Wednesday 2 December 1992

City of London Act, 1992, Bill Pr65

Dianne Cunningham, MPP

Robert A. Blackwell, solicitor, city of London

Women in Crisis (Northumberland County) Act, 1992, Bill Pr71

Joan M. Fawcett, MPP

Linda Perkins, administrative assistant, Women in Crisis (Northumberland County)

Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital Act, Bill Pr21

Mike Cooper, MPP

James Wallace, city solicitor, city of Kitchener

Bill White, solicitor, city of Waterloo

Robert Stevens, solicitor, Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital

Al Collins, president and chief executive officer, Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital


*Chair / Président: White, Drummond (Durham Centre ND)

*Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: MacKinnon, Ellen (Lambton ND)

Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)

*Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L)

Farnan, Mike (Cambridge ND)

*Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND)

Jordan, W. Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)

Mills, Gordon (Durham East/-Est ND)

*Ruprecht, Tony (Parkdale L)

*Sola, John (Mississauga East/-Est L)

Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford ND)

Wilson, Jim (Simcoe West/-Ouest PC)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND) for Mr Farnan

Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC) for Mr Jim Wilson

Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND) for Mr Mills

Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND) for Mr Sutherland

Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC) for Mr Jordan

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Ross, Elaine, solicitor, Ministry of Municipal Affairs

Clerk /Greffière: Freedman, Lisa

Staff / Personnel:

Hopkins, Laura, legislative counsel

Klein, Susan, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1011 in committee room 1.

The Chair (Mr Drummond White): I call this meeting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills to order.


Consideration of Bill Pr65, An Act respecting the City of London.

The Chair: First on the agenda is Mrs Cunningham with Bill Pr65, An Act respecting the City of London.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I am here to sponsor the bill. With me is Mr Bob Blackwell, the solicitor for the city of London, and he is prepared to introduce and speak to the legislation.

Mr Robert A. Blackwell: The bill is basically in three parts, and what I propose to do is address each part separately. There is one part to which I understand there is a policy objection, and perhaps it would be easier to deal with the bill in three parts rather than as a whole.

The first part, which comprises sections 1 to 23, pertains to the London Convention Centre Corp. The corporation of the city of London is currently building a convention centre costing about $30 million. It's a joint project of the city, the province of Ontario and the government of Canada, and is expected to open in September 1993.

The proposal which is before you is for the creation of a corporation to run the convention centre. The corporation really is typical of ones that already exist in centres such as Hamilton, Kitchener, Toronto and Ottawa. It's sort of a garden-variety convention centre corporation: It would have a board of directors which would consist of both elected and non-elected persons, and it would take responsibility for the operation of the centre.

Those are the only remarks I have to make on those sections, Mr Chairman. If you like I can pause now, if you find it more convenient at this point.

The Chair: If committee members wish, we could deal with the bill in that way or wait until we've finished.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I agree to deal with it section by section. I have no questions regarding this.

The Chair: Fine. Please proceed, Mr Blackwell.

Mr Blackwell: Oh. Before I leave that, there is one slight amendment that should be made to clause 7(5)(b). I have seen the wording of it provided to me by counsel and have no objection to it.

The next part I'd like to move to is section 24, and this is the section on which there is some difference of opinion between the city of London and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Let me just briefly explain the situation that this is intended to address. About four or five years ago, the city of London embarked on a program to replace a patchwork of zoning bylaws which covered the city with one comprehensive zoning bylaw. Over the process of four or five years, it has undertaken a review of existing zoning, has retained outside consultants and spent approximately $1 million, and this resulted in the enactment of a comprehensive zoning bylaw in May 1991.

There are some objections to the bylaw. As a result, as the Planning Act now provides, the bylaw does not come into force until the last of those objections is dealt with. The hearings on those objections are not scheduled to take place until 1993, and the expectation is that they will not be disposed of until the end of 1993. This has the effect of preventing any part of the bylaw from coming into force.

The result is that the city is in effect running two sets of bylaws, involved in the bureaucratic problems that are attendant with that and the cost. What we're asking for is legislation which would enable us to, first of all, designate a specific date on which the bylaw would come into force and, second, to have the right to apply to the Ontario Municipal Board to have it bring into force those portions of the bylaw which are not under appeal.

