CONTENTS
Wednesday 8 December 1993
Regulated Health Professions Amendment Act, 1993, Bill 100, Mrs Grier / Loi de 1993 modifiant la Loi sur les professions de la santé réglementées, projet de loi 100, Mme Grier
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Beer, Charles (York North/-Nord L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC)
Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND)
Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
*O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York ND)
*O'Neill, Yvonne (Ottawa-Rideau L)
*Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre ND)
*Rizzo, Tony (Oakwood ND)
*Wilson, Jim (Simcoe West/-Ouest PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND) for Mr Hope
Sullivan, Barbara (Halton Centre L) for Mr McGuinty
Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford ND) for Mr Hope and Mr Owens
Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre ND) for Mr Martin
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Ministry of Health:
Wessenger, Paul, parliamentary assistant to the minister
Henderson, Christine, legal counsel
Schwartz, Ella, policy analyst, professional relations branch
Clerk / Greffier: Arnott, Doug
Staff / Personnel: Schuh, Cornelia, deputy chief legislative counsel
The committee met at 1549 in room 151.
REGULATED HEALTH PROFESSIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES PROFESSIONS DE LA SANTÉ RÉGLEMENTÉES
Consideration of Bill 100, An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 / Projet de loi 100, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1991 sur les professions de la santé réglementées.
The Chair (Mr Charles Beer): The standing committee on social development is called to order. We are considering Bill 100, An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991. We meet this afternoon for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. Just before starting that, I would remind all members that we are charged by resolution of the House that at 5 o'clock we must begin to put all of the votes regardless of where we are with the amendments. It's approximately a quarter to 4, 10 to 4, so we have about an hour and 10 minutes.
Turning then to the bill, shall section 1 of the bill carry?
Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I'd request a ruling of the Chair with respect to section 22, subsections 95(1), (2.1) and (2.2) of schedule 2 to the act, which is an amendment placed by the government. I'm just providing notice of that. We want to flag it now because we believe that there probably won't be time for debate on the issue.
Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Mr Chairman, may I speak on that point?
The Chair: Can you just repeat again which section it was?
Mr Jim Wilson: It was the very last amendment, regulatory authority.
The Chair: I'm prepared to hear discussion on that.
Mr Jim Wilson: I very strongly believe that this simply came out of the blue. It's not a regulatory authority. Particularly, section 95 of schedule 2 is amended by adding the following subsections. Subsection (2.1) deals with the quality assurance committee of the colleges. It is certainly my very strong opinion that we did not have a discussion with witnesses -- in particular, the Ontario Medical Association and other professional associations -- with respect to the quality assurance committee and the new powers that it will be granted under this government amendment. On that basis, I would ask that you rule it out of order. It was not part of our discussions at all before this committee and it's simply been slipped in through the back door as the last amendment, hoping that members wouldn't notice it.
I would point out that these new sweeping powers for the quality assurance committee go far beyond any discussions that we had. We did not have discussions about quality assurance. The consolidated act that was provided to members of this committee simply referred that the government would allow that under the definition of sexual abuse, clause 3(c), remarks and behaviour, in certain circumstances that could bypass the disciplinary process and go to remediation. They had not, up to this point, spelled out what they meant by remediation. I don't think you should allow this particular amendment to be introduced, because it contains new provisions, sweeping powers that go beyond the scope of Bill 100.
The purpose of the act, and the government is introducing a purpose clause, is to deal with sexual abuse. This expands the power of the quality assurance committee, not only to deal with sexual abuse, which I believe is the intent of the act and the intent of the government, but to deal with all matters referred to that committee. It's far too sweeping and I think beyond the scope of what the mandate of this committee is. I'd like a ruling on that.
Mrs Sullivan: Mr Chairman, I think you will know that we have indicated in the past that we have appreciated much of the openness the government has displayed with respect to the development of amendments to this bill, and the government has shared with us the amendments that it was considering along the way as issues were developing.
As of Monday, we had a proposed amendment with respect to section 22 of the bill, section 95 of schedule 2 to the act, which amended subsection 95(1) by adding various paragraphs with respect to matters that the government could make regulations around with respect to professional misconduct etc.
Had we gone into committee yesterday afternoon without the bomb threat occurring, we would have discovered that in the amendments, which were filed at noon on the required day, an entire new matter had been added -- there had been no discussion in public hearings -- that would further amend section 95 of schedule 2 by adding additional subsections, as subsection (2.1), an entire new subsection of that bill.
We've had no discussion of this. We understand that these issues were in fact dealt with at some length in the public hearings in the entire process of the development of the Regulated Health Professions Act in the beginning. We are very concerned, however, that not only members of the committee did not see this adjusted amendment prior to the final tabling of amendments with very significant movement away from what we had been looking at and were prepared to debate, but also the players that are most involved, the colleges themselves, the councils and the associations representing health care professionals also had not seen these recommendations. I will tell you that what concerns me is that because they were slipped in, if this is ruled out of order, what may well be a useful part of the bill will also probably be ruled out of order because it too is an addition to the original bill.
But this goes well beyond the bounds, frankly, of an appropriate parliamentary approach to the introducing of amendments to bills, not only in this bill. In Bill 50 we have seen entire intents changed as a result of the amending process. This is one clear instance of that and we just don't think it's right. We do not think it's parliamentary, we do not think it's fair to those who are involved in the legislative process, and we don't think it's fair and just to those people who did not know that this was an issue to be before us and who did not have an opportunity to comment on it.
Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I think that it's important that as we go through this debate on this issue we have heard from a lot of people who have come to this committee. We heard from victims who have never felt safe as a result of incidents that have taken place by medical practitioners, and hence the result in this bill.
In trying to develop a bill and some regulations that are going to address this very serious situation that shouldn't be allowed or tolerated, and won't be, we've had to take a look at exactly how we can provide the mechanisms.
The College of Physicians and Surgeons came to this committee just this Monday, made a submission to us. Those of you who have the submission in front of you, on page 6 of it you'll notice where they put down assessment and remediation:
"The ministry's concept of assessment and remediation appears to be designed to provide this flexibility. Without detailed wording, it is difficult to judge, but as described, it should allow colleges to determine the nature of the problems. However, if remediation is to work effectively, colleges must have the ability to require that it be completed successfully by practitioners. Otherwise the survivors will see this as a way to somehow protect the practitioners from the process."
The whole intention behind this isn't to protect practitioners. The college's role isn't there just to protect practitioners; the college is there so that the public can go to it if they have a very serious problem and complain. We've heard from people who have come to these committee hearings as victims who have never felt comfortable and satisfied that the college was there acting in their best interest.
Far be it from any of us to say what is best for these victims. We're trying to offer them an opportunity here that is going to allow a process to take place so that they can feel some comfort in this. I don't think this amendment before us should be ruled out of order.
I think all of the medical practitioners and all the regulated health professions out there should take a look at this, take a look at exactly what is being provided. Certainly there was far much more being provided than should have been provided in the past. Take a look. What we're trying to offer here is an avenue by which the colleges can take a look at this, and they have to have that ability. The reason we're here today is because the colleges haven't always taken a look at the best interests and the needs of the victims. That's what we're here for. As legislators we've got a role to play to make sure that the best possible legislation is there that is going to protect the victims while allowing the best opportunity for the practitioners who are accused avenues as well.
1600
The Chair: Thank you. The parliamentary assistant.
Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I'm not going to deal with the merits of this provision at this time because I think it's really a technical matter. I'm going to ask legal counsel to respond, but before doing so I might make just a couple of preliminary comments.
First of all, I think we have to look at the context. We're dealing with An Act to amend the Regulated Health Professions Act. The particular provision, section 22, is a provision to make regulations, so I would suggest that when looking at the matter of whether it's out of order, you have to look at the original Regulated Health Professions Act as well as the amendment to determine whether the subject matter is within the framework of the act as amended. I would suggest that the criteria should be looked at.
With that, I'll just turn it over to legal counsel.
Ms Christine Henderson: Christine Henderson, legal services branch, Ministry of Health.
As you know, Bill 100, at first reading, required mandatory cross-profession reporting of incompetence, incapacity and designated acts of professional misconduct, as well as sexual abuse. As you also know, the government proposed that the mandatory reporting of incapacity and incompetence and designated acts of professional misconduct be removed from the bill.
However, a number of presenters spoke to the issue of mandatory reporting of incompetence, requesting that something be done about that issue. As Mr O'Connor just stated, the College of Physicians and Surgeons spoke to this issue and presented a letter to the committee on this issue around the substandard practice of practitioners. At present, unless --
Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I believe the issues that are being discussed at this current time should relate to the legislative and parliamentary questions as to whether the amendment is in order and not speak to the particular content of the amendment. In fact, the reference that Mr O'Connor makes to the CPSO's recommendation --
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): That's not a point of order.
Mrs Sullivan: -- related to an issue where the CPSO had not even seen the proposal included in this amendment.
The Chair: An important issue has been raised here and I am providing some leeway to make sure that we understand the issues that are being put before me, because I'm going to have to rule on this. So please continue.
Ms Christine Henderson: Okay, and I would ask our legislative counsel to speak to the technical matter that I think Mrs Sullivan's raising after I finish, so I'll be brief.
At present, unless practitioners, as you know, fall strictly within the provisions around professional misconduct -- fitness to practise, for example -- the substandard practitioner cannot be dealt with until actual harm is caused to a patient.
As offered, as Mr Wessenger stated, this amendment is enabling legislation. It permits colleges, as a voluntary matter, to make regulations around these programs. At present, I would also draw your attention to subsection 95(2) of the code, which states that regulations made under paragraph 25 of subsection (1), which provides for regulations to be made prescribing quality assurance programs, may require members to participate in continuing education programs. An element of non-voluntariness therefore is currently within the code, within the power of the college councils to make regulations in this regard.
These programs, if a college determined to make such regulations around quality assurance programs, would provide for limited restrictions. As was pointed out, the vast majority of practitioners voluntarily work with colleges to bring up their skills, whether it be communication skills, skills around their knowledge or judgement in particular matters. But what these limited regulations would provide for would be limited restrictions upon the practice of practitioners who refused, after they were evaluated under the programs which are permitted under the statutory provisions, to participate in such programs or who unsuccessfully participated in these programs.
The programs contemplated under the scheme, as you will note, and the powers provided to the colleges and to the quality assurance committees are very similar to the programs that are contemplated by way of regulation in relation to assessment and remediation in relation to clause 1(3)(c), sexual abuse. The quality assurance committee would have a broad mandate, therefore, to deal with these kinds of problems, whether they be of a sexual abuse nature, words and gestures of a sexual nature, or of substandard practice not meeting actual harm of a patient yet.
