Legislative Assembly of Ontario

SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION

CONTENTS

Friday 26 January 1996

Savings and Restructuring Act, 1995, Bill 26, Mr Eves / Loi de 1995 sur les économies et la restructuration, projet de loi 26, M. Eves

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Chair / Président: Carroll, Jack (Chatham-Kent PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Maves, Bart (Niagara Falls PC)

*Carroll, Jack (Chatham-Kent PC)

Danford, Harry (Hastings-Peterborough PC)

Flaherty, Jim (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)

Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East / -Est L)

*Hardeman, Ernie (Oxford PC)

Kells, Morley (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)

Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)

*Maves, Bart (Niagara Falls PC)

Pupatello, Sandra (Windsor-Sandwich L)

Sergio, Mario (Yorkview L)

Stewart, R. Gary (Peterborough PC)

*Tascona, Joseph N. (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)

Wood, Len (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)

*Young, Terence H. (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Caplan, Elinor (Oriole L) for Mr Sergio

Carr, Gary (Oakville South / -Sud PC) for Mr Maves

Clement, Tony (Brampton South / -Sud PC) for Mr Kells

Ecker, Janet (Durham West / -Ouest PC) for Mr Stewart

Johns, Helen (Huron PC) for Mr Danford

Lankin, Frances (Beaches-Woodbine ND) for Mr Marchese

McLeod, Lyn (Fort William L) for Mrs Pupatello

Phillips, Gerry (Scarborough-Agincourt L) for Mr Grandmaître

Sampson, Rob (Mississauga West / -Ouest PC) for Mr Flaherty

Silipo, Tony (Dovercourt ND) for Mr Wood

Also taking part / Autre participants et participantes:

Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

Ministry of Municipal Affairs:

Gray, Scott, solicitor

Clerk / Greffière: Grannum, Tonia

Clerk pro tem / Greffier par intérim: Decker, Todd

Staff / Personnel:

Baldwin, Elizabeth, legislative counsel

Hopkins, Laura, legislative counsel

The committee met at 1000 in room 151.

SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION

Consideration of Bill 26, An Act to achieve Fiscal Savings and to promote Economic Prosperity through Public Sector Restructuring, Streamlining and Efficiency and to implement other aspects of the Government's Economic Agenda / Projet de loi 26, Loi visant à réaliser des économies budgétaires et à favoriser la prospérité économique par la restructuration, la rationalisation et l'efficience du secteur public et visant à mettre en oeuvre d'autres aspects du programme économique du gouvernement.

The Chair (Mr Jack Carroll): Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Friday morning. Just to refresh your memory on the timetable, we break for lunch today at 12 o'clock until 1. Then we follow the order of the Legislature and the voting pattern.

When we adjourned last night, Mrs Caplan had just put on the floor an amendment, page 40A, so we will pick up from that point. Mrs Caplan, you have the floor.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Mr Chairman, 40A is on the floor. The intention of this, as I said last night, is the limitation of the minister's powers. We don't believe that the minister needs all of the powers in the bill to accommodate the restructuring that's necessary. I'm not going to speak to it any further.

The Chair: Any further discussion?

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): The government believes that we have given regard for public opinion and local input through the district health council. Mrs Caplan knows that we've discussed section 6 and that's probably why we're not talking very much about this this morning.

We need to be able to allocate all of the powers in section 6 to the commission in order to initiate hospital restructuring. We don't intend to endanger quality of care by reducing the funding to the hospitals and just stopping them from having funding. That's not the way we intend to do restructuring. The commission needs to be able to have all the powers for all actions in 6 -- amalgamations, mergers, closures -- not just what is suggested in 6(2), which is directions re specified services.

Mrs Caplan: Just to Mrs Johns, no one is suggesting that you're going to, or that you should, in any way affect patient quality care by cutting funding. In fact, I think your $1.3-billion cut in hospital funding will have exactly that effect, and that's what's driving this restructuring. So what you just said is absolutely untrue. What I did say to you is that the minister has sufficient power, with his funding powers, to restructure.

Again, no one is suggesting a cut. What we're saying is that you move those funds around and that's how you restructure. Don't you understand that? That's what this is saying, that you don't need the minister to have absolute power without any regard to due process or individual rights. He has the power and the ability to say, "We're going to move the hospital funding around as part of our restructuring." No one's suggesting a cut. The only person suggesting a cut is your government, and your cut to the hospitals is $1.3 billion. So don't try to deceive the people.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I want to start the morning off by making it absolutely clear what we have to work with this morning, with two hours in this committee that's left.

Mrs Caplan: Exactly.

Mrs McLeod: When Ms Johns says that the reason we said we would not debate this particular amendment is because we've already had debate and they've somehow satisfied our concerns in this area.

If that's going to be the response when we try to facilitate moving on to other important sections of this bill, then we might as well stop now and let's just have a free-for-all about how angry we are at what is still going to be in this bill at 12 o'clock today and at the process we are going to begin at 1 o'clock today where nobody is going to even know what amendment it is that's being moved and voted on.

The only reason that we were prepared to let this go without debate, Ms Johns, is because we recognize that it's taken us days of debate in order to get one small amendment agreed to by the government that would at least give regard to the district health council when the minister makes his unilateral decisions. And we recognize that we have lost the debate about not allowing the minister to delegate his incredible powers; that we got one small amendment, after considerable debate, that would at least ensure that he couldn't override every other act of the province of Ontario when he carries out his powers; and that we did get an amendment that recognized the need to protect patient privacy when you close a hospital.

We've come to have a sense, after days of debate, of how little we're going to be able to gain. We've got huge issues that this committee is not going to be able to address, which is why we wanted to try to expedite it. But at least let's not make statements that will infuriate us by suggesting that any of what's come before is satisfactory to us.

The Chair: Any further debate on the amendment? Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Carr, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment does not carry.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I've tabled a motion with the clerk, if I may put it before the committee now.

The Chair: We will distribute copies.

Ms Lankin, if you'd like to read the motion, and then you have the floor.

Ms Lankin: I move that this committee recommends to the three House leaders that they convene an urgent meeting to discuss amending the order with respect to Bill 26 when the House returns on Monday January 29, 1996, that would return the bill to the standing committee on general government for clause-by-clause consideration to allow for public scrutiny of the over 350 amendments to the bill.

Yesterday, I gave notice that I would be tabling this motion before the committee and I asked government members of the committee to think long and hard about the process we had come through, to have discussions with their caucus colleagues, with the ministers of the crown, with the government House leader and with the Premier so that we would know that whatever the disposition of this motion is today -- because, let's be honest, the disposition of it is in the hands of the government. They have the majority here on this committee. Whatever that disposition is, we would know it carried the full weight of decision-making of the Premier and the government House leader, who is also the Minister of Finance, in whose name, or whose ministry, this bill stands.

Yesterday was almost a classic example of what we have been through from just about day one with this bill, a bill that was drafted very hastily, that contained all sorts of not just drafting errors but unanticipated consequences that the government has had to scramble to fix, consequences that the government politically didn't even condone and, I would argue, didn't even know were in the bill until we had demanded some sort of process that led to some public scrutiny that allowed us to understand some of the elements of the bill. I think everybody knows the history, I don't need to take a long time in recapping what it took in terms of the efforts of the opposition to get public hearings that would travel the province and public hearings that would span into January so that there would be some reasonable time for people to actually begin the process of understanding all of what was contained in this very large and complex bill.

This week we have the process of clause-by-clause where we come in and the government has tabled, in the beginning, 139 amendments to its own piece of legislation, followed over the course of the week, as we were able to point out additional problems, by another 21 or so amendments. We're up to 160 government amendments. That does not even count the 200 or so amendments from the Liberal Party and the New Democratic party that have been submitted to this bill.

We know the number of people who have expressed concerns about the content of the bill, about the process of not having a chance to be heard on the bill and about the process of what this committee's been going through over the course of this week.

I can tell you that, as we speak, the phone in my office is ringing off the hook with people calling in saying, "Do something to stop this bill on Monday." The demands on the opposition parties to take actions into their own hands and to break the deal are tremendous, and we have said that a negotiated arrangement was arrived at and it is important that we respect, having a process of negotiations, the end result.

But it is also important that where we see changed circumstances in terms of the hundreds and hundreds of people who wanted to be heard who didn't have a chance, in terms of the hundreds of amendments that have been tabled that will never see the light of public scrutiny -- we will never have an opportunity to debate them, we won't have a chance to amend them, even those we will be able to debate up until 1 o'clock today. There won't be any opportunity to amend the amendments.

1010

You saw very clearly yesterday the necessity to be able to deal with these things in an orderly fashion and to be able to actually get at the root issues and determine whether or not there are things that we can convince the government need to be fixed, as we did yesterday. We had the spectacle of, at 4 o'clock, at the very last minute that an amendment could be tabled, folks scrambling to get a government amendment tabled to fix a problem that we had identified. It took us 45 minutes to convince you of the problem, but then when we did, you got an amendment tabled at the last minute, an amendment that was technically out of order. We had to give unanimous consent to get it considered, which we did because we thought the issue was important enough that we should deal with it. You may say, "See, the process works." The process worked there, up to 4 o'clock, but that process isn't available to us any more.

It's really important, I think, that the government, which has the ability here to say, "Okay, we will re-enter discussions about the process through which we will deal with the remaining amendments to this bill," and I believe remaining problems that we would uncover as we go through this bill -- you have the power to deal with that. You have the power to have discussions with the House leaders and to determine that you're going to head in another direction with this and you're going to give another period of time -- and I didn't specify in this amendment, I didn't hold you to anything. I didn't say it has to be one day or four days or two weeks, I've left that up to the government House leader to discuss with the other House leaders.

The point that I'm trying to underscore is that we have in front of us a bill which is complex, which has huge implications -- I don't care whether you want to support the bill down the party line or not, I say to the government members, you know it has huge implications and surely you want to at least get it right. Even on those points where you may disagree with us in content, there have been points we've brought up where you saw that the legislation had a problem in how it had been drafted or points that had been missed or left out. Surely you want to get it right, at least. Surely you want a process that you can look back on and say, "Well, at least we gave it the time," to be able to say at the end of the day, "The bill we passed is one that we could support and one that we believed is the best law, based on what we as a government wanted to do." Surely you want to be able to say that. You can't now.

I challenged you yesterday, and I would do that again today, to say, is there any one of you who can say with assurance and with confidence, and with a straight face, that in these 300-some-odd amendments that are left to be dealt with you know that every opposition amendment you're going to vote against is a bad amendment and that every government motion you're going to vote for is a good one and that there aren't any problems in here or that there aren't any unexpected consequences, that you've gone through them all and that you've had debates with people who have differing points of view than you on every one of those amendments so that you've been able to canvass what the whole range of possibilities might be, and you've come to the conclusion that you know and you're comfortable that it's right and you're going to vote for it?

There's not one of you who can say that, so how can you support a process that at 1 o'clock would have us start to simply, page by page, vote, without any explanation of what the amendment is, without any debate, without any understanding? Talk about a sham of a democratic process.

It is true that in any clause-by-clause there is always the possibility that something's going to be left over at the end, but not -- and let me make it visual. These are the amendments that we're dealing with. These are the ones that we haven't yet dealt with. This little piece here is what we've gotten through so far, and we have made progress. Let me say we've made progress. Yesterday we dealt with a lot of amendments and we actually got you to move and change a few things which were important, but look at what we have left to go through.

There is no argument, I think, that you could make that will have credibility with the public of Ontario to say that it is so important that you have your bill on January 29 that you can't take a few more days to go through the rest of these amendments and debate them and to try and fix the worst problems that we know we will eventually find in this bill. There is no argument.

Mr Clement, I know, will talk about the fiscal situation and he'll talk about the $1 million more an hour we're spending than we're taking in. I say to him, on January 30, even if I disagree with your numbers, but to use your numbers, we'll still be in that situation. This bill won't, over the course of one more week, address that problem that you put forward as your reason for everything you do, your smokescreen for every worst excess of democratic abuse that you have put the people and the parliamentarians of Ontario through over the course of the last two months.

There is no argument you can make that would deny the logic of taking a few more days, and whether that be three more days or six more days I leave to you to determine and leave to the House leaders to work out. There is no argument that you can put forward against the logic of that in terms of passing a good law.

I don't know what happened over the course of last evening in your discussions. I had invited people, if you felt that it would be helpful, to discuss the content of the motion so that if you had any kind of sympathy for the argument I was putting forward and you wanted a motion that you could support, I would have worked with you to draft the wording. I got no phone calls last night. Mr Chair, my phone didn't ring. I actually this morning was kind of pessimistic but I rushed into the office and hoped that maybe there was that little pink slip saying: "Call Tony. Urgent." It wasn't there.

My last moments of optimism: Maybe you anticipated the nature of the motion I was going to put forward and you determined that you would be able to live with the wording or that you would be able to, by unanimous consent, change the wording. I'd be interested in that possibility if that's the case.

I fear that you're just going to stonewall us one more time, without any logical reasons that you can put forward. I'll be interested in seeing the magic of our legal counsel friend across the way as he tries to spin the defence in this court of public opinion. I suggest it will be a challenge unlike any that he has ever had in his legal career.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): He's a very bright guy.

Mrs Johns: Are you trying to psych him out?

Mr Phillips: He said he was very bright.

Ms Lankin: You're right, Mr Phillips, he did say he was very bright, but he also said he was not infallible, so we'll see how this unfolds.

But very seriously, let me say to you that there are obviously, and have been through the course of debate on this legislation, very different political positions that the parties have been taking and there are very different ideologies that drive our positions and there are very different political agendas that governing parties, opposition parties and the three political parties have with respect to something as politically charged as this bill, and I acknowledge that. But let me also say to you, at the end of the day we are all elected members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. We all have a responsibility to the public of Ontario with respect to the passage of legislation to make it the best legislation possible.

There have been amendments which have taken an extensive period of time to debate; I don't doubt that that's one of your points. But let me point out to you that one of those sections, and I believe it was section 6, which between a Liberal amendment and a New Democrat amendment took almost two hours to debate, we finally got you to agree to the insertion of the words "having regard to the reports of district health councils," to give some linkage to the minister's powers under that section. As far as I'm concerned, those two hours were just about the most important two hours that I've spent in this clause-by-clause because I actually achieved something in the legislation which will improve that legislation. It's minor, but it's an improvement in that legislation. I actually got you to listen to the arguments.

We spent 45 minutes yesterday on the issue of the concern with privacy of medical records held by a hospital when the hospital is directed to close. We actually got you to agree to an amendment. Yes, it was 45 minutes of time on one section of the act, but incredibly important and very important that we actually got legislative change to fix what was a problem that you didn't even realize was there. In fact, you spent the first half-hour of that defending the clause because you knew that the privacy commissioner had no problem because it hadn't been mentioned and legal counsel at that point in time had suggested that she had an assumption that it wasn't a problem because it hadn't been mentioned. You wouldn't make the phone call. So Ms Caplan and I scurry out, get a phone, both make a phone call and find out they hadn't even looked at it, so your basic premise of argument had been wrong. I appreciate that then we got an amendment. But we don't have that possibility available to us any more, unless you pass this recommendation and then unless the government House leaders can come to some kind of agreement.

1020

I said yesterday that if in fact you defeat this and in fact you continue to ram this through and pass this bill on Monday, I can see a process -- and I'm reluctant to suggest this, but perhaps we'll do it from our party if the Conservatives aren't interested -- where we continue clause-by-clause analysis of the rest of the 350 amendments that we didn't get through, and then present you with all of the problems that are in your bill that you didn't have time to find out about; a bizarre way to make laws.

At the end of the day, we are all elected members to the Legislative Assembly. We are all legislators and we are all responsible to attempt to pass the best law possible, even if we disagree with the intent of certain sections of laws or certain bills that are being brought forward. You have as much responsibility with respect to that as I do, and I have as much responsibility with respect to that as you do. We can only exercise that responsibility if the process that is provided to us by the Legislative Assembly -- and in this case, with a majority government, that means by Ernie Eves and Mike Harris -- is one that is adequate to do the job and the challenge that is before us.

I remind you that you're the ones who have filed 160 amendments to your own bill, even forgetting about our amendments. In the short time you had, you found 160 problems, errors or areas where you needed to respond to public input. Over the course of the last couple of days, you've filed 14 additional amendments. I believe this process would continue. I believe you would continue to improve your own bill, even if I disagree with the content of it in some areas. I urge you to give the legislative process that kind of chance, that opportunity to work through and to identify the problems and to try to respond as best we can as legislators to fixing those problems.

So I hope that you will be supporting this motion, and I hope that support will come with the support of the Premier and the government House leader, and I hope that I get to spend another week with you going through this wonderful process of making legislation in the province of Ontario, what I'll always refer to as a bad law. But I'm prepared to put the time in to try to make a bad law a little bit better.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, as you're aware, we placed a similar motion yesterday, urging that there be more time given to the clause-by-clause amendment process so that we can at least have some debate on the amendments that will not be touched by the end of the morning.

We even proposed that all of those amendments which were debated and had been dealt with by the committee would be passed into law by the government majority through a vote in the Legislature on Monday and that we would just defer the balance of the amendments. That motion was defeated. I'm not optimistic, I guess, that the committee is going to revisit that, unless there has been some intervention by the Premier.

After the motion was defeated yesterday in committee, I did write to the Premier, asking if he would direct his House leader to bring in a unanimous consent to the House that would allow for a deferring of amendments that will not be debated in this committee. I know that the Premier has said that he is not spending time on the details of the bill, that he believes that's up to his ministers to do, that he's not aware of all the details of the bill. But I truly hope that the Premier of this province has at least heard the public concern that we on this committee have heard and that in fact he has heard some of the outrage that we have heard as this committee has travelled across the province.

I don't think that there is a government member present who has been on the road with this committee and who sat through the first week of hearings here in Toronto who would not have to agree that there was tremendous public concern expressed about virtually every aspect of this bill and that not only was there great concern expressed, there was outrage over and over again. There was public outrage at the way in which the government had tried to force this bill through before Christmas and at the very limited amount of time that the government had agreed to allow it to be heard in public hearings.

We've talked over and over again about the thousands of people who were denied the opportunity to present at these hearings, tried to get extensions of the public hearings and failed in that. Surely, surely there has to be an opportunity, at least for those who got to present their concerns one way or another, to have those concerns considered by this committee in the amendment process. That's what this was all about. That's what this week was all about: to take all those public concerns, as well as government's own chance that they'd had to look at their bill in more detail and to discover the at least 160 areas where they thought there were problems and bring some changes to the legislation. If we don't take time to do that, it makes a farce out of the whole public consultation process.

We heard concern; we heard outrage. I think it's fair to say that the other thing we heard over and over again when we were out for public hearings was real fear in the population about what this bill would do and that that fear was created by tremendous confusion. It is such a massive bill, it covers so many areas, it brings such changes, that people simply don't know, they don't understand what it can all mean, and they are tremendously afraid of what it will do as a result of that.

I think if the public has been watching this proceedings at all and they see the government bring in 160 changes to the bill, then that's going to add to the confusion. At the very least the public has a right to know from the government what those 160 changes are. What do you as a government plan to do to this bill? Yet as I understand the process that we're about to go into, we will not have an opportunity to even be told in committee what the changes are that the government is bringing forward.

