ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES ONTARIENS QUI ONT UN HANDICAP
MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR DISABILITY ISSUES
CONTENTS
Tuesday 29 November 1994
Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 1994, Bill 168, Mr Malkowski / Loi de 1994 sur les Ontariens qui ont un handicap, projet de loi 168, M. Malkowski
Minister Responsible for Disability Issues
Hon Elaine Ziemba, minister
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
*Chair / Président: Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND)
*Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND)
*Chiarelli, Robert (Ottawa West/-Ouest L)
Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L)
*Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)
Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC)
*Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND)
*Murphy, Tim (St George-St David L)
Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC)
*Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Iles ND)
*Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC) for Mr Harnick
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND) for Ms Harrington
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
Clerk / Greffière: Bryce, Donna
Staff / Personnel: McNaught, Andrew, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1643 in room 228.
ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES ONTARIENS QUI ONT UN HANDICAP
Consideration of Bill 168, An Act to ensure Equal Access to Post-Secondary Education, Transportation and Other Services and Facilities for Ontarians with Disabilities / Projet de loi 168, Loi garantissant aux Ontariens qui ont un handicap l'égalité d'accès à l'enseignement postsecondaire, aux transports et à d'autres services et installations.
The Chair (Mr Rosario Marchese): I'd like to call the meeting to order. We apologize for running a bit late.
We welcome Minister Elaine Ziemba, who will do a briefing with respect to Bill 168.
The committee decided that before we do anything with respect to Bill 168 we would invite the minister to comment on the bill, and that once we've heard that particular briefing from the minister, we would decide what to do with respect to hearings and so on.
So we welcome you here today, Minister. We haven't decided how much time we're going to need, but we have approximately an hour and 10 minutes. Hopefully, we can do it within the hour. You might give yourself as much time as we need, hopefully leaving 10 or 15 minutes per caucus to ask you questions.
MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR DISABILITY ISSUES
Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): Thank you very much to the standing committee members. I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to present some viewpoints and to bring you up to date on our thinking.
I also want to say that I'm very appreciative of the support I'm receiving not only from my own ministry but also the Ministry of Education and Training as well as the Ministry of Transportation. They are also with me in case you ask some very in-depth, technical questions that I might feel are not quite in my ministry's domain and I would want some expert advice.
I also want to thank Gary Malkowski, my colleague, for bringing this issue before the committee. As a former parliamentary assistant of mine, I know the hard work and dedication he has brought to not only this committee but also all the work that he has done in government. We've very appreciative of that.
Applause.
Hon Ms Ziemba: Why not? Go ahead; clap.
I must also say, just as an aside, that Gary comes to this place, this Legislature, as we call it, with an outstanding record. First of all, he's the first deaf person to have been elected in our jurisdiction, which is quite an accomplishment. Also, having brought that accomplishment to this place, he brought with it a change that we had to make in legislation, which I think has set the tone and has brought about changes that are excellent for the future, and we're pleased that has occurred.
As well, because Gary is in this place and because we can see things at first hand, he has brought disability issues to a different level, an awareness that people with disabilities should be looked at for their abilities or the talents and expertise they bring to any job or to any type of experience, and that we can learn from that experience. That again has changed attitudes, not only in this workplace but in others as well. So he's been a leader for many people in his community.
One last thing: With the changing of attitudes, we're now seeing a change in the way people speak in the Legislature. Sometimes they still have to be corrected, sometimes Gary still has to stand up and remind people of the appropriate terms or phrases that should or should not be said. We welcome that because that again brings us to a much better place in time, and all of us should of course be on the lookout and be aware of these scenarios. But Gary has taken that upon himself, and I think that's commendable.
Just one last comment about the changing place and how we view things in a different world. I look around at all my colleagues, and just say we want to put partisan remarks aside, just for a moment. I think all of us want to think that there will be a point in time in Ontario where we will have a completely barrier-free society, that nobody will be excluded, that people will be included. It's because of not only Gary but the people in the community who have joined us today to share their response to this bill, who have also worked very hard on many different issues, whether it's employment equity, the Advocacy Act, working within the OPS to help for a barrier-free society.
I hope all of the community members, Gary, the colleagues we work with, at some point in time, sooner rather than later -- perhaps we can affix a date to that and say it's the year 2000 in which Ontario will truly be a barrier-free society. But that will occur as we get into further debate and as we have more intensive and public involvement and consultation. This bill affords us that opportunity. As I said, the shift in thinking, the community that's been responsible for helping us set the policy agenda, all these things, will certainly get us to that agenda we're hoping to create.
We have already seen significant shifts in thinking from the concept of special transportation for persons with disabilities, separate and apart and certainly not equal, to what we now call a "family" of services, which captures the concept that ranges of options related to transportation needs are the answer.
I would also like to recognize the work of the community in its efforts towards income maintenance or social assistance reform. Although more work certainly needs to be done -- I think we all recognize that -- the community deserves enormous credit for what I see as a shift in thinking in this area that prepares us for the future, and has successfully demonstrated how critical the linkages are between income support and education, training and employment.
We know that the glue that binds all these things together is access and equity strategies: access to services, supports funding and equipment so that persons with disabilities can achieve the greatest possible measure of self-reliance and economic integration.
1650
Often, initiatives which facilitate access and equity for persons with disabilities benefit everyone. We've heard Gary and we've heard members of the committee, when they spoke about employment equity, talking about various barrier removals, that a ramp that benefits a person in a wheelchair can also benefit a young mother with a child in a stroller, can perhaps help a senior who's walking up that ramp, or perhaps even a small child as they run up and their little legs can carry them a little bit faster. We've also talked about how even an electronic door opener can help a person who might have their arms full with groceries or perhaps the delivery person who has a huge amount of things on their trolley that they're trying to bring into a building. So things that facilitate access and help people with disabilities can benefit all people in society and make us truly inclusive.
Voice-activated technologies that were originally developed for persons with disabilities are now marketed more generally. For example, computers can be used to control household lighting, stereos and televisions, security systems. I could go on and on with that list to say again that we are becoming a more inclusive society, that what perhaps started off as being a special need has truly become an area all of us can benefit from.
The private sector is now noticing that these items, formerly thought of as specialty items, are now growing industries, and they're starting to market these industries as such. There's a growing interest in the information technology area to provide more effective and efficient ways of communicating. The community is already at the forefront of this development, working with the private sector to ensure that these new technologies are inclusive.
We met with a group of people who work in the Ontario public service who have also been working on the leading edge of explaining to members of government how we can use that technology and bring that technology in a more inclusive way, where as a government we show the leading edge on how we tell companies and help the private sector to understand this technology.