I can't stress too strongly the fact that London is a municipality of 300,000 people, soon to expand significantly; it has over 125,000 households. What we're looking for really is the right to deal with this particular bylaw so that we can get on with business and get on with the other affairs of the municipality. We brought this matter to the attention of the ministry about a year ago hoping that there would be some general legislation introduced that might cure this. This hasn't surfaced yet and there's no indication exactly when that will occur, so we feel that in order for London to get on with its business and deal with the other affairs it's confronted with, it would be useful to have this legislation.

I might say that there is an amendment to substitute wording in subsection 24(1). The wording itself has been agreed to between the ministry representatives and myself. Their agreement, of course, is not to be taken as their support for this section generally, but if the section passes we would like it passed with an amended subsection (1). Those are my remarks.

The Chair: Any comments or questions on section 24?

Mr Eddy: I note that Mr Blackwell stated that the city is operating under two zoning bylaws. I just want to assure the members of this committee that any municipality that's forced to operate under two zoning bylaws or two official plans, or both, at the same time -- it is just chaotic. It is -- well, not impossible, but it's terrible.

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I just wanted to get the opinion of the parliamentary assistant on this section of the bill.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): I'd be happy to offer the opinion of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I just want to point out that I'm the parliamentary assistant to the Chairman of Management Board and Gord Mills is parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but because of the hearings going on with respect to market value assessment in the city of Toronto, he's unable to be before this committee today.

If he were here, his comments would be that the ministry doesn't support the zoning bylaw and minor variance proposals that are contained in section 24 of the bill. With respect to the remainder of the bill, there is no objection; a couple of minor amendments will be proposed with respect to section 7. However, with respect to section 24, it's the position of the ministry that this would give the city of London planning powers that would be different from other municipalities in the province. The ministry feels that these issues are not appropriate to be dealt with in private legislation and that they are matters that should be dealt with in public legislation which would be applicable and consistent to all municipalities in Ontario.


It's also the opinion that it's premature to support private legislation for one city, that being the city of London, on an issue that should have general application, in advance of the ongoing review of the planning system by the Sewell commission. It's our expectation that as a result of the Sewell commission's work, there will be amendments that may be similar to those that have been requested by the city of London. The Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario was established to undertake a complete review of the planning process and make recommendations on legislative changes and other actions needed to restore confidence in the land use planning system. There are staff members here from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs who can answer any technical questions that committee members may have with respect to the opinions I've expressed.

Mr Eddy: I'd like to respond to that. I think we must be realistic. What is private legislation all about? It's to give legislative authority to municipalities or some other bodies that isn't in general legislation. Of course, we lag behind in general legislation for municipalities by many years; there are many things that should have been changed. Perhaps you're reviewing it to change, but the time frame is somewhat distant, to say the least. I think that's what private legislation is all about, and I support that.

Regarding the Sewell commission, I expect it's going to change the planning process in all municipalities in Ontario, but we can't really put a time frame on that; that's into the future. And when it happens, it happens, and it affects everyone. If it were to affect this particular matter, which I really don't think it would, then so be it, but let's get on with life and let's not sit waiting for the recommendations of the Sewell commission, which will result in a complete and very comprehensive review of the planning process. As to restoring a great deal of confidence in the planning process, well, there is considerable confidence in the planning process at present, especially by those people who win their cases. If an applicant is turned down, then of course he doesn't have quite as much confidence in the planning process as if he's a winner. That's the way it is and that's the way it will be when any future changes are made as a result of either the Sewell commission or indeed a comprehensive review of the planning process. The bill is before us because of a need of the city of London. I feel this will indeed restore confidence to applicants in the planning process in the city of London who may not have it now because of the particular situation. I have to restress: To live with two zoning bylaws in a municipality is just, as I stated before, terrible.

I'm prepared to support it, because I think we should get on with it and face changes in the future.

Mr Sola: Mr Eddy has been so eloquent that he's won me over to his side. I'd just like to point out to the committee that quite often this committee has passed legislation which in essence served as a pilot project for the rest of the province, so I think we could take a look at this legislation in the same capacity. That's the reason various cities have had to come before this committee: to be able to clean up problems that were particular to that city at that time, but which other cities took as models to pass similar private legislation, and eventually the province then made it apply universally. So I don't think that should serve as a handicap to us voting in favour of this legislation.

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I was just wondering, with Bill 75 just passed, if there would be any impact on other bylaws. I understand Middlesex has certain bylaws, and I believe a transition team is going to be put into place to make everything consistent in London. Now, if we end up passing this, that transition team has to fix a few more flaws here and there. Will this be a bigger problem for London and the transition team? I don't know whether the ministry or the solicitor can answer this.