You have tabled them. We have seen the stack. This is what's left to do that we have not dealt with yet. At 1 o'clock this afternoon, I understand that it may be a process as sterile as saying, "Amendment 133, carried or not carried. Amendment 339, carried or not carried," that we may not even have an opportunity to ask you to read that amendment into the record so that we even know at least what the amendment itself states.

There were amendments being tabled yesterday afternoon at five minutes to 4, Mr Chairman. You would have to agree it was confusing even for the Chair of the committee to know what was on the table at that point because that changes the whole numbering system. I think it's going to be tough for us to know what amendment 339 is this afternoon. How can the public possibly know what amendment 339 does to answer the concerns that they raised about this bill?

When members of the government and members of the opposition go back into their ridings tomorrow and deal with the kind of phone calls that Ms Lankin was describing that we get in our offices, what are we going to tell them about how this bill has changed? We know the changes from the ones we've debated, but how are we going to know and be able to tell people exactly what this bill is like now? Because it won't have been debated; we'll just have gone through a sterile process of, I suspect, routinely passing the 160 amendments that the government has tabled and routinely rejecting the amendments that both opposition parties have put forward in a good-faith effort to respond to the concerns that we've heard from the public.

I agree with Ms Lankin that the result of this is going to be bad legislation. This bill is bad legislation, but there will be mistakes that could have been corrected that will be missed. Ms Lankin's mentioned a couple of the areas that we, after a hard-won fight, have been able to get changes to.

I think the issue that came up yesterday where there is a whole new aspect opened up with this bill with the closing of hospitals and the minister's ability to go in and close hospitals and the fact that the bill didn't address the issue of protecting the confidentiality of patient records when there is a hospital closure, and that the government, although they fought against that amendment that we put forward as being totally unnecessary, when they actually had to step back and learn from the privacy commissioner that he hadn't addressed the issue because he has no jurisdiction on the issue, agreed finally that it was an area that they had simply overlooked, and that they would put in some protection for confidentiality of patient records.

1030

When you have a bill this massive, and you have a government saying, "Yes, we overlooked something as vital as the protection of patient confidentiality," then I think people have reason to be concerned that this bill, without any further debate on the amendments or the changes, should just be forced into law.

Maybe even more important is the fact that we're not going to get to major sections of this bill, and I think back on the public hearings, and I think of the presentations that we've had, the concerns that have been expressed in areas of cabinet's ability to decide what's medically necessary, cabinet's ability to set the fee for an insured service in health care at zero.

So basically they're taking away medical coverage for individuals, the fact that there's so many parts of this bill that give the Minister of Health power to practise medicine without a licence, as one presenter said to us, the fact that we're not going to get to the drug benefit plan with any kind of debate so the whole copayment issue and all the concerns that were expressed by psychiatric patients and disabled advocates about the cost of the copayment to them, we're not going to get a chance to look at.

We're not going to get a chance to talk about all the evidence we heard on the deregulation of prescription drug prices, the evidence we heard, with few exceptions, that said that was going to result in an increase in drug prices. We're not going to get to talk about that.

We're not going to be able to summarize the evidence that we heard and suggest that an amendment that is here might be worth considering on the basis of that evidence. We're not going to get to the entire municipal section of this bill with all of the changes that that brings in the relationship between municipalities and the province and the way in which we are governing this province.

We're not going to get to the Pay Equity Act changes. Pay Equity Act changes were the subject of an entire consultation of a single bill when they were brought in before. We're not going to get to the pension benefit clawback. Unfortunately, and I truly think it's unfortunate, we will not get to a number of amendments that we have tabled, that we call the democracy amendments, because we've gone through this bill very carefully and identified all those areas in which we believe there is a true abrogation of individual rights, of violation of due process, of the right to know, the right to notice, the right to appeal.

We proposed a number of amendments which would put those rights back in and which would, furthermore, if the government is determined to give itself all the powers that this bill gives them, put some check and balance on the way in which those powers are used. Because realistically we knew at the start of this process that the government wanted this bill, and we were going to try and make it less dangerous, and we hoped the government would have time to fix its mistakes, but that they were going to pass the bill. So we wanted to at least have some amendments that would require a regular reporting and a due notice to the public of the exercise of powers under this bill. We're not going to get to talk about any of that.

It seems to me that there should be no reason for the government not to have at least a week's delay to at least be able to talk about their own amendments, to at least want to be able to say to the public, "This is what we have learned from our hearings." You've said over and over again: "We listened to you. We're an open government. We're here to hear you." Don't you want to say to the people, "We heard you, and our amendment 159 says this and this because it's a response to what you said"? Don't you even want the chance to take some credit for what you are prepared to change in this bill? There won't be an opportunity for the government to do that if we don't get to debate the rest of these amendments.

I suggest to the government that there is no downside for you in taking another week. The $1 million an hour is not going to be affected by taking one more week to debate the amendments on this bill. There is absolutely no way that one week's delay or a few days' delay is going to change your ability, as a government, to go out and make all the cuts you want to make as fast as you want to make them.

We know you've got a majority. We know how the democratic process works. When it comes to a vote, the majority wins. You will pass this into law at whatever point in time you, as a government with a majority, decide you are going to pass it into law. We can't stop that, nor should we have the ability to stop it.

All we're asking for here is reasonable process, the right of people to be heard, the right of the concerns that have been expressed to be taken into consideration and the right of legislators to conscientiously try to make good law, because that's what this is all about.

I would just say that if this government is so absolutely determined to ram this through without even a week to consider its own changes in a public session and have them understood, there is going to be considerably more public concern, a great deal more public confusion and I think a tremendous public outrage.

Mr Phillips: I honestly think if I were on the government side I'd want to support this motion. I guarantee you, absolutely guarantee you, that the gang that brought you the bill is the gang that's bringing you the 160 amendments, and they're making the same mistakes in the amendments that they made in the bill. The problem is that you're going to be on the hook for it because you're agreeing to this process.

The evidence of that was yesterday. Here we were told time and again that the privacy commissioner is very happy about this, not a problem at all. This is, for the public's benefit, on the closure of hospitals and protection of your medical records. Then we find, because my colleagues Mrs Caplan and Ms Lankin phoned the privacy commissioner, you were dead wrong. It was only literally at the last moment that we saved you from making a big mistake. As I said yesterday, what could be more fundamental than protection of medical records when a hospital closes? But it was completely forgotten.

So I guarantee you, absolutely guarantee you, that you're making some significant mistakes in these amendments that will only be found by an opportunity to debate them and have the opposition challenge you on them. If they stand up to challenge, move on. But yesterday it didn't stand up to challenge, as you acknowledged, and so you were forced to make some revisions. So I will tell you that we will be up in the Legislature after this bill is passed saying: "You see, we told you. We offered you the opportunity to simply give some sober debate around the amendments."

The public must be absolutely shaking their heads at this: "First the government said the bill was perfect, then they acknowledged they had to make 160 amendments to the bill, and then they don't want a reasoned debate on it? For what possible reason?" Why would you not want a debate on those amendments? Yesterday, you were forced to acknowledge you'd made a significant mistake and were forced to change it, and the bill was improved.

So what we've got here is, I know you've got your marching orders. I know that the government wants to close off this embarrassing spectacle. I know you people, as I said yesterday, can hardly wait for the end of the day. You'll get your revolution hero badges because you've done a fine job. As I said yesterday, General Stonewall Harris will present this to you in the corner office later today, and you've earned it. Believe me, you've earned it. Mr Carr is here to pick up -- this is the first day he's officially worked on it.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): He doesn't get one.

Mr Phillips: He doesn't get a hero badge. But he'll get a small badge -- sort of a handshake and a Purple Heart. But my point is this: that even you certainly have to acknowledge that the amendments you've proposed should at least be subject to some challenge and some debate. We're performing major surgery on this bill. Whoever did the first operation and put this together, they were very clumsy, your cabinet friends, and now you're trying to fix the thing up. The problem is that now, without even being challenged on the surgery you're going to perform, at the end of the day we're going to sew this patient up; you're going to jam these amendments inside the patient, zipper it up and wheel it upstairs to be released on Monday. I guarantee you, Al Leach has left some of the operating instruments in this body. I guarantee you that there are still some significant mistakes in there that would be brought out through debate.

For the public watching us, I seriously believe they can have no other conclusion than, "Why would they not want to debate their amendments?" And you could say we've had opportunity for debate. Well, my colleague said it took I think two hours to finally wring out of you an admission that you were wrong and, as a matter of fact, it was right up until the last moment, Mr Chair, until we phoned the commissioner, you were absolutely denying there was a problem. So I think it's been time-consuming but productive, what we've done so far. Surely getting this right is more important than simply ramming it through.

1040

My last point I'd make is I realize that we have a significant deficit crisis, but you got elected in June. You waited until November 29 to bring this forward. If it was like a million dollars an hour ticking by, I would have thought that a competent government would have said, "We've got to deal with this in August, in September, in October." It was November 29 before you brought this forward, for whatever reasons.

So I would say to you, surely something, if you believe it's that important, and if you acknowledge that whoever put this thing together in the first place -- and I would love to be at your first caucus meeting when you get a chance to ask the question, "Who put me into the position of having to defend this thing?" The people who put Bill 26 together put the 160 amendments together, and they're just as suspect, Mr Chair, as the original bill. So I cannot for the life of me understand why you wouldn't want to save yourself from malpractice suits. At least delay it for a week and have some reasoned debate around this thing.

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): Hard acts to follow. The mover of the motion, Ms Lankin, asked, I guess asked rhetorically, what I did with my evening. I wanted to record on the record what in fact I did do with my evening rather than call her, and I apologize if she was waiting by the phone.

Ms Lankin: Every minute.

Mr Clement: I did do a lot of thinking. I confess I did get back to my riding of Brampton South and I did have an opportunity through a riding event to talk to some people in Brampton. I actually did make it home, and my kids were already asleep but I saw my kids while they were sleeping and I spent some time with my wife. It kind of got me out of what occurs, I'm sure as the more learned and experienced members opposite know, what happens when you are involved in a process such as this. Perhaps it's natural and understandable, but you really focus in and you get trapped and captured by the minutiae --

Mrs McLeod: That's what this is all about.

Mr Clement: -- of the everyday clause by clause, trying to get your message out to the media, trying to unfurl the banners if you're in opposition. I understand all that.

But I was able, I would like to report to the committee, to step back a bit, to step back away from the minutiae and get back a bit to the first principles of why we are here. And I don't mean that in the sense of why someone decided to condemn me, to put me on this committee in the first place, but even step back further than that. I didn't even spend a lot of time worrying about if Ms Caplan follows through with her threat and gets me disbarred. I spent a bit of time worrying about that, but there are wider issues at stake than my law society fees.

The bigger picture, to me, and the reason I believe I was elected and why all of us were elected to this team, was that the people of Ontario were telling us that Ontario was broken, not that the people of Ontario were broken; they work hard. They've worked harder in the last 10 years than they've ever worked before. Yet the harder they worked, the further behind they fell. The more they put into their jobs, the more their jobs were on the line. The more they tried to plan ahead for their kids, the more taxes government was taking from them. The more they tried to create a province that was working, the more the status quo was denying them the ability to build a province that was working. So they I think were sending a message to the political class, to the élites, to the media élites as well, that the problems had to be fixed now. We've had for too long, "The problems will be fixed two, three, four years from now," and that time never comes.

Mr Phillips: You said you wouldn't cut health spending. That's what this is all about.

Mr Clement: The problems had to be fixed now. That's what they were telling us.

We're going to hear a lot about how concerned the people are. I acknowledge there's an anxiety out there; yes, there is an anxiety out there. But the anxiety is that things won't change, that somehow we are mired into a circular loop spiralling downwards. They want the change. They understand that without the change --

Interjection.

The Chair: Mr Phillips, I know that you're a very fair person and I think I would like to call on your sense of fair play and allow Mr Clement to have the floor, as he allowed you to have the floor.

Mr Clement: They understand that without the change, there is in fact no status quo. What we have is a deteriorating status quo. Without the change, the health care system will not be preserved. Without the change, police force security will not be preserved. Without the change, we will not have the resources to educate our children, because the status quo will deny that.

The status quo means $10 billion a year more in debt. The status quo means that instead of $9 billion a year of interest on the debt, which doesn't go into programs, doesn't go into health care, doesn't go into education, by the end of our term it will be $20 billion, an extra $11 billion coming out of health care, coming out of education, going to the foreign bond-holders. That's what the status quo meant to them, and they were sending a very clear message. I heard that message and Mike Harris heard that message and my colleagues heard that message.

There has been some criticism levelled this morning respecting how we have responded to the public process. I don't know what it's like, because I've never been an opposition member, but I think I can understand what it must be like to be in opposition, to demand that the government listen and make the changes that would improve the bill, and then, when we find a way, as government, to carry on with the ultimate goal of the bill, to introduce the change that is necessary, but to do so in a way that meets some of the concerns that we have heard along the way, when we strike that balance as parliamentarians and as members of the government, I can understand why you would want to criticize us.

You would have criticized us if we had made no amendments because we hadn't listened, and now you criticize us because we are making amendments and we acknowledge the bill can be improved. I understand why you have to do that as part of your role in our democratic process. But I would ask the viewer who is watching to please understand that we listened, that we took seriously this process. If the price that has to be paid to improve the bill, to get to where we have to go as a society and yet do it in a way that meets some of the concerns that were expressed on privacy, on the role of arbitrators, on the relationship with the docs, if the price that has to be paid for making the changes that understand their concerns is that we be criticized, then I suppose as government that's the price we must pay. That is what being in government perhaps is partially about: taking the slings and arrows from the opposition even when you're trying to improve things. I guess we all have our roles to play.

My final point, sir, is that I regret, I really do regret, that at 1 o'clock perhaps the opposition feels that we will not have had the time on the record. I think what is more important is that we found the amendments that improve the bill, quite frankly, but I do regret that we did not get to schedule A of this bill until 3 o'clock on Tuesday, a day and a half after we started the hearings. I do regret that we dealt with motions which dealt with whether the campaign manager of the Tory party should be compelled to appear before this committee, or invited.

1050

I do regret that we spent time debating the Ontario Taxpayers Coalition pledge and who signed it and who didn't. I regret all that because it did take away time from the substance of the bill and the clause-by-clause consideration. My only defence is, apart from not having moved any of those motions, that we listened throughout the three weeks of hearings. We as a government tried to grapple with the end goal that we have to get to but do it in a way which alleviates some of the concerns that were expressed, and that ultimately we do have a responsibility to act, and that every minute of every hour of every day that we do not act, we are not fulfilling the responsibility that was entrusted upon us by the people of Ontario.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have to say I regret very much the response that's being taken by Mr Clement, I'm assuming on behalf of the government members, this morning. I would have hoped that with Mr Carr's presence here today, someone who has been on the opposition benches, that he may have been able to at least impress upon his colleagues that what we are talking about here is not just the rights and the role of the opposition, as I think Mr Clement seems to be indicating in his comments, that this is not just an exercise to ensure that we as opposition members get our day to be able to criticize what the government is doing.

That is a very legitimate role, I think as even Mr Clement has admitted, but this is about far more than that. This is about far, far more than that, because the criticisms that have been laid before this committee, and through this committee to the government, have not come just from the opposition parties. They have come from the people of the province from all walks of life, from every group that you can think of. That is something that, even though the government members will never admit it publicly, I know is something that has got to be troubling them greatly.

When groups like firefighters and police officers, who in their own descriptions were instrumental in helping this government get elected, came to this committee time after time using words like, "We feel betrayed by the actions of Mike Harris and the Tory government" -- their words, not mine -- then I think it's got to shake these folks.

While they're putting up a brave front today, as they have throughout the week, in carrying out their marching orders, I think it's shameful that they would not show more concern and more respect, not for the views of the opposition, but for the views that have been expressed throughout this whole crazy, ridiculous process by members of the public, including many members of the public who supported them in their election to the government.

Mr Clement likes to sort of limit this and paint this again in the kind of rhetoric that we've heard throughout the term of office of this government, which is that there was a message given to all of us on June 8 that change needed to happen. Well, of course there was a message that change needed to happen. There isn't a person in this Legislature, there isn't a person on the opposition benches, who is saying that the status quo needs to continue. So let's just put that charade aside and let's not pretend that we've got the government on the one hand that's saying, "Change has to happen," and the opposition on the other hand saying, "No, no, no, we don't want any change at all," because we all agree that change needs to happen. What we've been debating through this bill and what we've been debating since this government was elected is the nature of the change and how you bring about that change.

You don't bring about that change, in our view and in the view of many people who have appeared before this committee, by dismantling piece by piece the very fabric of the society that we built up in Ontario over the last 150 years at least, because that's what this bill is doing, and that's what members of the public, again from all walks of life, whether they're teachers, firefighters, police officers, people who work in any of the other jobs and professions of this province, have all clearly said to us.

Even when people from the business communities have appeared before the committee saying, "We support the general direction that the government is moving in," they have inevitably gone on to list a number of serious concerns that they have with this legislation in terms of the broad powers that it gives to municipalities to tax through user fees and any other means. They have said, "You've got to limit those powers, at the very least, and you should give us more time to understand more fully what the implications of this legislation are."

Well, we aren't even going to get through clause-by-clause to any of the municipal sections of this bill. We aren't even going to get to the sections in this bill that take away the rights of 100,000 women in this province to pay equity. We aren't even going to get the sections of the bill that take away the pension rights of the thousands of public servants who are going to be laid off by this government.

We heard yesterday the interesting analysis by the Chair of Management Board suggesting, "No, no, no. It's not the 27,000 figure that was leaked out, but I can assure you it's going to be more than 13,000. It's somewhere in between," as if, somehow, firing 13,000, 14,000, 15,000, 20,000 people is more acceptable than firing 27,000 people, as if somehow that makes it better because the number is a little bit less than 27,000. The point is, it's not fair; it's not right. And to add insult to injury, when you fire those 27,000 people, you're going to even take away their pension rights as they walk out the door.

Those and many, many other sections of this bill bring shame to the tradition of the Conservative government in this province. What we are suggesting through this motion is that the government should listen, not to us, but to the public that has spoken and that continues to speak. As we've been discussing this motion this morning, just next door to us the Ontario Medical Association has been releasing a public opinion survey done by the firm of Angus Reid which clearly says that 70% of people surveyed believe that not enough time has been given for public hearings and public discussion. We're not talking about a split of 40%, 50%; we're talking about 70% in a survey done by a well-known, reputed public opinion survey company of this province. More particularly on the health care side, in that same poll 78% of Ontarians indicated that they believe Bill 26 will have negative consequences for health care and they feel that's too high a price to pay for reducing the government's deficit.

Mrs Caplan: They're right.

Mr Silipo: And they're absolutely right. But the point that I want to continue to stress and that this motion tries to bring to the attention of the government is that this is not simply an exercise of the opposition trying to get at the government or the opposition trying to make its points across to the government. We have in this course of action -- and it's one of the reasons why you have seen, probably for the first time in a long time, both opposition parties behaving pretty much in concert on this. It's because we in fact have been reflecting what the public of the province has been feeling and saying about this bill, which is that it is, at the very least, going too far too fast in dismantling a number of basic services in this province.