The Chair: Do you want to hear first from legislative counsel? I know both opposition critics want to add something. Do you want to do that now or after legislative counsel has spoken?
Mrs Sullivan: We seem to be speaking to the content of the proposal --
The Chair: I'm sorry, but just before we go on, do you want me to ask legislative counsel to speak now?
Mr Jim Wilson: Yes, okay.
Ms Cornelia Schuh: I am Cornelia Schuh, deputy chief legislative counsel.
It seems to me that the question the Chair will need to determine here is, is the motion within the scope of the bill as it was printed at first reading?
I think the only concern relates to clauses (a), (b) and (c) of proposed subsection (2.1) of section 95. That's the material that's being added by what would be subsection 22(2) of the bill if this motion were moved and passed, dealing with the quality assurance committee. Clauses (d), (e) and (f) deal with matters that are referred to the quality assurance committee after an investigation into a possible act of sexual abuse.
Are these clauses (a), (b) and (c) within the scope of the bill? I don't think it's an absolutely open-and-shut case. I can't say obviously they are within the scope of the bill or obviously they are not.
The argument that you would make if you wanted to demonstrate that they are not within the scope of the bill is to say there's nothing about the quality assurance committee and its activities in the first reading bill.
I personally think the better view is that it is within the scope of the bill because the first reading bill dealt not only with matters relating to sexual abuse, but more generally with procedural issues, issues of substandard practice: reporting on incompetence and incapacity, for example. If you look at the last part of the explanatory notes, there are references to a variety of procedural and other changes. Most of those don't relate specifically to the issue of sexual abuse by health professionals.
So, to sum up, I would say it's not an absolutely clear, open-and-shut case. I would tend to recommend that those clauses do fall within the scope of the bill, but that depends on how the Chair views the scope of the bill. There is nothing in the printed bill about the quality assurance committee as such.
1610
Mr Jim Wilson: Following on what legislative counsel has said, if we're to -- I mean, we're time-limited. It comes as somewhat of a shock to me that the government would be seeking such wide-ranging regulatory authority under this section. In the discussions I had with groups and in the testimony that we heard before the committee -- and I will deal with the CPSO testimony -- I certainly did not have a clear picture at all that this is what the government envisioned. In the information provided to the committee, and I want you to use this in your ruling, if you can, Mr Chairman, in the consolidated act, we were given a very vague sentence with respect to the government's intention.
This is a serious matter. I recall the discussions almost verbatim about the quality assurance committee during the Regulated Health Professions Act hearings. The quality assurance committee was not subject to testimony from witnesses during the hearings on this bill, and I don't know how you can rule that it is within the scope of this particular act.
If my voice is quivering, it's because I'm quite, quite angry about this. The government knows that we're under time constraints, that by 5 o'clock, whether or not we've had an opportunity to deal with all of the amendments before us today, they would be deemed to have been entered and dealt with by the committee. I think that for the sake of fairness, and given the rather unequivocal statement from legislative counsel, you should err, if there is to err, on the side of the fact that this was not discussed during the hearing process and therefore should not be considered part of the scope of this bill.
Mrs Sullivan: I think that in this bill, as in other bills this government has presented, we have seen the intent of legislation substantially altered from an in-principle vote at second reading to what the final amendments that are placed on the table relate to.
By example, with Bill 50 we have a totally different piece of legislation than was introduced to the House. For our part, with that particular bill, we were terrified of not demanding that the out-of-order amendments be ruled out of order because we were afraid that the government would automatically go back to the first bill and it would become the law of the province. That would be bad law.
In this case, we have a situation where there has been an all-party attempt, I believe, to assure that the process was going to move ahead and that the fairest approaches were being brought forward. That means that those fair approaches -- and we recognize that the government has been fair in providing us with copies of its proposed amendments. However, this proposed amendment creates some difficulty because we did not have a broad-based discussion in public testimony before the committee. I believe that distorts the parliamentary process. That is my argument.
These amendments may well stand on their merit had we heard the discussion about them, but they may well have fallen as well. Unfortunately, my suspicion is that without that discussion, they will proceed.
The Chair: Any other comment on this issue?
Mr O'Connor: Just briefly, Mr Chair, as you make your decision and ruling on this, I just take a look back at when we first started the hearings in this room a couple of weeks ago and started talking about this very serious bill and were presented with the consolidated report. On the final page of it, they talked about the RHPA provisions and said that they would be prescribing, in regulations, a quality assurance program. I think what they've done here, as requested by many of the people who had made presentations -- they are here right before us, as was put before us in the consolidated report. So I just would like to remind folks that we have seen this provision through the consolidated report.
The Chair: Parliamentary assistant?
Mr Wessenger: I'll just reiterate that the position of the legislative counsel has indicated that the better view of these provisions is that they do fall within the scope of the act. I'd just like to remind the Chair of that.
The Chair: This is an important issue that has been raised. I want to just call a brief recess so that I can consult with the legislative counsel and the clerk. The committee stands adjourned.
The committee recessed from 1616 to 1630.
The Chair: I would now call the committee back to order. I am prepared to make my ruling. After having listened to the discussion of members regarding whether this section, this amendment is in order and after having discussed it with legislative counsel and the clerk, it is my ruling that the proposed amendment is in order. We will then proceed with the bill.
Shall section 1 of the bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 2 of the bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Now, new section 2.1. I have two amendments. The first one is a government amendment.