Mr Blackwell: I'll have a go at that. I think the value in this subsection is that it will enable us to put aside one piece of work we're concentrating on now and devote our energies more fully to the matters of transition that are going to come about. The problem we're faced with is that as long as we have this bylaw -- which was passed over a year and a half ago -- standing out there unapproved, with people obtaining building permits under old bylaws which are going to disappear, we have a very convoluted, time-consuming, confusing process, as far as the public goes.

Our feeling is that if we could address this situation by bringing portions of the bylaw which aren't under appeal into force, then at least the public would recognize that there is now in place a comprehensive bylaw. The efforts of the city can be taken off monitoring the old bylaws and turned to dealing with the transition matters.

That really is the impact that this has. As I said before, we are now just about going into the Ontario Municipal Board hearings for this particular bylaw. That will take several months, probably late into 1993, and all that time, if we don't get this legislation, we are going to continue to have to administer things under the old set of bylaws and the new bylaw to make sure that everything is in sync. That's just wasteful, and I think it erodes the confidence people have in government. At a time when public confidence in government isn't at an all-time high, I think anything we can do to show the public that we're not being bureaucratic, that we are being progressive, we should do.

This provision deals with one specific bylaw. The city isn't asking for legislation that deals with every zoning bylaw that will come along in the future. If we pass another zoning bylaw, we're back under the existing rules and we play by the same rules as everybody else. But we feel we have a particular problem with this particular bylaw. We would like to address it, get it out of the way and get on with business, particularly the business of transition.

Mr Hansen: I wanted to get a legal opinion from the ministry. Don't tell me, "We've always done it that way." Give me a new approach, okay?

Mr Lessard: I thought Mr Hansen's question originally was with respect to Bill 75 and whether there was some conflict. I know that staff from the ministry can respond to that and will respond to Mr Blackwell's other remarks.

However, as to the sections Mr Blackwell is referring to, subsections 24(3) and 24(4), dealing with partial approval of zoning bylaws, I can elaborate on the opinion of the ministry; that is, that it intends to proceed in the direction he is suggesting as soon as the legislative timetable permits. It's the ministry's opinion that at this time it's premature to enact private legislation that might differ from public legislation that's going to be introduced at a later date, and it would cause confusion and would probably have to be repealed when the public legislation is passed. I just want to ask the ministry staff whether they have further comments to add.


Ms Elaine Ross: Elaine Ross; I'm a lawyer with Municipal Affairs. I would only point out that the minister in fact announced that this amendment would be made and that we've been working towards that, doing some consultation with the professionals that are involved and with AMO, and that we hope to proceed as soon as the legislative timetable permits.

Mr Hansen: Okay, I got a legal answer.

The Chair: Was that sufficient for a response? Do you wish a response in regard to Bill 75?

Mr Hansen: I guess maybe you should.

Ms Ross: I have not worked on Bill 75 and I'm not familiar with it. However, I did run these amendments by the lawyers who were responsible for Bill 75, and they indicated that the amendments wouldn't create a problem either way.

Mr Eddy: Mr Chair, I'm pleased about the information about Bill 75, which of course we won't discuss, but I know it's on Mr Hansen's mind because he chairs the finance committee and of course it's gone through the throes of discussing that particular bill.

I see this as a current solution to a current problem. A future solution isn't good enough, because none of us can say what the time frame will be. Although it's more or less looked upon as somewhat current legislation, it's certainly not going to happen this session, and who knows what will happen in the spring? If there is public legislation, it will supersede this perhaps, or indeed repeal; I don't see this as a problem. But I must stress that it's a current solution to a current problem and I think we should deal with it, and I support it.

Mr Sola: I notice we've got on file a letter of objection from Mr Jamaludin Ravji. I wonder if he would be present to explain the letter, because from my perusal, he is just filing notice but he's not giving any reason, just notice.

The Chair: Is Mr Jamaludin Ravji present? I was informed that he wasn't present. I've certainly read the letter as well, and of course we're all very interested about what it is he's objecting to. He was contacted, and unfortunately that will have to remain a mystery.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I would suggest that we are dealing with a problem that presently exists, and although there is some hint that things are going to change in the future, we all know that time doesn't mean much here. I would suggest that in order to facilitate the planning process we pass this bill. Actually, I have a substitute motion for subsection 24(1) which I'm prepared to read at the appropriate time.

