Yes, I agree that's what it was. Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed?
Mr Winninger: We are agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Thank you.
Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): One moment, Mr Chairman. Which motion are we now talking about?
The Chair: Subsection 25(5). There is no 25(5). It should have been 25(3).
Mr Sterling: Where can I find it in my --
The Chair: In the package of out-of-order amendments.
Mr Winninger: On a point of order, Mr Chair: There is a 25(5). It's a handwritten motion.
The Chair: Yes, but there is no 25(5) in the bill.
Mr Winninger: Okay.
The Chair: It was meant to be subsection 25(3).
Mrs Sullivan: Mr Chairman, I believe that because this is similar to an amendment which was made to 24(5), when legislative counsel were numbering that section they just put the same issues in. I do have that motion copied and I can distribute that to everybody on the committee.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Sterling, do we have unanimous consent?
Mr Sterling: Yes. You have my consent, anyway.
The Chair: Thank you. On the government motion, clause 37(1)(e.1), this motion is also out of order, as it relates to the wrong section. If we could have unanimous consent to allow this motion to be moved to clause 36(1)(e.1) -- do we have unanimous consent? Agreed?
Mrs Sullivan: Agreed.
Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): One moment, Mr Chairman.
Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed? Thank you.
Mr Malkowski: Mr Chair, I have the correction here. We have copies of that to be handed out.
The Chair: Thank you. On the government motion, clause 50(6)(b), this amendment is out of order, as it amounts to a direct negation of Mrs Sullivan's motion to the same clause. This is on a government motion --
Mr Sterling: Which bill is this?
The Chair: Bill 108; my apologies. Government motion, clause 50(6)(b).
Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): Point of order, Mr Chair: Wouldn't it be wiser to dispose of one bill at a time?
The Chair: These are just the out-of-order amendments that we're dealing with right at the moment.
Mr Morrow: Thank you.
Mr Jim Wilson: Mr Chairman, could you repeat the ruling on that?
The Chair: This amendment is out of order, as it amounts to a direct negation of Mrs Sullivan's motion to the same clause.
Mr Winninger: I would ask for unanimous consent that notwithstanding it being ruled out of order, we still vote on it.
The Chair: Do we have unanimous consent?
Mr Jim Wilson: No.
Mr Winninger: I understood we did.
Mrs Sullivan: Mr Chairman, perhaps it might assist the committee if on this occasion you allow counsel to the ministry or the parliamentary assistant to speak to this particular amendment.
Mr Winninger: Perhaps I'll allow Mr Fram to address it. It's a technical sort of amendment that's required as a result of the way in which Ms Sullivan's amendment was originally worded.
The Chair: Mr Fram, could you please identify yourself for Hansard.
Mr Steve Fram: Steve Fram, Ministry of the Attorney General.
The amendment is necessary in order to make the Ulysses contract work. If the standard that was in Ms Sullivan's provision isn't changed, we fear that the courts will find that the Ulysses contract, because it sets such a low threshold for making a power of attorney of this kind and such a high threshold for getting out of it, will find it a trap and will strike out the whole provision.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Fram. Do we have unanimous consent to allow this motion to be moved?
1610
Mr Sterling: Could I just ask one point of clarification? I'm sorry, but reading the reprinted bill under clause 50(6)(b), I have in the third line, "was capable of personal care."
Mr Fram: Yes, and that was changed by a Liberal motion to "capable of making a power of attorney for personal care."
Mr Sterling: Okay, now you want to go back to the reprint.
The Chair: Do we have unanimous consent for this motion? Agreed? Agreed.
Also on Bill 108, government motion on subsection 52(2): This motion is out of order, as it makes no current sense.
Could we have unanimous consent to change the words in the motion to substitute "personal care" for "managing property"?
Mr Winninger: A point of order, Mr Chair: The suggested change would be from the words "managing property" to "managing personal care," so it would read "incapable of personal care" as opposed to "incapable of managing property."
The Chair: Substitute "personal care" for "managing property."
Mr Winninger: Exactly.
The Chair: Do we have unanimous consent?
Mr Sterling: This is restricting the power of the court to appoint a guardian, as I read it. Is that not correct?
Mr Winninger: Sorry, I missed where that question was coming from.
Mr Sterling: Under section 52 of Bill 108, the court can appoint a guardian for a person who is incapable of personal care and as a result needs decisions to be made on his or her behalf by a person who is authorized to do so. This is a qualification of what the court may or may not do.
Mr Winninger: Quite frankly, Mr Sterling, that was an error in the amendment. The reference to "managing property" was there in error.
Mr Sterling: I know it was an error. I'm saying, though, that we have an opportunity to stop this amendment by ruling it out of order, okay? Basically, what I'm saying is that you're trying to qualify the court's right to appoint a guardian by adding this amendment. Why do you want to qualify the court's authority?
Mrs Sullivan: I think what we're seeing here is a policy change that has been little discussed in committee. We see this as a companion amendment to an amendment that the government is proposing to subsection 22(3), where I suspect that what the government is doing is attempting to bring in a new level of activity for the court to allow for assisted decision-making. But we have not had that discussion, and the government has not indicated that is where it's interested in going through any other section or in any way before the committee. So, basically, what we are seeing here is a policy change.
Mr Winninger: Perhaps the committee could hear from Mr Fram. He can indicate that it's not a radical departure from what was here in the first place.
Mr Fram: It has always been the intention of the various governments that guardianship, because it takes away all rights in connection with a person, be the last alternative when you can't use powers of attorney for personal care, when you can't use a Ulysses contract, where you can't use other forms of a Consent to Treatment Act. The last thing in the world we want is too much guardianship in the province. This really says: "Guardianship is the last resort. If you can't get the decisions in another way, court-appoint the guardian, but otherwise look to less restrictive means."