Mr Wessenger: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"2.1 The act is amended by adding the following section:
"Same
"43.1 Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the minister may make regulations governing funding under programs required under section 85.7 of the code, including regulations,
"(a) prescribing the maximum amount or a means of establishing the maximum amount of funding that may be provided for a person in respect of a case of sexual abuse;
"(b) prescribing the period of time during which funding may be provided for a person in respect of a case of sexual abuse."
The purpose of this amendment is to allow the minister to establish the maximum amount payable for counselling and therapy, which I think has been discussed, of up to $10,000, and the period of time that's proposed will be up to a period of five years.
Mr Jim Wilson: I have a question. Given that the order from the House doesn't allow us to change anything in our amendments, what about the numbering of amendments? Because my next amendment is 2.1. We have the most bizarre order from the House that says you can't touch anything on these pages. So how in the world are we to deal with amendments if the numbering's all screwed up? I can tell you it is, because different legislative counsel did different things. They didn't do anything wrong at their end; that's the way it's supposed to be done at their end. Can we have a ruling on that, Mr Chair?
The Chair: I'll ask legislative counsel to speak to that.
Ms Schuh: I think that the numbering can be handled editorially by our legislative editors when the bill is reprinted, when things will be sorted out and appear in the proper order.
Mr Jim Wilson: That's normally the process, but we're not normally under an order from the House such as the one we're under now.
Ms Schuh: I wouldn't have read the time allocation motion as preventing editorial corrections to the bill, but we are in a novel situation.
The Chair: The Chair rules in favour of editorially correct changes.
Any discussion, then, of this government amendment? If not, shall the government amendment 2.1 carry? In favour? Opposed? Carried.
Mr Jim Wilson: When I read this in, should I be reading it as 2.1 or 2.2?
The Chair: I would do it as 2.2.
Mr Jim Wilson: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"2.2 The act is amended by adding the following section:
"Review of sexual abuse provisions
"43.1 The standing committee on social development shall, within three years after proclamation of this act, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions of this act relating to sexual abuse and shall, within one year after beginning that review, make recommendations to the Legislative Assembly regarding amendments to those provisions."
This is simply a recognition of the importance of this act and we're recommending that the standing committee on social development undertake a comprehensive review of the act within three years of proclamation.
Mr Wessenger: We'll not be supporting this amendment. There is already provision in the bill for a review by the advisory committee after five years.
The Chair: Further comment? Shall the Conservative amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It is lost.
We then move to section 3 of the bill, and the first amendment is Mr Wilson's.
Mr Jim Wilson: I will not be introducing that amendment.
The Chair: You are withdrawing it. Government amendment.
Mr Wessenger: I wonder if it would be satisfactory to allow the Liberal motion to be moved first.
The Chair: Okay. Mrs Sullivan if you would.
Mrs Sullivan: I move that subsection 1(4) of schedule 2 of the act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Exception
"(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), `sexual nature' does not include touching, behaviour or remarks of a clinical nature appropriate to the service provided."
Mr Wessenger: We will be supporting this amendment.
Mr Jim Wilson: I just wonder what type of favouritism's going on here when the PC motion is also identical to the Liberal motion. Did somebody cook a deal?
Mr Wessenger: I might say that the numbering was correct on the Liberal motion but not correct on the PC motion.
Mr Jim Wilson: That's why I had to ask whether we could change numbering. Mr Wessenger, that's going to be dealt with editorially, so it's a moot point.
Mr Wessenger: There wasn't any preference, Mr Wilson.
Mr Jim Wilson: Mr Chairman, I'll be supporting the motion, obviously.
The Chair: All those in favour of the Liberal motion? Opposed? Carried.
Now we turn to the government motion.
Mr Wessenger: That will be withdrawn.
The Chair: Mr Wilson, you have a further amendment?
Mr Jim Wilson: Sorry, withdrawn.
The Chair: Okay, just to be correct then, you have withdrawn the amendment to subsection 1(5)?
Mr Jim Wilson: Yes.
The Chair: Please go ahead then with your --
Mr Jim Wilson: I withdrew the one that was identical to the Liberal motion that just passed.
The Chair: Right. Please go ahead then.
Mr Jim Wilson: I move that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(2) Section 1 of schedule 2 to the act is amended by adding the following subsection:
"Purpose, sexual abuse
"(4) The purposes of the provisions of this code relating to sexual abuse of a patient by a member are,
"(a) to respond to the concerns of the community with regard to incidents of sexual abuse of patients by members;
"(b) to recognize the need to protect all patients from sexual abuse and in particular to protect women, who are the people primarily subject to sexual abuse;
"(c) to encourage the reporting of incidents of sexual abuse of patients by members; and
"(d) to take the necessary action to prevent sexual abuse in the context of the inherently fiduciary relationship between members and their patients."
This motion is in response to requests by survivors. They asked that we put in some sort of preamble in the bill. This is an attempt to explain the purpose of the bill.
In my view, the preamble at the beginning of the RHPA, in Bill 43, would not be appropriate. It's more appropriate in this section of the act dealing specifically with sexual abuse. The amendment sets out the general purposes, the measures in the bill designed to combat patient sexual abuse. I note that it is similar to the government amendment on this topic.
Mr Wessenger: We will not be supporting this amendment because we prefer our own amendment respective to purpose.
The Chair: Further commentary? I'll put Mr Wilson's amendment.
