Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay / -Timmins-Baie James
Mrs Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier L)
Mr Brian Coburn (Carleton-Gloucester PC)
Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North / -Nord PC)
Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale PC)
Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex L)
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York ND)
Mr Bill Murdoch (Bruce-Grey PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr John O'Toole (Durham PC)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence L)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Anne Stokes
Staff / Personnel
Ms Susan Swift, research officer,
Research and Information Services
The committee met at
1006 in committee room 1.
The Chair (Ms Frances
Lankin): I call the meeting to order. Welcome to you who
have joined us today. We have a matter of committee business to
deal with before we move into dealing with the Pr bills that are
coming forward today. The first item on the agenda is the report
of the subcommittee. Members will have this circulated in front
"Your subcommittee met on
Wednesday, April 5, 2000, to consider the method of proceeding on
Bill 33, An Act to require fair dealing between parties to
franchise agreements, to ensure that franchisees have the right
to associate and to impose disclosure obligations on franchisors,
and recommends the following:
"(1) That the committee meet
on Wednesday, April 12, 2000,"-that's as we're doing now-"to
consider the subcommittee report and to consider private bills
that are on the agenda.
"(2) That the committee meet
on Wednesday, April 19, 2000, to hold a discussion on findings
the committee gathered during the public hearings into Bill 33
and in review of the summary of recommendations prepared by the
research officer. Each caucus will make an initial presentation
of up to 20 minutes and the second hour will allow for discussion
"(3) That the committee meet
on Wednesday, April 26, 2000, for clause-by-clause review of Bill
"(4) That amendments should
be given to the clerk of the committee by noon on Tuesday, April
Mr O'Toole, would you move
the report so we have it properly before us?
Mr John O'Toole
(Durham): Yes. To put the report on the floor, I will so
Just to let committee members know the discussion by the
subcommittee, the intent of the report is to allow for a day's
discussion about what committee members heard when you were on
the road, hearing from the public on this bill, to have an
opportunity to discuss among yourselves the areas of concern or
agreement that you have with the bill, so that each of the
representatives of the three caucuses has an opportunity to
understand where various committee members are coming from and
their perspective. That might be helpful in promoting some
agreement around particular amendments or finding out if there is
a consensus for amendments or no amendments or whatever the case
may be. That will unfold in the course of the discussion.
The deadline that follows
from that is for the caucuses, the parties, to actually submit
amendments to the bill. Then when we move into the
clause-by-clause period we would be dealing with the bill and any
amendments to it that have been properly submitted.
I also want to draw to your
attention the report that all committee members have received
from Susan Swift, research officer, which is entitled Summary of
Recommendations Bill 33-Franchise Disclosure Act. If you could
look at the top of page 2, the very first recommendation, under
"General," reads, "Bill 33 is a workable consensus among the
various interests that were represented at the franchise sector
working team and should be enacted without delay." Then there is
a series of names bracketed under that. Could you add to that
"CFIG"; that's the independent grocers. It was inadvertently left
off in some of the editing of the document. Rather than recopying
the whole document, we just wanted to make sure you're aware that
the grocers should be added.
Are there any questions or
comments on the report? Mr O'Toole.
I think Ms Boyer was ahead of me, but I'll speak after her if I
Mrs Claudette Boyer
(Ottawa-Vanier): I just wanted to know-reading the
report from the subcommittee, I think that we had mentioned in
number 3 "to begin," and now this is struck out, and I just
wanted to know if that's added an incentive-why that was struck,
"to begin" clause-by-clause.
It has no practical difference between the various wordings. I
think it was a request by Mr O'Toole. The clause-by-clause will
take as long as it takes, given the rules of the committee and
the length of time that people can speak to clauses, unless there
is a closure, which at this point in time there is not.
That's what I was just wondering, if the sense is that we're
going to have closure before we had gone through the
I appreciate that. I do have some minor modifications here that I
would propose to the committee as a whole.
To section 3, which Mrs Boyer
is describing right now, I did want to make sure we were clear on
the completion of the clause-by-clause process, and I would like
to think that could be
completed on April 26. That's the theory here that I'm
I had moved the "to begin."
I've refined it now, so I am proposing an amendment to point 3
that the committee will meet on April 26 to complete the
clause-by-clause of Bill 33.
The Chair: I
need to perhaps seek some guidance from the clerk, but there is a
practical problem with what you're suggesting. This is a
committee that meets in the morning, and the committee can't meet
while the Legislature is sitting. There are rules that govern
debate in terms of how long anyone can speak to any particular
issue that's on the floor, a clause or an amendment to a clause.
There are rules that limit that so that it can't be prolonged and
there can't be a filibuster, let's say, but those rules have to
be respected unless there is direction from the House with
respect to the length of time we have.