The motion that we have before you suggests a way to pause and suggests a way in which you can get passed at the end of the day whatever legislation you want to pass because you are the government. Whether we like it not, you are the government, and as opposition we respect that. We may not like it, but we respect that that's the decision that was made on June 8. We will not at the end of the day say you can't pass whatever legislation you want to pass, because you have a responsibility as well a right to pass whatever legislation you deem advisable. But we think it is crazy and the people of the province have told you that it is crazy for you to pass this type of legislation with this kind of a sham of a process that has not allowed for the public discussion that's necessary to take place and that even with the limited hearings has brought out problem after problem, that now, with the limited time that we've had on clause-by-clause and that we will have had by the time we get to this afternoon, will not allow us to analyse the various sections of this bill.

I have to say I'm glad I wasn't here yesterday afternoon to see the last in a series -- I'm sure it's not the last, but the latest in a series of blunders from this government, bringing in, in addition to the initial 139 or 140 amendments, at the last minute, two minutes, five minutes before the deadline for filing amendments, still scrambling to file additional amendments.

1100

I'd suggest to you, Mr Chair, that if we have the opportunity to go through the rest of this legislation with the kind of care and attention that we've managed to pay so far to the health pieces of the legislation that we've had the chance to go through, we will find, as a result of the questions that we put forward, as a result of the amendments that we put forward, that the government will realize that there are many, many other sections of this legislation that at the very least warrant further amendment.

Even if they are determined at the end of the day to continue to pass these draconian measures, even they will admit that there are measures that need to be changed in this bill, but we won't get that chance unless there is an ability to provide this committee with more time into next week to continue this clause-by-clause analysis of the bill.

What we are suggesting, what we have been suggesting throughout the week we think is quite reasonable. We're not saying, let's go back, dismantle the whole thing, have another set of public hearings as we have been calling for again on the basis of what the public is saying, what we have been saying. Okay. You don't want to have further hearings. Fine. At least take another week. We'll let the process unfold in clause-by-clause. You'll get your legislation passed a week from now under the suggestion that we're making, but it will at least be legislation that you would have had the chance to look at under the clause-by-clause analysis that would be provided and you would at least be more familiar with what it is that you're passing.

If you don't do that, what you're going to find is that two months from now, three months from now, four months from now, a year from now, you're going to still be dealing with the problems that you will have caused by bringing these. I'm not talking about the political problems. I'm talking just about the legal problems that you will find because you will have minister after minister who will have to deal with the fallout of these, and if you haven't been able to do that well so far, just wait to see what's going to happen over the next year.

Mrs McLeod: I'll be brief because I've already spoken to the motion. I've already expressed my very real frustration and concern that we are not going to be able to get some time to at least consider even the government's amendments before we are forced to vote on this piece of legislation. But I cannot sit after the last three weeks and be lectured about my losing perspective on why I'm here and not respond.

I want to say very clearly to Mr Clement and to everybody else on this committee that I didn't have to be here. There is absolutely no political gain for me in having spent two weeks travelling on the road with this committee and having sat through clause-by-clause amendment.

Nobody told me I had to be here. I have still the privilege of being able to decide what I will do as leader of the party for the present time. I am here for one reason only and I travelled across northern Ontario and eastern Ontario and southwestern Ontario for one reason only, and that's because I truly believe and have believed from the time you presented this legislation that it is bad legislation, it is bad process, it is dangerous. I wanted to hear the public concerns and I wanted to participate in trying to make this bad legislation a little bit less dangerous.

That is my sole reason for participating in this, and if you think I am angry at being lectured by somebody who tells me he went home last night and got things in perspective, I can tell you I am angry. I am probably as angry as I have ever been because I have been in politics as an elected politician for over 25 years, Mr Clement, and I have never lost sight of why I do this time and time again or why being a politician matters.

I can tell you that I have sat as an elected member of this Legislature, both in government and opposition, for eight and a half years and I travel 1,000 miles a week back and forth, 1,000 miles here and 1,000 miles back, and I can't go home at night to see my family. I do it for one reason only and it's because I happen to think that what we do here matters.

I happen to believe that good government actually matters to people and that it has an effect on the daily lives of people, including your children and my children, and that's why all of us make this kind of a commitment. So don't lecture me about whether or not I'm getting bogged down in the details and the trivia and losing my perspective. I happen to believe that the reason we are legislators, which is essentially a lawmaker, is that good laws that we're entrusted to make are the basis of good government, and that in turn is the basis of good public order.

Surely we don't lose that perspective. Surely you don't think that when we and the people working with us go through all the effort we've gone to to analyse a 211-page bill that should never have been presented in the first place, and to actually present pages and pages of amendments that we knew you would never even look at -- you shake your heads before they're even read into the record -- do you think we do that because we're playing some kind of political game?

I can tell you, none of us do this, except for the fact that we really hope, even those of us in lowly opposition hope, we can have some influence in making good legislation, because we happen to believe that it matters. I would have thought you, as a lawyer, would understand how important good legislation is and that even a single clause in bad legislation can not only create chaos but affect people's lives.

You used a personal example, so I will continue with it. You went home last night and you saw your kids and they were healthy. Well, I'm concerned about a clause in this bill that deregulates drug prices. It sounds like an abstract thing to be worried about, right? Deregulate drug prices. It's ideologically sound. There's no evidence that it's going to do anything to help keep drug prices -- forget all that. I happen to think it matters that if somebody goes home at night and their kid is sick, not well, they shouldn't have to go out and barter for a good drug price. That matters to me, and I think it matters to people.

Obviously, we're not going to get to debate and raise our concerns and reflect on the public concerns that we've heard. But just please don't tell me that what I've been doing is some kind of political game. You have attempted to interpret every group that's presented as representing a vested interest and therefore not to be listened to, and everything we've done as opposition is somehow a political game and we're concerned about what kind of coverage we get. I just hope that at some point you will understand that some of us do this because we happen to believe it matters. Until you do, don't lecture me.

Mr Phillips: Mr Clement's talk was very unhelpful. In terms of perspective, what we're dealing with in this bill, you people promised the firefighters of this province you would not revise the Fire Departments Act until you consulted with them. This bill guts the Fire Departments Act. Mike Harris put his face on television for them, giving them that promise to get their vote. This bill guts that and breaks that promise.

You promised in the election you wouldn't touch a penny of health care. You're cutting $1.3 billion out of it. Then you frankly try to distort the promise you made to say, "We'll restore it in four years." You never made that promise, and that's what this bill is all about. You people promised everybody in this document you wouldn't put new user fees on drugs, and this bill puts new user fees on drugs.

Then you promised people that you would protect safety, all of our police organizations, our law enforcement agencies. You made that promise, and then this bill guts collective bargaining for our police organizations and puts in the hands of arbitrators' decisions around our policing services, just so that you can make the municipalities happy in this province. You bargain away the rights of our police organizations to try to get a deal with the municipalities, and that's what this bill does.

Then Mike Harris used to go around yip-yapping about, "A user fee is the same as a tax." There are his headlines. And what does this bill do? It gives unlimited flexibility for fees. We are going to see fees like you've never seen before, and you have told every municipality, "That's just fine." We're going to see fees on car fires, we're going to see fees for safe driving schools, we're going to see fees for health inspectors, we're going to see fees, a tax, on gas stations. We're going to see fees like you've never seen before.

You say, "Keep it in perspective, everybody; keep this thing in perspective." Well, frankly, you said one thing before the campaign and now you're doing something else. You're forcing through this bill that completely guts the promises you made to the people of this province.

1110

You promised, as I say, that you would not touch health care. You, in this bill, are passing a law to steal $250 million from the public sector pensions. You tried to do that through regulation. You tried to sneak that thing through cabinet and the union caught you, took you to court and you were guilty. The judge said: "You are guilty. You can't do that." So what do you do? You bring in a law, you pass a law that exempts yourself from the very bill that protects pensioners in this province. This bill is filled with things that you said you would never do, and now you're giving yourself the right to do that.

My leader spoke well, as did the members of the NDP. If you have the nerve to say you are keeping in perspective the fact that this bill gives you the right to essentially repudiate your own campaign promises, it's an embarrassment. If the public have any idea why we're so angry, it is because you have frankly misled the people of the province. You have in the campaign lied to them. You are doing things in this document that are 180 degrees opposite of what you promised to do, and you're trying to force us to be in bed with you on this thing. Well, I'll just say to you, the public understands what you're all about.

There are two things that I think will do you the most damage. One is, people now realize you're incompetent. The fact that you brought this bill in with so many mistakes, now the proof is there. You're incompetent. Your government is incompetent and you're to be laughed at. The second thing that's very damaging is that nobody believes you any more. The fire departments don't believe you, the police organizations don't believe you, the doctors don't believe you, the public unions don't believe you, the nurses don't believe you, the pay equity people don't believe you. The promises that you made before the election, you have decided you are frankly going to ignore.

I used to be able to have some respect for the government. At least I thought you were doing what you said you were going to do. There are two reasons why I have no respect any longer. One is, I don't trust you any more, and I don't trust you because we also thought the cabinet ministers were going to be here to explain the bill and they didn't have the guts to show up. The second reason is, you're incompetent. The public understand, I hope, why we're so angry, when the government has stonewalled us at every turn on this bill and proven what I think a lot of people were thinking, and that is, you're not to be trusted.

Ms Lankin: I will not reiterate the arguments that have been made by my colleagues on the opposition benches. I think you have heard we speak with a unified voice in our opinion on the process that we have experienced with respect to this legislation, our basic and profound disagreement with much of the content of the legislation, but our profound disappointment and sadness at the absolute refusal of the government to provide a process for appropriate democratic debate and passage of laws of the province of Ontario.

In wrapping up, I think the only area that I want to make comment on is the speech that we have just heard from Mrs McLeod. I believe that was one of the most eloquent and impassioned and direct presentations of a personal point of view of a politician who has a great deal of integrity and had been totally provoked once again by the partisan political spin-doctoring positioning of the government member who speaks on behalf of the government caucus on this motion.

That member asked me once why I provoke people so much. I think you heard in spades from Mrs McLeod why you have provoked her and every member on this side of the table as we debate these issues. I acknowledged in my opening comments on this that there are political differences, there are ideological differences and there are partisan differences that get mixed up in the whole process of how you deal with legislation, but it's part of the democratic process, Tony.

I also said, remember at the end of the day that every one of us is an elected member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, charged with a responsibility for the carriage of the democratic process to produce the best laws possible, even where we disagree with the content. And I take great offence at any suggestion from you that that hasn't been at the basis of what we have been attempting to do.

We can go back over the transcripts, and I can show you time and time again where I was arguing the points of law, the points of impact on the public of Ontario, the consequences of areas of the law that you were proposing to pass without amendment. So I resent deeply your comments. But I'll tell you what I resent more, and this goes to the very heart of how you have been behaving as a government and what you're going to have to come to terms with over the course of your term of office, and that's the arrogance. Because let me tell you, while Mrs McLeod was responding to you in a very direct, honest and impassioned way, there are members on your side who were sitting there rolling their eyes, like this was just another opposition grandstanding.

Let me tell you, Mr Young, I find that completely inappropriate behaviour for an elected legislator, even for an adult. When someone is providing an honest response -- emotional, yes -- for you to sit there and roll your eyes like this is just something to be sloughed off again, that arrogance you folks have over there that, having been elected with a majority government, you know all, you know better, and anyone who has a different opinion should be just sloughed off and dismissed, a vested interest. We hear it time and time again from your Premier.

That is an attitude that will lead you into great areas of difficulty as a government, because it means that you're closing yourself off. It means that you won't listen to advice. It means that you will miss good and valuable points that people who may have different points of view put forward. It means that the end result will suffer, will be poorer for that attitude and you will be understood to be, by the people of Ontario, aloof and arrogant and a group of people who just won't listen.

I hope that, as much as it's distasteful, it is just the early days, the bloom of just having been elected, the rookie MPPs feeling their oats, and I hope you'll get over it, and quickly. Let me tell you if this experience on Bill 26 and the public response to it isn't enough to get you over it, I don't know what will be.

But I hope you get over it, not particularly because I want to see you reform yourselves and somehow become a wonderful government of the people that the people respond to and love and want to re-elect -- of course that's not in my political interest, my partisan interest -- but I want you to get over it because whatever you decide as a government to do, in the end, I want to be the best that you can do.

You will only get that if you are open to listening to people, if you are open to criticism, to advice and if you have a little bit of humility in your approach to this incredible responsibility that you have been handed by the people of Ontario to govern our affairs. As a citizen of the province of Ontario, I worry about my province, about my neighbourhood, my community, my family and my friends, the constituents that I represent and the province that I love.

If you can't find in your approach sufficient humility to recognize that not all wisdom rests with you and that there is a province of people who have hopes, dreams and aspirations, who come from different backgrounds, who bring different thoughts and ideas -- and what is always best about our province is when we can harness all that energy and bring it together to produce a collective goal and a collective result.

1120

I hope you will think about that. I hope you will think about Mrs McLeod's response. Perhaps it's something you should take and play for your caucus at some point in time, and I say that genuinely. It's not a facetious comment. It seems to me that there is a lesson to be learned and to be taken from her comments, and if you do that, I think we'll all be better off. Thank you very much, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Thank you. There'll be no further --

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): On a point of privilege, Mr Chair: I believe it's inappropriate for a member to impute motives for somebody else moving their eyes in a committee hearing. I think the record should also show that Ms Lankin, despite accusing the government of not listening, was not in the room for most of Mr Clement's remarks.

Ms Lankin: That's not correct.

The Chair: I don't believe that's a point of privilege.

Mrs Caplan: I have a legitimate point of privilege, Mr Chair, and I have never been as angry or as emotional as I am now. I have just read an article that I think is a breach of privilege. The minister, who refused to come to this committee to stand accountable or to debate this bill, has said, "The opposition is making things up."

We have been proven right on every issue that we have raised a concern about. We were the ones who said this bill, in its initial form, raised serious concerns about privacy. The minister said -- I won't say he said "crazy" then; he says it now. Then he said, "Don't worry, there's nothing in this bill that" -- the privacy commissioner said the opposition is right to be concerned.

My privileges as a member are breached when the minister refuses to come to this committee and answer questions, yet in the media is prepared to say, "The opposition is making things up." That's untrue, that is unfair and that is unparliamentary language to call us "crazy." My privileges as a member are offended because he doesn't have the guts to come here and say that to my face.

The Chair: That's not a point of privilege as it relates to our discussion.

Mrs Caplan: That is a point of privilege. It's unparliamentary.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, if I may. I'm obviously not going to speak again, but I have to tell you, when the Minister of Health, who has not come to this committee, dares to say that what we have been doing here is all politics and rhetoric, you will understand why we are so angry and so frustrated here today.

The Chair: Shall Ms Lankin's motion carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Carr, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The motion is defeated.

Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, there being only about 35 minutes or so left before we move to the process that's envisioned at 1 o'clock, I would request unanimous consent for us to move to section 10 of schedule M of the bill, which is the section that deals with user fees.

I think it's important, particularly an amendment we have which would allow new municipal user fees to be applied only if approved by the minister and would allow citizens to challenge those user fees that they felt would be unjust before the OMB.

There are other amendments under that section which I know are important. There certainly is one from the government side. In light of the fact that we have not had a chance to debate those issues in detail, I'd ask for unanimous consent for us to move to that amendment, to amendment 264 at this point.

The Chair: Mr Silipo has asked for unanimous consent to move to another section of the bill. Do we have that consent? Agreed.

Mr Silipo: It's number 264, which is an amendment to section 10 of the bill. I move that subsection 220.1(9) of the Municipal Act, as set out in section 10 of schedule M to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Approval of user fees

"(9) A bylaw passed under this section that imposes fees or charges for users of services or activities provided or performed by or on behalf of a municipality or local board shall not come into force until it is approved by the minister.

"Application to OMB

"(9.1) An application may be made to the municipal board under clause 71(c) of the Ontario Municipal Board Act on the grounds that fees imposed by a bylaw described in subsection (9) are unfair or unjust."

The Chair: Since this is not the first proposed amendment to this particular section, we need unanimous approval to skip the previous amendments and move to this one. Do we have that approval?

Mrs Caplan: Do we have to deal with all the amendments that relate to this section?

The Chair: We either have to deal with them in order or have unanimous approval to jump to this one.

Mr Silipo: I thought that's what I asked for before, to go to this particular amendment.

The Chair: No. You had unanimous approval to go to this section.

Mr Silipo: I'd be quite happy, Mr Chair, if you wish, when we deal with this amendment, also to move back to some of the other amendments that are part of this.

The Chair: Unanimous approval to go to this particular amendment in this section?

Mr Silipo: There are two important points being made by this amendment. First, there will be an inordinate number and variety of user fees that municipalities will impose, either by will or because they will have very little choice in the matter by virtue of the 50% cuts being imposed upon them by this government over the next two years, and we think there has to be some ability for some sense to be brought to those, and for the political responsibility to continue to rest where we believe it needs to rest and where we believe it really is emanating, which is in the hands of the province, through the Minister of Municipal Affairs in this case.

Clearly, what is being contemplated out there is, in our view, way beyond what is acceptable. As I heard today and as we've been hearing throughout this process, municipalities are looking at putting on user fees for false alarms, user fees for cars that may catch on fire in a municipality, user fees for access to public libraries. We heard, interestingly enough, the mayor of Ottawa say to us that she didn't think there was any difference between imposing a user fee on borrowing a book at a public library and renting out a video. To her, that was just part and parcel of the same kind of approach. I find that quite disturbing.

Given that it is very clearly this government's actions that are freeing up this ability to municipalities to impose these kinds of user fees and many more, which I will not get into because of time, we think the political responsibility ought to continue to rest where it is emanating from, which is in the hands of the minister, to be able to disallow those user fees from among the many that will be particularly unpalatable. That's the first part of the amendment.

The second part is that we believe it is fundamental that this legislation allow individuals or groups within communities to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board where municipalities, in their view, are applying user fees that are unfair or unjust. We think that process needs to be there and needs to continue in order to allow for some vehicle, in addition to the one proposed in terms of the minister's approval, whereby the kind of unfettered discretion being given to municipalities can somehow be tempered. Otherwise, we will find, and I say this to the government members with all sincerity, in the array of user fees being contemplated and that will likely unfold by passage of this bill, the kinds of changes that even the most fairminded member of the government will be surprised to see.

It will mean that those who are least able to pay will have to bear the brunt one more time of the cuts this government is bringing about. When you apply a user fee, even if you're talking about a $1 or $2 user fee to borrow a book, for example, or to use a skating rink or to do any number of that kind of things, it has an inordinate and unfair impact on those citizens in our communities who are least able to pay, because $1 or $2 coming out of the income or the pocket of a family with a $10,000 income or a $20,000 income costs them a lot more than a $1 or $2 fee for someone who's making $60,000, $70,000, $80,000. I haven't even mentioned all the user fees we've heard on the business side that would cause grave concerns to businesses and the way in which these are being contemplated by various municipalities.

1130

For all those reasons and many more which, as I said, I will refrain from going into because of the time, I really urge the government to take serious note of this amendment. We think it's important that at least some limitations be placed on this unfettered discretion they seem to be so intent on giving municipalities.

Mr Phillips: I think the motion has merit. We should recognize what the government is trying to do here, two or three things.

One pretty clearly is that this is part of the deal you've cut with AMO as payment for its silence. I guess it was the "Dear Ernie and Al" letter of November 1 -- which, by the way, should perhaps be filed, if I might request that; it's in the public domain now. There's no question. "We're cutting your grants in half. How do we keep you quiet?" AMO said, "Here's the wish list that we've had around AMO for 25 years," and you tried to get it all passed. You were caught in a couple of things so you had to change those, and probably AMO's mad about those things.