Mr Jim Wilson: Can I have a recorded vote?
The Chair: A recorded vote. Shall Mr Wilson's amendment carry? All those in favour?
Ayes
Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Carter, Haeck, O'Connor, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Rizzo, Sullivan, Sutherland, Wessenger.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Shall section 3 of the bill, as amended, carry? All in favour? Carried.
Section 3.1, government amendment.
1640
Mr Wessenger: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"3.1 Section 2 is amended by adding the following section:
"Statement of purpose, sexual abuse provisions
"1.1 The purpose of the provisions of this code with respect to sexual abuse of patients by members is to encourage the reporting of such abuse, to provide funding for therapy and counselling for patients who have been sexually abused by members and, ultimately, to eradicate the sexual abuse of patients by members."
Mr Jim Wilson: I just felt that the government's amendment doesn't go as far as the PC amendment. I question why they wouldn't support a more comprehensive amendment.
Interjection.
The Chair: The question is, did the parliamentary assistant say "schedule 2"?
Mrs Sullivan: No, he said "section" but he meant "schedule."
The Chair: Do you want to say "schedule"?
Mr Wessenger: Yes, "Schedule 2 is amended by adding the following section."
The Chair: So noted.
Shall the government amendment carry? In favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 3.1 of the bill carry, as amended? Carried.
Shall section 4 of the bill carry? In favour? Opposed? Carried.
We then move to section 5, a Liberal amendment.
Mrs Sullivan: I move that subsections 5(2) and (3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(2) Paragraph 3 of subsection 23(3) of schedule 2 is repealed and the following substituted:
"3. The results of every disciplinary and incapacity proceeding,
"(i) in which a member's certificate of registration was revoked or suspended or had terms, conditions or limitations imposed on it,
"(ii) in which a member was found to have committed sexual abuse as defined in clause 1(3)(a) or (b), or
"(iii) in which a member was required to pay a fine or attend to be reprimanded or in which an order was suspended if the results of the proceeding were directed to be included in the register by a panel of the discipline or fitness to practise committee."
Basically this amendment is put forward to ensure that the register of misconduct is open in perpetuity rather than in the three years of the existing act or the six years that were recommended in this bill. I think the government had an amendment that would have maybe moved it to 10 years or something. But we feel that when there has been a revocation of registration, that is an important matter for the public to know. When there has been a reprimand, it is an important matter for the public to know. The relevance of those issues doesn't end in a limited period of time.
Mr Wessenger: The government does have its own amendment which we believe is more complete because it does deal with appeals and also defines the results of a proceeding. For that reason, we won't support the Liberal motion.
Mr Jim Wilson: I won't be supporting this amendment. There's a PC amendment that simply calls for no time limitation on the record to be kept by the college.
The Chair: Shall the Liberal amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It is lost.
We come next, then, to the government amendment.
Mr Wessenger: I move that section 5 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"5(1) Subsection 23(2) of schedule 2 is amended by adding the following clause:
"(e.1) where findings of the discipline committee are appealed, a notation that they are under appeal.
"(2) Section 23 of schedule 2 is amended by adding the following subsection:
"Same
"(2.1) When an appeal of findings of the discipline committee is finally disposed of, the notation added to the register under clause (2)(e.1) shall be removed.
"(3) Paragraph 3 of subsection 23(3) of schedule 2 is amended by striking out `three years' in the second line and substituting `six years.'
"(4) Subsection 23(3) of schedule 2 is amended by adding the following paragraphs:
"3.1 For every disciplinary proceeding, completed at any time before the time the register was prepared or last updated, in which a member was found to have committed sexual abuse, as defined in clause 1(3)(a) or (b), the results of the proceeding.
"3.2 Information described in clause (2)(e.1) related to appeals of findings of the discipline committee.
"(5) Section 23 of schedule 2 is further amended by adding the following subsection:
"Meaning of `results of proceeding'
"(7) For the purpose of this section and section 56, `result,' when used in reference to a disciplinary or incapacity proceeding, means the panel's finding, particulars of the grounds for the finding, and the penalty imposed, including any reprimand."
Mrs Sullivan: The real difficulty that exists here is that the amendment I put forward would have ensured that the register was open to those who wanted to consult it with respect to decisions made not only on sexual abuse but on incapacity and incompetence, in perpetuity, or as long as the register is maintained or, I suppose, until the member dies.
The government's recommendation, unfortunately, only provides the open register for sexual abuse cases. I had hoped there would be a way, through parliamentary drafting, to consider my amendment in those other areas along with the government amendments, because I think the government amendments with respect to appeals are in fact worthwhile.
It won't work. I guess this is better than nothing, but I would have liked to have had the whole loaf.
Mr Jim Wilson: I just wanted to ask the parliamentary assistant why the government decided on the six-year limitation. Could you explain why we went from three to six when we've had a request for no restriction?
Mr Wessenger: I'll ask either policy or leg counsel to explain that.
Ms Christine Henderson: It was felt there should be a longer term for the recording of this information on the public register. However, there is also recognition that whereas sexual abuse of 1(3)(a) and 1(3)(b) sorts should have a lifetime record because of the aspect of the protection of the public, it was brought to our attention that many other jurisdictions, for example, US self-governing bodies, will require any notice on the register to be brought to their attention and will, in some cases, automatically bar that practitioner from receiving a licence in that other jurisdiction.