Normally, if it has to be
completed that day, the instructions in a motion from the
Legislative Assembly would say the committee will sit until it is
completed. But with a morning committee, you run into the
Legislature being convened at 1:30, so there are some practical
problems with what you're trying to do with the subcommittee
I understand and I suppose we may work through that. With your
indulgence, I will just move one further clarification on point
4, that we would close off the amendments at 12 noon on April 25.
The amendments would be then submitted by noon on April 25 and
circulated to members of the committee by 4 o'clock on April 25,
so that they would be aware of the amendments almost a full day
before the committee was to meet.
Those are the two amendments
to the subcommittee report that I'm moving, and I so move. That's
formally being moved as amendments. Since we haven't voted on the
report yet, if somebody wants to debate, that's up to the
The amendment to number 4 is that all amendments should be given
to the clerk by noon on Tuesday, April 25, and be circulated to
all members by 4 o'clock that afternoon. Is that wording
The intent of that is that no amendments would be accepted after
Perhaps we should add that. Maybe we should just start it off
No amendments will be accepted after noon on April 25, and they
will be subsequently circulated to the members.
Just so you know procedurally, and I think this is your intent,
this means that unless there is unanimous consent of the
committee members during clause-by-clause to entertain another
amendment that a member of the committee puts forward, no
amendments except those that have been duly submitted and
circulated will be entertained.
Yes, and I agree with you. In the preliminary subcommittee
meeting, the intention was to seek unanimous adoption of this
bill, as amended, because we are interested in
amendments-certainly from Mr Martin's perspective-and that was
part of the subcommittee discussion. If there were, if you will,
some small inference of change in the amendments, we may end up
discussing those and in fact recognizing it as a reworded
amendment, and we could unanimously adopt that in the context of
the meeting that day, dealing with clause-by-clause. So I agree.
It's still the intention to have a unanimous report.
Mr O'Toole, with respect to your proposed amendment to section 3,
I'm asking the clerk to seek some clarification and guidance from
higher sources than us.
It is my understanding that that amendment would actually be out
of order, because what you're seeking to do is place a limit on
the rules of debate. The rules of debate come from the standing
orders of the Legislature, and committees can't do that in and of
themselves. There is no direction from the Legislative Assembly
for the debate on clause-by-clause to be truncated. You could
achieve that with unanimous consent, but I think it may be out of
order. But I don't want to make that ruling without some further
Again, what would happen that
day when we got into it is that we would begin the process. If
there is debate that follows the rules and the time limits under
the rules, I as Chair would be compelled to allow that. I'd be
compelled to stop any debate that went longer than the allotted
time under the rules for individual members. But there's no way
to guarantee that clause-by-clause would be finished between 10
and 12 o'clock, when that committee adjourns or, if we continue
to sit, by 1:30 when the Legislature sits. It may or may not; I
can't predict that. And the committee cannot sit while the
Legislative Assembly is sitting. So it puts me in a bit of a
predicament as Chair as to how to facilitate what you want to
accomplish without having direction from the House.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I don't want to prolong today's
proceedings. First, how long would we be permitted to sit?
Normally it would be from 10 o'clock till noon or 12:30-that's
two hours-and then theoretically, after question period, 1:30
till probably 6 o'clock. That gives us roughly six hours to
consider the amendments, and it's my sense that six hours in that
one day would probably be appropriate. We could seek agreement
for an extension from all three House leaders. But my idea, if I
look at that as being a Wednesday, is to try to make sure this
legislation gets to the House before the end of this session.
That's theoretically the deal here.
It is a first reading bill.
How it will proceed procedurally to second and third reading is
still something I'm not aware of; you're more experienced than I
am. But I think the intent is to get the legislation into the
Not with this. This is the first time any committee has had a
first reading bill, so it's a new procedure. But it doesn't change the actual time
frame. With respect to what you've said, this committee is
authorized to sit between 10 and 12 on Wednesday morning.
At this point in time. Now again, to find out how the committee
could be scheduled for another time-as you know, many people have
seats on a number of committees, and other committees sit in the
afternoon. It's not that that's impossible, but again, I don't
believe it's possible on a motion in the committee. It would have
to be by unanimous consent and/or by direction of the House to
extend the hours.
What would normally happen is
that on Wednesday the 19th and on following Wednesdays the
committee would sit until it finished clause-by-clause, without
any special direction. But again-are you still waiting for
Could I make a suggestion? I
was going to suggest that we stand this down and move on to
private bills, but your intent was only to be here for the
subcommittee report. Is that correct?