The increased level of public awareness of the issues facing persons with disabilities is in large measure due to the efforts of many members of the community. We have to emphasize that more and more, time and time again, because if we are going to make changes, government can do that -- and I've said this in many speeches -- and the private sector can go its way as well, but until we truly form a partnership between community members and government and the private sector, those changes are very difficult to make. So the community must be commended for all of their work.
I'm pleased that Bill 168 is providing an opportunity for discussion and debate on the fundamental issue of access for persons with disabilities. In considering Bill 168, it is helpful to look at where we have come from and to review and consider the various statutes, programs and initiatives currently in place which aim to provide access and equity to persons with disabilities in Ontario.
During the Decade of Disabled Persons, which took place between 1982 and 1992 and was proclaimed by the United Nations, Ontario took many important steps to achieve the goals and principles of the UN proclamation on the Decade of Disabled Persons. Gary Malkowski actually represented me in BC with the Ontario contingent that went out to the ending of that decade.
In 1990, this government repositioned the responsibility for persons with disabilities with the Citizenship portfolio, and I became the minister responsible for disability issues along with my other equity portfolios. We moved towards legislative and non-legislative approaches that would create systemic changes to enrich and entrench the rights of persons with disabilities to those supports needed for life in community.
To support our access and equity goals, we restructured the ministry so that disability issues and concerns will be reflected and can be addressed across all ministry programs and field offices. I've often said we had 24 field offices in Ontario, but many did not have information or have any skills needed to address the concerns and the issues that people with disabilities faced.
As well, the ministry has created a dedicated policy group within the policy and planning division which reports directly to the ADM of the division. The disability issues group continues to work closely with other ministries as part of the overall strategy to improve access and equity for persons with disabilities. Sandra Carpenter, as many people in the community know, has worked very, very hard on many of those issues and continues to be the link across government for us.
This government has moved to improve access to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. We have also proclaimed Ontario's own Employment Equity Act and established the Employment Equity Commission. We are also very close to proclamation of the Advocacy Act and establishment of the Advocacy Commission.
Other key initiatives related to persons with disabilities include: the consent to health care services act; long-term-care redirection; establishment of an OPS policy on accommodation; a fund to provide employment-related supports to Ontario public service employees with disabilities; work on regulations to establish American sign language and langue des signes québécois as languages of instruction in Ontario schools, and I know Gary was very involved in that; the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board; social assistance reform to assist individuals to train for and find employment, including persons with disabilities; and of course funding to improve the accessibility of GO Transit.
I'd like to address some issues under the Ontario Human Rights Code at this point and to briefly talk about the importance of the Ontario Human Rights Code as it relates to achieving equity for persons with disabilities.
The Ontario Human Rights Code guarantees equal treatment and equal access with respect to employment, accommodation, and goods, services and facilities for persons with disabilities.
The protections of the code include prohibitions against both direct and indirect discrimination. This is very important to persons with disabilities, because many of the barriers are hidden, systemic barriers which have had the cumulative effect of denying persons with disabilities the equal right to participate in our society.
In Canada, human rights legislation is recognized in law as having quasi-constitutional status and is interpreted as broadly as possible to ensure full protection of the rights provided. The Ontario Human Rights Code has primacy over all legislation in the province, unless the act specifically states differently.
The code has an inclusive definition of "disability," which ensures protection for persons with a wide range of disabilities. Commission guidelines and the decisions of various boards of inquiry have ensured broad interpretation of the definition.
To increase enforcement of the rights guaranteed by the code, the Ontario Human Rights Commission has been implementing an organizational improvement program to improve its efficiency and effectiveness. This program addresses customer service, and the chief commissioner highlighted this work in her address to the standing committee on the review of government agencies earlier this year.
This program is important for persons with disabilities because it examined ways to improve access to commission services and the sensitive delivery of those services.
The commission continues to administer its priority case-handling criteria, which enable the commission to respond to urgent cases where quick response is necessary to fulfil the purpose of the code. This is an important part of ensuring that the commission responds to the needs of a diverse community, including those persons who are HIV-positive or who have AIDS. The commission is currently in the process of further refining these criteria in response to the input from the HIV/AIDS community to ensure that cases are processed in a very sensitive but quick response for members of that group.
This organizational improvement plan also includes a learning strategy designed to train staff on specific issues facing person with disabilities. Part of the strategy will include input from the disability community itself on the design and delivery of the program to ensure it is truly responsive to the community's needs. This training is a priority, and a very important priority, for the commission.
Some recent human rights decisions in Ontario have confirmed the right of persons with disabilities to equal access to employment, accommodation, and goods, services and facilities, and I'm just going to highlight three of these particular cases.
1700
The first case is Elliot v Epp Centres and Peter East. A board of inquiry found that failure to provide accessible parking in a public shopping mall constituted discrimination under the code. This case highlights the rights of persons with disabilities to have equal access to public areas and the positive duty to eliminate systemic barriers to that access. It also showed that accommodation requirements under the code required more than just superficial alterations not designed specifically for persons with disabilities, and it reaffirmed the principle of the primacy of human rights legislation over other legislative requirements. The principle that the general public has the duty to make life in the community accessible for all Ontarians was affirmed.
The next case was Julie Ramsay v SWM Investments.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Excuse me, Madam Minister. Mr Chair, I'm wondering if one of the minister's staff has a copy of your comments so that we could run off copies now and have it in front of us by the time that you're finished. Usually when a minister presents a briefing there are accompanying copies available and it makes it much more understandable, I think, for the public and the members of the committee.
Hon Ms Ziemba: My staff is here and I'm sure they'll make that available.
Mrs Marland: Thank you very much.
Hon Ms Ziemba: The second case was Julie Ramsay v SWM Investments, a settlement negotiated by the Ontario Human Rights Commission which also dealt with accessible parking for persons with disabilities, in this case at an apartment building. This case also acknowledges the responsibility of building owners that spaces are safely maintained, including snow and ice removal.
The next case is Patricia Barber v Sears Canada Inc. A board of inquiry affirmed the principle that access to services and facilities requires access with dignity. This includes the nature and appearance of the surroundings in which access is provided, and the time required to gain access.
In this particular case the complainant, a wheelchair user, was required to use a freight elevator to gain access to the second floor of a store. It sometimes required a wait of up to half an hour. The board found in this case that the elevator, which had been subsequently renovated by the respondent, had not provided for dignified access and violated the complainant's right to equal treatment with respect to services.