When we're looking at the many and varied grounds of professional misconduct, which range from 1(3)(a) sexual abuse to grounds of breach of a record, we had to consider, on balance, what might be fair, and I think took a balanced approach.
There may be other comments from our policy analyst.
Ms Ella Schwartz: I'm Ella Schwartz, the policy analyst. I think that's fair to say, that we were looking for a balance between the different concerns.
Mr Jim Wilson: I accept what counsel has said, and it does seem somewhat reasonable. My follow-up question, though, would be with respect to -- I can't find the particular section at the moment -- the requirement when a patient, under the counselling and therapy fund, decides to go to an unregulated professional, the member's college is required to try to ascertain whether that unregulated person -- I'm just trying to think of the case that was made to us that if a physician is kicked out of the College of Physicians and Surgeons and ends up in private practice and hangs out a shingle as a therapist of some sort. Under this act there's a requirement for the College of Physicians and Surgeons to notify the patient, where they know, that that particular physician had committed a sexual abuse offence in the past. If you don't have a lifetime record, how would the college do that? I have some difficulty there. Perhaps you could just clarify that for me.
1650
The other thing is that this record is contained in media reports. If you don't have a lifetime record, if physician X, who's been kicked out of the college, gets in trouble at some point, the public can't go back to the college, because if it's outside the six-year period -- have I got that right or have I got that wrong?
Mrs Sullivan: No, sexual abuse is lifetime.
Mr Jim Wilson: Clauses 1(3)(a) and (b) are lifetime? Then I'm sorry; I've got that wrong.
Mr Wessenger: Mr Chair, before we vote, it's been pointed out that I may have made one error with respect to reading subsection (7). Just in case I did, could I correct that in case it was made? It's "particulars of the grounds for the finding."
The Chair: In the third line.
Mr Wessenger: In the third line, yes.
The Chair: There have been many tests of reading and spelling of late.
Mr Jim Wilson: Now that I've been corrected, for incapacity and incompetence, is that the six-year limitation?
Mr Wessenger: I'll ask counsel to respond to that.
Ms Christine Henderson: Yes.
Mr Jim Wilson: So we don't consider that serious? Is that what you're saying? But sexual abuse stays on the record for life.
Mrs Sullivan: You should have voted for my amendment.
Mr Jim Wilson: Your amendment had other flaws, Mrs Sullivan. I won't get into it. Mine's much simpler.
I just don't understand. It seems to me there's somewhat a double standard there.
Ms Christine Henderson: Could I have a moment to consult with the parliamentary assistant?
The Chair: Yes, take a moment.
Mr Wessenger: We'd like to request a very short recess to consult with leg counsel.
The Chair: We can have a short recess. I would just remind everyone that we are at approximately six minutes to 5, and at 5 o'clock --
Mr Jim Wilson: We can't have a recess, then. Could you just get back to me and we'll move on to the next amendment? You're going to vote for it anyway.
Mr Wessenger: Mr Wilson, I will indicate that if there's an all-party agreement, we could consider such an amendment.
Mr Jim Wilson: You can't do that without going back to the House.
Mrs Sullivan: You can't do that. Besides that, we're under time allocation.
Mr Wessenger: That's right; we can't.
Mr Jim Wilson: I just want to point out that I think you're caught in your own web here.
The Chair: We're under time allocation. We're under very strict rules of procedure and the Chair is not in a position to accept an amendment.
Mrs Sullivan: And you already voted against my amendment anyway.
The Chair: I will then put the government amendment. Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Mr Jim Wilson: I move that the government motion amending section 5 of the bill be amended by striking out subsection 5(3) of the bill and substituting the following:
"(3) Paragraph 3 of the subsection 23(3) of schedule 2 is amended by striking out `completed within three years before the time the register was prepared or last updated' in the second, third and fourth lines."
The Chair: Discussion?
Mr Jim Wilson: I'll waive discussion, Mr Chair.
Mr Wessenger: We will not be supporting this amendment.
The Chair: All those in favour of Mr Wilson's motion? Opposed? The motion is lost.
Shall section 5 of the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Section 5.1, a government amendment.
Mr Wessenger: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"5.1 Section 26 of schedule 2 is amended by adding the following subsection:
"Same
"(3) If the complaint is about sexual abuse as defined in clause 1(3)(c), the panel may refer the matter to the quality assurance committee."
The Chair: All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 6 of the bill carry? Carried.
Shall section 7 of the bill carry? Carried.
Shall section 8 of the bill carry? Carried.
Section 9, a government amendment.
Mr Wessenger: I move that section 42.1 of schedule 2 to the act, as set out in section 9 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Same
"42.1 Evidence of an expert led by a person other than the college is not admissible unless the person gives the college, at least ten days before the hearing, the identity of the expert and a copy of the expert's written report or, if there is no written report, a written summary of the evidence."
The Chair: All those in favour? Carried.
Shall section 9 of the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
On 9.1, Mr Wilson.
Mr Jim Wilson: Given the inflexibility of the order from the House, this amendment, which was meant to be introduced on behalf of survivors, I'll have to withdraw. It needs some fine-tuning, which we're not able to do.
The Chair: The amendment is withdrawn. Shall section 10 of the bill carry? Carried.
Section 11, a government motion.
Mr Wessenger: I move that subsection 11(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(2) Paragraph 5 of subsection 51(2) of schedule 2 is repealed and the following substituted:
"5. Requiring the member to pay a fine of not more than $35,000 to the Minister of Finance.