I'll stick around. I enjoy this process. Now that we're talking
about this-waiting for the clerk to give us some direction from
the Oval Office, so to speak-we could start earlier, I suppose,
and deliberate at 9 am. That would give us three hours. Quite
honestly, it's my sense that there are really only two
substantive areas-there may be some broad discussion. But that's
three hours we would have.
I acknowledge that Ms Boyer
has sat through all the hearings here. There are two parts, plus
we have a whole day ahead of the amendments to air some of our
concerns. Most politicians could talk from now till doomsday,
heaven forbid. I'm just trying to provide some framework to get
out of this and back into the House.
In fact, the intent of the subcommittee, as you've indicated, is
that next Wednesday's discussion is to see whether there is
consensus, which may expedite the following process. Who knows
how people will conduct themselves once we're into the process?
As Chair, I haven't had any indication of a dispute of such a
nature that there is an intent to delay, but you never know. I
understand and appreciate what you're trying to do.
I have just had it confirmed,
however, that I was right: The motion is out of order. I can't
accept that amendment to clause 3. What we as a committee could
do is agree to sit earlier that day, to begin the meeting earlier
in the morning, which would provide a longer period of time and
may accomplish what you want. Failing that, at the end of that
day there is the possibility for the House to adopt some
instructions to the committee that would deal in an efficient
manner with what the government, or you, are attempting to do.
I'm ruling that amendment to clause 3 out of order. I have given
you some other options you can consider.
I don't know how we deal with this. I guess we could move forward
without adopting the subcommittee report, seeking further advice
from my own caucus. We could deal with it on the 19th, because
we're going to be meeting that day.
What we could certainly do is-
Table it for now.
-table, or at this point delete section 3. I was going to say
section 3 and section 4. You do want parties to have notice of
the date for preparing and submitting their amendments. We don't
want to leave that too late. I think it would be unreasonable to
pass a motion on the 19th with respect to that date, if there's a
possibility of doing that today. What you could do is stand down,
or we could agree to delete the section on meeting on April 26
If you want, you could also
indicate that we would meet on Wednesday, April 26, for
clause-by-clause beginning at an earlier time in the morning, as
you might propose, and you could speak to structure what happens
on that day through a motion through the government House leader
in the House without having to hold up the subcommittee report.
The government House leader and the Legislative Assembly, as it
sees fit, can give direction to this committee with respect to
I just want to review: The intention here is to complete, and
find some way of completing, this exercise by noon on the 26th.
If I move that back, we've got next week, the 19th, which is a
couple of hours, to debate this further-the critics for each
party and the rest of it and, for that matter, even to discuss
their amendments, what their serious issues are.
If we adopt this report as
is, I suppose we could entertain, through the House leaders, some
amendment to say we can't get there from here, if we still want a
unanimous report, if that is the goal here. I felt we were that
close. I saw these as rather friendly amendments, actually.
The Chair: I
appreciate that. It's a question of the rules and what we as a
committee can and can't do. We can't override the rules of the
Just so you know, the House
can direct this committee to sit at times other than Wednesday
mornings. So if the government House leader wanted to put forward
a motion and the Legislative Assembly adopted that motion for
this committee to sit Wednesday morning, Wednesday afternoon,
Wednesday evening or Wednesday until such time as the
clause-by-clause is finished, the House can direct us to do that.
We just can't do that as a committee. We can agree to meet
earlier on Wednesday and to meet past 12 o'clock, but not past
1:30. I'm sorry, just until 12 o'clock, but we can agree to meet
earlier. So if you want to start halfway down the road to
achieving your goal by directing that the committee meet earlier
on Wednesday and the committee members accept that, then that's
part of what you want to do and the rest of the discussion you'll
have to have with the government House leader.
If I may, and I'm only trying to get this over with because there
are people waiting for other business, we have agreement on 1 because we're
basically doing it. We have agreement on 2, which is to meet on
the 19th. We have agreement on 4, I believe, which is to put some
framework around when we accept and disburse the amendments. We
have some difficulty with 3 at the moment.
So I would move right now
that we adopt the subcommittee report steps 1, 2 and 4, as
amended, and we will deal with 3 on the 19th, and we'll each get
back to our House leaders. Does that sound appropriate?
I'm going to try to give you the procedure to accomplish what you
want to do. The first thing we would do is vote on these sections
independently. If the committee is in favour of number 1, a
positive vote would indicate that; the same with number 2. If the
committee is not in favour of number 3, a defeat; you can't move
an amendment to delete a section, but you can defeat that
section. Number 4, you have duly placed an amendment, which I
will get to in a moment to see if there's any other discussion on
it. We would vote on the amendment on that and the amended
section. Do you understand procedurally, to accomplish what you
Yes, I understand.