Now I'd like to just touch very, very briefly on the Advocacy Act. The Advocacy Act initiative is another example of a comprehensive process of public debate. This act, which is expected to be proclaimed in early 1995, will undoubtedly stand as one of the most important initiatives undertaken for persons with disabilities, and again Ontario has proven to be a leader.
If I might just say, and this isn't in my notes, but I know that there are couple of commissioners from the Advocacy Act here with us today and I know that they're working very hard on bringing the act into this final fruition of proclamation and acknowledge their hard work and their dedication.
This is not only an example of extensive consultation with a wide range of both individuals and organizations that started in fact with previous governments, but it also represents a move towards meaningful community involvement in the selection of commissioners that will govern the commission charged with administration of the act. It also represents cooperation between the Ministry of Citizenship and the ministries of Health and the Attorney General.
The act, which is the centrepiece of a legislative package that includes the Substitute Decisions Act and Consent to Treatment Act, is rooted in the idea that personal autonomy, the freedom to make choices and decisions, is a fundamental human right.
The Advocacy Act is designed to build bridges to independence for persons with disabilities and the frail elderly who have difficulty expressing or acting on their wishes and getting their rights and choices respected, and for those who have no one else to speak on their behalf, whether it's family or friends.
Of course, we also have the Employment Equity Act, which was proclaimed in September 1994. With this proclamation came the establishment of a commission to support the administration of the act. This act covers nearly 17,000 employers in Ontario and about 75% of Ontario employees.
The act is specifically designed to assist employers in the identification and removal of barriers to employment for the designated groups and to improve the representation of the designated groups in Ontario's active workforce.
The act has significant implications for persons with disabilities, one of the four designated groups. First, employers will be required to identify and remove barriers in their workplaces. This includes developing plans regarding not only physical access to the premises but access to fair distribution across job positions within an organization as well.
Employment equity plans must set out positive measures for the recruitment, hiring, treatment, retention and promotion of the designated groups. These are measures designed specifically for the designated groups to assist them in achieving fair representation in the workplace. This is important for persons with disabilities because it recognizes and responds to the unique employment barriers faced by that group.
In addition, plans must include supportive measures designed to assist the designated groups and other employees in the workplace and measures to accommodate members of the designated groups. Incorporating the duty to accommodate into the act is vital for persons with disabilities because it reaffirms their rights of access to positions they can perform if accommodation is available and provided.
The accommodation requirements of the Employment Equity Act are proactive. Employers are required to review their physical workplace and their existing policies and practices to ensure that they are free of direct and systemic barriers to the employment of persons with disabilities. This review must take place whether or not there are persons with disabilities currently in the workplace.
In addition, the act requires employers to have policies in place which will help them respond to individual requests for employment accommodation by persons with disabilities who are currently in the workplace or who enter in the future. This reinforces the duty to accommodate persons with disabilities already provided for in the Ontario Human Rights Code and ties those accommodation requirements directly to the employment.
The Employment Equity Act also requires employers to set specific numerical goals for each of the designated groups including persons with disabilities. This goal-setting process is important in two respects. First, it ensures that the opportunity for access is followed up by actual entrance into the workplace and, second, the requirement to set numerical goals for each occupational group in the workplace will ensure that persons with disabilities are not slotted into low-level, low-paying positions in the organization.
To assist in the implementation of the Employment Equity Act, the government has established the Employment Equity Commission. Of course, a significant role of that commission will be providing educational programs targeted at employers, trade unions, employees and the general public about employment equity and the designated groups.
I think this is extremely important for people with disabilities, because the educational component will certainly lift again the attitudinal change that we've all so desired and break down those barriers that exist. The public education, we hope, will also dispel the myths that surround the employment of persons with disabilities.
Another component of public education will be the creation of linkage with the disability community to provide advice to both the commission and the workplace parties in the implementation of employment equity.
Together, these requirements set the stage for the entrance and advancement of persons with disabilities throughout the workforce.
This act was developed with extensive consultation including employers, organized labour and equity-seeking groups. It was an inclusive, comprehensive process designed to achieve a fair and effective act.
The Employment Equity Act, the establishment of the Employment Equity Commission and the Employment Equity Tribunal will improve equity in employment for persons with disabilities. The passage of the Employment Equity Act is a very significant milestone in the goal of social and economic participation of persons with disabilities in the life of the province.
However, a range of other supportive measures will also be required to ensure that the act will effectively assist all persons with disabilities. As Minister of Citizenship, I realize that persons with disabilities face unique and significant disadvantages in employment, particularly persons with severe disabilities. Only 32.8% of this group are employed.
1710
Accordingly, I asked the Employment Equity Commissioner, Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré, and the chair of the Ontario Advisory Council on Disability Issues, Dr Shirley Van Hoof, to co-chair a Working Group on the Employment of Persons with Severe Disabilities. The task of this group was to examine and recommend initiatives that are directed to enhancing the employability and the employment of the population. The working group included representatives from the private and public sectors, disability organizations and service providers.
The ministry is in the process of coordinating the government's response to the recommendations and we hope to have, and need, strategic and systemic approaches if the status of persons with disabilities is to truly improve.
As well, my ministry has engaged in systemic and strategic cross-ministry initiatives to improve access for people with learning disabilities. We will also develop an implementation plan with the Ministry of Education and Training and Ministry of Community and Social Services in response to the report on the status of oral interpreting services in Ontario.
I would also like to speak on what my colleagues in other ministries have accomplished, in particular their initiatives to improve access for persons with disabilities in Education and Training, Transportation and Health.
The first area I'd like to respond to is Education and Training. A range of new initiatives build on the Ministry of Education and Training's special education policies to accelerate the pace of integration of exceptional pupils into regular classrooms.
The Ministry of Education and Training remains committed to the principle that the integration of exceptional pupils should be the normal practice in Ontario when such a placement meets the pupil's needs and is in accordance with parental wishes. A range of options, including placement in a special class or provincial or demonstration school, will continue to be available for pupils whose needs cannot be met within the regular classroom.
The Ministry of Education and Training has the authority to develop a regulation which will establish American sign language and langue des signes québécois as official languages of instruction in Ontario schools. The ministry is currently consulting with stakeholders on the draft regulation, which would provide the sign language version of instruction in the two official languages of Canada, an important equity gain for deaf persons. If I might just say as an aside, this really has come about through Gary Malkowski's work and his intervention at the very beginning of our mandate. We have him to congratulate for that.
Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt, and I know you have quite an extensive presentation. Maybe it's my fault, but I'm just a little confused.