"5.1 If the act of professional misconduct was the sexual abuse of a patient, requiring the member to reimburse the college for funding provided for that patient under the program required under section 85.7.
"5.2 If the panel makes an order under paragraph 5.1, requiring the member to post security acceptable to the college to guarantee the payment of any amounts the member may be required to reimburse under the order under paragraph 5.1."
Mr Jim Wilson: I won't be supporting this government amendment. You'll note that there's a PC amendment which requires the fine money to not go to the government or the Minister of Finance but that the money go to the survivors' fund. I repeat my disgust that the way the government sold this bill is contrary to what the bill now contains and that the government will in fact get rich off the backs of sexual abusers.
Mrs Sullivan: We also will not be supporting this amendment because the fines will be directed to the Minister of Finance rather than to the colleges' funds, which would otherwise be used for patient rehabilitation and counselling.
We don't see this bill in any way as a revenue bill. We believe that this change in the fine level of $25,000 to the Ministry of Finance in fact makes this a revenue bill. We don't think it should be one and we feel this is an error.
Mr Jim Wilson: Recorded vote.
The Chair: Shall the government amendment carry? I am going to ask the clerk to take the names. All those in favour?
Ayes
Carter, Haeck, O'Connor, Rizzo, Sutherland, Wessenger.
The Chair: All those opposed?
NAYS
O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: The amendment is lost. It is now 5 o'clock.
Mr Wessenger: The amendment should be carried, not lost.
The Chair: I'm sorry. What did I say?
Mr Wessenger: You said it was lost.
The Chair: I'm sorry. Carried. The Chair is getting confused.
Mr Wessenger: We're all doing it today.
The Chair: It is now 5 o'clock, and the direction we have from the House is that at 5 o'clock we must put all the remaining questions. I will now proceed to do that. Again, I have to indicate that all we can do is move and vote.
Mr Jim Wilson: I don't think we can move; they're deemed to be moved.
The Chair: Sorry, they're deemed moved. We can't read them in. We just have to vote.
Mrs Sullivan: Can we discuss them?
1700
The Chair: No. I'm sorry. Again, perhaps just for those who are watching --
Mr Jim Wilson: Hold on. Just so I'm clear, then, we can't move them and we can't talk about them?
The Chair: They are deemed to have been moved, and we may simply vote. For those who are watching the proceedings, I would just remind everyone that we are under the direction of the House in terms of our procedures, which stated that at 5 o'clock, all the remaining amendments and articles had to be voted on without debate and without reading the amendments into the record.
With that, the next is the Conservative amendment.
Mrs Sullivan: A recorded vote.
The Chair: Recorded vote. All those in favour?
Ayes
O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: Opposed?
Nays
Carter, Haeck, O'Connor, Rizzo, Sutherland, Wessenger.
The Chair: The amendment is lost. The next amendment is a government amendment, subsection 11(3). All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Conservative motion to 11(3). All those in favour? Opposed? It is lost.
Shall section 11 of the bill carry as amended? Carried.
Section 12, government amendment, section 53.1. Shall that amendment carry? Carried.
Mrs Sullivan: Just a clarification.
The Chair: I'm sorry. We have to simply vote and we cannot discuss these under the rules of the House.
Shall section 12, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 13 carry? Carried.
Section 13.1, a government amendment. Shall it carry? Carried.
Shall section 14 of the bill carry? Carried.
Shall section 15 of the bill carry? Carried.
Shall section 16 of the bill carry? Carried.
A government amendment, section 16.1. Shall the government amendment carry? Carried.
Shall section 17 of the bill carry? Carried.
Section 18, a government amendment. Shall the government amendment carry? Carried.
Liberal amendment to section 18. Shall the Liberal amendment carry? All those in favour?
Mr Jim Wilson: What happens if it's the same motion?
Interjection.
The Chair: Shall the Liberal amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Conservative amendment to section 18. Shall the Conservative amendment carry?
Mr Jim Wilson: Recorded vote.
The Chair: Recorded vote. Shall the Conservative amendment carry? All in favour?
Ayes
O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: Opposed?
Nays
Carter, Haeck, O'Connor, Rizzo, Sutherland, Wessenger.
The Chair: The Conservative amendment is lost.
Another Liberal amendment to section 18. Shall the Liberal amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The Liberal amendment is lost.
A government amendment to section 18. Shall the government amendment carry? Opposed? Carried.
Another government amendment to section 18. Shall it carry? Opposed? Carried.
A Liberal amendment to section 18. Shall the Liberal motion carry?
Interjection: Is that the same amendment?
Mr Wessenger: It's the same. It's the same as we've already passed, so I don't care which one you put down.
The Chair: Okay. That motion in effect -- the government amendment is carried, so I will not put the Liberal amendment. Perhaps we could have a brief pause here just on a technical matter.
We just voted on a government amendment, section 18, subsection 85.2(1), and then it is followed by a Liberal amendment which is to the same --
Mrs Sullivan: Exactly the same.
Mr Wessenger: Exactly the same.
The Chair: It has been indicated that the Liberal amendment is exactly the same. We have already voted in favour of an amendment, so --
Mr O'Connor: It doesn't appear to be quite the same. The subsections appear to be --
Interjections.
The Chair: Just one second then. With respect, the Liberal amendment is similar to the government amendment which was just supported. The wording is the same. All right? Therefore we do not need to vote on the Liberal amendment.