With the agreement of the committee, although there's a duly
placed amendment on the floor right now and normally we would go
to discussion of that, I'd like to deal with the sections in the
numerical order that they're there because I think it's the
fastest way to do it right now.
You have before you a
subcommittee report with four recommendations. Is there any
discussion on recommendation 1? All those in favour, please
indicate. Those opposed? Carried.
Recommendation 2: Is there
any discussion on that? Seeing none, all those in favour, please
indicate. Opposed? Carried.
Recommendation 3: Any further
Just for clarification for the members of the committee and
myself, if we defeat this, what's the deal? What if we vote for
Mr Mike Colle
(Eglinton-Lawrence): It's out of order. You can't vote
We can't vote for it if it's currently worded-
Section 3 is not out of order. The amendment that was being
proposed is out of order. If you vote for section 3, it would
mean that this committee would be scheduled to meet from 10
o'clock to 12 on Wednesday, April 26, for clause-by-clause. If
you wanted to amend the time, that would be in order. If the
House subsequently passes a motion to give us a different
direction, it would override what this committee has determined.
In other words, if you pass it, Mr O'Toole, and you want to do
something different, you're the government and you can do it,
it's OK. Let me just double-check to make sure I'm giving good
advice. The House can override that section.
All right. I'll move an amendment that we start at 9.
OK. The amendment is that the committee meet on Wednesday, April
26, from 9 until 12 for clause-by-clause review of Bill 33. Is
there any discussion on the amendment?
Mrs Boyer: I
agree with what you're saying. You're not saying to complete. It
doesn't hamper the fact that we can come back another time to
Not so far. Only a direction from the House would be able to do
Chair, just a clarification here, through the clerk; I don't want
to put you on the spot. What if I table this particular portion
of the subcommittee report and then we deal with it on the 19th?
Then I would go back to my House leader and to my minister,
obviously, as I would expect the opposition and third party
would, to see if we can find a way to complete this on the
26th.. They may say, "Well, we'll find a time for the
committee to meet, extend time or whatever," or, arguably, vote
closure on the debate. Otherwise you'll be here for 100 years.
We've got no way of getting out of this thing.
Mr O'Toole, can I propose to you that you withdraw your amendment
for the 9 o'clock starting time and that you simply move to defer
consideration of this recommendation until Wednesday, April 19.
Is there any discussion on that? No? All those in favour?
Opposed? Carried. That item is deferred, and it will come back to
us in greater clarity, I'm sure, on the 19th.
Number 4: An amendment has
been moved that would change the words to say that no amendments
will be accepted after noon on Tuesday, April 25, and all
amendments will be circulated to members of the committee by 4 pm
that afternoon. Any discussion on the amendment? All those in
favour, please indicate. Opposed? Carried.
On the section, as amended,
all those in favour, please indicate. Opposed? Carried. Done.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr O'Toole.
Just for the record, Mr
Coburn will now be rejoining the committee in place of Mr
I apologize to those of you
who have been waiting. It's democracy in action. Sometimes it's
slow, but we get there, we do.
We're moving now to
consideration of bills.
PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL HEALTH CENTRE ACT, 1999
Consideration of Bill Pr3, An
Act respecting Peterborough Regional Health Centre.
The next order of business is Bill Pr3, An Act respecting
Peterborough Regional Health Centre. Mr Stewart, MPP, is the
sponsor for this. The applicants for Peterborough Regional Health
Centre are represented by Sawers Liswood Hickman Bullivant Dolan
Watts LLP. Kathy O'Brien is the solicitor. We'll ask first if Mr
Stewart would like to make any opening comments and introduce
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough):
It is indeed my pleasure to be able to sponsor this bill, An Act
respecting the Peterborough Regional Health Centre. The
Corporation of the City of Peterborough and the board of
governors of the Peterborough Civic Hospital have applied for
special legislation to change the name of the hospital
corporation, its objectives, its powers and the composition of
the board, as well as some additional things.
As you mentioned, Kathy
O'Brien, solicitor for the hospital, is with me. I'm going to let
her make some comments regarding this act.
O'Brien: Good morning. My comments will be brief this
morning. I just want to provide you with a background of the
existing legislation that governs Peterborough Civic Hospital,
which is now operating under the name Peterborough Regional
Health Centre, and then just explain the two main reasons why
this act is before you this morning.
The Peterborough Civic
Hospital was incorporated by a special act back in 1945. It has
been amended from time to time, and it currently provides for the
composition of the board of directors of the hospital. As
required under the existing act, the board includes ex officio
municipal appointees, including the mayor of the city of
Peterborough and the warden of the county of Peterborough. In
addition, two directors are appointed by the council of the
county of Peterborough and nine are appointed by the council of
the city of Peterborough. Therefore, the board of the
Peterborough Civic Hospital is essentially municipally
The 1945 special act that
incorporated the hospital also authorized the city of
Peterborough to acquire lands for the civic hospital and to erect
the hospital building.