Mrs Cunningham: Perhaps it would be appropriate for me to add that I was here a year ago with regard to the Ontario Heritage Act and at that time we had objections from the government. They did say they would be bringing forward comprehensive changes to that act, which everyone is waiting for. If they hadn't allowed London to go ahead at that time, we would not have been able to proceed with the Talbot Block. And we're still waiting for the heritage act amendments.

It's not often that we come: but once a year. Many municipalities are here looking for changes that I think other municipalities would enjoy. In that case, we had a particular reason to come here. We weren't just doing it because we wanted to be different; we had a particular building we had to deal with. I think the example here is exactly the same.

These are really very difficult management times for the city and the county and we're looking for every way we can to make things more convenient and efficient for the public, and less confusing. The bureaucracy is unreal in trying to administer those two pieces of legislation at the city, and this will be cost saving, we hope.

At the appropriate time, perhaps the same person could do both the amendments. It doesn't worry me. Mrs Witmer might do both of them.

The Chair: The amendments to section 7 and section 24?

Mrs Cunningham: Whichever. Read them in, is the point.

Mr Lessard: Mrs Cunningham has mentioned the situation with the Talbot Block in the city of London. It's my submission that that was an exceptional situation that required exceptional response. To me, that's really the responsibility of this committee, to grant special legislation in special cases.

In this case, it would be to provide the city of London with powers that I understand would apply to the entire city, not just one special section of it. It isn't a situation where we should have a pilot project for legislation, as has been suggested. There is the commitment by the minister that there is going to be legislation of general application which will address the concerns in the city of London, and this isn't a case where something like a pilot project or special legislation for the city of London is required, because this is work that is ongoing at present that will result with legislative changes being made to the Planning Act.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a question for the parliamentary assistant. I've heard you state an opinion, but I'd like to determine from you whether you are now opposing the changes that are before this committee in terms of section 7 and section 24?

Mr Lessard: I'm not opposing the changes to section 7. I'm opposing the whole section 24, as it currently stands. I've seen the amendment and I don't think that would change the opinion.

The Chair: Further comments on section 24?

Mr Eddy: I'm really concerned about the date. We're dealing with no date; we're dealing with a date some time in the future that something may happen. That is not good enough for the efficient running of anybody's business, even a municipality's.

I think we're here to hear the problem and to assist as much as possible in equipping another elected body to do its job as efficiently as it possibly can. I think this proposed amendment meets those needs. I think we should get on with it. I support it entirely. Let the city of London do its job and then, when we have public legislation presented by the minister in 1993 or 1994 or before September 1995, we will deal with it and maybe the House will pass it. But in the meantime, I think we should deal with this problem. I support it.

The Chair: Further comments? Mr Blackwell, the remaining sections of the bill.

Mr Blackwell: Sections 25 and 26 sort of address a technical problem. Currently the offence provisions for zoning bylaws and other types of bylaws under the Planning Act are contained in the Planning Act itself. This has posed some technical problems for us in the area of obtaining short-form wording approvals and set fines to enforce some of the provisions of the zoning bylaw and other bylaws, and what we would like to do is simply to have clear authority to put the offence provisions in the bylaws themselves so we can overcome this technical problem of obtaining short-form wording approvals and set fine approvals.


We're particularly interested, for example, in enforcing parking restrictions on front lawns, this type of thing. We would like to do that in the same fashion as on-street parking, by simply issuing offence notices, rather than having to file long-form informations with the provincial court. But we've run into problems in getting the paperwork in a suitable fashion because of the split between the offence occurring under the bylaw and the offence section being in the act. We simply want to have the authority to put the offence provision in the bylaws themselves, as is the custom with other types of bylaws under the Municipal Act. Basically, that is the purpose of those two sections.

The Chair: Any comments or questions on sections 25 and 26? Are there additional sections or amendments proposed?

Mrs Witmer: I move that clause 7(5)(b) of the bill be amended by adding at the end "so long as it does not extend beyond the term of the council."

The Chair: I'm sorry, Ms Witmer. We have amendments being proposed to sections 24 and 7. I would suggest that, if possible, we vote on the earlier sections and then deal with the amendments. That actually is at variance from what we have done in the past, and I apologize for suggesting that you produce those amendments now. Are we then ready for a vote on sections 1 through 6?

Shall sections 1 through 6 carry? Carried.