The Chair: I'll ask once again: Do we have unanimous consent to change the words to the motion?
Mr Sterling: I'd like to discuss this again after we've gone over section 22.
The Chair: After when?
Mr Sterling: We may have a discussion about subsection 22(3). There may be unanimous consent around this table to talk about it as we go through it. I guess I'm saying that I am not prepared to give unanimous consent at this moment, but might be when we get to subsection 52(2) of Bill 108.
The Chair: When we get there in our voting, if we have unanimous consent, we could have some discussion.
On Bill 109, Progressive Conservative motion, subsection 10(1): This motion is out of order because it deals with the identical subject matter of a motion that has already been defeated.
Mrs Sullivan: Mr Chairman, we'll give unanimous consent for that motion to be included again.
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent to allow this motion to be moved? Agreed.
Bill 110, government motion, subsection 11.1(2): This amendment is out of order as it amends a statute not in the original bill. Is there unanimous consent to allow this motion to be moved?
Mrs Sullivan: No.
Mr Jim Wilson: No.
The Chair: We don't have unanimous consent?
Mr Winninger: Perhaps we might hear from counsel to Citizenship as to why it's necessary this be included.
The Chair: Could you please identify yourself for Hansard?
Ms Linda Perlis: Linda Perlis, legal counsel, Office for Disability Issues. It was included at the insistence of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, who wished that bill to contain a complete code of all pieces of legislation that would be exempt from the application of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act or any sections in any pieces of legislation. The government has tabled amendments to sections 30(1.2) and 31(1.2) which will effectively accomplish the same result, but not in the manner particularly requested by the privacy commissioner himself.
The Chair: Do we now have unanimous consent? No, we don't.
On the government motion, subsection 18(8.1) alternate 1: This amendment is out of order because subsection 35(2) was not opened in the original bill.
Mr Wessenger: Could we ask for unanimous consent to have this --
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent to allow this motion to be moved?
Mrs Sullivan: Could we have some explanation from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health?
1620
Mr Wessenger: I'll ask counsel to indicate the reason for this. We have an alternative which accomplishes the same purpose, but it's not as good a way of wording it.
The Chair: Could you identify yourself for Hansard?
Mr Gilbert Sharpe: Gilbert Sharpe. As we discussed before in committee, alternate 1 would permit an amendment to the Mental Health Act to recognize other provisions within section 35 of the act to permit access by persons other than through consent or discretion of the officer in charge. The way it was originally drafted, it only refers to internal references of sub (3) and sub (5). Now we're adding access by an advocate, so this would permit disclosure by the officer in charge at the request of the advocate as well. Alternate 2, which has also been filed, would accomplish the same thing, but it would be much more awkward to do it that way. The government was hopeful that the way it was originally put together in the bill would be the way it would be permitted to go through as an amendment to the Mental Health Act.
The Chair: Do we have unanimous consent to allow this motion to be moved?
Mr Sterling: Not at this time.
The Chair: We don't. Okay, if there is no request for a 20-minute recess on Bill 74, we will begin to vote.
Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Chairman, before we begin: I realize we have orders of the House to go through these motions one by one. As I understand it, there will not be an opportunity for debate at this stage.
The Chair: That's correct.
Mr Sterling: I feel that the motion this committee is taking at this time is not going to lead to much fruit. I would have really liked us to have postponed our hearings for a four- or five-week period so we'd be able to consult, as the Minister of Citizenship is going to consult, with various groups. My desire would have been to come back here and go through these things in earnest and talk about them so that we could give consent in certain cases, where it is reasonable and logical to do so.
I'm quite sure my House leader is willing to agree to that kind of agreement. I know there has been an accommodation on the part of the Minister of Citizenship, with whom Mr Wilson and I met this morning, and with whom Mrs Sullivan would have met, but she wasn't well enough.
Having said that, the government is within its rights in terms of the rules that have been established and the orders that have been set down. I guess you, Mr Chairman, must follow those unless there's some move by the government to alter the process at this time.
I just think we're going to get into committee of the whole House late in November and really not have worked this thing through with the proper knowledge being dispersed out to the various communities involved. The bill, as I understand it, is not going to receive third reading until the end of November now, and it just seems to me that we would bear more fruit if we had a little more time to talk about these amendments in this committee.
I also want to say that I haven't detected in this committee, from either the government or the opposition, a desire by anybody to really drag the debate on any particular section that we have discussed. Sure, there's been heated debate over some of the sections and we've tried to put forward our arguments, but I think it can be fairly said that the Liberals, the Conservatives and the government have not extended the debate past the point of being reasonable. Sometimes we got tired late at night, and the debate did drag on, but I think that was more a function of the timing of what was happening.
I think the pacing of this legislation requires that this committee give it a little more time. I wanted to say that before we started the votes. It would allow us to be a little more cooperative with regard to putting the best bill forward in the best possible language we are capable of, even if we don't agree with different parts of it.
The Chair: As you know, the committee has made every effort to try to get the House leaders to extend the time limit, and they have refused; they have tied us down to time limits. That's why we're proceeding the way we are. There will be opportunity at third reading for further discussion and amendments.
Interjection.
The Chair: In the committee of the whole. My apologies.
Mrs Sullivan: It's clear that there's a substantial body of opinion, not only in this committee but outside of this committee, that with the number of amendments and the substantial changes that have been made to the bills, the bills should be reprinted and recirculated. We think there should be an opportunity for written submissions from those affected.
As I look through the amendments proposed not only by the government but by opposition parties, we see overlap, we see conflict and we see confusion between one bill and the other. We feel that in certain circumstances it would be extraordinarily difficult for a health practitioner to know where to start with Bill 74, or even for an advocate to see very clear direction from that bill.