There are two reasons the
act is before you today. The first is that in the mid-1990s,
Peterborough Civic Hospital realized that it wanted to change its
governance structure and move to eliminate the municipal
appointment of directors. The reason for that was to ensure that
the hospital's board was representative of the community the
hospital served. The catchment area of the hospital, which is the
community served by the hospital, extends beyond the boundaries
of the municipalities that represent Peterborough. It is, in
fact, a regional catchment area and the hospital wanted that to
be represented on its board.
In 1998, the Health
Services Restructuring Commission reinforced this view of the
hospital. The HSRC, as you're probably aware, was mandated in
1996 to review and restructure public hospitals in Ontario. It
has the power under the Public Hospitals Act to direct hospitals
to restructure, amalgamate, change their governance etc. In March
1998, the HSRC issued a restructuring report for the region that
included the Peterborough Civic Hospital and essentially agreed
that the hospital should indeed move away from a municipally
In June 1998, the HSRC
issued legally binding directions that bound the directors of the
hospital to implement a new governance structure. That new
governance structure would remove the municipal ex officio
directors from the board and would create a new process for the
appointment of directors. Those directors would no longer be
approved or appointed by municipal or regional government.
Essentially, the act before you implements that change in
governance. The board would no longer be municipally appointed.
It would be elected by an open membership as provided in the
by-laws of the hospital.
The second reason the act
is before you this morning is that coincidental with the hospital
essentially assuming control of its own governance, it makes
sense for the hospital to assume control of the property that it
uses in providing health care services in the area. It wants to
move to a structure where, like most public hospitals in Ontario,
it not only elects its own directors but it owns its own property
as well. So the second main portion of the act transfers the real
property on which the hospital is located and that's used for
hospital purposes, and personal property used for hospital
purposes, to the hospital. The act actually effects that legal
transfer. Just so you know, after the transfer any property that
was donated or held by the city in trust for the hospital will
remain held in trust by the hospital.
So for those two reasons,
to implement community representative governance and to transfer
title of hospital property to the hospital corporation, this act
is before you. We ask that the standing committee on regulations
and private bills vote to move this bill toward second
I'm sorry if I missed it in your presentation: Any indication of
the position of the municipality, the corporation of
Peterborough, with respect to this?
O'Brien: They actually signed an agreement back in 1994
fully supporting this move.
Are there any interested parties who have attended to speak to
this bill? Seeing none, Mr Coburn, parliamentary assistant, are
there any comments from the government?
Mr Brian Coburn
(Carleton-Gloucester): No. There are no objections at
all to this bill.
Committee members, are there any questions and/or debate? Yes, Mr
O'Toole. Just to indicate that you are participating not as a
member of the committee.
O'Toole: I'm participating out of interest only. Yes, it
shows just how sheltered my life really is. Having come from
Peterborough, I have a unique interest in it. Does this mean that
the member, Mr Stewart, will in some way have his name attached
to this action? I know he's a great contributor to the history of
Peterborough. And, no, I'm not being flippant.
Have you resolved the
property issues with respect to the other hospital in
O'Brien: With respect to St Joseph's hospital?
O'Brien: There was an asset transfer agreement that has
been implemented already.
O'Toole: That's already in place?
Ms O'Brien: Yes. And that's
pursuant to the directions of the HSRC.
Any further questions from committee members? Any comments or
debate? Are members ready to vote on the bill? There are no
amendments being placed? No.
Shall sections 1 through 11
carry? I declare that carried.
Shall the preamble carry?
Shall the title carry?
Shall the bill carry?
Shall I report the bill to
the House? Yes. Thank you.
The committee has finished
with this bill. It will be reported out to the House probably
this afternoon, and then a question of second reading and any
further dealing with the bill is up to the procedures with the
government House leader.
Thank you very much for
ROSS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ACT, 1999
Consideration of Bill Pr5,
An Act respecting The Ross Memorial Hospital.
The next order of business is Bill Pr5, An Act respecting The
Ross Memorial Hospital. Mr Gary Stewart, MPP, is the sponsor. The
applicant is the Ross Memorial Hospital: McQuarrie Hill Walden
McLeod, represented by Jennifer Sleep today. Welcome to both of
Mr Stewart, would you
introduce the bill, please, and introduce the applicant.
