Wednesday 12 April 2000

Subcommittee report

Peterborough Regional Health Centre Act, 1999, Bill Pr3, Mr Stewart
Mr R. Gary Stewart, MPP
Ms Kathy O'Brien

Ross Memorial Hospital Act, 1999, Bill Pr5, Mr Stewart
Mr R. Gary Stewart, MPP
Ms Jennifer Sleep

Talpiot College Act, 1999, Bill Pr16, Mr Colle

Mr Mike Colle, MPP
Mr Edward Wells
Rabbi Yosef Posen


Chair / Présidente
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York ND)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North / -Nord PC)

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay / -Timmins-Baie James ND)
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 participantes

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 of them:

"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 and questions.

"(3) That the committee meet on Wednesday, April 26, 2000, for clause-by-clause review of Bill 33.

"(4) That amendments should be given to the clerk of the committee by noon on Tuesday, April 25, 2000."

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 move.

The Chair: 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.

Mr O'Toole: I think Ms Boyer was ahead of me, but I'll speak after her if I may.

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.

The Chair: 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.

Mrs Boyer: That's what I was just wondering, if the sense is that we're going to have closure before we had gone through the clause-by-clause.

Mr O'Toole: 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 proposing.

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 report.

Mr O'Toole: 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 Chair.

The Chair: 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 satisfactory?

Mr O'Toole: Yes.

The Chair: The intent of that is that no amendments would be accepted after that time?

Mr O'Toole: That's right.

The Chair: Perhaps we should add that. Maybe we should just start it off that-

Mr O'Toole: No amendments will be accepted after noon on April 25, and they will be subsequently circulated to the members.

The Chair: 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.

Mr O'Toole: 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.

The Chair: 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.

Mr O'Toole: Sure.

The Chair: 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 advice.

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.

Mr O'Toole: 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 House.

The Chair: 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.

Mr O'Toole: Only?

The Chair: 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 something?

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?


Mr O'Toole: 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.

The Chair: 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.

Mr O'Toole: 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.

The Chair: What we could certainly do is-

Mr O'Toole: Table it for now.

The Chair: -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 for clause-by-clause.

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 that.

Mr O'Toole: 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 Legislative Assembly.

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.

Mr O'Toole: 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?

The Chair: 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 want?

Mr O'Toole: Yes, I understand.

The Chair: 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 discussion?

Mr O'Toole: Just for clarification for the members of the committee and myself, if we defeat this, what's the deal? What if we vote for it?

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): It's out of order. You can't vote for it.

Mr O'Toole: We can't vote for it if it's currently worded-

The Chair: 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.

Mr O'Toole: All right. I'll move an amendment that we start at 9.

The Chair: 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 finish clause-by-clause?

The Chair: Not so far. Only a direction from the House would be able to do that.

Mrs Boyer: OK.


Mr O'Toole: 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.

The Chair: 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 O'Toole.

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.


Consideration of Bill Pr3, An Act respecting Peterborough Regional Health Centre.

The Chair: 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 this bill.

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.

Ms Kathy 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 appointed.

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 appointed board.

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 reading.

The Chair: 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?

Ms O'Brien: They actually signed an agreement back in 1994 fully supporting this move.

The Chair: 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.

The Chair: 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.

Mr 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 Peterborough?

Ms O'Brien: With respect to St Joseph's hospital?

Mr O'Toole: Yes.

Ms O'Brien: There was an asset transfer agreement that has been implemented already.

Mr O'Toole: That's already in place?

Ms O'Brien: Yes. And that's pursuant to the directions of the HSRC.

The Chair: 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? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

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 your attendance.



Consideration of Bill Pr5, An Act respecting The Ross Memorial Hospital.

The Chair: 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 you.

Mr Stewart, would you introduce the bill, please, and introduce the applicant.

Mr 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.

Ms Jennifer 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 broadened.

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 property.

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 Victoria.

Subject to any questions the committee may have, those are my submissions.

The Chair: 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?

Ms Sleep: 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 legislation.

The Chair: 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.

Ms Sleep: I don't know.

The Chair: 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.

Mr Coburn: No. We received no objections.

The Chair: Are you ready to vote? OK.

Shall sections 1 through 3 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? It shall be done.

Thank you very much. We appreciate your attendance here today.


Consideration of Bill Pr16, An Act to incorporate Talpiot College.

The Chair: 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, please.

Mr Colle: 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 comment.


Mr Edward Wells: First of all, Madam Chair, it's Bill Pr16. I believe it was titled Bill 16 on the agenda.

The Chair: Just give me a second here. Yes, I'm sorry. I called it forward as Pr16, so we're fine. Thank you.

Mr Wells: 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.

Rabbi Yosef 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.

The Chair: Are there any further comments from the applicants?

Mr Colle: 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 Chair: The committee can give consideration to that, Mr Colle.

Mr Colle: Thank you.

The Chair: 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?

Mr Coburn: 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?

The Chair: Are you asking what the status of the degree is?

Mr Coburn: Yes, in relationship to the degrees given out by colleges and universities.

The Chair: Public colleges and universities.

Mr Coburn: Public colleges.

Mr Wells: 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 focus.

Mr Coburn: It was just of personal interest. Thank you.

The Chair: Committee members, any questions or comments?

Mr 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.

The Chair: 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?

Mrs Boyer: I would place the motion that requests that.

The Chair: OK. The motion is now before us. Mr Stewart, you look like you wanted to say something else on that.

Mr 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?

The Chair: There's no mechanism-

Mr Stewart: Does it have to be approved by this committee?

The Chair: 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 recommendation.

Mr Stewart: Fine.

Mr Colle: 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.

Mr Dunlop: Thank you.

Mr Coburn: 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 charitable organization.

Mr Coburn: I mean within the charitable rules. How many charitable organizations have come in here, and how many have requested this?

The Chair: 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 meeting.

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 carry? Carried.

Shall schedule 1 carry? Carried.

Shall schedule 2 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.

I thank the applicants for coming forward and spending time. Mr Colle, thank you very much.

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 now.


The Chair: Mr Murdoch moves adjournment. All in favour? Carried.

The committee adjourned at 1102.