But make no mistake. Every municipality is now being forced -- their backs are to the wall -- to look at all sorts of new user fees. I don't think any of us could even comprehend the scope of the user fees that are coming, and I think some of them will be taxes. When Al Leach was caught with the famous -- it's the first time I've ever actually seen it happen, where a minister called for his own resignation. He said, "I intend to resign" -- none of us called for his resignation; he called on himself to resign -- if he was wrong.

These are his amendments we've got proving he was wrong. It's a most extraordinary thing. The minister said: "This bill does not permit taxes. I guarantee it. If I'm wrong, I'm going to be so embarrassed I'll quit." Then we find these are his amendments we're dealing with now, from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. He's got amendments here prohibiting gas taxes, income taxes, sales taxes and poll taxes at the municipal level. He went out and found the evidence he was looking for to make sure he had to resign. We never called for his resignation; it was him.

I believe the bill was written in a way to permit a gas tax. It was only when the government was caught that you closed that loophole. But there is all sorts of potential for creative user fees here. We've already heard from a city saying: "False alarm -- we'll start charging a fee for that. Car fire -- we'll start charging a fee for that. Poor children wanting to use the library -- we'll charge a fee and find a corporate donor." Kingston has indicated that the police there will start safe-driving schools. We're looking at driving the price of a marriage licence and death certificate up. Virtually every municipality is looking at brand-new user fees.

Mike Harris will own these. These are going to be the Mike Harris user fees, make no mistake, because two things happened. He went to the municipalities and said: "We're cutting your grants in half. How do we make it up to you?" They said, "Give us the right for all these new user fees." So all of you will own them. This motion at least gives some opportunity before they're implemented for the minister to say whether this is what he intended. Had he come here, we would have asked him that question. But he refuses to. I saw him on TV last night. He's got lots of time to go elsewhere, but no time to come here. I found that just another insult, to see him traipsing around trying to get his face on television when he won't come here to answer the questions.

Make no mistake: We are going to see new user fees like you've never seen before, and creative new user fees. Every one of them will be on Mike Harris's back because they will be a result of your cutting back on the transfer payments. This attempts to at least give the government one last look at them before they come in.

You can say, "Surely you trust municipalities." Sure you trust municipalities, but I want to know whether or not they are implementing what you want them to implement. I think there's some opportunity for new taxes. We asked the question at the start of clause-by-clause for a legal opinion on whether this permits new taxes, and we have not yet got that legal opinion. I hope we'll get it within the next half-hour on whether the licence provision provides for taxing provisions. This is a motion designed to allow the government to take a look at these things before they become institutionalized in Ontario.

The last thing I'll say is that we've got a whole new tax regime now in Ontario, a balkanized tax system across Ontario. When the rest of the world is heading towards open borders, you go from community to community right now and there will be dramatic differences in the way they raise revenues. Rather than simplifying things, the famous "cutting the red tape" and all those things, this is a recipe for absolute complexity. Make no mistake about that. For organizations that do business in many municipalities, it'll be like a nightmare trying to figure out, "What fee do I pay in what community and where?"

One of the challenges in the GTA right now is that you've got a hodgepodge of taxation. On the one hand, Al Leach is heading the operating room trying to fix that, the hodgepodge of taxation; at the very same time he's creating a hodgepodge of taxation in every single municipality in Ontario. It makes no sense to most sensible people.

I think the motion has merit, and even the municipalities may appreciate an opportunity for some sober second thought.

Mrs Caplan: I'm going to speak very briefly on this. I think it's a very supportable amendment. I believe this bill is all about the introduction of user fees and the concentration of power. But when it comes to user fees, I remember the Taxfighter. Remember him? That was Mike Harris, leader of the official opposition. He called himself the Taxfighter. In those days, do you know what he said? He said: "A copayment is a tax. A user fee is a tax." I want to know what the Taxfighter, Mike Harris in opposition, would be saying today if he were honest and truthful. I want to know if he still believes that a user fee is a tax.

In the campaign he said: "Read my lips. No new taxes." I thought, and so did my constituents and so did all the people who voted for him, that meant no new user fees. The Common Sense Revolution has clearly said, "No new user fees," and they all know he said, "User fees are a tax." Therefore, "No new taxes and no new user fees," would assure them that he would never bring in a bill that had the provisions in it to allow new user fees, new taxes, in his own words. But that's exactly what Bill 26 does.

I'll tell you something. When it comes to, "No new user fees" throw away the Common Sense Revolution. When it comes to, "We're not going to hurt seniors and the disabled," rip up the Common Sense Revolution. When they say, "We're not going to introduce new user fees for health services," rip up the Common Sense Revolution. I'll tell you something: To Mike Harris the Taxfighter this bill is about new taxes called user fees. That's what this is, and if this amendment fails there won't even be any opportunity for any kind of public process to deal with the municipalities' new powers.

1140

We heard Al Leach stand up and say, "I'll resign if this bill will allow for poll taxes and gas taxes." Then we heard Hazel McCallion, mayor of Mississauga, come in and say that's exactly what this is going to do. Mel Lastman, mayor of my municipality: "I like Bill 26. It'll let me bring in a user fee and tax everything that moves."

How can all of you who ran on the Common Sense Revolution platform look yourselves in the mirror as you support this bill that does exactly the opposite of everything that you said you would do? How can you support Mike Harris the Taxfighter, who said, "User fees are new taxes by any other name"? Yes, Mel Lastman, Hazel McCallion and the mayors of the municipalities eagerly await your okay to bring in new user fees; headlines in the newspapers. Why? Because after promising stable funding, your cutting municipal transfer payments by over 40%. So they are faced with slashing needed and valuable services or finding new ways to pay for them.

I don't think the people of this province yet fully understand the sinister and cynical betrayal when Jim Wilson, the Health minister, can stand up and say, "Everything I said in opposition was simply pandering and posturing. Don't believe a word I ever said," is effectively what he's saying. You know what? Mike Harris, now Premier, the Taxfighter, obviously was pandering and posturing and saying anything that would help him get elected. It worked. But in the process, our democracy is diminished, because people know that they cannot trust, and they feel betrayed. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Mike Harris, you should be ashamed of yourself. Jim Wilson, you should be ashamed of yourself.

I was elected and I have been elected and I've run in elections and I have always, always tried to do what I said I would do. I said the same thing before the election and after the election, whether I was elected to opposition or to government. To cynically say that a user fee is not a tax is an outright lie. You're lying to people when you say a user fee is not a tax. You're lying to them when you say that a copayment isn't a user fee. You're lying to them when you say you're a taxfighter when you allow new taxes called user fees.

Interjection: Come on.

Mrs Caplan: I'm going to support this amendment and, yes, "Come on." Come on, you don't like to hear it because it's the truth.

The Chair: I don't particularly appreciate that kind of language.

Mrs Caplan: I'm sure you don't. I don't appreciate Bill 26. I don't appreciate the fact that we don't have time to deal substantively with the amendments that have been brought forward and that so many issues are outstanding. We've asked for an additional week, and I don't appreciate the fact that they will not even ask the House leaders to consider additional time. I don't appreciate that either, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: As a parliamentarian who's been here for many years, could I ask you please to withdraw those last few comments?

Mrs Caplan: If I said anything that you consider unparliamentary, I withdraw them. But I told the truth.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs Ecker: Nice qualifier.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I just want to point out that I will not be speaking to the general intent of the whole Bill 26; I will speak to the amendment as put forward. I would advise the committee the government will not be supporting the amendment. The intent of the provision in the bill is to allow flexibility to municipal government to put charges and fees in place where they'd be most appropriate on behalf of the residents they are providing the services for. We believe that the local elected officials are closest to the people and are more accountable to those people.

We had many delegations before us in the hearing process that suggested that the most accountable politicians are the ones closest to the people.

I would point out in this resolution the recommendation is that the user fees would all have to go to the minister for approval. The majority of user fees contemplated or available to municipalities are presently available. There is a list of numerous user fees that municipalities can presently charge. This resolution would require the municipalities to, from this day forward, any time they were to implement a new user fee, have to go to the minister for such approval. That would, in the government's opinion, be going in the opposite direction that we hope this bill will take us, which is to further local autonomy.

I think we'll just point out some of the user fees that have been discussed many times during the committee hearings; one that comes to mind is the user fee for garbage collection. I want to point out that I come from a municipality where we have had user fees for total garbage collection and disposal. It has worked rather well. The ability to do that has always been there. This amendment would require that other municipalities in the future which wish to implement such a charge would have to go to the minister for such approval. The other problem that the government would see with such an amendment as this is that it would not reduce the amount of government; in fact, it would then require two levels of government to make a decision on every bylaw that requires user fees, and we do not deem that appropriate.

Last but not least, the bottom of the second section of the amendment deals with putting in going to the OMB for appeals. I would point out that the section that speaks of that is only appeals on user fees to the public utilities commission and would not deal with the others. Present user fees are not appealable to the Ontario Municipal Board; we do not feel it appropriate to introduce further backlogs at the Ontario Municipal Board. We believe that the local autonomy and the decision of the local politicians and the decision of the local electorate at election time will cover off the appeal process for user fees as they're being applied. So we will not be supporting this amendment.

Mrs McLeod: Because of the ludicrousness of the process we're involved in, I want to point out that we're now dealing with an amendment that follows a rather significant amendment that has been proposed by the government and I assume that the government members have been directed to support, which is one that deals with this section of the act but makes it absolutely clear, then, that no bylaw that's imposed under this section can impose a poll tax or a similar fee or charge etc. In other words, municipalities, lo and behold, cannot use this, as they could have in Bill 26 if it had been passed into law by December 14, to impose a gas tax or a poll tax or a sales tax or an income tax. So I think it's important that this clarification get made, because that's one of the details that the government will not get a chance to explain to the public, that they have fixed that glaring error in Bill 26.

Having said that, I know there will be few opportunities to highlight the changes the government has made, and I wanted to highlight that one. I'm not surprised that they will not agree with this particular amendment because, as our colleagues have said, the strategy here was to take the millions and millions of dollars away from the municipalities to fund the income tax cut for the most well-to-do in our province and then to say, "How can we let the municipalities cope with that? Well, we'll give them scope, some flexibility," as the minister likes to describe it, and, lo and behold, the scope and flexibility takes the form of being able to raise new fees, by any other name new taxes, because as Mike Harris has said, and I'm happy to repeat it, a user fee is a tax by any other name.

I think the government is basically saying: "There won't be a problem here. We're the taxfighters all right, but as long as we don't do it there's not going to be any problem. The public isn't going to think it's us that did it. As long as somebody else gets the blame, we don't need to worry about whether or not there's a host of new user fees or a host of new taxes. Referendum on new taxes? Don't need to worry about that; that was only for new taxes that we impose directly. So if the municipalities bring them in and we give the municipalities the ability to bring them in, we still don't need a referendum, because that was only for the taxes that we introduce."

So the bottom line is that when people look to see what they got from their income tax cut, if we ever see the income tax cut, they're going to find that it was long ago eaten up by all the new user fees, taxes by any other name, that this government has made possible or has introduced. The only saving grace for the government is that they'll be able to blame it all on somebody else.

1150

Mr Silipo: I wanted to pursue the point that the parliamentary assistant made on the overall logic of why the government finds this amendment unacceptable. Perhaps I'll ask Mr Hardeman to just expand a little bit more, because I find it puzzling that the rationale that he would give for not supporting this amendment is because they want to give unfettered discretion to the municipalities and this limits that discretion.

They have had no hesitation in other parts of this same bill, in fact I think just two sections prior to this where they describe the regulatory powers of the minister, in saying that the minister retains the power to, by regulations, sever or fetter, in effect, the discretion that's being given to municipalities. So how can they try to have it both ways in terms of saying that it's okay in some areas to have the minister still retain the ultimate power, but here where we're going to see the largest example of discretion being exercised by municipalities as far as imposing any number of user fees, which is really another name, as has been said, for taxes, that the minister would just simply wash his hands and say, "I'm not prepared to have any responsibility," when we all know that the political responsibility really rests there?

Secondly, I wasn't clear on what the objection was to the OMB, whether Mr Hardeman was saying that it's the way in which this is worded because it limits it to only public utilities, because certainly our intention is not that, and if there's been maybe an error in the subsection referred to there, if that's what's holding the government from supporting it, presumably that's something we could come to agreement on. So I'd ask Mr Hardeman to just expand a bit more, because I find the rationale a bit puzzling.

Mr Hardeman: The question as to the minister's approval, we see this just as a situation where we create a lot of bureaucracy, and need for all bylaws to be approved by the minister as opposed to the local autonomy, we believe that the local elected officials should make the decision.

The act does still provide the protection that if in the opinion of the minister a general user fee was not appropriate and was being inappropriately done, there is an opportunity for the minister, by regulation, to correct such a situation. So we do not deem it appropriate that each bylaw should have to be approved by the minister, that two levels of government have to make a decision whether the bylaw to allow the paying for the collection of garbage through a user fee is an appropriate method in a certain municipality. So we do not support that the minister should have to approve each bylaw.

The issue of the appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, I think it's important to point out that the present user fees that the municipalities implement are not appealable to the Ontario Municipal Board, only those that are being applied through the public utilities commission. We do not deem it appropriate as a government to increase the workload of the Ontario Municipal Board to have all user fees be appealable at the Ontario Municipal Board. We do believe that the appeal process for when municipalities decide to implement inappropriate user fees -- that they will be judged on that.

Mr Silipo: Again, to try to make the point perhaps another way, I find it really difficult to understand why it is that in some areas, for example in the area of sections dealing with the imposition of tolls, the minister clearly retains discretion to intervene where he thinks that municipalities are acting inappropriately. Here, the parliamentary assistant is saying to us: "We don't want the minister to intervene. We want the responsibility to be the local municipality's."

I just say again to the parliamentary assistant: How can you have it both ways? How can you say that in some cases you're going to have the minister decide to intervene and disallow certain actions by municipalities, whether it's in those sections or in many others -- and again, if time allowed, we'd go through and list for you all the different areas where you're putting in here the ultimate power still being retained by the minister, certainly in the restructuring and many of the other provisions, and yet here you're saying, "No, this is one we don't want to touch."

Is it because you want to basically say here that you want to try to paint it as if it's the municipalities that are responsible for raising taxes rather than the province? What happened to the concept of one taxpayer, Mr Hardeman? What happened to the concept that your leader espoused so loudly before the election and during the election that there would be one taxpayer only? "There is only one taxpayer, and we would not take any actions," you said, "that would increase taxes." Well, what do you think this is doing?

You're cutting funding to municipalities by 50% and now you're saying to municipalities, "But you can go ahead and raise taxes. We'll reduce provincial taxes by 30%, which will benefit the richest citizens in the province, but you can go on and raise taxes that will hurt Ontarians of average and low incomes." That's what you're saying. And you're saying: "We want to wash our hands of that responsibility. We don't want the minister to be touched by that at all, so the minister can say, `It's not our responsibility; it's that municipality that's doing it,' or `It's that local board that's doing it,'" when we all know full well that the reason those municipalities and those boards will be imposing those fees, will be imposing those taxes, is not because they really want to do it -- in some cases they probably do and they're just yearning to get this power that you're giving to them -- but in most cases, I suggest to you, it's because you've left them no other choice. And you're not prepared to take the political responsibility for it, except of course where you think it might benefit you politically to have the minister intervene.

Explain to me the logic of that. Why not have at least the courage to say: "Yup, that's what we're doing. We're just passing on to the municipality this responsibility because it's quite frankly too hot for us to handle"? Because that's what you're doing.

Mr Hardeman: It's obvious that the member does not agree with the principle of what we're doing, and we have a difference of opinion on that.

I would point out that the ability to charge user fees -- and in fact it's a lengthy list of situations -- is there. There is no appeal process for that. There is no need for the municipality to apply to the minister for approval of a bylaw to impose those user fees that are presently allowed. This section will allow a much broader variety of uses that municipalities can look at, on which they can charge a fee for the service they provide to constituents.

I would point out that the other option of course, in a number of cases, will be that they will not be providing certain services. They are going to be rationalizing the services that municipalities are providing. They're going to be rationalizing the structure of their government. They're going to be looking for economies to reduce the cost of government on the taxpayer.

When they're doing that, I think they also should be provided with the flexibility to look at all the services they're providing and to be able to recoup the cost in the most appropriate manner that they see fit. Now, the areas in one part of the province may be different than in other parts of the province as to how they deem the most appropriate way.

Again, I would use the analysis of the user fee for garbage collection. We had numerous presentations made to the committee that used that example as the most outrageous way of collecting fees. There are areas of the province that are presently doing that that deem that as the most appropriate way to collect the fees for service.

As the government, we do not see the minister in a better position to make that decision between which fee they want to charge and which they do not want to charge in that particular locality. We are convinced that it should be the local politicians given the local autonomy and be responsible to the local electorate at election time as to whether they made the right decision.

The Chair: It is 12 o'clock. Is it the committee's wish that we vote on this particular amendment? Okay.

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Carr, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment does not carry.

We'll recess until 1 o'clock.

Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, on a point of order before you recess, and again, I know it can only be done with unanimous agreement: We, as you know, when we come back from the lunch recess, will be basically forced into going through the remaining amendments without debate and simply voting on them. I wonder if there would be agreement for us to continue sitting during the next hour and at least have some debate on whatever other amendments we can get done. I appreciate that may cause some problems for the staff, but hopefully some arrangements could be made as far as the committee members are concerned. I'm sure, given that there are a number of us here from both sides, we could spell each other off, if need be, in terms of giving people an opportunity to get a sandwich and still allow for some debate to continue over the next hour.

1200

Mrs Caplan: Good idea.

Interjection: Agreed.

Mr Clement: Mr Chairman, no disagreement in principle; you as the Chair have a long day ahead of you, as well as we do. I want to allow you some time to recharge your batteries.

The Chair: Mr Clement, Mr Silipo has asked for unanimous consent. The committee has the right to instruct me as the Chair in whatever way it wants, so it is the committee's call.

Interjections: Agreed.

Mr Clement: We agree.

The Chair: Agreed. Okay. The next amendment we will deal with is 264A.

Mr Silipo: Where are we going, Mr Chair?

The Chair: We've gone to this point, so we keep going. In the absence of any other direction from the committee, we keep going.

Mr Silipo: My understanding was that we had agreed to deal with the other pieces under section 10, and I think there was reference by Mrs McLeod to the motion that appears previous to this, which is the government motion limiting the taxation powers, if we could deal with that, and then we could decide after that's done what other parts of the bill we maybe could move to.

Mrs Caplan: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms Lankin: The one before 264, we don't have a number on it, so we don't know if it's 263 or 263B.

Mr Silipo: It's the changes to section 220.1.

Interjection: It's 262.

Mrs McLeod: It's the one that I read into the record.

Mr Silipo: The one that Mrs McLeod referred to that restricts the application of poll taxes and income taxes, the government amendment.

Interjection: Page 262, government motion.

Mr Silipo: I'm sure the parliamentary assistant knows this one in his sleep.

The Chair: Do we have unanimous approval to jump to page 262?