I've got a copy of the letter that the clerk wrote on behalf of the committee to the minister and her staff in terms of requesting what it was we were wanting the ministry to do for us, because I just wanted to make sure that I had it right. My understanding of the invitation was to ask the minister and any staff that she thought appropriate to bring along to address us on her position and that of other ministries on the bill as well as an assessment of the bill's provisions and its impact on those ministries, on services.
My problem is what we are getting is not that. In fact I'm not sure I've heard Bill 168 mentioned yet, maybe once. So I'm a little confused as to how this relates to what we want to hear and what we in fact asked for, which was an assessment by government, and people who frankly are experienced in this and know the legal provisions, as to what the bill was.
Interjection.
Mr Murphy: Yes. I've had the opportunity now of seeing the notes and looked through and I don't see that assessment, for our benefit, of what the bill does and what its impacts are. I'm wondering if you could help me in terms of directing the minister and the staff to address what it is that was requested by us, as a committee, of the minister and her supporting civil servants.
The Chair: I'm not sure whether I can be of assistance to you with the questions you raise and would simply ask the minister to either continue with what she has or if she wanted to focus a little more specifically on the areas that Mr Murphy was talking about. We know that you've prepared this text with respect to this and how this all might interconnect, but I'm not sure we can direct you one way or the other in terms of how to encourage you to focus on the bill.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, if I may make a supplementary comment, obviously I'm not a regular member of this committee and I'm here because this is within my portfolio for our party, and knowing why the minister was invited is the reason that I came. Frankly, I didn't come to hear a sales pitch on all the programs that the government has or hasn't been involved with at the same time that they've cut all the funding from the area municipalities to deliver those programs.
When we get through with another 12 pages, I think we've still got to go, or 21 pages still to go, I'm concerned about how much time we will have to have the discussions as a committee that are terribly important today. We need to be able to ask questions and we need to order the business of the committee for two remaining days. Since we came back five weeks late into this session, we're all very compressed for time right now.
The Chair: I appreciate your comment, Mrs Marland, and I have Mr Chiarelli as well. Madam Minister, if I could urge you perhaps to synthesize the information a little because I think we have another eight or nine pages to go through, which would take at least another 10 or 15 minutes, in which case it may not leave us much time for discussion. If you could that would be helpful, so we could leave approximately 10 minutes for the caucus members -- that would be useful -- but if we get ongoing discussions from the members, we're going to chew up a lot of time in that regard.
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): But I just --
The Chair: If you want to comment, then I'll have to take Mr Chiarelli. I have Mr Chiarelli wanting to speak.
Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I skimmed through the notes and there's virtually no comment whatsoever on Bill 168 other than the fact that she welcomes the debate. I just wonder if we can get to questioning the minister without wasting further time.
Mrs Cunningham: I don't think 10 minutes per caucus is acceptable. I guess my question, through you to the minister, would be: Is she going to be available during further committee time, because most of us have had a lot of time to look at this bill and its implications. We've asked all of the colleges and universities what they feel would be necessary to implement this bill, and I have certainly a lot of information that I would like to question the minister on as the critic for that particular area. It's up to her with regard to timing, but you can see what our problems are.
The Chair: I would say before the minister comments, it's up to the committee as well to decide whether or not we want and need more time. If that were the case, then we could allow the minister to finish her presentation in the way that she feels she needs to, and if she were available to come back Monday we could then continue with questions on this. Is that acceptable to the committee and is that all right with you, Minister?
Hon Ms Ziemba: Could I just respond? First of all, I was asked in the letter to come and to make a deputation to the standing committee on what I would perceive as the requirements under Bill 168, but to say to you that you can't discuss any bill unless you look at where we've been and where we're coming from and why all the different pieces fit together. Not one bill is going to amend all of the past wrongs, and we have many different things that have to come together. This is one of the reasons why I was bringing together my ideas and thoughts.
But I also want to say very clearly that I would welcome hearing some of the comments that my colleague has addressed with the colleges and universities. The debate has to happen, the public debate has to occur. There has to be an opportunity for people to express themselves and to give that viewpoint. I think questioning me is wonderful, but I think also talking to other people is very important as well, if I might say.
The Chair: Madam Minister, if I may, the comments that were being made here would suggest that we might need a little more time, so what I was recommending is, does the committee feel we need more time? And then we'd ask the minister if she was available to come back Monday in order to continue with the questions you would have of her.
Mrs Marland: I think it's important to clarify what the request was, and the request was -- in part of this letter it says, "The committee is interested in the position you and other ministers are taking on the bill as well as the assessment and impact of the bill."
I was in another committee from 3:30 until I came here, so I don't know, since you've been going for an hour and a half, whether you've actually put forth your --
Mrs Cunningham: No, we started at 4:30.
Mrs Marland: Oh, you only came at 4:30, so you've been going for 45 minutes since 4:30.
The Chair: We didn't begin on time, Mrs Marland. We were scheduled for 4:30, but we began at a quarter to 5 because members weren't here.
1720
Mrs Marland: Minister, if these 30 pages of presentation don't answer the reason you were asked to come this afternoon, why don't we just move to your conclusion page where I notice you finally say that you're pleased with the introduction of the bill.
The Chair: I think we're complicating it a little here. Some of you feel you need more time to be able to ask questions of the minister. We're close to 5:30 and we may not be able to do that within the time that remains. I'm asking the committee, do you wish to continue with this on Monday? We may need that time. If so, we then ask the minister whether she's available to continue with us on Monday. That's the direction I seek from you.
Mrs Cunningham: Or we can stop now and start asking questions; one or the other.
The Chair: We could, although that leaves the minister with an uncompleted presentation.
Mr Murphy: We can read it.
Mrs Cunningham: We'll read it into the record.
Mr David Winninger (London South): If the minister were available next Monday to continue, that would be one thing. At this stage, we don't know that. It may be that she needs to complete her presentation today.
I would also submit that if we are continuing on Monday, we instruct the clerk to arrange a list of prospective deputants who can pick up where the minister leaves off, and that we continue that discussion of this very important bill -- and I think the number of people here attests to its importance -- on Tuesday as well.
Mr Chiarelli: I wonder if I can have Mr Malkowski's attention for a minute. As we know, next week will be the last week before the break, and it may be the last week before the election, so there may be no opportunity whatsoever to move forward with this legislation. I would like to get some explanation or background from the sponsor of the bill of whether he has any expectation that this bill will be passed into law next week or before the Christmas break. If that's the case, I think we should get to questioning the minister and put the process into the context of the emergency time problem we have with respect to getting this bill through the Legislature.
