SP017 - Tue 24 Sep 2013 / Mar 24 sep 2013



Tuesday 24 September 2013 Mardi 24 septembre 2013


The committee met at 1606 in committee room 1, following a closed session.


The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): With that, we will then officially call the meeting to order. We have three motions that were tabled, and I will call them in the order that they were tabled. The first one would be Ms. McKenna.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: I move that the social policy committee supports the PC caucus’s programming motion, and to proceed with the Local Food Act as programmed in that motion.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Thank you. Reading that, we would have to rule this motion out of order, as the intent is to follow a document that in fact does not exist. There’s no way for the committee to know what that programming motion talks about, so this motion would be out of order.

The next motion that was tabled was from Ms. Jaczek.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I move that the Clerk, in consultation with the Chair, be authorized to arrange the following with regard to Bill 36, Local Food Act, 2013:

(1) One day of public hearings and one day of clause-by-clause consideration, during its regularly scheduled Tuesday meeting times, commencing Tuesday, October 1, 2013;

(2) Advertisement on the Ontario parliamentary channel, the committee’s website and the Canadian NewsWire;

(3) That witnesses be scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis;

(4) That each witness will receive up to five minutes for their presentation, followed by nine minutes for questions from committee members;

(5) That the deadline for written submissions is 3 p.m. on the day of public hearings;

(6) That the research officer provides a summary of the presentations by 12 noon on Thursday, October 3, 2013; and

(7) The deadline for filing amendments with the Clerk of the Committee be 12 noon on Friday, October 4, 2013.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Ms. Gélinas?

Mme France Gélinas: Although it seems all reasonable, I would much prefer that those kinds of conversations happen at subcommittee, where the Chair would call a meeting of the subcommittee where those, basically, parameters for this bill would be agreed upon and then brought back. We would be voting against this not because what it contains couldn’t work, but more because—let’s give it due process. We can have a subcommittee meeting really quickly, we can have this conversation at subcommittee and we can bring this back.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Ms. Jaczek.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Mr. Chair, obviously the Local Food Act is a priority of our government. I really don’t see why we should have a subcommittee meeting. We have all the members here present. If anything, there’s an increased richness of discussion when we have all members present. Of course, I will be asking for a recorded vote as well.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Further comments? Ms. Forster.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Well, in fact, we don’t have all the members here. I’m a sub, France is a sub. Our members from social policy aren’t even at this meeting, because they’re tied up in other things at this point. I think it really is circumventing the whole premise of having a subcommittee: so that people can get together to actually enter into those discussions about the things that are contained in this particular motion. I don’t think anybody’s trying to hold up anything here. What we’re attempting to do is follow due process.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Further comments? If not, before I call the vote, there is a point I just wanted to make for the information of the committee, not to take a position on it. Being on a Tuesday meeting, though the resolution says “One day of hearings and one day of clause-by-clause,” that’s two hours of hearings and two hours of clause-by-clause, because on Mondays we have a longer day, but on Tuesdays it’s only a two-hour meeting.

The other thing that I did want to point out is that this motion passed by this committee is not the same as a programming motion passed by the Legislature coming here. This resolution is as good as the length of time between this vote and the next vote that could be taken on exactly the same issue. The committee does have the power to change what’s in this one.

With that, further comment?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Thank you, Chair. Notwithstanding your clarifications and so on, we wish to proceed with this in a timely fashion and make the statement right here, today, with this vote.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Any further—yes, Ms. Forster.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Before the vote, then, I’d like to call for a recess.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): A recess has been asked for—

Ms. Cindy Forster: Ten minutes.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): The committee will recess for 20 minutes.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): Ten.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Ten minutes. Okay. I just thought you’d want the whole time.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): It’s 4:12—

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): We will reconvene at 4:12—

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): —4:22.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): —4:22. Oh; 4:12 is what it is now.

The committee recessed from 1612 to 1622.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): We call the meeting back to order, and we’ll go back to the third party. Comment?

Ms. Cindy Forster: Yes. I still think that we’re circumventing the subcommittee role by not holding a subcommittee meeting. We’re not attempting to hold up this particular bill. We’ve said in the House that we’re supportive of it, although we’ll probably like to make a few amendments to it, and we don’t believe that we should be dealing with this here and today.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Further debate? If not, we’ll call the question. It’s a recorded vote.


Balkissoon, Berardinetti, Elliott, Jaczek, McKenna, Wong.


Forster, Gélinas.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): I declare the motion carried.