We also feel that it is an extraordinary abuse of the power of the legislator and the minister to inflict these bills on the public, on health care practitioners and on vulnerable people, without adequate public knowledge. These amendments are coming forward without having been read into the record. There is no way that people will have any reasonable way of knowing what changes -- whether they're policy changes in terms of the withdrawal of amendments, such as the parliamentary assistant has just done today. I know they had consultation with groups and individuals indicating that that was their latest policy position; now they're withdrawing that.
I really believe these bills should be reprinted, that there should be another round of submission and analysis that the committee can hear, that the minister should be involved in this process, particularly the Minister of Citizenship, and that we should not be proceeding into committee of the whole without an additional review. This process has been a mess from day one, and it's been a mess from day one because the work of the Ministry of Citizenship has been inadequate and intransigent.
Mr Winninger: I want to say for the record that I agree neither with Mr Sterling nor Ms Sullivan. I appreciate their concerns; I think they would have to admit, though, that the government has been obliging and responsive to criticisms expressed both by the opposition and also by outside groups.
I don't treat agreements of the House leaders lightly. It's been common knowledge for a long time that the vote today would take place and that further amendments can be discussed at committee of the whole in any event, so I don't think allegations that this government has been sloppy or confused add anything to this. I think we have to stick with the agreement of the House leaders.
Consultation has taken place in the past, it's taking place in the present and I'm confident it will continue until this legislation reaches final implementation. I don't think consultation should hold up the show.
The Chair: Mr Wilson, on a point of order.
Mr Jim Wilson: Yes, on the same point of order as --
The Chair: There is no point of order on the floor at the moment.
Mr Jim Wilson: Then on a point of order, Mr Chairman, a couple of points: We finally had the opportunity to meet with the Minister of Citizenship this morning. She indicated to us that she'll be meeting with the Ontario Hospital Association, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and the Ontario Medical Association tonight and tomorrow.
What in the world are we doing here in terms of your asking us to vote on these clauses and bills right now while the minister has arranged meetings with major health care practitioners? If that isn't a slap in the face to our medical community, our health care practitioners and our hospitals and institutions, I don't know what is. Here we're going to do the dirty deed right now, and she's got these meetings tonight and tomorrow. Just give your heads a shake over there. That just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. You talk about consultation.
We also left that meeting this morning, Mr Chairman, as the public should know, with a high degree of satisfaction that the minister had listened to our pleas and the pleas of the Ontario Medical Association, the CPSO and the Ontario Hospital Association -- as appeared both in a letter and in the newspapers over the past weeks and the editorials of the Toronto Star in particular -- that she had listened and was willing to take a time out, as had been requested by those groups, and as Mr Sterling said on his point of order, that we try to do the best we can to draft good legislation for the people of this province.
Secondly, let's not leave a false impression with the public or other members of Parliament that our House leaders had any choice in the order that was drafted by Dave Cooke back in May. We had a gun to our heads -- a rather large bazooka, I might add. He wouldn't allow us a second round of public hearings if we didn't agree to the order as he drafted it. It was either his way or the highway, and in the interests of good public legislation and drafting of legislation, we agreed reluctantly, both the Liberal House leader and the PC House leader, to the second round of hearings, but we had no choice but to do those under Mr Cooke's rules.
Let's not leave any false impressions out there and let's not use that order for the House as a crutch. The government right now can make the decision to take a time out to draft this legislation properly and to not create false impressions and false consultations with the major stakeholders in this group, which is what you're about to do right now, given that there are meetings pending in the next 24 hours.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wilson, but as I stated, I have no further directions to postpone this, so we will continue.
Mr Malkowski, on a point of order?
Mr Malkowski: Yes, just for the record, I would like to respond to the concern raised.
The Chair: I'm sorry. We're not doing anything like that.
Mr Sterling: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I would respectfully give Mr Malkowski an opportunity to respond.
Mr Jim Wilson: Since we met with his minister this morning.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr Malkowski: I would like to respond to the issue that there are no new amendments that have been tabled at this point and that delaying the vote serves no real purpose, that we are going to be looking at the very same package and that there is still time to deal with any new issues with committee of the whole. We have that period between this vote and committee of the whole which gives us plenty of time to deal with any issues.
Mr Sterling: We won't have the opportunity to listen to other people if we want to hear something back, though. That's the problem once we get to that stage.
The Chair: The Chair has been quite lenient in allowing everybody to express their thoughts at the moment. Before we proceed to the votes, we'll call for a 10-minute recess.
The committee recessed at 1633 and resumed at 1649.
The Chair: I call this committee back to order. Mr Malkowski would like to clarify what he stated earlier for the record.
Mr Malkowski: On a point of privilege, just clarification of an interpretation that was made: I'd actually said that no new amendments can be tabled at this point but that anyone can file new amendments at committee of the whole.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Malkowski. Now we'll proceed with the outstanding votes on Bill 74.
Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Earlier Mr Malkowski withdrew an amendment which appears to be a substantial change of government policy with respect to the right of a person in a private dwelling to refuse an advocate's entry without a warrant.
It appeared that motion was being withdrawn after the government had given its commitment to put that policy into place and in fact was changing a commitment that it had made between the last committee hearing and now.
If it is the intention of the government to support an opposition amendment which would have the same effect, would the government clarify that position now? It is a very important matter for us in opposition.
The Chair: Is there any response? Mr Malkowski.
Mr Malkowski: I'll refer that to our legal counsel to respond.
Ms Perlis: It is the amendment to section 25.1 that the government withdrew. It is intending to support the PC motion on the same section.
Ms Carla McKague: That's not the issue, Linda.
Ms Perlis: I know. I am just saying that there is a motion withdrawn by the government which it intends to support an identical PC motion on. It is not the one to section 34; it's the one to 25.1.