If indeed the intention is, as I see from the minister's last page, that we have a broad-based debate on this issue and that the process take the normal course, that means it will be quite some time before this bill will be able to pass into law. I think it's important that the sponsor of the bill please clearly indicate to the committee and to the Legislature if he expects to be able to have the bill passed by the end of next week. I think that puts it in context for us and we'll know how much luxury of time we have with the minister.
The Chair: Mr Malkowski, I'm not sure it's a fair question to ask you, but you may respond if you want to.
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I think it's a fair question because the opposition members want to know what the intention is. But it looks like the intention of the opposition members is to stall so that time runs out and we can't finish this.
The minister needs to finish the presentation in the time left so that the members who are here in the committee can hear it. I feel that playing games is not fair and we should allow the minister to finish her presentation. I think that would be fair. There are many disabled in the audience who want to hear the presentation and now you are delaying all this, and that's not acceptable to the people who came to hear the committee today.
The Chair: I have three people on the speakers' list. The problem we have is that we're now going to take all of our time debating each other about what we should do. I was proposing that the committee decide today whether we should allow the minister to continue and finish it off. Then we'll need time for the members to ask her questions, so presumably that will get us into Monday. I would prefer we move in that direction than have the debate we're engaging in.
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chair, very clearly, we can't make up our minds unless we know the minister is going to be here Monday. My point was that if she's not going to be here Monday, let's ask the questions which we had prepared to ask the minister.
The Chair: Madam Minister, can I ask you, are you available to come back Monday?
Hon Ms Ziemba: Unfortunately, I don't have my schedule in front of me. I didn't even bring my briefcase. I could try to accommodate that; I did that today. I had to leave another meeting I was in out in the west end. That's why the meeting started late, Margaret, I'm sorry -- just the traffic. We thought we'd be here at 4:30. And I'd made this previous commitment to those people and left them sort of in the lurch, halfway through my speech -- but anyway, here I am.
The Chair: I'll go through my list so we can hear what suggestions some of you have. I've got Ms Haeck, Mrs Marland, Mr Murphy and Mr Winninger.
Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I personally had hoped we could allow the minister to conclude her remarks. There are not that many pages left. What she does, from my own reading and scanning of these materials, is to lay a foundation on which obviously the other topics for conversation are laid. You cannot talk, as you see in some of these bullet points, about having accessibility in post-secondary education without taking a look at some of the other provisions. I'm looking at the bottom of page 12. The minister is giving us an overview of existing situations in the various areas that Bill 168 addresses, and I think that should be concluded. That would leave a few minutes for us as members to make comments and questions to her.
Likewise, it is my belief that the intention was to hold some hearings next week, and I fully support getting other deputants in so we can hear a range of views on this bill. I think it's important to move forward.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, I think Ms Haeck's final comments predetermine the business of this committee. It's my understanding that this committee was to order its business based on what it learned today.
There are two bills before this committee. One bill has been before this committee since April. My contention is that if the government were interested in Mr Malkowski's bill, it wouldn't have come back five weeks late. We could have got this bill through a public hearing process and dealt with it.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Margaret, you are being very negative.
Mrs Marland: I'm just responding to the fact that Mr Malkowski has accused us of delaying this bill. I am simply saying, through you, Mr Chairman, that this bill has been delayed by the government, which chose to come back five weeks late. We lost a week out of the session for the Remembrance Day week and we lost five weeks before that. There were six weeks in which this bill could have been all finished if the government were supporting it.
But I really want to ask you, Mr Chair, if we could go to the minister's conclusion on page 30. In this conclusion, she talks about the fact that she is interested in hearing what people have to say, she talks about it being part of their consultation and policy process "before comprehensive legislation has been achieved." It says "comprehensive legislative"; I think it's a typo.
What I think you're saying at the end is that you don't support the bill. If that's what you're saying, for the sake of all the people who are here, who are being given this bill of goods, we had better get it out on the table and be very honest instead of using people. Frankly, I'm a little concerned about people being used. Why don't we let the minister clarify --
Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: The member well knows that you're not able to impute motive with regard to a person's intentions about how he or she feels about a bill. Would you mind retracting that statement, please.
Mr Chiarelli: You should ask Mr Malkowski to retract his, when he imputed motive to us for asking questions.
Mrs Marland: I think we should ask the minister whether she supports the bill, and then we can stop all the gamesmanship.
1730
The Chair: What I'm noticing is that as we do that, as we get more speakers, it'll degenerate even further. If we were to deal with your question, Mrs Marland, I'm not sure that would conclude it or that it would give you, all of you, the time to ask your questions. I'm still looking for direction from you in terms of the way to proceed. How much more time do you think you need to deal with this matter?
Mrs Marland: If I can answer on my own behalf, I don't need the minister to complete her comments but I do need to be able to ask the minister questions. If we've got half an hour left and we go for 10 minutes each today, that is a beginning. But the very first question I have to ask the minister is, does she support this bill?
Mr Murphy: The reason I raised the issue initially was so we could get to the two key issues: whether the government supports the bill and intends to proceed, and secondly, some detailed discussion of the provisions of the bill, what they mean, what impact they have, the assessment of what that will be on colleges and universities, education and other fields, perhaps a sense of the cost of what accommodations can be made in terms of legislation in each of those fields. Those, it strikes me, are the key issues.
In truth, clearly we need the minister here for a response to the "Does the government support it?" question, and probably for some answers on overarching policy aspects of the bill. In terms of the details of it, once you get past those you probably don't need the minister here.
The reason I raised it was that I wanted to cut straight to the last page. What I'd ask, Mr Chair, through you to the minister, is whether we could do that now, go straight to questions on those issues and attempt, if we can, to get the minister back on Monday; if not, we'll just have to try and work something else out. My request, through you, Mr Chair, is to go to questions now.
The Chair: I have two other speakers on the list.
Mr Murphy: It might resolve the speakers problem if you asked the question.
The Chair: If everyone is in agreement, we could proceed with the question immediately.
Mr Murphy: It's up to the minister.
The Chair: No. I have two other speakers, is the point I was making. If they were all in agreement to proceed quickly, we could. Otherwise, I was going to complete the list. I have Mr Winninger and Mr Malkowski -- bearing in mind what Mr Murphy has raised as a question.
Mr Winninger: I would like to put a motion to the committee as follows: that we continue to sit today to hear the minister until the vote, that we reconvene on Monday and Tuesday and allow the first half-hour on Monday, or an hour if the opposition requires it, and instruct the clerk to schedule a list of deputants, who are very eager, I know, to speak to this bill, for the remainder of Monday and next Tuesday.
Mrs Cunningham: Can you ask the minister to be here for Monday?
Mr Winninger: If the minister can't be here, perhaps the deputy or a senior official can be.