Stewart: I will. Again, thank you, Madam Chair. It is my
pleasure to sponsor this bill, An Act respecting The Ross
Memorial Hospital. I'm doing it on behalf of my colleague the
member from Victoria-Haliburton, Mr Chris Hodgson. As has been
indicated, with me is Jennifer Sleep. The board of governors of
Ross Memorial Hospital has applied for special legislation to
empower it to acquire and dispose of real estate. We'll let Ms
Sleep speak to the bill.
Sleep: I'm going to begin my submissions by setting out
the events which necessitated this application for the private
member's bill before you. I will then set out the purpose and
intent of the legislation.
To begin, the Ross Memorial
Hospital was incorporated by a special act of the provincial
Legislature, An Act respecting the Ross Memorial Hospital, which
was assented to on May 22, 1903. The act was subsequently amended
in 1954 and 1964. A trust deed executed by James Ross on January
9, 1903, forms the schedule to the 1903 act. The purpose and
intent of the trust was to convey certain lands and the hospital
built by Mr Ross, in trust, for the benefit of the people of the
county of Victoria and the town of Lindsay.
The act also sets out the
powers of the corporation including, in paragraph 10, the power
to purchase real property. However, paragraph 12 of the trust
deed states, "There shall be no power to sell or mortgage or
place a lien upon the said hospital."
Until 1993, the Ross
Memorial Hospital transacted business unaware of its restricted
power to deal with real property. In 1993, the hospital entered
into an agreement of purchase and sale with the town of Lindsay
to convey a small piece of vacant land along its south boundary
to the town. The town acquired the land to facilitate a
road-widening, an improvement of a main intersection in Lindsay.
After searching title and reviewing the 1903 act, the town
solicitor concluded that the hospital was not legally empowered
to convey the required land. The town eventually acquired the
land through expropriation. It became clear at that time that the
hospital required that its powers to deal with real property be
The purpose of the proposed
bill, An Act respecting The Ross Memorial Hospital, 1999, is
therefore to broaden the powers of the hospital to deal with real
property; specifically to purchase, lease, mortgage or sell its
With respect to the
purchase of real property, paragraph 10 of the trust deed
specifically empowers the hospital to purchase property. The
proposed legislation therefore confirms this power.
The power to lease space
within the hospital as well as hospital lands is required to
ensure that a number of health-related services are readily
accessible to the people of Lindsay and to Victoria county. These
services complement those currently provided by the hospital.
Presently the hospital
leases space to Parkway nuclear medicine, Lindsay rehabilitative
health, home care and palliative care.
The hospital may, in light
of its future expansion, require the power to lease its land to
other health-care-related services and facilities. The power to
mortgage its real property is required in light of the Health
Services Restructuring Commission's directive and the present
need of the hospital to expand its facilities. In order to fund
the local share of the capital cost of facility expansion, the
hospital may require short-term financing, which would likely be
in the form of a mortgage.
Finally, the power to sell
is required in the event that the hospital wishes to convey a
portion of its land in order to purchase or to trade for other
land with preferred proximity. Further, in the event of future
improvement by the town of Lindsay to surrounding roadways, the
power to convey hospital property would be required.
As you will see, the
present legislation empowers the board of governors to "purchase,
lease, mortgage, sell or otherwise acquire or dispose of real
estate where" it "declares that the transaction is needed for the
better operation of the hospital." Further, the proceeds of any
of these transactions are to "be applied to the purposes of the
Ross Memorial Hospital or to similar charitable objects."
The purpose and effect of
the legislation is therefore consistent with the intent of the
original trust deed, that is, to provide accessible health care
services to the people of the town of Lindsay and the county of
Subject to any questions the committee may have,
those are my submissions.
Could you provide the committee with any knowledge you may have
of how consistent this is with the type of legislation governing
other hospitals in the province?
I'm not sure I can answer that question, but I think one of the
original concerns was that the property was conveyed to the
hospital in trust and that any amendments to the act that
affected the trustee be consistent with the original intent of
the trust. I cannot answer whether it's similar to other hospital
I raise it not by way of putting any concern or objection on the
table. My experience over the past year is that hospitals like St
Michael's and others have used these provisions not only for the
purpose of expanding or restructuring the hospital but for the
purpose of investment in land acquisitions. It has not been the
primary focus in the business of a hospital board of management.
Often, there have been problems that have resulted from that. I
just wondered if this language was consistent language that
you've seen in other pieces of legislation governing the
operation of hospitals.
I don't know.
Thank you. Are there any interested parties who have come forward
on this? Seeing none, committee members, do you have any
questions for the applicant? I'm sorry, let me just ask Mr Coburn
if the government has any comment.
No. We received no objections.
Are you ready to vote? OK.
Shall sections 1 through 3
Shall the preamble carry?
Shall the title carry?
Shall the bill carry?