Mrs Sullivan: The government is not going to support the opposition amendment on access to private dwellings by an advocate, section 34?
Ms Perlis: The government has tabled new motions to section 18 which we believe accomplish the same effect by changing and restricting the grounds for warrantless entry to private premises, rendering the former motion to section 34 unnecessary.
Mrs Sullivan: We disagree with that interpretation; however, we'll see what happens as the vote proceeds.
The Chair: On section 1, shall section 1 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 2, shall the Liberal motion to section 2 of the reprinted bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Shall section 2 of the reprinted bill carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 3, shall section 3 of the reprinted bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Mr Winninger: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I wonder if enough time could be allowed for the interpreter to translate for Mr Malkowski so that he knows exactly what we're voting on.
The Chair: I'll try to slow it down. My apologies.
On section 4, shall the Liberal motion to section 4 carry? Agreed? Carried.
Shall section 4 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 5, shall the Liberal replacement motion to subsection 5(2) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Shall the Progressive Conservative motion to subsections 5(2) to (2.2) carry? All those in favour?
Mr Sterling: Could I have a recorded vote?
The Chair: Recorded vote.
The committee divided on the Progressive Conservative motion to subsections 5(2) to (2.2), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes--2
Sterling, Wilson (Simcoe West).
Nays--8
Akande, Carter, Curling, Malkowski, Morrow, Sullivan, Wessenger, Winninger.
The Chair: Shall section 5 of the reprinted bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 6, shall the Liberal motion to subsections 6(1), (1.1) and (1.2) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Shall the Liberal motion, alternate 2, to subsection 6(1.1) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Shall section 6 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 7, shall the Liberal motion to clause 7(1)(d) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Shall the Liberal motion to clause 7(1)(k) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Shall the government motion to clause 7(1)(k.2) carry? Agreed? Carried.
Shall the Liberal motion to clause 7(1)(k.2) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Shall the Liberal motion, alternate 1, to clause 7(1)(k.2) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Shall the Liberal motion, alternate 2, to clause 7(1)(k.2) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Shall the government motion to subsections 7(6) and 7(7) carry? Agreed? Carried.
Shall the Liberal motion to subsection 7(6) carry?
Mrs Sullivan: Mr Chairman, that motion is irrelevant. I will withdraw that.
The Chair: Thank you. Shall section 7 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 8, shall section 8 of the reprinted bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 8.1, shall the government motion to section 8.1 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 9, shall section 9 of the reprinted bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 10, shall section 10 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 11, shall section 11 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 12, shall section 12 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 13, shall the Progressive Conservative motion to subsection 13(4.2) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Shall section 13 of the reprinted bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 14, shall section 14 of the reprinted bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
1700
On section 15, shall section 15 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 15.0.1, shall the Liberal motion to section 15.0.1 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Shall the Progressive Conservative motion to section 15.0.1 carry?
Mr Sterling: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: If we vote on this at this time, does this prevent me from presenting this again in committee of the whole House?
The Chair: It's my understanding that it would be allowed since it is a different venue.
Shall the Progressive Conservative motion to section 15.0.1 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
On section 15.1, shall section 15.1 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed?
Mr Wessenger: We missed one, 15.0.1.
The Chair: There is no section 15.0.1. Okay?
On section 15.1, shall section 15.1 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 15.2, shall section 15.2 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 15.3, shall section 15.3 of the bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 16, shall section 16 of the reprinted bill carry? All those in favour?
Mrs Sullivan: A recorded vote, please.
Mr Sterling: Recorded vote.
The committee divided on whether section 16 of the reprinted bill should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes--6
Akande, Carter, Malkowski, Morrow, Wessenger, Winninger.
Nays--4
Curling, Sterling, Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: On section 17, shall the Liberal motion to subsection 17(4) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? I might remind all committee members that they do have to vote.
Mr Jim Wilson: What's the sense?
Mr Morrow: Exercise, come on.
Mr Winninger: Could we have a recorded vote on that last one?
The Chair: Motion defeated.
Mr Jim Wilson: It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
The Chair: Shall section 17 of the reprinted bill carry?
Mr Sterling: A recorded vote.
The committee divided on whether section 17 of the reprinted bill should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes--6
Akande, Carter, Malkowski, Morrow, Wessenger, Winninger.
Nays--4
Curling, Sterling, Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: On section 18, shall the government motion to subsection 18(1) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 18 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry?
Mr Sterling: A recorded vote.
The committee divided on whether section 18 of the reprinted bill, as amended, should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes--6
Akande, Carter, Malkowski, Morrow, Wessenger, Winninger.
Nays--4
Curling, Sterling, Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: On sections 19 to 23, shall the government motion to subsection 19(1) carry? Agreed? Carried.
Shall sections 19 to 23 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.
On section 24, shall the government motion to subsections 24(4.1) and (4.2) carry? Agreed? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall the government motion to subsection 24(4.3) carry? Agreed? Carried.
Shall the Liberal motion to subsection 24(5) carry? All those in favour?
Mrs Sullivan: A recorded vote.
The committee divided on whether the Liberal motion to subsection 24(5) should stand as part of the bill, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes--4
Curling, Sterling, Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
Nays--6
Akande, Carter, Malkowski, Morrow, Wessenger, Winninger.
The Chair: Shall section 24 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 25, shall the government motion to subsection 25(2) carry? All those in favour?
Mrs Sullivan: A recorded vote, please.
The committee divided on whether the government motion to subsection 25(2) should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes--6
Akande, Carter, Malkowski, Morrow, Wessenger, Winninger.
Nays--4
Curling, Sterling, Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: Shall the government motion to subsection 25(2.1) carry? All those in favour?
Mrs Sullivan: A recorded vote, please.