Mrs Cunningham: If you can't get the minister to be here, why don't you just say that?
Mr Winninger: We don't know what her schedule is. But the intent of the motion is that you have an opportunity to address the ministry concerned.
The Chair: Mr Winninger has moved a motion. Given that we have a motion before us, I think we will now move that for discussion and debate.
Mrs Marland: It's very difficult to debate this motion without having it in front of us. I think we're wasting time, frankly.
The Chair: Ms Marland, this motion is before us. If you like, we'll ask the mover to write it out and we'll distribute it.
Mrs Marland: You're saying you're deciding to have hearings. You haven't even decided the order of the business of the committee, which I understood was to be decided this afternoon at the subcommittee.
The Chair: Ms Marland, rather than having cross-debate, Mr Winninger's moved a motion, and I'll ask him to write it out so we can circulate it. It's properly before us, so I'm asking the members here to debate that particular motion.
Mr Chiarelli: Can I suggest that the mover of the motion consider deferring that to the subcommittee, which is supposed to deal with that type of issue. And the meeting has been scheduled.
Mr Winninger: I would prefer not to defer the motion.
The Chair: Then please speak to the motion that is before us. Would you like the member to repeat the motion? Okay. Mr Winninger, would you repeat the motion, please.
Mr Winninger: I move that this committee continue until the vote today, and then reconvene on Monday to hear further from the minister or ministry for the first half-hour, and to instruct the clerk to contact the deputants who wish to present before the committee and to schedule deputants Monday and continuing Tuesday of next week to speak to Bill 168.
The Chair: Let me ask the committee members, would you like that to be written so you can see it, or is that clear enough? Okay. People will debate it, but can I ask you, Mr Winninger, to write it out as we're doing that so we can circulate it?
Mr Murphy: I haven't been a member that long, 18 months or so, but for the period of time I've been involved, certainly it's been the practice in a public hearing process that we have usually advertised and developed a list on the basis of advertisement. I'm not sure of the point of this motion at this time, because what we were trying to get at is what the government's position on the bill is. I'd like to hear that first.
I'm certain that debate on the provisions of the bill could be and would be very useful to all members. I'd like to know what the minister's position and the government's position on the bill is, whether it'll proceed. I think there is virtue in hearing from the people in this room, from affected groups, colleges, universities, all the various -- I can't remember -- Natural Resources. There are others specifically mentioned in the bill, but I'm sure there are others still, and I think they're referred to indirectly in the minister's comments. The point is that all those affected parties historically have been given an opportunity to be made aware of the fact of hearings, an advertisement, those kind of details. I don't see anything dealing with that kind of problem in this motion.
That of course is why historically we've dealt with, essentially, ordering-of-business kind of motions in subcommittee, so we're fair to the clerk in order to allow her sufficient time to do those kind of things and put that in place. So I have a bit of a problem with this motion as worded.
Frankly, I'd like to hear from the ministry first. Obviously, the importance of hearing detailed considerations of the bill both from Ontarians with disabilities and groups that would have to accommodate according to the provisions of the legislation would obviously depend on whether the government's proceeding. If the government's proceeding, we need to make sure we've heard from all affected parties. If the government is doing this merely as a public relations exercise, it's unfortunate, and I think it's important for us to know that before we deal with this kind of motion.
The Chair: I wonder if I can ask Ms Bryce to comment on the question.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Donna Bryce): If the committee did decide today that it wanted to go ahead with Bill 168, one of the first things we would have to do is sit down and say, "How do you want to proceed with it?" In terms of inviting deputants to speak on Monday or Tuesday, the subcommittee or the committee would have to decide which ones, how they want to go about notifying people, that kind of thing.
I can say that I do have a list -- I don't know the number -- of names of people who have called my office, which could be used by the committee members as a starting point in inviting people. But it would be certainly something for the subcommittee to discuss.
Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): My preference is that the minister go ahead and finish her comments. I just took a quick glance through when all of this started 25 minutes ago and I come up, on page 18, with something that says $18.6 million in accessibility funding to 650 communities. I know that some of my communities in my small, rural towns received some of those dollars, and it was vital to them.
I also know that right now I have at least one community, and I'll name one, that being Waubaushene, where the only building with a hall for community functions is a Legion, and the hall is upstairs. I had blind people with canes trying to navigate stairs. Last year I had a priest collapse with a stroke up there and we had to manhandle this person down. Had you allowed the minister to go on, I would have brought these things forward in my questioning of the minister instead of doing it now.
1740
There's probably more in here that I haven't picked up on because, like Ms Marland, I too am in here today on one day only and I'm not up to speed with all the background. I'm looking at the minister's speech and finding a number of things in here that I want to ask her questions on, but I need --
Mrs Marland: So you need more than half an hour on Monday.
Mr Waters: I would have liked to see her finish her speech. I would like to see us move on with this.
The Chair: I've got Ms Cunningham. Remember, we have a motion before us.
Mrs Cunningham: I know. I'm talking about process here, and I do have some sympathy for individuals who didn't know the intent of the legislation, but I have to tell you that we've had the bill in our hands since May 31, 1994, so my criticism here would be to the ministry itself, if indeed this was the only planned time.
So I have two things to say: First of all, at any time when we want the public to be involved, I think it's only fair that we give them due notice and that we schedule their appearances in a fair manner. If Mr Waters is concerned about accessibility, he can think about this building and this committee room right now, as far as I'm concerned. We should do it in a different place, where people can get in here and listen.
The third piece I'd like to say is, for the record, Mr Chair, what I expected to hear today was the time lines for implementation for this legislation; how the ministry felt that could take place; what ministries or level of government would be responsible for the costs -- I'm going through the issue as I had to do in my private bill.
Ms Haeck: Point of order, Mr Chair: I was under the impression we had a motion on the floor, a motion to which we would be required to vote and the kinds of questions that Ms Cunningham is placing, however much I might wish to get the same answers, the fact is that it's not to the motion and I think we should then conclude the vote on that motion --
The Chair: Ms Haeck, I understand the point of order.
Ms Haeck: -- and then she can actually carry on with whatever questions she would like to make.
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chair, in fairness, I --
The Chair: Please speak to the motion.
Mrs Cunningham: All right, I'm speaking to the work of the subcommittee, which I was asked to set time aside for, which is part of this motion, because it's process.
The Chair: True, but it doesn't speak about a subcommittee, this particular motion.
Mrs Cunningham: Well, I'm sorry, but it talks about the process and I want everybody here to know that we had planned at 6 o'clock to talk about who would come to speak to the committee, what the time frame would be, what the subject matter would be --
Mr Winninger: We still can.