Mr Clement: Before I give unanimous consent, Mr Chair, I'd like to have some direction from Mr Silipo, Mrs McLeod or whomever else what the game plan is. You wanted the extra hour. We're perfectly willing to give that to you. Could we just establish an order so we can do this in a reasonable way?

Mr Silipo: Certainly. I appreciate the question. Mr Chair, it would be my suggestion that, after we deal with this next amendment that we're suggesting, we try to move to a couple of other schedules of the bill, at least to allow us as quickly as possible to put either some amendments or some issues on the table. We would want go on to move, for example, briefly to schedule L, which deals with the pensions; we'd want to move briefly, if possible, to the schedule that deals with pay equity; and if time allows, to go on to a couple of other sections following that. I appreciate that this is not the most desirable way to do this, but at least it's trying to make the best use we can of the remaining time.

Mr Phillips: I think in fairness, perhaps we can deal with this one and then perhaps the best way to do it is to alternate between the two parties.

Mr Silipo: Absolutely.

Mrs Caplan: That's fair.

Ms Lankin: It's a good idea.

Mr Phillips: I think we are very interested in debate on schedule Q, which is the arbitration.

The Chair: I need some direction here, folks.

Mr Clement: If you're going to alternate, it should be alternating between the three parties. There may be amendments that we would like to have some debate on as well. So Mr Silipo gets first pick, then Mr Phillips and then Mr Sampson or whoever on our side.

Mr Phillips: That's fine.

The Chair: So do we have all-party approval?

Ms Lankin: We'll certainly agree to that, but given that you've had it your own way all the way through this, Tony, I would think that you would give the last hour to the opposition.

Mr Silipo: You could give us at least an hour.

Mr Clement: I'm giving you two thirds of an hour. How's that?

Mr Phillips: Just so we get to it, we'd like to move, after this one, to --

The Chair: I would hate to think that I'm giving up my lunch period while we argue to decide what we're going to talk about.

Mr Phillips: Mr Chair, we could begin with the one that's before us and then we would like 342, which is an amendment on schedule Q.

The Chair: So we're at 262. That's the government amendment.

Mr Clement: We agree.

The Chair: Okay. Mr Hardeman, are you going to move the amendment at page 262?

Mr Hardeman: I move that section 220.1 of the Municipal Act, as set out in section 10 of schedule M to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Restriction, poll tax

"(2.1) No bylaw under this section shall impose a poll tax or similar fee or charge, including a fee or charge which is imposed on an individual by reason only of his or her presence or residence in the municipality or part of it.

"Same, other matters

"(2.2) No bylaw under this section shall impose a fee or charge that is based on, is in respect of or is computed by reference to,

"(a) the income of a person, however it is earned or received, except that a municipality or local board may exempt, in whole or in part, any class of persons from all or part of a fee or charge on the basis of inability to pay;

"(b) the use, purchase or consumption by a person of property other than property belonging to or under the control of the municipality or local board that passes the bylaw;

"(c) the use, consumption or purchase by a person of a service other than a service provided or performed by or on behalf of or paid for by the municipality or local board that passes the bylaw;

"(d) the benefit received by a person from a service other than a service provided or performed by or on behalf of or paid for by the municipality or local board that passes the bylaw; or

"(e) the generation, exploitation, extraction, harvesting, processing, renewal or transportation of natural resources."

"Same, electrical power

"(2.3) Nothing in this section authorizes a municipality or local board to impose a fee or charge for supplying electrical power, including electrical energy, which exceeds the amount for the supply permitted by Ontario Hydro."

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hardeman. Did you want to begin the discussion?

Mr Hardeman: As has been expressed a number of times, the issue of taxation, the user fee direction in Bill 26, there seemed to be some concern by members who came before the committee that there may be more taxation powers allowed in the act than were intended. The minister made it quite clear at the start of the hearings that it was not the intention of the government to allow poll taxes or gasoline taxes or income taxes. It is still the government's opinion that the original act does not allow that, but I think it's appropriate to clarify the situation to make sure that we do not have court challenges and disagreements from those who would read it the other way. So for clarification and for certainty for the municipalities and for the government, we think that the amendment is in order.

Mr Phillips: We heard in some jurisdictions that they felt the licensing provisions would give them the same right as the taxing provisions and that a municipality could make, for example, a licence provision for a gas station in the form of cents per litre. That's the licence fee. We were awaiting the legal opinion on that, but can you tell us if you've got that legal opinion now and whether that's possible under the licensing arrangement?

Mr Hardeman: I do not have a legal opinion to table. I was advised previously and I'm being advised at the present time that it is not the opinion of our legal staff that that would be a possibility.

Mr Phillips: Are you prepared to table a legal opinion that says the licensing provisions prohibit a licence fee in the form of, for a restaurant -- a percentage -- 1% of sales; for a gas station, a litre? We've had the opposite legal opinion from some of the municipalities.

The reason I raise it is because my own view was that the bill originally was designed to permit a gas tax. It was found out that it did permit it, so you closed it in the fee area; but the way I read the licensing provision it's still there in all its glory. My point is that you've closed it in one place but it's still wide open in the other. I'm always suspicious when we haven't got the written legal opinion we thought we'd have at the start of this debate.

1210

Mr Hardeman: Again I would point out that we have a difference of opinion between Mr Phillips and myself. I think when the hearing process started, the minister made it quite clear that it was not the intention of the bill to allow those taxes. He suggested it was not the intention of the bill to do that, and now we have changed that. The intention never was to allow income taxes or gasoline taxes.

The legal opinion, and again we're speaking to the amendment and not to amendments that may or that may not be elsewhere in the bill, that I would just express was given to me by Scott, sitting right next to me here, is that it's not a legally written opinion. It's the opinion of our legal staff that it is not allowed.

The ability of municipalities to gather the type of information, from a practical point of view, that would be required for that type of licensing does not exist in legislation. Municipalities do not have the ability to ask or to require of the private sector to tell them how much gas they are pumping or how many packages of cigarettes they sold or how many quarts of milk they have given or how many people have gone through their door to have a meal. So the practicality of it is also very difficult, but we do not believe that the ability for them to charge an ongoing fee for licensing, based on consumption, is a possibility.

Mr Phillips: I'd just say, Mr Chair, that when we began debating this bill, many of us thought it permitted a poll tax, a gas tax, municipal sales tax; we were told it didn't. We now know that it did, and so you tried to close that loophole. I will just say that I have very little confidence, and when you refuse to give a written opinion, even less confidence. When municipalities have looked at the bill and told us that in their opinion it does permit it, one can only be very suspicious about it.

I will not be at all surprised if we see licences, and the reason I raise it is because if you say you don't want a gas tax, I cannot understand why you haven't written the same provision in the licensing area. I believe the municipalities have told us they think the licensing provisions give them that opportunity.

Another question is -- this prohibits poll tax, I gather -- does it prohibit all municipal sales tax, all municipal income tax, all municipal consumption taxes? What taxes does it permit?

Mr Hardeman: On behalf of municipalities, the only taxation power they have presently is property taxation, and this does not change the ability to charge other taxes. The problem with saying what new ability to tax does this bill grant is, of course, that the end result of collecting money, as has been expressed at this committee many times, the revenue derived by municipalities, is considered a tax.

If municipalities require to collect a user fee through the taxing process, that same user fee would then be a tax because it would be collected in a like manner as tax. This bill does not create new taxation powers other than increases in the numbers of instances that user fees can be applied and the broadening of the licensing powers.

Mr Phillips: What I'm trying to get at is, because we kind of have to search around in the dark to find these things because I haven't found the government to be very helpful on this: This prohibits what taxes? What taxes does this prohibit?

Mr Hardeman: I'm not sure.

Mr Phillips: It's designed to prohibit some taxes. I'm just trying to figure out what taxes it prohibits.

Mr Hardeman: The amendment we're discussing is not to prohibit taxes. As we heard delegations, some would infer that these taxes were being allowed. This is to clarify that they are not allowed. The intention of the bill never was to allow further taxation powers, but to allow local autonomy in user fees and licensing powers.

Mr Phillips: I think what you just said was, "This prohibits them from imposing certain taxes." What taxes does it prohibit them from imposing?

Mr Hardeman: It clarifies that they cannot charge income taxes, sales taxes, poll taxes or any consumption taxes on gasoline or other products.

Mr Phillips: Okay. So what taxes does it then permit?

Mr Hardeman: Again, as I said, this amendment does not discuss a broad array of increasing taxing powers; it does not allow municipalities to implement taxes. This is to clarify which form of user fees could not be used.

Mr Phillips: This is not making sense to me. You've opened up opportunities for brand-new taxes. You've opened up a whole new area of new taxes, to use your definition. The heat came on a few taxes, so you've closed off one end of it, I gather: poll taxes, gas tax, municipal sales tax, municipal income tax. I'm just trying to figure out which ones are still permitted, because I gather that if you have not excluded it, you permit it.

Mr Hardeman: No. The original bill was written to allow a broad range of user fees and licensing fees.

Mr Phillips: You called them taxes, though.

Mr Hardeman: I guess the reason we don't understand one another is because you're getting the next question ready instead of listening to the answer of the previous one.

Mr Phillips: That's nonsense, with all due respect.

Mr Hardeman: The original bill allows a broad range of user fees and licensing powers. During the committee debate and the committee hearings we had many situation where people came forward with the same opinion as you have, that the user fees section of the bill allowed more than the government's intention, that it was being interpreted to mean that gas taxes could be applied, that some form of consumption taxes could be applied. To clarify that, to be sure that was not the intention of the government and it should not be presumed the ability of municipalities in the future, we have put forward this amendment to clarify that, that when this bill is approved, municipalities do not go away thinking they can apply income taxes, consumption taxes or gasoline taxes. There is nothing in this bill that puts more taxation powers to municipalities other than the area of user fees for municipal services and the use of municipal property, and licensing fees.

Mr Phillips: I'll try once more. You've opened up a whole new section for municipalities to issue user fees. It wasn't I who said "taxes"; you under instructions from counsel said "user fees, taxes." You opened it all up. You now have said, "We're sorry but we are going to define five taxes that you can't have." I can only assume that when you define those five they can't have, they can have everything else. Am I right or wrong?

Mr Hardeman: The act, as it read originally for Bill 26, was to give broad powers or broad local autonomy to charge user fees for municipal services, for the use of municipal properties. It also has a section further in the bill that deals with broader licensing powers and recovering costs for licensing. Many people came forward and said they would see user fees to be able to be applied in such a way that municipalities could get gas taxes or income taxes based on consumption. The minister had said when the bill was introduced that his intention was not to allow that type of user fee to be charged. In order to avoid further confrontation and misinterpretation, to have municipalities believing that they could, implementing that type of user fee, and then having to be told that that's not allowed, it was deemed appropriate to put forward an amendment that would clarify those areas that had been put to the government that were in doubt as to what municipalities thought they would be allowed to do. This amendment clarifies that situation so it is user fees that they can charge, not gas tax, income tax or consumption tax.

1220

Mr Phillips: I have one last question. Would this permit, for example, a land transfer tax?

Mr Hardeman: I would suggest that, no, it will not. This is not a taxation section. It is a user fee and it has to be for a service provided by the municipality. Land transfers are not done by municipalities.

Mr Phillips: Does counsel agree with that?

Mr Scott Gray: Scott Gray, Municipal Affairs. Our general approach on many of these things as we've gone through this process is it's a general power for a municipality to charge user fees for any municipal service. People raise examples of things that they have the power to impose the fee, but can they make it effective, can they acquire the information they need, can they enforce it? The same issue has come up about toll roads; it's come up about income tax. In each case you're going to have to look at the practicalities: Who are they trying to tax and do they have the ability to tax them?

Mr Phillips: What about land transfer tax?

Mr Gray: Once again it's an area you'd have to look into. On the toll road situation for example, our view of it is in probability they don't have the authority to prevent people from using roads if they don't pay the fee. So how effective is a charge for people using the road if you can't refuse to let them use the road if they don't pay the fee? Each one of these we've gone into, the same kinds of issues arise. There are many variations of what municipal charges could make, the way they would be structured, the kinds of groups of people and things they'd try to get at.

The way the bill was originally structured was it was a broad user fee power, to the extent that it starts to interfere with provincial interests. If it starts to mimic provincial income tax or if they find some way of getting at that kind of issue, that the regulation be there to make sure they don't have a way of getting at it. But from a practical point of view, each time one of these taxes has come up, it doesn't seem like they have the ability to impose that kind of tax.

Mr Phillips: Even though you said the other day the toll roads is clear: They do and they can.

Mr Hardeman: To answer the question directly on the land transfer tax, clause (b) of the amendment reads we cannot pass a bylaw -- "(b) the use, purchase or consumption by a person of property other than property belonging to and under the control of the municipality or local board that passes the bylaw." So that would directly prohibit land transfer tax.

Mr Phillips: That's from counsel, is it? That's counsel's opinion?

Mr Hardeman: No, that's the amendment we're discussing.

Mr Phillips: But that's counsel's opinion, that it doesn't permit a land transfer tax?

Mr Gray: You can't tax by reference to the purchase of property. I would say that covers land transfer tax.

The Acting Chair (Mr Gary Carr): On the list, I have Mr Silipo next.

Mr Silipo: I just have to say that listening to that last exchange adds to my worries. That's actually one area where I thought this amendment was making it clear, but if it took two or three back-and-forths to get a clear answer to that one, it worries me that there may be other areas that are a little bit more nebulous.

I have said, and I think Mr Sampson may remember, that certainly I agree with the thrust of these amendments. We will support these amendments, and I'll explain in more detail why in a minute. But I have one remaining concern. I am not convinced that these amendments prevent municipalities from levying a gas tax. I'll tell you why, and I'd appreciate a comment from either Mr Hardeman or counsel on this.

I try very much as I look at these not to look at them as a lawyer, because I think that muddies things when a legislator tries to do that, a legislator who also is a lawyer. But I would have thought that some description other than "property" or "service" would have been necessary in order to pick up gas, and a tax on gas, which I would think is more appropriately defined as "goods" rather than either a "service" or "property." There may even be a better word than "goods" that can be used. I would be curious to know how in other legislation -- because there must be other legislation both provincially and federally that deals with things like gas taxes -- that is referred to. Is it referred to as property? Is it referred to as service? Because maybe my concern can be alleviated that way.

While I understand the intent of the government saying, "We want to exclude the possibility of municipalities applying, among other things, gas taxes," I just worry that you haven't plugged the hole yet on that one.

Mr Hardeman: I think the government is of the opinion that "property" is everything that's being bought and sold, if it's not a service, and we feel putting the word "gasoline" in independently would imply that other things would be allowed. All property that doesn't belong to a municipality cannot be taxed.

Mr Silipo: I'm not suggesting the word "gasoline." That's not what I'm saying. I'm suggesting there are more generic words such as "goods" which certainly apply. We know in the federal legislation there's a sales tax --

Mr Hardeman: I'd be prepared to let the legal staff answer that.

Mr Silipo: I'm just puzzled that we're trying to encompass under "property" something like gasoline.

Mr Gray: I think in our mind "property" is a much broader term than "goods." I think most people, in their minds generically -- few think of a litre of gas, liquid sitting in a container, as goods. It has a narrower sense. "Property" certainly covers real property, personal property -- it's a very broad term, and in our view covers anything that would be covered by the word "goods."

Mr Silipo: I really hope you're right on that and that we're not going to find ourselves down the line with somebody interested in challenging that by applying in effect a gas tax and us getting into a whole legal wrangle about whether it's possible or not.

Just to step back from that and deal with the amendment as a whole, as I said, I'll be supporting this amendment because it does help to clarify at least that some taxes are not to be allowed.

I just have to note that I find the approach taken by the government in this one to be quite demonstrative of the whole approach they've taken on this whole bill. From the very beginning we saw the Minister of Municipal Affairs go to great lengths to defend this legislation and deny that there was any power here given to municipalities to tax. Time after time in the Legislature and in front of this committee he said, "No, this does not allow the power to tax."

Despite the parliamentary assistant's best efforts to say, "This is just clarifying, not changing the intent," I think we all know that what happened between the time this legislation was put forward and today, or the time this amendment was tabled, is that the government came to realize that they were creating, at the very least, some confusion out there. But I think they realized they were in fact creating a situation in which municipalities not only were given the right under the original drafting of the legislation to impose a variety of taxes, but that some municipalities were actually about to use those powers. We heard from mayor after mayor who appeared in front of this committee saying they would be interested in those taxes. We heard from the mayor of Mississauga about her interest in the gas tax. We heard from others in terms of other taxes. I think the government realizes that they would be in a pretty embarrassing situation of having to deal with some municipalities imposing taxes and then them having to deal with whether they were going to allow those or not. Either way, they would be contradicting themselves.

I think it's been at least sensible that they've seen the error of their ways and brought us this amendment. It would have been far more appropriate for the minister from the very beginning to say, if the intent is not to levy these taxes, "We're prepared to amend the legislation to clear up any ambiguities," rather than to go through the façade of saying, "No, no, no, there's no need to make changes." Lo and behold, there was a need to make changes, which they themselves then recognized and came forward.

1230

I think again it speaks to the question of competence. It speaks to the issue of, does this government know what it's doing? Beyond all of the problems that they are causing, beyond all of the pain that they are imposing on the people of Ontario, I think we are also seeing them bungling and muddling through this major piece of legislation. It once again just makes the point about how crazy and inappropriate this whole process has been on some major changes, such as the ones that we're debating in front of us.

Mrs Caplan: For me the biggest concern I have is the process that we've undertaken and the way that we are attempting to discuss these. I am concerned not only about what is said but what's not said, what's undefined, and the lack of clarity in the answers coming from the ministry as to the effect of this.

I would just reference an article by that liberal newspaper, the Globe and Mail, and its most liberal of columnists, Terence Corcoran, who refers to "user fee madness." I found when I read this that it was all of the things we've said we're concerned about with this bill, and as a former municipal councillor I just think that people should be very concerned about the fact that they will be paying for more and receiving less, all in the name of generating a provincial income tax rate cut of 30%.

I think this government amendment as well is sufficient cause for the resignation of the minister. If you feel that you have to table this amendment in order to give assurance, clearly the concerns that were raised about whether or not Bill 26, as it stood, would permit all of those things that Minister Leach assured us it would not -- he said very clearly in the House that if he was proven wrong, he would resign. I think he should resign, because this amendment says he was wrong. I have no questions, frankly. I wanted to just get on the record and make that statement, because I think this amendment is an admission that Minister Leach didn't know what he was talking about, that he was absolutely wrong, that the concerns that were raised about the imposition of new taxes and fees at the municipal level, gas taxes and poll taxes and head taxes and so forth, were all legitimate concerns. This amendment proves that, and I think the minister should resign -- that is, if he has any integrity, he should resign.

Mr Sampson: I will obviously be supporting this amendment, although I'm not entirely convinced that it's necessary to be as explicit as is under this piece of legislation.

I do want to speak to the comment about other municipalities wanting to actively pursue this new avenue of revenue-raising that we are intending to grant to them. I remember -- and my colleagues across the floor frequently referred to this comment and this deputant over the course of the hearings. We did hear from the mayor of Mississauga, who, in spite of continuing questioning from Mr Phillips, while she did support this particular bill -- and I had to go back to Hansard to make sure of it, because I wanted to make sure that the residents of Mississauga weren't going to be terribly upset by her statement, but she did say that in spite of the cuts that she and her city were having to deal with, they were not intending to use the user fee component of this particular legislation to balance those cuts.