The committee divided on whether the government motion to subsection 25(2.1) should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes--6
Akande, Carter, Malkowski, Morrow, Wessenger, Winninger.
Nays--3
Curling, Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: Shall the Liberal motion to subsection 25(5) carry?
Mr Sterling: Just a moment. I did not vote on the last one. I want an opportunity to read the amendment.
The Chair: My apologies.
Mr Sterling: I'll vote with the government on this one.
The Chair: You'll be supporting that motion?
Mr Sterling: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sterling.
Shall the Liberal motion to subsection 25(3) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Shall section 25 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed?
Mr Sterling: I'd like a recorded vote.
Mr Morrow: The vote's been taken.
The Chair: I'm sorry, I'll try and slow down for these requests.
The committee divided on whether section 25 of the reprinted bill, as amended, should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes--6
Akande, Carter, Malkowski, Morrow, Wessenger, Winninger.
Nays--4
Curling, Sterling, Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: On section 25.1, shall the Progressive Conservative motion to section 25.1 carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 26, shall the Liberal motion to subsections 26(3) and (4) carry? All those in favour?
1710
Mrs Sullivan: A recorded vote, please, Mr Chair.
The committee divided on Mrs Sullivan's motion to subsections 26(3) and (4), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes--4
Curling, Sterling, Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
Nays--6
Akande, Carter, Malkowski, Morrow, Wessenger, Winninger.
The Chair: Shall section 26 of the reprinted bill carry? In favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 27, shall the government motion to section 27, paragraph 2, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 27 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 28, shall the government motion to clause 28(1)(a) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall the government motion to clause 28(2)(a) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 28 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 29, shall section 29 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 30, shall the government motion to subsection 30(1.1) carry? Agreed? Carried.
Shall the government motion to subsection 30(1.2) carry? Agreed? Carried.
Shall the Liberal motion to clause 30(3)(c) carry? Agreed? Carried.
Shall the government motion to clause 30(3)(d) carry? Agreed? Carried.
Shall the government motion to subsection 30(5.2) carry? Agreed? Carried.
Shall the government motion to clause 30(5.2)(a) carry? Agreed? Carried.
Shall the government motion to clause 30(5.2)(b) carry? Agreed? Carried.
Shall section 30 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 30.1, shall the government motion to section 30.1 carry?
Mr Jim Wilson: Can we have a moment on that one, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: Okay.
Mr Jim Wilson: Okay.
The Chair: Agreed?
Mr Jim Wilson: Agreed. It's better than nothing.
The Chair: Carried.
On section 31, shall the Liberal motion to subsection 31(1) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Shall the government motion to subsection 31(1.1) carry? Agreed? Carried.
Shall the government motion to subsection 31(1.2) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 31 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On sections 32 and 33, shall sections 32 and 33 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 34, shall the Liberal motion to clause 34(1)(a) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Shall the Liberal motion to subsection 34(2.1) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Mr Sterling: I'd like a recorded vote.
The Chair: Mr Sterling, could you please ask for the recorded vote before?
Mr Sterling: I'm trying to keep pace. Either you slow down or you give us a bit of a chance to --
The Chair: My apologies.
Mr Jim Wilson: You only have to read the road map as provided to you. We have to read the road map and the amendments as we go.
Mr Sterling: Quite frankly, we're trying to think for ourselves and not just follow in a trained pattern.
The Chair: My apologies, Mr Sterling, once again.
The committee divided on the Liberal amendment to subsection 34(2.1), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes--4
Curling, Sterling, Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
Nays--6
Akande, Carter, Malkowski, Morrow, Wessenger, Winninger.
The Chair: Shall the government motion to subsection 34(3) carry? Agreed? Carried.
Shall section 34 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 34.1, shall the Liberal motion to subsection 34.1(2) carry?
Mr Sterling: I'd like a recorded vote on this.
The committee divided on the Liberal motion to subsection 34.1(2), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes--4
Curling, Sterling, Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
Nays--6
Akande, Carter, Malkowski, Morrow, Wessenger, Winninger.
The Chair: Shall the Progressive Conservative motion to subsection 34.1(4) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Shall section 34.1 of the reprinted bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 35, shall the Liberal motion to subsection 35(1) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Shall section 35 of the reprinted bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 36, shall the Liberal motion to subsection 36(1) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
1720
Shall the government motion to clause 36(1)(e.1) carry? On the road map it's under section 37; there was unanimous consent to change 37 to 36 earlier. On 36(1)(e.1), agreed? Carried.
Shall the Liberal replacement motion to clauses 36(1)(g) to (l) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Shall the Liberal motion to subsection 36(3) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Shall section 36 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 37, do we have unanimous consent to delete this section? Agreed? Okay. Thank you.
On section 38, shall the Liberal motion to subsection 38(2) carry? All those in favour?
Mr Sterling: Just a minute; I want to read that one. Okay, I agree with it.
The Chair: Okay. Shall the Liberal motion to subsection 38(2) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Shall section 38 of the reprinted bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 39, shall section 39 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On the schedule, shall the schedule, as reprinted, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall the title of the reprinted bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour?
Mr Sterling: Recorded vote.
The committee divided on whether Bill 74, as reprinted, should carry, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes--6
Akande, Carter, Malkowski, Morrow, Wessenger, Winninger.
Nays--4
Curling, Sterling, Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Mrs Sullivan: Mr Chairman, I'd like to place a motion before the committee.
The Chair: We cannot have any motions before the committee today. All we're --
Mrs Sullivan: This is an important motion, and I'd like unanimous consent to have it put. I would like the justice committee, in its report to the House with respect to Bill 74, to make a request that Bill 74, as amended, be reprinted for circulation to the public and to interested citizens.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I think that's a good request.