Mrs Cunningham: I don't think so. I think your motion just decides to go ahead. I would like a clarification.
Mrs Marland: You've already put in the motion "half an hour with the minister."
Mrs Cunningham: I'm going to get my remarks on the record anyway, because I don't like what's happening here today at all.
I would like to speak to the motion, Mr Chair. The motion talks about, I think, how we're going to proceed and I would like to talk about how we should proceed and I'm speaking against the motion in making my remarks and I expect for you to allow me to do that, because I am talking to process.
I expected the minister and I would expect her on Monday, or her ministry, to be talking about the requirements that would be very difficult to achieve and how she would recommend that they be achieved. Otherwise, the removal of all --
Ms Haeck: Mr Chair, point of order, please: I'm sorry, I may not be a lawyer, I am only a librarian before I came here, but what you're putting forward has nothing to do with the motion at hand. I would suggest, Ms Cunningham, that while I may not be the Chair, I am definitely somewhat concerned that while you're giving direction to the minister, you are not really speaking to the spirit of the motion, and the spirit of the motion should be voted on so that you can move to the kind of direction that you personally would like to make.
The Chair: If I can, Ms Haeck, that is not entirely in order. Your previous point was: As long as the member links it, however tangentially, people can speak to it. Ms Cunningham, if you can --
Ms Haeck: Very tenuously -- a mere filament of thread.
The Chair: Ms Haeck, please. Ms Cunningham, please finish your remarks.
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chair, I don't want to be perceived, as Mr Malkowski has already pointed out, as stalling things. But I think that if we're coming to another meeting, we ought to be clear on what we expect, and that's what this motion is all about. So if the minister doesn't mind listening to me, I'd like to tell her what I'd like to hear.
I'd like to know about the requirements that are very difficult to achieve in the bill -- and these notes were made ahead of time so I could tell her this today. The removal of all barriers in facilities and systems, and I'd like the minister to speak to the problems we have with historical buildings and I think that that should be made clear in the bill itself so there's no expectation there. I'd just like to conclude with three parts, and that is the cost of implementation with regard to three areas: The physical access, which is begun by many of the universities but we do know that they have told us, and I found this out and I think you'd be interested, that the cost will be in the $5- to $15-million range per institution because they were all asked to put this together, so I think that the public should know it's difficult and is there a time frame involved here. Second is the interpretation services, which I know Mr Malkowski's very concerned about, and so are the universities because we don't have the money for them. And the third one is attendant care, which I know a lot about in regard to my own family, and we've had a lot of difficulties in getting that kind of support for the students. Those are the kinds of problems and challenges that I would like the government to speak to, because they all impact on whether or not this legislation can be moved forward.
Mr Chiarelli: I'm looking at the minister's own remarks and in a way she's addressing the motion that's on the floor. She said she looks "forward to hearing a full range of comments from those individuals, organizations and sectors affected by the issues addressed in Bill 168," and we all know what that entails in a committee hearing. We know that it entails notifying people who may be interested: people from the public, organizations, groups, associations, but that takes time. So given the fact that we only have one week left in the Legislature, and given the fact that perhaps the Legislature will not reconvene again, I think it's very, very important, particularly for the people who are assembled here today and people who are interested in this particular motion, to know whether it's a process of education and debate or whether there is a legitimate desire and interest on the part of the government and on the part of the sponsor of the bill to have this legislation passed as quickly as possible, because it is my impression that this bill cannot be passed before the end of next week. And if I'm wrong in that assessment, I would like both the government and the sponsor of the bill to say what their intention is in terms of advancing this particular bill.
If we want to have a debate and we want people to become aware of legislation like this, I think that's very laudable. If, on the other hand, there is any kind of an inclination given by the sponsor of the bill or the government that this bill is likely to be passed in the next week or two before the Legislature recesses, then I think that is not being straightforward with the people who are interested in this legislation.
But I think it's very important that the minister state whether she believes that this bill can be passed before the Christmas recess. It's very important that the sponsor of this bill tell the people who are interested in this legislation whether he thinks the process will accommodate quick passage or whether it will have to wait till a spring session, if indeed we have a spring session.
Interjection.
The Chair: Mr Malkowski is on the list. You're after.
Mr Malkowski: I think, because time is running out, that I would move for a vote on the motion.
Mr Chiarelli: Thanks for the answer.
The Chair: All those in favour of closure? Opposed? Okay, so that carries. Okay. We're on the original motion then. All in favour --
Mrs Marland: You're going to cut off the debate. Thanks very much.
Interjection.
The Chair: You can't.
All in favour of the motion? Opposed?
Mrs Marland: A recorded vote.
The Chair: On a recorded vote?
Mr Chiarelli: Can I have the floor?
The Chair: You can't. We're going to vote.
Mr Chiarelli: Well, the vote is finished.
The Chair: No, we're just having a recorded vote on this motion. All in favour?
Ayes
Bisson, Haeck, Malkowski, Waters, Wilson, Winninger.
The Chair: Opposed?
Nays
Chiarelli, Cunningham, Marland, Murphy.
The Chair: So that motion carries.
Mr Bisson: No discussion on it?
The Chair: Yes, the motion has passed and that carries. We could still -- yes, Mr Chiarelli?
Mr Chiarelli: I'd like --
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, was I on the list?
The Chair: You were on the old list. We're now on to a new discussion here. So Mr Chiarelli and then Mrs Marland.
1750
Mr Chiarelli: I would like to ask the minister and Mr Malkowski the same question that I just asked that was not answered.
The Chair: Mr Malkowski, would you like to -- Madam Minister, would you like to respond to the question?
Hon Ms Ziemba: I'll let the mover speak first and then I'd like to speak because I'd like to say a few things. But I think it's only appropriate that the mover of the bill speak first.
Mr Malkowski: In response to Mr Chiarelli, I have expectations that the government supports this private member's bill, but first we want to permit the disabled community to come and present and give their feedback on the legislation. I think this would lead to a government discussion paper or perhaps introduction of a government bill, or even this bill going for third reading. But I feel that it's important to have the opportunity to get feedback from the disabled organizations.
Hon Ms Ziemba: If I might respond, and I've been sitting here very quietly listening to 40 minutes where we could have perhaps finished my comments and gone into a question-and-answer time frame, which is an unfortunate experience, I think. But I want to say that we are very supportive of Mr Malkowski's intentions in Bill 168. We do need to have input from various members of the community. It's very important. You can see there are people here who are very, very interested in this bill and who want to have an opportunity to speak to it. I'm sure there are others who want to as well.