The third motion was tabled by the third party. Ms. Forster.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I move that, pursuant to standing order 111(a), the Standing Committee on Social Policy study and report on all matters related to the mandate, management, organization and operation of Ontario’s system of local health integration networks (LHINs). The study shall include but not be limited to:

(a) Consider the best models of health care service delivery, governance and heath care by looking at best practices in both Canada and abroad;

(b) Review decision-making at Ontario’s LHINs and whether local representation, accountability and transparency are incorporated into the process and, if not, how and where these can be better achieved;

(c) Invite input from expert witnesses, including LHIN board members and employees, board members and employees from other health service organizations and health care policy experts in all health sectors;

(d) Consider the recommendations of the 2012 Drummond report, which identified potential savings of up to $1 billion in Ontario’s LHINs and the broader health care system.

And that committee meetings on this study shall begin during the regularly scheduled hours of the Standing Committee on Social Policy on Monday, September 30, 2013.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Very good. Thank you very much. With that, comments from the third party.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Certainly our party, the NDP caucus, wants to get this LHIN review done. It has been a long time coming. It’s actually, I think, about three and a half years in arrears of the government’s own legislation, which was, I believe, March 28, 2010. We have asked numerous questions in the House over the past two years about when the LHINs were actually going to be reviewed by the health minister and during debates in the House. In light of the fact that there is constant restructuring happening in hospitals, long-term care and the community, I think it’s imperative that we have this review done now, before there is more dismantling occurring, before more smaller and rural local hospitals close. We believe that it’s actually time to do that review now.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Further debate?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: We are, of course, eager to also review the LHINs. However, I do notice that we have an amendment here, I believe, which we would be interested in hearing a little bit more about.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: I have an amendment that the following be deleted: “on Monday, September 30, 2013” and replaced with “commencing after Bill 36, Local Food Act and the study relating to the oversight, monitoring and regulation of non-accredited pharmaceutical companies are both reported to the House.”

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Okay, you’ve heard the amendment. Discussion on the amendment?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Certainly we on the government side find the amendment a useful one. We think that we should complete what we’ve started in an orderly fashion, so we’ll certainly be voting in favour of the amendment.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Further discussion?

Mme France Gélinas: We’re trying to make absolutely sure that we have the right amendment. The right amendment—

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): The amendment is, if you look at the bottom, that the following be deleted: “on Monday, September 30, 2013.” That’s the bottom line in the original motion.

Mme France Gélinas: Yes, and replaced—

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): And replaced with “commencing after Bill 36, Local Food Act and the study relating to the oversight, monitoring and regulation of non-accredited pharmaceutical companies are both reported to the House.”

It takes the deadline or the timing of this one starting to when the end of the work that’s before the committee is completed.

Mme France Gélinas: Although I reserve the right to ask for a recess, because I easily get confused, what are we going to do on the 30th, given that this doesn’t start till the 1st?

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): That isn’t part of this resolution and it isn’t part of the process. The committee would go on with its regular work on the pharmaceutical issue and the report writing. That would carry on until we got new direction from the committee as to what we wanted to do apart from that.

Mme France Gélinas: I was under the impression that our next meeting to deal with the pharmaceutical issue was going to be when Health Canada was available and Health Canada is not going to be available till—that’s where you pipe in, Will, to give me the date.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. William Short): Tuesday, October 8.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): This resolution and the amendment, in fact, do not deal with that. We would be carrying on the regular business; if they’re not yet available, we would be working on report writing while we were waiting for the Health Canada delegation to be able to be here. That would keep going till whatever time any of these resolutions kicked in, remembering that the committee has the power to change these resolutions at will, the same way we created them today. As you move forward, you can change those.

The approach right now is that what is before the committee is the pharmaceutical one, and what this is doing is trying to put our work in the future in. The amendment would ask that—

Mme France Gélinas: We will need five minutes, now that I am straighter as to what’s going to happen when.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Okay.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Before we actually recess, just so that I’m clear, what this amendment is suggesting is that the food act bill is going; that we continue to finish off the pharmaceutical issues, even if we don’t have witnesses to come forward; and that the LHINs review would immediately follow that. Is that the suggestion?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Yes, and we’ll be less confused if we do it that way.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Where we stand now, the previous motion put the food act into the mix for processing as we go forward.

Mme France Gélinas: We will ask for a six-minute recess.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Six minutes. Adjourned for six minutes.

The committee recessed from 1630 to 1634.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): We’ll come back to order; back to the third party.