The Chair: The bill will be automatically reprinted, as you know, Mrs Sullivan.
Mr Sterling: What is the normal distribution of the reprinted bill? Will it go to all the people who made submissions here?
The Chair: Maybe the clerk could answer that one.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Lisa Freedman): My understanding of what happens when the bill is reprinted is that it's available in the journals office or the government bookstore.
Mr Sterling: Mrs Sullivan raises a valid point. I think, because of the changes here, that in order for us to get the proper input back from those groups, we should send at least one copy of the reprinted bill to every group that appeared in front of us, as a matter of courtesy. I don't know if we can have a motion to that effect or not.
The Chair: If it's the will of the committee.
Mrs Sullivan: It is.
Mr Jim Wilson: For all the bills.
The Chair: Agreed? Thank you.
Mr Sterling: That's for all bills when we're finished with them. Is that correct, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: It's my understanding that that is probably what Mrs Sullivan intends, and to avoid any further delays at the end of each of the other bills, I think that could be accommodated.
Now to the outstanding questions on Bill 108.
Mr Winninger: Mr Chair, a point of order: I'm just wondering whether we could agree to shorten the time, or whether we need to vote on each individual section, as these sections perhaps aren't as contentious. No?
The Chair: We have to vote on each section. Shall we proceed to the outstanding questions on Bill 108?
On sections 1 to 9, shall sections 1 to 9 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 10, shall section 10 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
Mr Sterling: Just a moment. As amended? Okay, yes, agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sterling.
Mr Sterling: It's very difficult, Mr Chairman, because we didn't go through the procedure of reprinting after we had done those amendments, as Mrs Sullivan requested. It's very difficult for everybody to follow what's going on, even those of us who are familiar with these pieces of legislation.
The Chair: I realize these are very difficult and trying procedures, Mr Sterling.
Mr Jim Wilson: A lot of trees died for not a very good cause, in terms of all the paper we have on this.
The Chair: Shall section 10.1 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 11, shall section 11 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
On sections 12 and 13, shall sections 12 and 13 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On sections 15 and 16, shall sections 15 and 16 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 17, shall section 17 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
1730
On sections 18 to 21, shall sections 18 to 21 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 22, shall the government amendment to subsection 22(3) of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
Shall section 22 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
On sections 23 to 33, shall sections 23 to 33 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 34, shall section 34 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
On sections 35 and 36, shall sections 35 and 36 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 39, shall section 39 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 39.1, shall section 39.1 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Before you go to the next motion, I just made a note here with respect to government amendment 46. I wonder if the clerk could clarify if there has been a government amendment that has passed to section 46.
The Chair: There is no amendment that was carried on section 46.
Mrs Sullivan: Thank you.
The Chair: On sections 40 to 46, shall sections 40 to 46 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On sections 47 and 48, shall sections 47 and 48 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 49, shall section 49 of the reprinted bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 50, shall the government motion to clause 50(6)(b) of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
Shall section 50 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
On sections 50.1 to 51.1, or 51?
Mr Winninger: No, 50.1 and 51.
Clerk of the Committee: There's been a change.
The Chair: There's been a change? It's 50.1 to 51.1. Your paper is incorrect. There's been a change. On sections 50.1 to 51.1.
Mr Winninger: Will we be dealing with 51 after, Mr Chair, after we deal with these?
The Chair: Everything that's in there.
Mr Winninger: Okay. That's fine.
Mrs Sullivan: This includes 51.
The Chair: Shall sections 50.1 to 51.1 of the reprinted bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Mr Winninger: On a point of order, Mr Chair: What happens to section 51? Is it already deemed to be voted on?
The Chair: You just voted on it.
Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): You just voted on 51.1. It takes it all up to there.
Mr Winninger: We voted on 50.1 to 50.2.
The Chair: No. For clarification, it's 50.1 to 51.1, inclusive.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. We're looking for unanimous consent on the government motion on subsection 52(2). Agreed? That's consent to move. On section 52, shall the government motion to subsection 52(2) carry? Agreed? Carried.
Mr Sterling: Was it recorded what the motion was, because there was some change in terms of the wording.
The Chair: There was unanimous consent to change the words in the motion to "personal care" from "managing property."
Mr Sterling: Okay. I didn't know whether that had been recorded or not.
The Chair: That's the one we had the discussion on earlier.
Shall section 52 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
Sections 53 to 55, shall sections 53 to 55 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On sections 56 and 57, shall sections 56 and 57 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 58, shall section 58 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 59, shall section 59 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
On sections 60 to 62, shall sections 60 to 62 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 63, shall the government motion to subsection 63(7.1) of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
Shall section 62 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 64, shall section 64 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On sections 65 and 66, shall sections 65 and 66 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 67, shall section 67 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
1740
On section 68, shall section 68 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
On sections 69 to 79.2, shall sections 69 to 79.2 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On sections 80 and 81, shall sections 80 and 81 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
On sections 82 to 85, shall sections 82 to 85 of the reprinted bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On the schedule, shall the reprinted schedule carry? Agreed? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Agreed? Carried.
Mr Sterling: Could I ask a question about section 84? It is the proclamation section. Under that section, as it's written, can they proclaim all or part?
Interjection.
Mr Sterling: Thank you. The answer is yes.
The Chair: Shall the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour?
Mr Jim Wilson: A recorded vote, Mr Chairman.
The committee divided on whether Bill 108, as reprinted, should carry, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes--5
Akande, Carter, Morrow, Winninger, Wessenger.
Nays--4
Curling, Sterling, Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed? Carried.
Outstanding questions on Bill 109?
On sections 1 and 2, shall sections 1 and 2 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed?
Mr Jim Wilson: One moment.