Shall I report the bill to
the House? It shall be done.
Thank you very much. We
appreciate your attendance here today.
TALPIOT COLLEGE ACT, 1999
Consideration of Bill Pr16,
An Act to incorporate Talpiot College.
The next order of business is Bill Pr16, An Act to incorporate
Talpiot College. The sponsor is Mr Mike Colle, MPP. The
applicants, Beth Jacob Seminary; Mr Edward Wells, barrister and
solicitor; Rabbi Posen; and Rabbi Stefansky are present with us
here today. Thank you for joining us.
Mr Colle, would you like to
make some introductory comments and introduce the applicants,
With me today I have Rabbi Posen, Rabbi Stefansky and their legal
counsel, Mr Edward Wells.
The bill incorporates an
already existing seminary, the Beth Jacob Seminary, in my riding.
The purpose for incorporation is to operate a post-secondary
educational institution in Jewish and general studies for Jewish
women, and to grant degrees.
The applicants represent
that it is unincorporated and has been operating a post-secondary
educational institution for Jewish women since 1973. So in
essence they want to be incorporated and the model they're using
is one that some of the members may be familiar with. In 1998 the
House passed the Redeemer Reformed Christian College Act. That
was in Ancaster and I think it was MPP Skarica's introduction. So
that's what the bill is modelled on.
Those are my comments. I
don't know if Mr Wells or one of the rabbis would like to
Wells: First of all, Madam Chair, it's Bill Pr16. I
believe it was titled Bill 16 on the agenda.
Just give me a second here. Yes, I'm sorry. I called it forward
as Pr16, so we're fine. Thank you.
The reason we're here is because the degree-granting act of RSO
1990, chapter D.5, prohibits any person from granting degrees or
operating a university unless they're authorized by a statute.
That's why we're here today. I'd like to ask Rabbi Posen to make
some comments and tell you a little bit about the seminary.
Posen: Madam Chair, members of the committee, just a
brief background to the Beth Jacob and Talpiot College
application. The Jewish community was established in Toronto
prior to Confederation in 1867, with the post-Second World War
era witnessing the flourishing of a new, thriving community based
on the influx of Orthodox Jewry. During the 1950s, Jewish
elementary schools became firmly established within the
community. In 1960 Beth Jacob High School was started as the
first Jewish high school for girls in Ontario. Graduates of the
Beth Jacob educational system received comprehensive schooling in
Jewish and secular studies, and in 1973 a post-graduate
institute, Beth Jacob Teachers Seminary, was brought into
existence to meet the expanding educational needs within the
Orthodox Jewish community.
Further expansion occurred
in 1996 when Beth Jacob Academy was founded as an affiliate to
the existing Beth Jacob institutions. The academy provides a
post-high school, college-level education for Jewish women. The
student body consists primarily of young Jewish women with
substantial prior Judaic and secular education. The focus,
perspective and student body of Beth Jacob Academy is unique to
not only Toronto and Ontario but also the whole of Canada.
In order to further the
goals of the Beth Jacob ideal and to provide Orthodox Jewish
women with a suitable, rigorous, continuing education, the
Talpiot College application for a degree-granting charter has
been made. Talpiot College will not simply be another program
offering options in post-secondary education; Talpiot will
provide a synthesis of the eternal ideals of Beth Jacob, fused
together with a challenging academic curriculum as a viable means
of obtaining a degree.
The program will be unique in that it will offer
courses especially structured for the committed Jewish woman
which enable her to further her Torah knowledge and Jewish
philosophy in a format not commonly available for women.
Are there any further comments from the applicants?
I just have one request. Given that Beth Jacob seminary is a
charitable non-profit organization, if it's possible, there's
precedent whereby the government or the Legislative Assembly
could waive the application fee and the fee for printing of the
bill. It would help them continue to operate under the great
financial stress they have, as all schools do.
The committee can give consideration to that, Mr Colle.
Are there any interested parties who've come forward on this
bill? Seeing none, Mr Coburn, parliamentary assistant, does the
government have any questions or comments?
No objections from any of the ministries. I have one question
with respect to colleges and universities. In terms of awarding
degrees and diplomas, does this have any bearing on our education
system in Ontario or is it strictly from within the seminary
itself? Am I making myself clear with the question?
Are you asking what the status of the degree is?
Yes, in relationship to the degrees given out by colleges and
Public colleges and universities.
First of all, this has been approved by the Minister of Training,
Colleges and Universities. In fact, the college will be the same
as U of T in granting degrees, except it will be on a different
It was just of personal interest. Thank you.
Committee members, any questions or comments?
Stewart: With all due respect to the organization, the
rabbis and everybody else regarding Mr Colle's comment about
excluding this application from the cost to print the bill or
whatever, I suggest we could be setting a precedent on that.