Mme France Gélinas: I want to make sure that I understand. When we say “both are reported to the House,” there are delays there. Between the time we finish and the translation is done and then it goes to the House, there are lapses. I have no problem with the food act, which has been scheduled. We’re almost done with hearing people on the diluted chemo drugs; I’m hoping that we will be able to have a report. Does that mean that as soon as this report is done, we start on the LHINs, or does it mean that I have to wait until the translation is done and the this and the that?

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): The amendment is clear that it’s reported to the House, not received by the House. The day that we call the vote, “Shall the Chair give the report to the House”—that’s when we can start something else, the minute it leaves this committee.

Mme France Gélinas: And you will ask that question before we send it to translation?

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Yes. That’s the day that the report is complete here—“Shall the title of it carry?” and all this, whatever. The last vote on it is to report it to the House. That’s before it goes to translation, and then it’s translated after it’s reported.

Mme France Gélinas: So am I right in saying that on the 30th we’ll do reporting writing on chemo, then we deal with the Local Food Act on the 1st and then the clause-by-clause? Then we continue to work on the chemo, and the day that the chemo is done, we go to the LHINs. Am I right?

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Yes, but I think we should—I don’t want to leave the assumption that on the 30th, when we write the report for the chemo, that in fact the report will be written on the 30th. How long it takes us to write the report is how long it will be before we’re on to something else. According to this motion, when those two bills are moved out of this committee, we go directly to the LHINs.

Any further debate on it? Yes, Ms. Forster?

Ms. Cindy Forster: So just to be clear, there will be no other business before this committee prior to the LHINs?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Unless you’re ordered by the House.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): I would point out, as was so ably said by my assistant, unless it’s ordered by the House or unless this committee decides, with a majority vote, to do something else. There is nothing binding about what we’re doing here on the committee.

Earlier there was some discussion about the subcommittee. This is what we’re doing. We’re just superseding subcommittee in setting committee business. So it’s not binding, and you can change that at any point in time. But the way it’s written here, those two items would be finished and this amendment says then we would look at the LHINs.

Mme France Gélinas: So the only way to change this would be an order from the House?

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): No. It can be changed right at this committee.

Mme France Gélinas: If we all agree?

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): No, not all agree. A majority vote.

Mme France Gélinas: If the majority votes—

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Yes.

Mme France Gélinas: Okay.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): And incidentally, that’s as tight as this committee can set this type of business. There’s no way we can make this more binding than it is, as a committee.

Mme France Gélinas: Okay, but it would be as binding as the one we just passed on the Local Food Act—

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Exactly.

Mme France Gélinas: It would be as binding as anything else.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Exactly the same.

Mme France Gélinas: I’m starting to see the light.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Any further comments or questions?

We’ll call the question on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment? Opposed? The motion is carried.

Now, any debate on the motion, as amended?

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’ll just make a few comments.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Yes, Ms. Forster?

Ms. Cindy Forster: I just think that this is a really important issue for us to be dealing with in light of all of the restructuring and transformation. There are so many buzzwords that have been used in health care, certainly over the last 20 years, and the changes are happening very rapidly as we even heard in the House this morning, right? So I think it’s imperative that this be the next on the list to be reviewed, and I hope, from our perspective, that we get the support to make sure that that happens.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): Ms. Jaczek?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: We concur.

The Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman): It took a long time to get to hear that. But anyway, any further debate on the motion, as amended? If not, we’ll call the question.

All those in favour? Opposed, if any? The motion is carried.

That concludes the issue of motions. We will now go back into an in camera session and start the report writing.

The committee continued in closed session at 1639.


Tuesday 24 September 2013

Committee business SP-287


Chair / Président

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton PC)

Mr. Bas Balkissoon (Scarborough–Rouge River L)

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton PC)

Mr. Mike Colle (Eglinton–Lawrence L)

Mr. Vic Dhillon (Brampton West / Brampton-Ouest L)

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale–High Park ND)

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford PC)

Ms. Helena Jaczek (Oak Ridges–Markham L)

Ms. Jane McKenna (Burlington PC)

Mr. Paul Miller (Hamilton East–Stoney Creek / Hamilton-Est–Stoney Creek ND)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest / Scarborough-Sud-Ouest L)

Mrs. Christine Elliott (Whitby–Oshawa PC)

Ms. Cindy Forster (Welland ND)

Mme France Gélinas (Nickel Belt ND)

Ms. Soo Wong (Scarborough–Agincourt L)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Mr. Jeff Yurek (Elgin–Middlesex–London PC)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr. William Short

Staff / Personnel

Ms. Elaine Campbell, research officer,
Research Services