Ms Witmer?

Mrs Witmer: I move that clause 7(5)(b) of the bill be amended by adding at the end "so long as it does not extend beyond the term of the council."

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 7, as amended, carry? Carried.

Are we ready for a vote on sections 8 through 23? Shall sections 8 through 23 carry? Carried.

Do we have an amendment to section 24?

Mrs Witmer: I move that subsection 24(1) be struck out and the following substituted:

"Zoning bylaws

"(1) Even though under subsections 34(21) and (30) of the Planning Act bylaw no. Z-1 passed by the council of the city on the 21st day of May, 1991, is deemed to have come into force on the day it was passed, the council may by a provision in the bylaw specify a later date on which the bylaw comes into force upon the final disposition of any appeal of the whole or any part of the bylaw."

Mr Eddy: The wording has been seen or prepared by legislative counsel, is that correct? They're satisfied with the correctness of the wording as it stands? Okay.

The Chair: Are we ready for a vote on the amendment to subsection 24(1)? Shall the amendment to subsection 24(1) carry? Carried.

Shall section 24 carry, as amended?

All in favour? All opposed? Section 24, as amended, carried.

Shall sections 25 through 28 carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.

Thank you very much, Ms Cunningham and Mr Blackwell.


Consideration of Bill Pr71, An Act to revive Women in Crisis (Northumberland County).

The Chair: Ms Fawcett, could you introduce your colleague, please.

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I am pleased to sponsor Bill Pr71, An Act to revive Women in Crisis (Northumberland County). With me is Linda Perkins, who will present the case for the reviving of Women in Crisis (Northumberland County).

Through no fault of theirs, really -- they wish they didn't have to be here -- but through an oversight, this corporation was dissolved, so they would like it to be re-enacted. We also wish to put on record that they are a registered charity and therefore, hopefully, the fees would be waived for the printing of the bill.

The Chair: Will someone be moving that? Mr Sola will.

Ms Linda Perkins: I'm Linda Perkins. I'm the administrative assistant, and I'm representing the board of directors. We are a shelter for women and children fleeing family violence. We've been incorporated since 1985.

In February of this past year we opened up a thrift shop and contacted the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The response was that we were no longer incorporated. When I asked why, it was because we were supposed to register after a couple of years, and we had not received any notification in the mail. The reason for that was that when the organization was originally incorporated, it did not have a permanent location, so the chair of the board registered it with her home address. After a couple of years, she moved away, and the organization was never registered in its proper mailing address. That has now been changed. Also, in the financial records there is a clause that states, "Any changes to the address must be forwarded to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations." I would ask that our corporation be revived.

Mr Ruprecht: I want to thank Ms Perkins for her explanation, but what really convinced me to vote in favour of this is Ms Fawcett's being with you here today to put in a good word.

The Chair: Mr Ruprecht is rarely so generous.


Mr Hansen: We've had quite a few organizations coming forward. It's funny that we can't contact them a little better than we're doing if somebody moves away. Everyone in the community would know of this organization, yet the province writes it off as a corporation that's gone out of business. This committee spends so much time and expense with all the companies that come forward: $1,100 or $1,200 plus legal fees. We've got to look at a better way to handle this. Maybe we can save you the trip to Queen's Park in future.

We have to take a look. This is a problem. For this committee to spend time doing something that's so simply done -- it doesn't have to be done this way. That's just a little advice, and maybe we should get back to the minister on that.

I'll be voting in favour. I haven't any problem at all.

The Chair: I'm certainly glad to hear that. It's an excellent suggestion. Hopefully, we can do that in the springtime, not this morning or next Wednesday.

Mr Hansen: Mr Chair, you've been doing very well this morning. It looks like we'll get done by 12 o'clock.

The Chair: The vote of confidence is noted. Any further comments or questions?

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I read on the bill, An Act to revise Women in Crisis (Northumberland County), then I read the compendium, which says, An Act to revise the Federated Women's Institute of Ontario, Bay of Quinte Branch.

The Chair: That's the precedent, not the bill. The other bill was used as a precedent for this bill.

Are we ready for a vote on this bill? Shall sections 1 through 3 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.

Mr Sola: I have a motion to ask the committee to waive the fees for Bill Pr71 because they are a charity.

The Chair: All in favour? Agreed.

Thank you very much, Ms Perkins, Mrs Fawcett.


Consideration of Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital.