Mr Wessenger: Mr Chair, I think the question has to do with section 85.1. We haven't voted on section 85.1, have we?
The Chair: We have voted down to -- could I have everybody's attention, please, just so you know what we have voted on in section 18.
We have voted on the government amendment, section 18, 85.1(1) and (2). That was carried.
We then voted on the Liberal amendment, subsection 85.1(1), which was lost.
We then voted on the Conservative amendment to section 18, 85.1(3.1), which was lost.
We then voted on the Liberal amendment, section 18, 85.1(4), which was lost.
We then voted on the government amendment, 85.1(4), which was carried.
We then voted on the government amendment, subsection 85.2 --
Interjection.
The Chair: Excuse me. Just let me finish the list -- subsection 85.2(1), which was carried, and we were then discussing the Liberal amendment, which is identical to the government amendment that we had just passed. The two being identical, we will not deal with the Liberal amendment.
Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I think that the parliamentary assistant is right to show some hesitation, because the amendment which the committee passed to section 18 of the bill, subsection 85.1(4) of schedule 2 to the act, isn't an amendment, and we were moving rather quickly and carried it anyhow. It reads, "The government intends to recommend that the committee vote against subsection 85.1(4)."
The Chair: Mr Wessenger, I'll allow --
Mr Wessenger: Yes. What I suggest we do is -- we haven't actually passed any of these, 85.1 or 85.2 or 85.3; we've just passed amendments to them. So I'd like to go back to 85.1, and I would ask that we deal with 85.1(1) to (3) as a single vote and then deal with subsection (4) as another vote and subsection (5) as a separate vote.
The Chair: Okay. Could we just deal with the last two amendments first, and then I'll entertain that discussion.
Mr Wessenger: Okay.
The Chair: All right. We have two government amendments. First of all, government amendment to section 18, section 85.3. Shall the government amendment carry? In favour? Opposed? Carried.
A further amendment, 85.7. Shall the government amendment carry? Opposed? Carried.
Mr Jim Wilson: Can we have a recorded vote on that?
The Chair: A recorded vote on the --
Mr Jim Wilson: Oh, wait a minute.
Mr Wessenger: This is not the one you're concerned with. It's the next one, Jim.
Mr Jim Wilson: Okay. Carried.
The Chair: Carried.
Now, there is a question as to what we have done with subsection 85.1(4), a government amendment, and because of the speed at which we are moving, Mr Wessenger, what did you wish to --
Mr Wessenger: What I am suggesting, Mr Chair, is that we've not really passed any of these sections in total yet. We've just merely passed amendments, so we can legitimately go back and pass them as sections.
First of all, I'm requesting that when we deal with 85.1, that we deal with 85.1(1) to (3) as one item, subsection (4) as a second item and subsection (5) as a third item. The reason for this, if I might indicate, is that one of the subsections the government would like to vote against.
The Chair: Okay. Does everyone understand what we're about to do?
Mr Jim Wilson: Yes, but I don't agree.
The Chair: The Chair will just take a moment to consult. We'll just have a brief recess while we look at this.
The committee recessed from 1713 to 1716.
The Chair: Thank you, members. Under the motion to the House, the Chair is directed to put the questions as he deems fit. There is a problem which is the fault of the Chair, in that there was not an amendment, and I called an amendment which in fact did not exist and should not in all probability, quite frankly, have been included in the body of amendments. So my ruling is that we will deal then and vote on each of those sections and that is how we will deal with it, but that should not have been shown as an amendment. That being said, if members would just bear with us, we will then go to section 18.
Shall subsections 85.1(1) and (2), as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall subsection 85.1(3) carry? Carried.
Shall subsection 85.1(4) carry?
Mr Jim Wilson: Recorded vote.
The Chair: Okay, a recorded vote. All those in favour?
Ayes
O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: Opposed?
Nays
Carter, Haeck, O'Connor, Rizzo, Sullivan, Wessenger.
The Chair: That is lost.
Shall subsection 85.1(5) carry? Carried.
Shall section 85.1, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall subsection 85.2(1), as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 85.2, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 85.3, as amended, carry? Carried.
Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): Mr Chairman, if we follow the same procedure as we did on the previous clause, would you not have to follow with subsections (2) and (3), or did I not hear you correctly? You did 85.2(1) but did you do (2) and (3)?
The Chair: Yes. I called all of it.
Ms Haeck: Oh, I didn't hear the (3), thank you.
The Chair: Shall section 85.4 carry? Carried.
Shall section 85.5 carry? Carried.
Shall section 85.6 carry? Carried.
Shall section 85.7, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 18 of the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 19 of the bill carry? Carried.
Shall section 20 of the bill carry? Carried.
Shall section 21 of the bill carry? Carried.
Section 22, government amendment, shall the government amendment --
Mr Jim Wilson: Recorded vote.
The Chair: Shall the government amendment to section 22, section 95, carry? Recorded vote, all those in favour?
Ayes
Carter, Haeck, O'Connor, Rizzo, Sutherland, Wessenger.
The Chair: All opposed?
Nays
O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: The amendment is carried.
Shall section 22, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 23 carry? Carried.
Shall section 24, the short title, carry? Carried.
Shall the long title carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
We have therefore dealt with Bill 100. Just before adjourning, I would like to thank all of those who supported the committee in its work. The committee stands adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1723.