We've had two bills come forward earlier which I believe border
on charitable types of organizations, and I would not be
supportive of that.
Could I just offer this for the committee's advice. Contained
within the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly is a
provision that sets out that charitable organizations may ask for
remittance of these fees and for the fees to be waived. There is
precedent for committees to have voted for waiving fees on
previous occasions. Let me just give you the exact reference.
Section 80, which deals with private bills:
"(d) Where a private bill
relates to a charitable organization within the meaning of the
Income Tax Act (Canada), the standing committee on regulations
and private bills may recommend that the fee paid under clause
(a) be remitted and, if the recommendation is approved by the
House"-the committee makes a recommendation and it's the
Legislative Assembly that would make the final determination on
that-"the remitted fee shall be applied to reduce any costs
payable under clause (b) and the committee may, having regard to
the circumstances, recommend that all or part of the costs
payable under clause (b) be waived and, if the recommendation is
approved by the House, the costs shall be waived."
The application fee is
about $150 and then there are printing costs. It's difficult to
tell you exactly what that is. We're talking in the range of a
few hundred dollars, not a substantial cost beyond that.
At this point in time,
there's no motion before us. There's been a request from the
applicant. Is there a member who wishes to place a motion to
waive fees and printing costs, the recommendation to the House
for acceptance of that?
I would place the motion that requests that.
OK. The motion is now before us. Mr Stewart, you look like you
wanted to say something else on that.
Stewart: Yes, just a question. If this committee does
not approve the waiving of these fees, the organization can apply
on their own directly to the Legislature, right?
There's no mechanism-
Stewart: Does it have to be approved by this
It has to be approved by this committee because it's contained
within the standing orders and the powers of this committee. Our
approval of it, however, is not the final say. As with all things
we do here, it would become part of the report from this
committee back to the Legislative Assembly and it would be up to
the Legislative Assembly as a whole to say yea or nay to that
Just a comment, Madam Chair. The seminary receives no government
funding whatsoever, directly or indirectly, from municipalities,
from the federal or provincial government. For the other
institutions that were here, I'm sure there is some funding from
other levels of government. It's not unusual that this request be
made, and I hope the committee considers that. It's not a huge
amount of money, but it is just something that they basically
have made a request for because it is an extremely challenging
educational institution to run financially, essentially on
donations and tuitions. That's why I've made that request on
their behalf and I hope you consider that.
Mr Garfield Dunlop
(Simcoe North): Just for clarification: Are you saying,
Madam Chair, that one of the hospital associations that was here
earlier could actually write in and ask for the same thing?
The Chair: If they are a
charitable organization as defined under the Income Tax Act, they
may request it of the committee. Neither of them did. It is
normally smaller, non-government institutions, charitable
institutions, who make that request of this committee, such as
the group that's before us today.
Maybe as a point of information, when this happens on committees
it puts everybody in an awkward position. If that provision is
there, can you maybe give us information at a future session on
how many of these applications would have come forward over the
last four or five years, and how much has been recognized as
being absorbed by the Legislature, just to give us some examples.
That provision is there and it comes forward and there's a
request every time, and we tend to agree with it every time. I
guess my concern is, why do we go through this discussion? If
that's going to be the situation for everybody, there may as well
just be a blanket acceptance of it.
Clerk of the
Committee (Ms Anne Stokes): Not every organization is a
I mean within the charitable rules. How many charitable
organizations have come in here, and how many have requested
We could certainly ask research to pull that together for us. I
think it's a useful bit of information for committee members. As
committee members, there is turnover and people are not familiar
with the precedents. In general, it would be my advice that if we
have it handy and we're made aware that a request is going to
come, it could be circulated in advance to committee members to
make it easier for them to make a judgment on it. We will bring
that forward for the information of committee members at a future
Any further discussion or
debate on the motion to waive fees? Seeing none, all those in
favour, please indicate. Those opposed, please indicate. The
motion is carried.
With respect to the bill
itself, are there any other questions or comments? Are you ready
to vote? We're dealing with Bill Pr16, An Act to incorporate
Talpiot College, sponsored by Mr Mike Colle, MPP.
Shall sections 1 through 16
Shall schedule 1 carry?
Shall schedule 2 carry?
Shall the preamble carry?
Shall the title carry?
Shall the bill carry?
Shall I report the bill to
the House? Agreed.
I thank the applicants for
coming forward and spending time. Mr Colle, thank you very
That concludes the
scheduled business on the agenda, and there's no further
business. Mr O'Toole is gone, so we can probably wrap up quickly
Mr Murdoch moves adjournment. All in favour? Carried.