The Chair: Oh, my apologies. Now that the committee has all had time to catch up with myself, on sections 1 and 2, shall sections 1 and 2 of the reprinted bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 3, shall the government motion to section 3 carry? Agreed? Carried.
Shall section 3 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 4, shall section 4 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Could we ask for separate votes on sections 5 and 6?
The Chair: Sure, no problem.
On section 5, shall section 5 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 6, shall section 6 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? No? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 7, shall section 7 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 9, shall section 9 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 10 --
Mr Jim Wilson: Recorded vote.
The Chair: Could I ask for the motion first? I'm sorry I'm unable to keep up with you, Mr Wilson.
Mr Jim Wilson: I thought, Mr Chairman, you wanted advance notice.
The Chair: Thank you. Shall the Progressive Conservative motion to subsection 10(1) carry?
The committee divided on the Progressive Conservative motion to subsection 10(1), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes--4
Curling, Sterling, Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
Nays--6
Akande, Carter, Malkowski, Morrow, Wessenger, Winninger.
The Chair: Shall the Progressive Conservative motion to subsection 10(2) carry? All those in favour?
Mr Jim Wilson: Recorded.
The committee divided on the Progressive Conservative motion to subsection 10(2), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes--4
Curling, Sterling, Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
Nays--6
Akande, Carter, Malkowski, Morrow, Wessenger, Winninger.
The Chair: Shall the Progressive Conservative motion to subsection 10(3) carry?
Mr Jim Wilson: Recorded.
The committee divided on the Progressive Conservative motion to subsection 10(3), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes--4
Curling, Sterling, Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
Nays--6
Akande, Carter, Malkowski, Morrow, Wessenger, Winninger.
The Chair: Shall the Progressive Conservative motion to subsection 10(4) carry? All those in favour?
Mr Jim Wilson: Recorded.
The committee divided on the Progressive Conservative motion to subsection 10(4), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes--4
Curling, Sterling, Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
Nays--6
Akande, Carter, Malkowski, Morrow, Wessenger, Winninger.
The Chair: Shall section 10 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry?
Mr Jim Wilson: Recorded.
The committee divided on whether section 10 of the reprinted bill, as amended, should carry, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes--6
Akande, Carter, Malkowski, Morrow, Wessenger, Winninger.
Nays--4
Curling, Sterling, Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: On section 11, shall section 11 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
On sections 12 to 14, shall sections 12 to 14 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 14.1 --
Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Could you clarify if this motion is in order?
The Chair: We can see no reason why it wouldn't be in order, Mrs Sullivan. Perhaps an explanation?
Mrs Sullivan: I think it changes the scope of the bill to introduce specific procedures for which a substitute decision cannot apply which are unrelated to either the common-law areas of research or sterilization, which were included in other sections of the bill. It is not part of the scope of this bill.
The Chair: I can see no reason why this would be going beyond the scope of the bill, Mrs Sullivan.
Mr Jim Wilson: On that point of order, Mr Chairman, I would agree with Mrs Sullivan. We did not have any expert testimony for or against electric shock as aversive conditioning. It was not part of the hearings. It was briefly mentioned by a couple of groups without any content and without expert testimony.
Certainly, if your ruling holds that this should be part of the bill, it seems to me that it's setting a precedent in terms of a number of other treatments that aren't dealt with in this legislation either, and you're on the slippery slope here, Mr Chairman.
You're dealing with a medical question, and perhaps for many people a question of ethics and morality, which is outside the scope of this legislation. If you start on this specific treatment, you're going to have to call in the very people the Minister of Citizenship is meeting with about this tonight and have them before this committee again so we can have some expert testimony on these types of questions.
1750
Mrs Sullivan: I do believe your ruling is in error. I'm not challenging the Chair; I'm just making a suggestion. But if we look at 15 and 15.1, where indeed there are references to common law respecting the giving or refusing of consent for research, sterilization and transplant, those issues in fact refer to what the common law is and are quite appropriately included in this bill. What this particular amendment does is to introduce a therapy around which there is no common-law tradition and to provide a directive that therapeutic treatment cannot be used.
Whether we concur with, whether we dislike or whether we like or approve of that particular therapy, it seems to me the reason that it's out of order is that there is no common law associated with it. Including that provision in this bill could ultimately lead a government which perhaps doesn't approve of abortion, which perhaps doesn't approve of a kidney operation or some other medical procedure to simply add, in the context of this bill, in the absence of a medical evaluation and ethical conclusion from the medical profession itself as to its efficacy -- there is no common-law association with this particular act. No matter how repulsive it is to us, I think it's very much the dangerous edge of the wedge.
Mr Winninger: I think Mr Wilson is probably incorrect when he refers to aversive electric shock as a form of treatment. It's a form of behaviour modification; it's not a form of treatment. I think the medical practitioners you allude to would agree on that.
Mr Jim Wilson: No, they do not. It is part of the definition of "treatment."
Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Chair: We've gotten into a debate here about what it is or what it isn't. That's my specific objection to the government coming forward with an amendment, at a late date, on treatment or non-treatment. I would like to be excluded from this vote, Mr Chairman.
Mr Winninger: On a point of order.
Mr Jim Wilson: On a point of order.
The Chair: Excuse me. To be excluded, Mr Sterling, you should leave the room.
Mr Jim Wilson: On the same point of order, I want to make it clear, Mr Chairman, that I --
Mr Sterling: I don't know enough about this, Mr Chairman. We haven't heard any --
Mr Jim Wilson: That's exactly the point I want to make. I can't vote on this either. I don't know whether it's good or bad. We had no testimony on it whatsoever. I don't even really, totally know what it is, so I agree with you, Mr Winninger, that it's very difficult to vote on it.
The Chair: To avoid further debate on this, while I realize I'm not a medical expert, I do believe this is still within the scope of the bill. I know we did have a fair bit of discussion on this in committee.