She did make a comment with respect to gas tax, where she thought it would be interesting, as she deals with the transportation issues, as all the mayors will have to deal with the interbureau and intercity and interregion transportation issues as the GTA issue unfolds, but with respect to balancing her budget, she was not going to be using additional user fees to balance that. She gave a rather interesting scenario of how she attempted -- without this legislation, by the way; in the current format, in her current authority -- to apply a user fee. I think the situation was to a ball park for use by one of the local baseball teams.

There was a significant amount of debate and concern raised as a result of the process she had to go through to do that. She of course has to implement a bylaw, and the bylaw in the city of Mississauga, like it is everywhere else, is a fully open debate process. As a result of trying to implement that user fee, she was presented with a number of concerns and issues, saying, "We can't pay it. But, Ms McCallion, what are you intending to use the money for?" "Well," she said, "obviously to pay for the maintenance of the parks." So the end result of that discussion was that instead of the groups paying for the use of the parks, they were prepared to ante up and help deliver some of the maintenance to the parks so that her objective was achieved and the objective of the people consuming the services was achieved, all without, by the way, I shall put to you, an additional user charge.

I do want to, though, hopefully clarify the issue that Mr Phillips still seems to be concerned about: Is there a potential to raise gas taxes through the licensing component? I do want to ask, Mr Chair, to Mr Hardeman, who I suspect will pass off to legal counsel, whether there is any particular meaning to the phrase "in the nature of," and I'll highlight, "a direct tax," and whether that has any particular meaning with respect to the Tax Act and the authority of the province to tax and its authority to pass on to municipalities to tax.

Mr Hardeman: Yes, I think we will ask the legal branch to answer that after I've answered it so they can correct me. But the wording of the "direct tax" is there written in as opposed to an indirect tax. The province has the ability and the authority to collect taxes of a direct nature. The federal government collects taxes of an indirect nature. The province cannot allow a local government to have more powers or to have broader jurisdiction than the province itself possesses. So it's put in there to make sure that everyone recognizes that only a direct tax or a direct revenue can be raised, the concern being that if someone was to put a process in place in a user fee situation that would be in the opinion of the courts an indirect tax, that would be considered inappropriate.

At that time, it is important from the provincial perspective that that would be an inappropriate action on behalf of the local municipality, not an inappropriate part of our bill that would then wipe out the other municipalities that had in good faith used this section of the bill. We would not want the courts to strike down the ability to put a user fee based on the inappropriateness of one municipality. So the definition of a "direct tax" or the implication of a direct tax is there to make sure that everyone recognizes that it cannot be put in the nature of an indirect tax.

Mr Gray: I agree with that entirely. The whole reason for the word "direct" is simply to make sure that if a municipal user fee bylaw is challenged, the provincial power for user fees of many municipalities across the province wouldn't potentially fall under a constitutional challenge at the same time.

Mr Sampson: Just so that I understand, an indirect tax is taxing somebody through some other mechanism or through some other transaction, is it not?

Mr Gray: In general terms, it's a tax that's passed through, passed on to somebody else. It isn't the ultimate consumer who's paying that tax.

Mr Sampson: Right. I think Mr Phillips's concern was, all right, we're allowing a municipality to perhaps license a gas station. But in the process of licensing the gas station, can it say your licence fee is a function of the number of litres you pump through your pump? I guess my answer to that is I don't think it can be. He was concerned that perhaps we'd left that door open. I think Mr Silipo had the same concern.

My answer to that is, I would have thought it's caught by, first of all, the "direct tax" phraseology in this section. Second, as I understand it, you can't impose a licence fee post-transaction. You must establish a licence fee today. It has to be either $1 or $10 today. You can't say, "All right, you were licensed last year, and this is your fee." Can you maybe help me out with that?

1240

Mr Gray: I think on the licensing side the phrase there is "may be in the nature of a tax" in the current legislation. The motion the government is proposing has yet to be debated, but it would limit that to something akin to cost recovery. So the net result is that on the licensing side, whatever fee you can impose certainly cannot be a tax, cannot raise more than actual costs the municipality is incurring.

Mr Sampson: That's, in my view, a third reason why you wouldn't be able to, as Mr Phillips has been concerned, replicate a gas tax, if I may, through the licensing provision of this particular bill.

Mr Gray: Yes.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'll come back to that one in a bit because I think that reopens the issue somewhat again.

Just to be quite clear here, what the government is saying -- and just a yes or a no -- is that you will allow the power to municipalities to charge a user fee on particular services. Basically, that's what you're doing here, right?

Mr Hardeman: The amendment we're discussing is an amendment to define what type of taxation or type of user fee would not be acceptable. The original bill that this amendment deals with is the broad section of allowing a broad range of user fees for municipal services.

Mr Bisson: But what this bill provides for is the ability for a municipality to charge a user fee in the form of a direct tax for services provided by the municipality to its residents. That's what this bill does, right? It gives the power to municipalities to charge more user fees than it does now, right?

Mr Hardeman: Yes.

Mr Bisson: I'm a bit of a history buff here, because I remember sitting in this Legislature from 1990 to 1995 when our government, the New Democratic government, made a move in order to be able to increase licensing fees charged by the provincial government -- not by municipal governments or any other governments, but by the government itself -- when it comes to getting everything from applications for different kinds of fees, permits, birth certificates etc. At that time the leader of the third party, who was Mr Harris -- and Mr Carr, who is the Chair here right now, was a member of that opposition party -- spoke vehemently in opposition to that.

In fact, what they said was that this was wrong-headed, that the government should not be charging any kind of additional licensing fee, any additional user fee, any additional tax, because that was in opposition to everything that they believed in as the Conservative Party of the day when it came to adding more money that the taxpayer had to pay. I guess the simple question I have is, what's happened? Why is it that three, four years ago, and up to even a year ago, the Conservative Party of Ontario was opposed to the provincial government or the municipal governments charging additional user fees and taxes, and upon taking government now you're giving the power to the municipality to increase user fees? I just wonder, what's changed, what's happened here? Is it a change in position?

Mr Hardeman: Prior to Bill 26, municipalities have a broad range of user fees that can be implemented. In fact, over on the desk I have a list that includes about three pages of items or things that can be charged for on behalf of municipalities for user fees. This bill takes that list and expands it or changes it to eliminate the list and say that municipalities are the elected officials closest to the people who are paying for the service and in fact whom the service is being provided for, and they should have the ability to make the decisions on which services they should be providing. They should also have the ability to make the decision on which services they should apply a user fee to, on behalf of their residents. So the change in the user fee section is to broaden the range and to give more local autonomy to the municipalities, which were elected to represent the people they represent.

Mr Bisson: But what you're telling me is that as a government, as the Harris government, what you're doing is giving the municipalities across Ontario the ability to charge new user fees, right? Yes or no?

Mr Hardeman: We're giving municipalities the ability to make decisions on which services they're presently providing they should provide a user fee for.

Mr Bisson: You don't want to be the bad guy, so you're saying to municipalities, "You can do this." In the long and the short of it, you're saying to municipalities, "You can charge new user fees." Yes or no? That's what the bill does, right?

Mr Hardeman: We're saying to municipalities, "You can charge user fees for services that you are providing." The need may very well be, for municipalities that presently have user fees on certain services, that they will take them off of those services and put them on others. I'm not suggesting that that's going to be a very prevalent action, but I think that's a possibility.

Mr Bisson: Will municipalities have the power under Bill 26 to charge new user fees?

Mrs Caplan: Yes.

Mr Hardeman: Yes.

Mr Bisson: Back three years ago, when the NDP government under Bob Rae increased licensing fees on the part of the government of Ontario through the services it provides through the registrar general's office, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Mines and others, the then leader of the third party, one Michael Harris, now Premier of this province, along with his entire caucus, stood in opposition to that principle that the NDP had put forward, which was an increase in licences to the people of this province whose service it provides as a government.

At that time Michael Harris, along with all of his Conservative members, said that's wrong, that the government shouldn't charge a tax, shouldn't charge new taxes and in fact a user fee was a tax. Right? Do you remember that? Was that the position of the Conservative Party three years ago?

Mr Hardeman: As you mentioned earlier, I was not one of those who was here.

Mr Bisson: I recognize that.

Mr Hardeman: As to actually remembering what was said, it is rather difficult. I would point out that the ability to raise money through user fees presently exists with municipalities.

Mr Bisson: That's right.

Mr Hardeman: The ability to raise all the money that is presently being discussed here would in fact -- theoretically, the ability to raise that user fee is there now on the list of items that are there. The ability that is being provided in this is for municipalities to make the decision as to the most appropriate services that they want to put user fees on.

Mr Bisson: Let me ask you this real simple question: Would you say that the position put forward under Bill 26 in regard to powers for municipalities in charging user fees is somewhat different than the position the Conservative Party took in opposition three years ago?

Mr Hardeman: I'm afraid I can't answer that because obviously that's a judgement call. I can speak to the amendment that we're speaking to, and this does provide the ability of municipalities to decide where to charge user fees on their services.

Mr Bisson: A last point and I'll let this go; I think I've made the point. It goes on to say in some of your own documentation called the Common Sense Revolution:

"Historically, municipalities have responded to provincial funding limits by simply increasing local property taxes. There may be numerous levels of government in this province, but there is only one level of taxpayer -- you."

The Conservative Party went on to say that they would make sure that no new taxes, and read my lips, this is what they said, no new taxes or user fees would be increased by this province, by their government or by municipalities as a result of their actions. Would you say that that commitment has now been broken?

Mr Hardeman: No. First of all, I would go back to the comment that was made earlier by Mr Sampson concerning the mayor of Mississauga. She appreciated the ability of municipalities to be able to look at the array of services that they are providing and where the most appropriate place was for user fees in that realm. She did not see the need to increase dramatically the user fees in the municipality in order to meet the reductions in payments. So, no, I do not agree with your statement.

Mrs McLeod: We're rapidly running out of time, and I think it's unfortunate that once again we can only really do one small part of the entire municipal section, because there is much more in the municipal section.

I find it fascinating that with all the discussion about flexibility and scope being given to the municipalities, as you look at the total number of parts of this bill that affect municipalities, the only one that really gives more flexibility is the one that gives them the flexibility to raise new user fees or taxes, as Mr Bisson and the rest of us have been stressing.

In many other areas of this bill, municipalities are going to be overseen by government in quite new ways, including the ability of government to set standards and hold municipalities accountable for meeting those standards.

I also suggest that as you cite evidence that has been given to this committee in hearings over the last three weeks that the mayor of Mississauga continues to be unique in many ways. I'm sure the citizens of Mississauga were reassured by fact that she was not going to raise user fees, but her presentation was somewhat unique and not typical of the presentations that you had from many other municipal representatives at this committee, which is why the amendment is before us and why, Mr Hardeman, you've indicated that the minister had to do something to clarify his intent.

1250

We will support it, obviously, but I have to tell you, we are nervous and we are going to be looking for continued answers. Mr Phillips's nervousness about whether or not you had successfully identified all the possible areas of taxation that municipalities might explore that you didn't intend them to explore, I think is quite justified, particularly when you and the minister -- and you're accurately reflecting what we've heard from the minister -- still say, "Well, we don't think the law really allows this, but the municipalities might think it allowed a gas tax or a poll or a sales tax, so just in case a municipality wants to do that, we'll put it in law that they can't do these five, and then we won't have to say no to them when they try and do it."

I guess the concern that we still have is, what did you think would happen if this had become law on December 14 or December 23, which was your government's very clear desire and intention; if it had become law and this amendment had never come forward and one of the other municipalities that was chomping at the bit to bring in a gas tax had put a gas tax in? Would you have thought that they would come to you, as the government, and you would say, "No, I'm sorry, municipality, you can't do a gas tax?" Do you have in this law now -- did you have then and do you have now, even with this amendment -- the power to say no to a municipality that wants to put in place a user fee or a tax which was not, and I quote you, "the government's intention for them to use"? Are we going to see the government challenging municipalities in court?

Mr Hardeman: The two questions, what would have happened if this bill had passed -- it would have not been as clear as to which user fees and how user fees could have been charged. It is the opinion of the government and the minister that the result would have been the same. This is an amendment to clarify, to make sure we do not end up with the challenges.

Mrs McLeod: I understand the intent of the government. I'm asking what power the government had then or has now to say no.

Mr Hardeman: At the end of the section there is the ability of the minister to, by regulation, regulate which user fees are appropriate and which ones are not appropriate. That was there prior and it's still there.

Mrs McLeod: So retroactively the government intends to say no to municipalities if they do something the government doesn't like.

Mr Hardeman: No. In the section of the user fees, it is not retroactive. It would have to be by regulation. By regulation, the minister can describe those user fees that would not be in the best interests of the provincial --

Mrs McLeod: So had this become law and a municipality had brought in a gas tax, as many were just waiting to do, that would have stayed in place, even if you had belatedly discovered you could do it and you regulated it not to be done?

Mr Hardeman: If you could repeat the question, Ms McLeod, because I --

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman and Mr Hardeman, I'll just let it stand. I know we had asked if we could move on to another section. We're just ultimately running out of time, so we're prepared to support the amendment. We can vote on it, hoping there might be just a little bit of time to touch on schedule Q.

Mr Silipo: Very briefly, because I agree, if we can find time to get to something else before the infamous 1 o'clock deadline strikes, I'd appreciate that. But I have to say to members of the government, I continue to worry about the comfort that they are taking in the words "direct tax," which remain in this part of the bill.

I just point out to them that they should take a look at the analysis that we were given by -- and I apologize for not remembering the name, but there was an article written by a law professor who looked at this issue and he described very clearly that the words "direct tax," as I read it, meant in fact a whole array of taxes, income taxes etc, some of which clearly you are prohibiting through this amendment. But you're still creating a conflict, it seems to me, between saying you can't on the one hand apply these taxes and leaving in the section here that still has the words "direct tax," although I appreciate that you're taking that out of another subsection of the bill.

Again, it speaks to the problems that I think we're going to see coming out of this legislation, given the hurried way in which we are dealing with this and the government's insistence on dealing with it in this kind of haphazard and hurried way.

The Chair: No further discussion on the amendment? Shall the government amendment on page 262 carry? All those in favour?

Opposed?

The amendment carries.

Whose was the next choice for the last three minutes?

Mrs McLeod: We had asked to move to the last schedule, skipping everything that comes in between where we were and the very end. This is the schedule, and I can read the summary. It's a very short schedule, but basically, as described in the bill, it amends the Fire Departments Act, the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, the Police Services Act, the Public Service Act and the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act to require arbitrators to consider specified criteria, including the employer's ability to pay.

Mr Chair, I would ask for your direction. We have not proposed amendments to this section. We believe that the entire section needs some debate and that's why we have moved to this section. Is it appropriate to debate then?

The Chair: Basically, Mrs McLeod, we have two minutes. So however you want to use the two minutes is your choice.

Mrs McLeod: I will speak then to our concerns with schedule Q. It's one of those things that the government might have thought would escape people's notice when it introduced it at the tail end of this omnibus bill that carries so many other issues along with it. But in fact, as people who've sat on the subcommittees will know, this is an issue that has been raised over and over again.

This particular schedule, to the best of our knowledge, is absolutely unprecedented, although it is possible that there was something similar to this that might have been brought in with wage control legislation when wages were being controlled. We believe that this is wage control by any other name because of the effect that this will have on collective bargaining.

If there were time I would cite from the firefighters, who made presentation after presentation expressing their outrage that the government, whose members had said repeatedly, from Mr Harris to Ms Witmer to Mr Runciman, that they would make no changes to the firefighters act without full consultation with the firefighters. I would share with you their outrage that this very fundamental change was made with no consultation at all.

I would also tell you that there was no consultation whatsoever with arbitrators, the very people who are expected to fulfil the requirements of this schedule; no consultation at all with arbitrators. All of the questions that this sets up remain. How does an arbitrator determine what is the "ability to pay"? Municipalities have said, "Just take our word for it." Is that the direction in this schedule? Are they expected then to look at the level of service that is delivered? Are arbitrators, independent of elected officials, now going to be the ones who decide what level of service will be provided, whether it's in firefighting or police services or collective bargaining or the public services of the government? Is that what "other criteria including the ability to pay" is going to mean?

I suggest, furthermore, that this very schedule shows such a blatant disregard for the collective bargaining process that it is absolutely breathtaking, and because we only have seconds, I can only say that I believe that to set aside collective bargaining rights of these groups in one fell swoop can only be seen as the clearest indication of government bad faith in wanting to deal with those who have won these collective bargaining rights over the years.

The Chair: As per the order from the House that we are operating under, it is now 1 o'clock, and:

"At 1 pm on January 26, 1996, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 128(a)."

Mr Silipo: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I just want to ask whether in fact it would make a difference to the government members in terms of proceeding with this to know that, as we speak, there is a peaceful occupation of the Premier's constituency office which is taking place by, it's interesting to note, a variety of citizens, including members of OPSEU, people from the environmental communities, a 75-year-old preacher and a number of other people, all of whom are concerned that the process we've followed has been far from adequate and all of whom are asking that more time be allowed for more debate and more discussion on this very important bill. I thought that might have some impact on --

1300

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Silipo. That is not a point of order.

The beginning place for this is schedule E, amendments to the Capital Investment Plan Act, 1993, and the Highway Traffic Act relating to highway tolls. We will deal with the amendments first. The first amendment is an NDP amendment to subsection 1(1).

Ms Lankin: Excuse me. What page are you on?

Mrs McLeod: Just give us a fighting chance to start at the right place, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Page 11.

Mrs McLeod: Page 11.

Mr Clement: Of the amendments.

Mrs McLeod: Oh. Thank you very much.

The Chair: All those in favour?

Ms Lankin: Just a second. I haven't even got to the page, Mr Chair. I know you're certainly anxious, but, you know --

Mr Silipo: Aren't you going to read this, Mr Chair?

The Chair: By virtue of the fact that they're deemed to have been moved, they're also deemed to have been read.

Mr Silipo: Okay. So you won't have to read them again --

Mrs Caplan: Now, when you say page 11, is that page 11 of the printed bill or page 11 --

The Chair: Page 11 of the amendments.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, there are pages where the amendments have been renumbered, as you know, including at the nth hour. It is virtually impossible for anybody to have renumbered all of these pages, so if you could at least give us some indication of what we're dealing with, it would be helpful.

The Chair: As we go through, we will try to avoid any confusion.

Shall this NDP amendment carry?

Interjections.

The Chair: Are we requesting --

Mr Silipo: Recorded votes throughout. I think we can make the request once, Mr Chair, so we don't have to --

The Chair: Okay. We'll have to defer the vote on that till the end.

Mr Silipo: No.

Mrs Caplan: Why?

The Chair: The standing order. Any divisions requested have to be deferred to the end, which means that when we get through this process, we will then have to come back and redo them all.

Mrs McLeod: All right.

Mr Silipo: Well, that's interesting.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, what are the time lines for the committee? I'm curious to know.

The Chair: Pardon?

Mrs McLeod: In the time lines for the committee, then it must adjourn at 6 o'clock?

The Chair: No. This evening we stay until we finish.

Mrs McLeod: All right.

Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, what would it require for us to simply have recorded votes as we go along?