The Chair: We move on to Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital, Mr Michael Cooper sponsoring.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): It's my pleasure to be here this morning to sponsor Bill Pr21. We have with us the city solicitor from the city of Kitchener, the city solicitor from the city of Waterloo, the solicitor from the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital and the president of the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital. I believe what they would like to do is to present themselves to the committee and then say a few words.

Mr James Wallace: My name is Jim Wallace. I'm the city solicitor for the city of Kitchener. I think it's a reflection of the community support for the hospital that you have the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo and the hospital itself all here together. It has been a tradition that it is a community hospital. We have taken some time to review this bill and to bring it into a more modern basis of dealing with a hospital. Mr White is here from the city of Waterloo and Mr Collins; Mr Stevens, solicitor for the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital, is here.

Briefly, the bill before you has, I understand, four proposed amendments, which we've discussed with legislative counsel. The other parties can speak for themselves, but speaking on behalf of the city of Kitchener, we certainly are in agreement with the amendments which will be proposed to you.

I just want to say that we've worked on this bill for about a year and a half in discussions, because you appreciate that the city of Kitchener and the city of Waterloo actually own the land upon which the hospital buildings sit, and all the parties were well involved in this before we got here. That's basically all I have to say, and would ask the committee to give this bill favourable consideration.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Wallace. Further comments?

Mr Bill White: My name is Bill White. I'm the solicitor for the city of Waterloo. My last name is spelled White, but I don't think the Chair and I are related.

I endorse my friend's comments. I accept the amendments on behalf of the city of Waterloo, and I request that the bill be passed.

Mr Robert Stevens: Robert Stevens, acting on behalf of the commission and the hospital. We approve and recommend for consideration by this committee the bill itself and also the proposed amendments. We appreciate the help and cooperation we've received from the ministries and legislative counsel, and we're most encouraged by the manner in which this has been dealt with.

Mr Al Collins: Al Collins, president and chief executive officer of the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital. I'm here representing my colleagues who are the members of the hospital commission. I would echo the appreciation for the support we have received from the Ministry of Health and legislative counsel in drafting this bill. I am here to tell you that the members of the hospital commission are fully in support of the document and the amendments, that have been discussed with us. Just in closing, I would like to again express our appreciation for the members from our area, certainly Mr Michael Cooper, and acknowledge Elizabeth Witmer's support in the past as well, and continued support of the hospital.

The Chair: Thank you very much, sir. Any questions on the bill itself?

Mr Sola: I'd like to ask if the proposed amendments remove the objections of the ministry, because I notice the ministry has filed an objection with the committee. If this clears the matter up, I propose we go on and vote.

Mr Lessard: I can comment on that. The amendments that have been proposed deal with the concerns of the Ministry of Health.

The Chair: Any further comments? Are there any objectors present? I see none.

Are we ready to pass the sections?

Shall sections 1 through 4 carry? Carried.

Mr Hansen: I move that subsection 5(2) of the bill be amended by adding at the end "and shall not be a member of any council mentioned in clause (1)(d)."

The Chair: Are we ready for a vote on that amendment? Shall Mr Hansen's amendment carry? Carried.

Mr Hansen: I move that subsection 5(8) of the bill be amended by adding at the end "and in accordance with the Public Hospitals Act."

The Chair: Are we ready for a vote on this amendment? Shall Mr Hansen's amendment to subsection 5(8) carry? Carried.

Are we ready for a vote on section 5, as amended?

Shall section 5, as amended carry? Carried.

Shall sections 6 through 11 carry? Carried.

Do we have any amendments to section 12?

Mr Hansen: I move that section 12 of the bill be amended by striking out "express" in the eleventh line.

The Chair: Shall Mr Hansen's amendment to subsection 12 carry? Carried.

Mr Hansen: I move that section 12 of the bill be amended by striking out the second sentence.

The Chair: Are we ready for a vote on this amendment? Shall Mr Hansen's second amendment to section 12 carry? Carried.

Shall section 12, as amended, carry? Carried.

Are we ready for a vote on sections 13 through 16?

Shall sections 13 through 16 carry? Carried.

Shall the schedule carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.

Thank you very much, gentlemen. Before we adjourn, gentlemen and ladies, we have a short discussion. We have a number of bills forthcoming, some of which require some discussion. Is it possible for this committee to meet at 9:30 on December 9 so we can finish this session's business? Fine, thank you. We are adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1103.