Shall the government motion to section 14.1 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I feel it is extremely important to be able to include in the record the concerns we have. The third party has excluded itself from participation in that vote. As I've indicated, no matter how particularly repulsive, or how concerned individuals are about a particular therapy, including that therapy as an excluded therapy from substitute decisions --
Mr Winninger: Is this a point of order?
Mrs Sullivan: If it's not a point of order, it certainly is a point of privilege, because as a privilege I believe that members of the government party could walk out of here and interpret my vote as being a vote in support of aversive conditioning through electric shock treatment, and I do not want that impression left on the record.
However, I also suggest to you that it should be known they are walking a very dangerous line. What about the minister who doesn't like the Caesarean section and who makes, through a legislated action, certain procedures unavailable to people through substitute decision-making, no matter how valid they are as a therapy?
I think this is dead wrong from a public policy point of view.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Sullivan. As you understand, the Chair has been very lenient.
Mrs Sullivan: I understand.
The Chair: We could have had a recorded vote, and I would have allowed the opposition members to state their case before they left on their reasoning for not voting.
Mr Winninger, do you have a point of order?
Mr Winninger: No longer.
The Chair: Thank you.
On section 15, shall section 15 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 15.1, shall section 15.1 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 16, shall section 16 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
On sections 18 to 19.1, shall sections 18 to 19.1 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 20, shall section 20 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 21, shall section 21 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 22, shall the Progressive Conservative motion to subsection 22(9) carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
I'd like to let the committee members know it's now 6 of the clock. We do have substitution slips for two of the government members at 6 o'clock, so their votes will no longer be in effect until substitutes come.
Shall section 22 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry?
Interjection: No.
Interjections: Yes.
Mrs Sullivan: Let's go back to 74.
The Chair: Agreed? Carried.
On section 23, shall section 23 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 23.1, shall section 23.1 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 24, shall section 24 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
On sections 25 to 30, shall sections 25 to 30 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 31, shall section 31 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
On sections 32 to 44, shall sections 32 to 44 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
1800
On section 45, shall the government motion to subsection 45(1.1) carry? All those in favour?
Mr Jim Wilson: Recorded.
The committee divided on the government motion to subsection 45(1.1), which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes--5
Abel, Carter, Malkowski, Wessenger, Winninger.
Nays--4
Curling, Sterling, Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: Motion carried.
Shall section 45 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On section 46, shall section 46 of the reprinted bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On sections 47 and 48, shall sections 47 and 48 of the reprinted bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Agreed? Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour?
Mr Jim Wilson: Recorded.
The committee divided on whether Bill 109, as amended, should carry, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes--6
Able, Carter, Malkowski, Sterling, Wessenger, Winninger.
Nays--2
Curling, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed? Carried.
The outstanding questions on Bill 110: On sections 1 and 2, shall sections 1 and 2 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 2.1, shall section 2.1 of the reprinted bill, which consists solely of subsection 2.1(1), carry? Agreed? Carried.
On sections 3 to 11, shall sections 3 to 11 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 11.1, shall section 11.1 of the reprinted bill, which consists solely of subsection 11.1(1), carry?
Mr Jim Wilson: A moment, Mr Chairman.
Mr Sterling: I think there was a line we had objected to.
The Chair: The government motion, 11.1(2).
Mr Jim Wilson: Okay, proceed.
The Chair: Shall section 11.1 of the reprinted bill, which consists solely of subsection 11.1(1), carry? Agreed? Carried.
On sections 12 to 17, shall sections 12 to 17 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 18, shall the government motion to subsection 18(8.1), alternate 2 --
Mr Wessenger: Mr Chair, I'm wondering if Mr Sterling has reconsidered giving unanimous consent to alternate 1.
Mr Jim Wilson: Now why would he do that?
Mr Sterling: I think we'll discuss that during the committee of the whole House.
The Chair: That will be discussed in committee of the whole House.
Shall the government motion to subsection 18(8.1), alternate 2, of the reprinted bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall the government motion to subsection 18(10.2) of the reprinted bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 18 of the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
On sections 19 to 21, shall sections 19 to 21 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On section 22: Shall the government reprint to subsection 22(5) carry? Agreed? Carried.
Shall section 22 of the reprinted bill carry? Agreed? Carried.
On sections 23 to 26, shall sections 23 to 26 of the reprint carry? Agreed? Carried.
Shall the title, as amended, carry? Agreed? Carried.
Shall the reprinted bill, as amended, carry? All those in favour?
Mr Jim Wilson: Recorded.
The committee divided on whether the reprinted Bill 110, as amended, should carry, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes--8
Abel, Carter, Haeck, Malkowski, Sterling, Sullivan, Wessenger, Winninger.
Nays--2
Curling, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed? Carried.
At this time, I'd like to thank the committee for its indulgence and its speedy passage of this day's proceedings. If possible, it's my understanding there will be a subcommittee meeting tomorrow immediately following routine proceedings.
Mr Jim Wilson: I don't know if we have agreement with that.
The Chair: Okay, whatever.
Mr Sterling: Mr Chairman, could I just say that I understand that you'll be stepping down as Chair of this committee and I'd like to thank you for your evenhandedness during these hearings. It's been a long route, but I must say that even though we are in different political parties, you have carried out your duties as Chairman of this committee in a dignified and fair way, and we appreciate it.
Mrs Sullivan: Mr Chairman, I too would like to add the commendations of our caucus to you on your performance as Chair. In my experience at the House, one of the finest committee chairs always was Floyd Laughren, and I think that you have stepped into his shoes in a very large way.
The Chair: Thank you very much. This committee stands adjourned until the call of the Chair.
The committee adjourned at 1810.