The Chair: According to the order on which we are operating -- we cannot contravene it -- any requested divisions have to be deferred until the end.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, I'm sorry, but what is the order that we're operating under other than the standing order of the committee?

The Chair: We're operating under the order from the House.

Mrs McLeod: That order specifies?

The Chair: Specifies very clearly, and I just read it.

Mrs Caplan: Unbelievable.

Mrs McLeod: So that was the fine print of the Finance minister's agreement?

The Chair: I don't know whose fine print it was, but it is --

Mrs Caplan: That effectively does not allow any --

Interjection.

The Chair: Excuse me. This is the standing order that everybody has been aware of from the beginning, and that is what we're obligated to operate under.

Mrs Janet Ecker (Durham West): Your House leader agreed.

Mrs Caplan: Oh, please. We never agreed to that standing order.

Mrs McLeod: This is ludicrous.

Mrs Caplan: We never agreed to that time allocation motion. We voted against it, Ms Ecker. Tell the truth, finally.

The Chair: Mrs Caplan.

Mrs Caplan: We never agreed to that crap.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, could you just agree to explain to anybody --

Mrs Caplan: I just can't stand it when you sit there and don't tell the truth.

Mrs McLeod: -- exactly what is achieved by having the --

Mrs Caplan: We never agreed to that. Our House leader never agreed to that.

The Chair: I will again read the standing order that was passed in the Legislature under which we are obligated to perform:

"At 1 pm on January 26, 1996, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 128(a)."

Mrs McLeod: Let's start and just routinely call the numbers from 1 to 359, Mr Chair.

The Chair: We cannot deviate from that order.

Mrs McLeod: Well, we're dividing on them all, so just read the numbers.

Mrs Caplan: Effectively you can't divide.

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, the bizarre outcome of what's been a very, very bizarre process from day one, of that particular order that you've just read, is that if the opposition wants to have a recorded vote, wants to have recorded in Hansard the numbers and the individuals who voted on any given amendment -- because there are some amendments that we will support that the government has put forward; I suspect, given the track record, there will be no amendments that the opposition's put forward that the government will support -- if we want to have a Hansard-recorded vote, what you're saying is that we have to let you read 1 through 350, whatever amendments there are, in which we say we divide on each of them, and you defer each of them, and then we start at the beginning and we go all the way through and do recorded votes on them.

The Chair: You can choose specific ones. You can have an unrecorded vote on some and choose specific ones you would want to have a division on.

Ms Lankin: If it is in fact the opposition's desire, as is our right, as I think would be expected by people in this circumstance, given the importance of this and all that we have gone through, that we would have recorded votes, the result of your interpretation of the ruling is that we will have to go from 1 through 350 telling you that we want a recorded vote, and then go through 1 through 350. I suggest we won't even be done by midnight tonight if we proceed in that way.

So far, you've told us that we've deemed that they've all been moved and we've deemed that they've all been debated, we've deemed that they've all been read into the record. We're doing a lot of deeming, so let's deem one more time. Let's deem that they have all been read and divided on and deferred and now called back. Let's get unanimous agreement to deem that they have all had a division requested on each one, deferred and now called back.

Mrs Caplan: Agreed.

The Chair: Unfortunately --

Mr Silipo: That we can do with agreement, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Basically, you people who have been here a long time know more about this than I do, but we are not allowed, as a committee, to deviate from the order of the House. If you require a recorded division on any of these particular amendments or sections, it is deferred till the end. We cannot change that.

Ms Lankin: To my point, Mr Chair, let me try one more time. I'll wait until you finish getting your advice.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chair, if it makes you more comfortable, why not just say, "Carried? No. Division, put to the end"? That would only take a few moments, less time than it will take to consult.

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, just before you continue your consultation, I had the floor. Could I try one more time to make a suggestion to you?

I respect the rules. Because I have chaired enough events over the course of the years -- organizations, boards, Robert's Rules of Order, parliamentary rules of order -- I also understand that the role of the Chair is to facilitate both the abiding to the rules and the wishes of the committee.

Let's not take the letter of the law to a point of absurdity. We have deemed a number of things. Let's deem that a division has been requested. We've deemed that all the amendments are put, that they've all been read in and that there will be no debate. Let's deem that all the amendments have been put to this committee and deem that a division has been requested on each one. That now brings you back to the point of going through them to take a recorded vote. I would hope that's a helpful suggestion.

The Chair: Is everybody in favour of --

Mrs Caplan: Agreed.

Mr Silipo: Yes.

The Chair: We now are obligated to take a recorded vote on every single amendment, every single --

Ms Lankin: That's right. I'm glad that when people actually take the time to listen to me, they find I can make some constructive suggestions. If you'd had one more week on the bill, I could have done miracles with Bill 26.

The Chair: All those in favour of the New Democratic amendment to schedule E, page 11?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 1(1.1), page 11A.

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson.

1310

The Chair: The next motion is a Liberal motion to subsection 1(2).

Mr Maves: Mr Chair, just a quick point of order: Is it possible to do the same vote for some of these if consecutively --

The Chair: If that's the committee's wish.

Mr Maves: So it'll be a recorded vote but members opposite could say "Same vote" for themselves and we could say "Same vote."

Mrs McLeod: Assuming that it is. There actually may be some amendments we intend to support.

Mr Maves: There could be changes. That's right.

The Chair: Ms Lankin, on the same point of order?

Ms Lankin: It's a question, a procedural question. I think Mr Maves is trying to make a suggestion to facilitate the process and the timing of it and make it a little bit easier on the clerk so he doesn't have to read our names out every time. I'm not opposed to that, but I just wondered, in this world of deeming democracy, if we deemed that in fact every opposition motion was one in which the opposition members were voting in favour and the government members were voting against, and we deemed that every -- it's a question -- government motion that we've seen so far is one that the opposition members are going to vote against and the government members are going to vote in favour, does that mean we could deem that this process is over at this particular time of the day?

The Chair: I believe, if that is the wish of the committee, we could --

Interjections.

The Chair: The current information available to me suggests that particular option is not available to us.

Ms Lankin: Deem it to be an option available, Mr Chair.

Mrs Caplan: This is Harris democracy in action.

Interjections.

The Chair: So have we agreed to same vote?

Mr Maves: What happens when you have someone leave the room? We have to take that vote again.

Interjections.

The Chair: Have we agreed to same vote?

Ms Lankin: We can only do that if people are actually in the room.

Interjections.

Mrs Caplan: We wouldn't want to waste your time in this kingdom of democratic freedoms. We wouldn't want to slow you down at all. We can deem it all. Forget the votes.

The Chair: The Liberal amendment to subsection 1(2). All those in favour?

Interjection: Same vote.

The Chair: Mr Young was not in the room before; it can't be same vote.

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Young.

The Chair: The motion is defeated.

The next motion is on page 11C. It's a government amendment to subsection 1(3).

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Chair: On the government amendments, there may be some in this bill that I could support, but without an explanation from the government, I am afraid I will be unavailable to do that.

The Chair: There can be no explanations.

The government amendment to subsection 1(3).

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

The Chair: The motion carries.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment, subsection 1(3).

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Young.

The Chair: The next is a government amendment to the same section.

Mrs Caplan: Can I request an explanation of this?

The Chair: Mrs Caplan, we can have no explanations, no debates on any of the amendments. We're putting the questions. That is all we're doing.

Mrs Caplan: I'm not allowed to ask a question?

The Chair: You're not allowed to ask any questions.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chair, just so I can clarify it a little, and I will ask just for a clarification, the interpretation of there being no amendment and no debate, which were the words that you read to us from the order directing the committee, no debate is interpreted to mean that there can't even be a statement as to what amendment is before the committee?

The Chair: That is right.

Mrs Caplan: And no questions at all?

The Chair: No questions.

Mrs McLeod: Is that an interpretation or a standing order, Mr Chair?

The Chair: No questions, no debate. That is my interpretation of the order.

It's the government amendment to subsection 1(3). All those in favour?

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chair, could I just then ask, are there precedents for other interpretations of that?

The Chair: Not that I'm aware of.

On subsection 1(3), the government amendment?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod.

The Chair: That amendment is carried.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 1(3).

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Young.

The Chair: The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to the same section, subsection 1(3).

Mrs Ecker: Can you keep doing the page numbers, please, if that's all right?

The Chair: Page 13. All those in favour?

Mr Sampson: Same vote.

The Chair: I'm a little confused. Are we doing the same vote? People keep coming in and out of the room. Are we agreeing to same vote and same vote reversed? Is that basically the process you want to follow? I'm at your disposal. You tell me how we want to do this.

Mr Maves: It has to be consecutive that we're going to vote or they're going to vote in the same manner, but when it's consecutive, we can call same vote as long as our members and the members opposite stay in the room. As soon as they don't, like Mr Silipo's left, I believe you have to read them out. Whatever is easiest for you, Mr Chair. Whichever way you want to do this.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chair, I believe Mr Maves is right.

The Chair: Same vote and same vote reversed?

Mrs McLeod: No --

Ms Lankin: As long as the membership of the committee remains the same. If someone exits the room, on that vote you will have to do a read and then you can proceed with same vote. But you do have to accurately record people in the room and out of the room. We can't deem Mr Tascona and Mr Silipo to be in the room at this point in time.

The Chair: It's rather difficult for me to keep track of who's in and who's not in, so I would suggest we just take every vote.

On the Liberal amendment to subsection 1(3).

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Young.

The Chair: That amendment is defeated. The next one is a government amendment to subsection 1(3).

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod.

Mrs McLeod: I again wanted to save the need of calling out the names every time. The purpose of a recorded vote obviously is so that each of us is on record. Those who aren't in the room don't want to be on record because they haven't had that privilege. But I think we could manage that. The whip for the government side could call for same vote or say no. We can do the same thing. We'll look after whether our members are here or not.

Ms Lankin: Don't worry about it.

The Chair: Okay.

The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 1(3). Same vote? The amendment's carried.

The next amendment is a New Democratic Party amendment to subsection 1(3). Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next is an NDP amendment to subsection 1(4). Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next is an NDP amendment to subsection 1(5). Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment to subsection 1(8).

Ms Lankin: Wait, wait, wait.

Mr Maves: Page 19, I make it.

The Chair: Page 19.

Mr Maves: Page 18 was a replacement, by the one that was voted on.

The Chair: Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 1, as amended, carry? All those in favour?

Interjections: Carried.

The Chair: All those opposed?

Clerk Pro Tem (Mr Todd Decker): Mrs McLeod, Mrs Caplan, Ms Lankin.

The Chair: If we're going to have the same vote, you need to tell me.

Okay, all those in favour of section 1 carrying, as amended?

Interjections: Carried.

Mrs Caplan: No.

Mrs McLeod: I thought the vote had been taken and defeated.

Mr Clement: Carried. Same vote.

The Chair: I'm going to have to ask for a little bit of help here. If you want the same vote, you have to indicate to the Chair that you want the same vote. I'm not a mind reader.

Interjection: He did, Mr Chair.

The Chair: But he didn't say it the first time around.

Mr Clement: I'm sorry. I had Bart in my ear.

The Chair: So section 1, as amended, is the same vote?

Mrs McLeod: Frances, was your amendment, the last one, defeated?

Interjections.

Mrs Caplan: That should've been the same vote for hers. Would you like to reopen it?

Mr Sampson: Yes.

Mrs Caplan: I don't think you can in this process.

Mr Sampson: Mr Chairman, if I can roll back the procedure, you called the vote, asked for the opposing; you didn't call for the affirmatives.

Mr Clement: He said, "Are you carrying section 1, as amended?" And I said carried.

The Chair: But nobody said same vote.

Mrs Caplan: That's right.

Mr Sampson: No, no. You called, Mr Chair, for the vote. You got the negative and then you looked over here for the affirmative and we had our hands up.

Mrs Caplan: Check Hansard. You guys just blew it.

The Chair: I really do think the easiest process -- because nobody seems to be too intent on cooperating on the same vote thing -- is let's just call the votes.

Ms Lankin: Did you say no one is intent on cooperating? We've been quite intent on cooperating.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Ms Lankin.

Let's go back to section 1. Shall section 1, as amended, carry?

Mrs Caplan: I want you to know it's been done. You can't reopen.

Mr Sampson: No, it hasn't. He called the vote.

Mr Clement: I said "Carried."

Interjection: We all said "Carried."

1320

The Chair: Shall section 1, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod.

Section 1, as amended, shall carry.

Ms Lankin: He deems the first vote incorrect.

The Chair: Section 2, the first amendment is an NDP amendment to subsection 2(3). Shall the amendment carry?

Mrs Caplan: Same vote reversed.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment to subsection 2(3) is an NDP amendment. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment to subsection 2(3) is an NDP amendment. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsections (2), (8) and (9). Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 2 carry? The same vote reversed? Okay, thank you.

Shall section 3 carry? Same vote. Section 3 carries.

Shall schedule E carry as amended? Same vote?

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, are you prohibited by order, even when an entire schedule passes, from reading the name of the schedule?

The Chair: I read it at the beginning, Mrs McLeod.

Schedule E carried as amended. We now move to schedule F, the health services restructuring act. Page 33C, a Liberal amendment to subsection --

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, you indicated to me when I asked about the reading of the name of schedule E that you had done that at the beginning. You have not done that for schedule F.

The Chair: Sorry, Mrs McLeod. I will go back and do that.

Mrs McLeod: I would further request that as you read the name of the schedule you also indicate the acts this is amending, and in the case of schedule F, because there is a prelude in Bill 26 that sets out the number of acts amended by a single schedule and indicates some of the most important features set out below, that you at least give some idea of what it is we're dealing with, because I know from that point on we'll have no idea.

The Chair: Schedule F is the health services restructuring act.

Mrs McLeod: And amends --

The Chair: Mrs McLeod, I'd just as soon you allowed me to do this the way I'm instructed to do it, please.

The amendment we're dealing with is a Liberal amendment on page 33C. It amends subsection 6(8). Shall the amendment carry? Everybody is supporting it? Okay. So we need to record the vote then, right?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, McLeod, Sampson, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

Shall section 6, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod.

The Chair: Section 6, as amended, carries.

The next amendment we have not dealt with is on page 36D, an amendment to subsection 9.1(2). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

Shall section 8, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod.

The Chair: Section 8, as amended, carries.

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, on a point of order: We're coming up to some sections of -- I'm not sure if I can say it, or if you'll allow me that latitude -- the Public Hospitals Act and some other sections under schedules F and G for which I had tabled questions with the ministry and have not received the answer as of this point in time.

The Chair: At this particular point in this process, that is not a point of order.

Ms Lankin: It was raised by Mrs McLeod two days ago for you to provide us with a list of outstanding questions that had been tabled that had not yet been answered. I've yet to receive that information from you; you'd undertaken to do that. There are specific sections coming up for which I had tabled questions and have not received answers from the ministry.

1330

The Chair: In this process we're in right now, that is not a point of order.

Ms Lankin: I have to vote on these amendments without having had any explanation, any opportunity to debate, any opportunity to ask questions other than tabled questions that I have properly tabled. Now, I have to assume my request for that information has been refused. I have not been given the answers to my questions.

The Chair: On a point of order, Mrs McLeod?

Mrs McLeod: Yes, it is a point or order. Mr Chairman, I would suggest to you that a point of order can interrupt the proceedings at any point, which is what this point of order is doing.

The Chair: This particular point of order that Ms Lankin raised is not in order. Have you got another point of order?

Mrs McLeod: As the individual who tabled the question, I do have a point of order in asking when my question will be responded to. When we reach the end of this farcical process we're currently involved in, Mr Chairman, you will declare, according to the absolute letter of the order from Mr Eves, that this process is now at an end. The last time I waited courteously until the end of something before I made a point of order was when Mr Eves was delivering his financial statement and I waited to make the point of order that a bill had been introduced into the House without our knowledge. I'm not prepared to wait until the end of this farce to find out when our unanswered questions will be answered.

The Chair: Mrs McLeod, in this process, that is not a point of order.

Mrs McLeod: Then our questions will go unanswered until some foreseeable time in the future --

The Chair: My only position is, it's not a point of order.

Sections 9 through 12 were previously carried.

Page 41, an NDP amendment to subsection 13(3). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment, subsection 13(3), is an NDP amendment on page 42. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 13(3). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 13(4). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is also a Liberal amendment to subsection 13(4). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 13, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod.

The Chair: Section 13, as amended, is carried.

Section 14; the first amendment is a government amendment to subsection 44(1.1). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

The next amendment is a government amendment to subsections 44(3) and 44(4). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is carried.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsections 44(3.1) and (3.2). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 14, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, as you know, I was out of the room for a few minutes. I just wanted to know how many Liberal or NDP amendments were passed by the committee during my absence.

The Chair: I guess you'll just have to go back and count them, Mr Silipo.

The next section is section 15. There are no amendments. Shall section 15 carry? Same vote? Section 15 carries.

Shall section 16 carry? Same vote?

Section 17. The first amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 15.1(1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 15.1(2). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is carried.

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, I appreciate that you're trying to move this through quickly, but I am trying to quickly scan the amendments. On a couple of them I have not been able to do that, and it's forcing me into a position of a presumption of voting against every government motion. I ask you to take a look and make sure we're all with you and not go quite as steamrollerish, if that's an appropriate adjective. What number are you on now?

The Chair: The next amendment is a government amendment, 45C(ii). It's an amendment to subsection 15.4(1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote?

Mrs Caplan: We're prepared to support this one.

Ms Lankin: I don't have 45C(ii). That's why I was flipping through. Would you give me one moment?

Mrs Caplan: This is the notice of intention to revoke a licence. They brought that in at the last minute.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, McLeod, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to section 15.4, 45D. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment does not carry.

Shall section 17, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 17 shall carry.

Section 18. There's a government amendment, to subsection 18(3) on page 46. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, McLeod, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

Shall section 18, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 18, as amended, carries.

Section 19. There's a Liberal amendment, 47A, to subsection 19(2). Shall the amendment carry?

Ms Lankin: Was 47 withdrawn?

Mr Clement: Yes, 47 was withdrawn.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? Unanimous. Can we get away with that? Can we agree that I just say --

1340

Mrs Caplan: Can we have a recorded vote?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, McLeod, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

Shall section 19, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Johns, Hardeman, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 19, as amended, carries.

Section 20. There's a government amendment 47A(i) to subsections (4), (5) and (6). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, McLeod, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

The second amendment I believe is a new section. It's an NDP addition, page 48. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 20, as amended, carry? Same vote? Section 20, as amended, carries.

Section 21. There is a Liberal amendment to section 5. Shall the Liberal amendment carry? Same vote, reversed? The amendment does not carry.

Shall section 21 carry? Same vote?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 21 carries.

Section 22. There's a New Democratic Party amendment to subsection 22(2), page 49. Shall the amendment carry?

Ms Lankin: This is a good one. This says you've got to be Canadian-owned, you've got to be not-for-profit. You've got to support this one.

The Chair: Same vote?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The second is a Liberal amendment -- addition of section 6. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 22 carry? Same vote, reversed? Section 22 carries.

Section 23. The first amendment is a government amendment to clauses 7(6)(a) and (b) --

Mr Young: Could you tell us the page number, Mr Chair?

Mrs Caplan: That's unreasonable. You're not allowed to ask that question.

The Chair: Page 50A(i). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, McLeod, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment's carried unanimously.