If out of that debate comes a resolution or a deliberation that we enter into, as Mr Malkowski said, either a paper for discussion so we can have further work or if we go to third reading, or if we have a government bill, but we have to work on this.
I think it's important, as I stated in my very, very beginning remarks, that we all should be working towards the time when we have a very barrier-free society in Ontario. That won't happen until we have bills like Bill 168 before us and we can enter into a debate, a wholesome debate, and where we can also have good deliberation. I welcome that opportunity and I'm pleased the motion carried today.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, what has just transpired is exactly what I thought would happen. I think the worst thing that government can do is use people, and the people in this room are being used by this government.
When you now tell us that --
Interjections.
Mrs Marland: I didn't interrupt anybody else and I would appreciate having the floor.
When you now tell us, Madam Minister, that you have expectations, that you're supportive of the intentions of this bill but you're not saying you're supportive of the bill, when Mr Malkowski says himself that it may become a government discussion paper and you say it may become a government bill, I simply say that there isn't a person in this room who isn't interested in the subject of this bill, and the last thing the disabled community of Ontario needs is another government discussion paper. I'm sorry. We have enough reports gathering dust in this province today. What we need in this province, Madam Minister, and I direct this totally to you as the minister, is less study and more action.
Furthermore, in this bill, where the direction is to slough off to the municipalities different responsibilities, those very municipalities for whom you have cut back the transfer payments make the implementation impossible. I think, in fairness to Mr Malkowski, it's outrageous that this government --
Interjection.
Mrs Marland: Excuse me, Mr Chair. I would appreciate it if Mr Bisson would show some courtesy and not interrupt.
Mr Malkowski has been strung along since May 31 with this bill. For six months he's been strung along, thinking -- because he and I did have a brief discussion of this bill in Cornwall when we were on another committee -- and hoping, I am sure, that the government was going to support his bill and he was going to get some answers. But what you were saying in your summary today is where it's all at. You said in the printed copy that we have, and I want to read this in the record, "It is critically important" --
Interjection.
Mrs Marland: Excuse me.
Hon Ms Ziemba: Excuse me, on a point of order.
Mrs Marland: I have the floor.
Hon Ms Ziemba: Don't you think that I should be able to read my own statement into the record rather than have somebody else read it in?
The Chair: You're not a member of the committee so it's hard to move a point. Ms Marland, please complete your remarks so that we can move on to the next piece.
Mrs Marland: The minister says, "It is" --
Interjection.
The Chair: Hold on, please.
Mrs Marland: You see, they don't want me to say this publicly.
The Chair: Ms Marland, hold on.
Interjection.
The Chair: Mr Bisson, if you --
Mr Bisson: Every time we come to committee, it's to listen to Margaret.
The Chair: In committee, they can speak as long as they want, and we're urging people to tone it down.
Interjection.
The Chair: Mr Bisson.
Did you have a point of order? Hold on, Ms Marland. A point of order.
Mr Winninger: I find it absolutely fascinating that the minister could be interrupted by the member speaking now earlier and she objects to being interrupted.
The Chair: She had the floor. Mr Winninger, I'm sorry, she had the floor. Ms Marland, please complete your remarks.
Mr Winninger: Everyone knows the --
The Chair: Mr Winninger, she had the floor, please.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, I would say to Mr Winninger, I find it absolutely amazing that the government wants to cut off the opposition speaking.
The Chair: Mrs Marland, please complete --
Mr Bisson: We listen to you day in and day out --
Mrs Marland: The minister's printed comments say, "It is critically important that a thorough consultation" --
Mr Bisson: -- and we never make an objection.
The Chair: Mr Bisson, it's not going to help for you to do that. It won't help.
Mr Bisson: I just figure I'd get my word in too.
Mrs Marland: The minister's printed speaking notes for today say, "It is critically important that a thorough consultation and policy process occur before comprehensive legislation is achieved."
Mr Bisson: Mike Harris is going to cut the transfers by 30% --
Mrs Marland: So I want everybody in this room to know that this government has no --
Mr Bisson: -- and pontificating in the way you are.
The Chair: Mr Bisson.
Mrs Marland: I have the floor.
Mr Bisson: If you're going to come in and you're going to start pontificating the way you are, I really take exception.
Mrs Marland: Will you tell him he's out of order, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Mr Bisson, you're not helping us.
Interjections.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, I think it's very important for every person in this room --
The Chair: We don't have much time. Please complete the remark.
Mrs Marland: -- to understand what is happening, and what is happening, and I say it to everybody in the disabled community, is that you have been used for six months, and the Advocacy Commission, everything else that you have been used for --
Interjection.
Mrs Marland: -- and the reason I'm being interrupted is because I'm putting something on the record that upsets the government. That's why I'm being interrupted.
The Chair: Ms Marland, I'm sorry. This is degenerating very, very badly. I'm going to stop you now. I'm going to stop everybody now. I'm going to deal with two things: One, there's a proposal for a subcommittee to meet with respect to this motion, so we're going to do that.
There's another unrelated matter that I want to deal with before we leave here. Mr Chiarelli, you have a motion.
Mr Chiarelli: It's just a housekeeping motion. I move that the Chair be authorized to report to the House that the following bill not be reported: Bill 151, An Act to control the Purchase and Sale of Ammunition. That bill was superseded by a government bill with agreement of the committee.
The Chair: All in favour? Opposed? That carries.
We now have the option either to meet right now as a subcommittee to discuss the motion that we passed earlier or find another time to deal with that some time this week. My suggestion would be that we try to do it now so that we get --
Mr Chiarelli: Tomorrow. I've got to go. Do it tomorrow morning. Anytime tomorrow.
The Chair: I may not be available.
Mrs Marland: May I ask a question? Are you discussing scheduling the public for four and a half hours? Is that what --
The Chair: We're discussing --
Mrs Marland: We're going to allow the public four and a half hours' input on this bill?
The Chair: We're discussing the motion that Mr Winninger has moved and passed. So we need a subcommittee to discuss how we deal with that on the process level.
Mrs Marland: In his motion, he says -- actually, he doesn't -- he refers to Monday, December 5, and Tuesday, December 6. Today is obviously not even a week away from the first day of that schedule. Are you only going to give the public four and a half hours on this? Is that what you want the subcommittee to meet to discuss? It's not the way we usually treat the public.
The Chair: We won't have another discussion on this. We're going to find a time for the subcommittee to meet, either today if possible, or if not, tomorrow morning or afternoon, whatever time we can find. The minister, as part of that motion, hopefully will be here Monday to continue with this.
The committee adjourned at 1800.