Ms Lankin: Doesn't it feel good that we're all supporting this issue together?

Mrs Caplan: Do they know what we're doing?

Ms Lankin: Do they know what we're voting on?

The Chair: The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 7(11). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? Unanimous. Two in a row. The amendment carries unanimously.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 7(11). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to sections 7 and 8. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote?

The next amendment is a government amendment to clauses --

Mrs Caplan: Would you slow down a minute? I want to check this one over and see if it's what I think it is. Since I can't ask a question about it, at least can I read it?

The Chair: Page 51B(i). It's a government amendment.

Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, McLeod, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 8(7).

Ms Lankin: Just to make sure that I'm back in sync here, this is 52?

The Chair: No, 51B(ii).

Mrs Caplan: If I could ask a question on this one, I would support it. But as I read it, it's impossible to know what it does. I think it's okay, but I'm not sure it's good.

The Chair: Have you come across it there, Ms Lankin?

Ms Lankin: No.

Mr Clement: This is a replacement motion we filed yesterday.

Ms Lankin: Yes, I know.

Mrs Caplan: I'd just like to ask one question about it.

The Chair: It's 51B(ii).

Ms Lankin: I've gone one past it.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, have you considered putting a test question at any point just to see if everybody knew what they just voted on?

The Chair: The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 8(9), page 51B(iii). Shall the amendment carry?

Mr Clement: Same vote, please.

Mrs Caplan: No, this one we'll support.

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, McLeod, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

The next amendment is the Liberal amendment to subsection 8(9), page 52A.

Mrs Caplan: This is our motion.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? No?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a government amendment, adding section 8.1, page 52A(i).

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, this is this long. Just give me a second to scan it.

Mrs Caplan: It's two pages, Frances; there's a second page.

Mrs McLeod: This is another of the ones tabled at 4 o'clock yesterday.

The Chair: Shall the government amendment, adding section 8.1, carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, McLeod, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

Shall section 23, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 23, as amended, carries.

Shall section 24 carry? Same vote?

Section 24 carries.

Section 25. There is a government amendment, subsection 10(4), page 53.

Shall the government amendment carry? Same vote.

Shall section 25, as amended, carry?

1350

Mrs Caplan: Just a minute. I'm going to refer to the bill so I can see which sections are being struck out.

A point of order, Mr Chairman: What I find interesting is my understanding that a motion that says a section of the bill be struck out without replacing it with something is ruled out of order and that you just vote against that section. Technically, I think that's correct, so I think the government's motion is out of order.

The Chair: I don't think we're at that one yet, Mrs Caplan. Are you at the one ahead?

Mrs Caplan: Section 26?

The Chair: No. We're still at 25.

Mrs McLeod: Could you give us a page number for the amendment we're voting on?

Interjections.

The Chair: Basically, the question I asked is, shall section 25 carry? We've already voted on the amendment.

Mr Silipo: You said no.

Mrs Caplan: I thought we did that already.

The Chair: Shall section 25 carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 25 carries, as amended.

On section 26 there is a government amendment.

Mrs Caplan: Point of order: It's out of order.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Caplan. The government amendment is out of order. The way to deal with that issue is to vote against it.

There are no amendments to section --

Ms Lankin: This is one for the cameras. Government members are going to be voting against a whole section of their own bill.

Mrs Caplan: This is one that there was no presentation on. You made a mistake.

The Chair: Shall section 26 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed?

Ms Lankin: It's defeated unanimously.

Mrs Caplan: That's right. Unanimous defeat of a government section.

The Chair: I said, shall section 26 carry, and everybody said no.

Mrs Caplan: We can't even ask a question about this one. The government is voting against a whole section of their own legislation.

The Chair: Mrs Caplan.

Mr Clement: Mrs Caplan, I cannot hear the Chair when you yell in my ear like that.

Mrs Caplan: I'm not yelling in your ear; I'm yelling at this.

Mr Clement: It sounds just like it. I know you're 30 feet away, but it feels like you're --

Interjections.

The Chair: Shall section 26 carry?

Mrs McLeod: We just defeated it unanimously.

The Chair: Well, there was some confusion about what we were doing here.

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, McLeod, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: There are no amendments to sections 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31. Shall sections 27 through 31 carry?

Ms Lankin: What if there are some that I want to vote in favour of and some I want to vote against, Mr Chair?

The Chair: We can take them one at a time, if you choose to.

Ms Lankin: I don't choose to; I just wanted to know if I had that option.

The Chair: Shall sections 27 through 31 carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

The Chair: Sections 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 are carried.

Section 32 has a government amendment, page 55.

Mrs Caplan: Just a second.

Ms Lankin: One moment, please.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

Shall section 32, as amended, carry? Same vote? Section 32, as amended, carries.

Section 33. There is a government amendment to subsection 33(3) on page 56. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

Shall section 33, as amended, carry? Same vote? Section 33, as amended, carries.

Section 34. The first amendment is a government amendment to subsection 37.1(1) on page 57. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, McLeod, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

The second amendment is a government amendment to subsection 37.1(4). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment carries unanimously.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to section 37.1. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 37.2(1) on page 59C. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment to subsections 37(1), (2), (3) and (4). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 34, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 34, as amended, carries.

Section 35. The first amendment is a government amendment adding section 38, on page 62A.

Ms Lankin: If everyone else is going to be immune to prosecution, the College of Physicians and Surgeons may as well be.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, McLeod, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

Next is a government amendment to section 38 on page 63. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote?

Ms Lankin: Just a second, please. I'm not sure that I agree with that.

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

Shall section 35, as amended, carry? Same vote? Section 35, as amended, carries.

Shall section 36 carry? Same vote? Section 36 carries.

1400

Section 37: There is a government amendment to subsection 38.2(2) on page 64. Shall the government amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, McLeod, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

Shall section 37, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 37, as amended, carries.

Section 38: The first amendment is a government amendment to subsection 38(1) and subsection 42(1) on page 65. Shall the government amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 38(1), paragraph 1.2 of subsection 42(1). Shall the amendment carry?

Mrs Johns: That was withdrawn, I think.

Mrs Caplan: Would you tell us the page number --

The Chair: Page 67.

Mrs Caplan: I think we did that already.

The Chair: The next amendment we consider is the government amendment to subsection 38(4), paragraph 19.1 of subsection 42(1) on page 67. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote?

Mr Clement: I don't know. What was the same vote last time?

Interjection: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Silipo.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 38(4.1), paragraph 21 of subsection 42(1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote?

Interjection: Same vote on our side.

Mrs Caplan: Could you hold for just a minute? We're voting against it.

The Chair: Okay. Same vote?

Mrs Caplan: Same vote.

Interjection: Same vote on our side.

Ms Lankin: Same vote.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 38(5), paragraphs 31 and 32 of subsection 42(1). Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour?

Clerk of the Committee (Mr Todd Decker): Mr Maves, Mr Clement, Ms Ecker, Mr Sampson, Mr Tascona, Mr Hardeman, Mr Young, Ms Johns, Ms Lankin, Mr Silipo.

The Chair: All those opposed?

Clerk of the Committee: Mr Phillips, Mrs McLeod, Mrs Caplan.

Mrs Caplan: Mr Phillips just arrived. Could you tell him which one we're at, please?

The Chair: Yes. That amendment is carried. We're on page 69A of your binder, Mr Phillips.

Mrs Caplan: Is it a Liberal amendment?

Interjection: No, 69.

Mrs Caplan: Well, he said 69A. I want to make sure we know which one we're voting on.

The Chair: We've just finished voting for 69. We're now going to 69A.

Mrs Caplan: Okay. We voted in support of 69. Is that correct?

The Chair: That wasn't what we took, no.

Mrs Caplan: Could I ask that we --

The Chair: We took it that you voted against 69.

Mrs Caplan: No. We'd like to vote in support of that.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, my hand was clearly up in support of 69.

Mrs Caplan: Could you just take a moment, take a breath and let's do this right.

Mr Clement: We'll let him redo that, sure.

The Chair: The request has been made to revote because of confusion. Mr Phillips, coming into the room you've caused mass confusion.

Interjections.

Mr Phillips: Turn the TV off.

Mrs McLeod: The good news is that when you get confused you get to do it over again.

Interjections.

Mrs McLeod: If you get confused enough you get a second chance.

The Chair: Okay. Let's go back and redo page 69, which is a government amendment to subsection 38(5), paragraphs 31 and 32.

Mrs Caplan: I think this is what was recommended by the privacy commissioner.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, McLeod, Phillips, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

The next amendment, on page 69A, is a Liberal amendment to subsection 38(5), paragraphs 31, 32 and 33 of subsection 42(1).

Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a New Democratic Party amendment to subsection 38(5), paragraphs 31, 32, and 33 of subsection 42(1), on page 70.

Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, was that amendment that we just voted on in order? Would you look at it?

Mrs Caplan: No, it wasn't, but that's okay. Just keep going. The next one's out of order. I'll call the government's amendments out of order; I won't call yours out.

Ms Lankin: After we voted on it, I just wondered if was even in order.

Mrs Caplan: No, it was out of order.

Ms Lankin: What do you think?

Mr Clement: It's the Chair's call.

Mrs Caplan: You want to bet? Want to bet, lawyer? The Chair technically should not accept anything that's out of order, and if he does, that doesn't make it in order; it makes it a mistake.

The Chair: I guess on that basis, the Chair made a mistake.

Ms Lankin: I expected you to call it out of order, that's all.

The Chair: In view of the previous vote, it was, yes.

Mrs Caplan: They're not only mistakes. In fact, the one before that was a mistake, too. We'll just see how many mistakes we rush through here and maybe that will --

The Chair: The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 38(6), subsection 42(5).

Mrs Caplan: Which one are you at now?

The Chair: Ms Caplan, if you would listen instead of talking, you'd know which one we're on.

Mrs Caplan: If you'd go a little slower --

The Chair: We're on page 71.

Mrs Caplan: That's out of order, Mr Chair.

Mrs McLeod: We thought you had ruled it out of order, Mr Chairman, which is why we're surprised you're calling a vote on it.

Mrs Caplan: Another mistake?

The Chair: The Chair sees no reason why that particular amendment's out of order.

Ms Lankin: If I may, I'm not at all trying to be disruptive, but I would like to make sure that we have consistent rulings. This is an amendment which just simply strikes out sections of the bill and does not replace them with anything, and my understanding is that's out of order and that you have to vote against it.

The Chair: Ms Lankin, this amendment --

Ms Lankin: It's because it's a subsection that you're making a different ruling?

The Chair: Because it's a subsection.

Ms Lankin: Perhaps it would be helpful, rather than you sort of rolling over this here and saying, "No, it's in order, let's go ahead," to explain the difference so that we don't raise the same point again. Because the one before it, that I just raised the point on, was in fact out of order.

The Chair: Since we do not vote on subsections, a motion to remove a subsection is not out of order.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, I would request an apology to the member of our committee for suggesting that she was inappropriately speaking and therefore not following, when in fact you yourself, in your haste to go through these, had just made two mistakes on the two previous motions in allowing them to be called. I think some confusion as to which order you were calling is legitimate and there should be an apology in order.

The Chair: Mrs McLeod, if you think that I owe Mrs Caplan an apology for saying something about her when she was interrupting, then I give her that apology.

Mrs Caplan: Thank you very much.

The Chair: The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 38(6). Subsection 42(5) is the amendment. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, McLeod, Phillips, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, would you provide a page number before we vote?

The Chair: Page 71; I already did that.

The motion carries unanimously.

The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 38(6), subsection 42(6). Shall the amendment carry?

Mrs McLeod: Page number, please, before we vote, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Page 72.

Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, McLeod, Phillips, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

1410

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment on page 72A to subsection 38(6) of subsection 42(10). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 38, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 38, as amended, carries.

Shall section 39 carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 39 carries.

Section 40. There's a New Democratic Party amendment to add subsection 40(2).

Mrs Caplan: Page number?

The Chair: Page 73. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated. Shall section 40 carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Carried.

Shall schedule F carry, as amended?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Schedule F, as amended, carries.

We now move on to schedule G, Amendments to the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, the Prescription Cost Regulation Act and the Regulated Health Professions Act.

There are no amendments to sections 1, 2 and 3. Shall sections 1 through 3 pass?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Sections 1 through 3 carried.

Section 4. The first amendment is a Liberal amendment on page 73A to subsection 4(3). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed?

Mr Clement: Recorded vote, please.

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated. The next amendment --

Ms Lankin: On a point of privilege: Would it be possible for the clerks to see if there's any way to put some more heat on in this room? I know you'd like to move us through us quickly, you don't want us to dally on any of these things, but personal discomfort is not a helpful way to do that.

The Chair: The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 4(4). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment carries.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 4(4.1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 4(5.1). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, Phillips, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

Shall section 4, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 4, as amended, carries.

Shall section 5 carry? Same vote on section 5?

Mrs Caplan: Section 5, same vote. We are opposed.

The Chair: Section 5 carries.

Section 6. The first amendment, on page 75A, is a Liberal amendment to subsection 6(1). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 6(6), subsection 6(5), on page 76. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, Phillips, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 6(6), subsection 6(5). Shall the amendment carry?

Mrs Caplan: Actually, Mr Chairman, with respect, I think this is the same as the one that we just passed, sort of, and you could either rule it out of order or we would just withdraw it, because the amendment we just passed substantially does this. So we will withdraw this.

The Chair: Okay, that amendment has been withdrawn. Thank you, Mrs Caplan.

Shall section 6, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 6, as amended, carries.

Section 7. It's a Liberal amendment on page 76A(i), an amendment to subsection 7(3), section 7.1. Shall the amendment carry?

Ms Lankin: Wait a minute. Could you please give me the reference again?

The Chair: Page 76A(i).

Mrs Caplan: All this does is recognize the Ontario Pharmacists' Association. That's all it does. It just recognizes the pharmacists. Everything that Jim Wilson said he ever believed in is in this amendment when it came to pharmacy and their representation. That's all it does. This is simple. It does not affect anything except saying you have to negotiate.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 7 carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 7 carries.

There are no amendments to sections 8 through 10. Shall sections 8 through 10 carry? Same vote. Sections 8, 9 and 10 are carried.

Section 11. First, on page 76B, is a Liberal amendment to section 11.1. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

1420

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The second amendment is a Liberal amendment to section 11.2. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 11 carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: All those opposed to section 11?

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 11 carries.

Section 12. The first amendment is a government amendment on page 77 to subsections 13(1) and (2).

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, my copy is illegible.

Mrs Caplan: It doesn't matter, Frances. We're not allowed to ask questions.

Interjection: I have an extra copy here.

Ms Lankin: I'd appreciate it. I honestly can't read this.

Mrs Caplan: It doesn't matter; you don't have to read it.

Ms Lankin: If you'll give me a minute, because it is -- I'll give you my copy; you'll see you can't read it.

The Chair: Bad photocopier.

Mr Phillips: While she's doing that, what's the score so far? How many Liberal amendments went through?

Mr Hardeman: This is not a game.

The Chair: Are you okay, Ms Lankin?

Shall the government amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, Phillips, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The motion carries unanimously.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to section 13, on page 77A. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment to section 13 is an NDP amendment on page 78.

Mrs Caplan: It should be ruled out of order, Mr Chairman, because it's identical to the one that's just been voted on.

The Chair: The next amendment, the New Democratic Party amendment, is the same as the Liberal amendment we just defeated. Therefore --

Ms Lankin: I'll withdraw it before you can rule it out of order.

The Chair: It's withdrawn by Ms Lankin. Thank you very much, Ms Caplan. I appreciate that.

The next amendment is a government amendment to clause 13(3)(c). Shall this amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

The next amendment is a government amendment to subsections 13(4) and (5), on page 81. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, Phillips, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The motion carries unanimously.

Shall section 12, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 12, as amended, carries.

There are no amendments in sections 13 and 14. Shall sections 13 and 14 carry? Same vote?

Sections 13 and 14 are carried.

Section 15. First is a government amendment to subsection 15(2), clause 8(1)(e1.1), on page 82. Shall the government amendment carry? Same vote?

Mrs Caplan: We're opposed.

The Chair: Same vote. The amendment is carried.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 15(4), clause 18(1)(g.2). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed?

Interjection: Same vote reversed. What page, Mr Chair?

The Chair: The amendment is defeated, page 82A.

The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 15(6) --

Mrs Caplan: Could you hold it for just a minute, please, while we read that?

The Chair: Clause 18(1)(g.6) on page 83. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

The next amendment, on page 84, is a government amendment to subsection 15(8), clauses 18(1)(k.5) and (k.6). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, Phillips, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 15(8). This amendment is a Liberal amendment which is out of order.

Mrs Caplan: Can I ask a question, Mr Chairman? Is that because --

The Chair: I'm sorry.

Mrs Caplan: Oh, I can't ask questions.

The Chair: No.

Mrs Caplan: Not even to know whether it's in order or out of order?

The Chair: No, sorry.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment which is also out of order.

Ms Lankin: On page 85?

The Chair: Yes.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 15(9.1), subsection 18(1.1).

Mrs Caplan: A point of order, Mr Chairman: If those are ruled out of order, are we not given the opportunity to vote against that particular clause that's been ruled -- where's there an amendment to strike it out, we can't then vote against the clause? Don't you have to call the clause, then?

The Chair: We don't vote on clauses; we just vote on sections.

Mrs Caplan: Or on the section that this was set to amend? Will we have that opportunity to vote on that?

The Chair: We will vote on the whole section when we finish.

Mrs Caplan: The whole section. I see.

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, just again, I'm sorry. If you would explain to me, is the reason that those are out of order because the government motion struck those subclauses out and replaced them with something?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms Lankin: And it is not in order to have a subsequent vote that would strike out those subclauses? If it was a different subclause, you would allow it? It's because that subclause has been replaced with something; that's the reason? It's a test.

The Chair: It is a test and I didn't understand the question. I may not know the answer either.

Ms Lankin: Then that's my fault. If I'm not communicating clearly enough, I'll take full responsibility for that. I wanted to know if you ruled these two motions out of order because clauses 18(1)(k.5) and (k.6) had been previously struck down and replaced with something.

The Chair: Your amendment is out of order because it seeks to remove a clause that has already been removed and replaced with something else.

Ms Lankin: You said that much clearer than I did. Thank you.

The Chair: It's amazing.

Getting back to where we were here, we're at a Liberal amendment to subsection 15(9.1), subsection 18(1.1). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 15, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 15, as amended, carries.

1430

Section 16. The first amendment is a Liberal amendment, page 85B, section 10. Shall the amendment carry?

Mrs Johns: Is that section 16 you're talking about?

The Chair: It's a typo.

Ms Lankin: You have a different page than I do then, sir.

The Chair: I've got a whole different book here.

Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to section 20.1 on page 85C. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to section 21 on page 85D. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 16 carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 16 carries.

Shall section 17 carry? Same vote.

Section 18, first amendment is a Liberal amendment to section 23 (1.1) on page 85E. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 23(5). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote.

Shall section 18 carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 18 carries.

There's a Liberal amendment to section 18.1, adding section 24. The amendment is on page 85F(i). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

Page 85F(ii), a Liberal amendment, section 18.1. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment, section 18.15, number 85G. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment, section 18.15, on page 85H. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to section 18.2 on page 85I. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

There are no amendments to sections 19, 20, 21 and 22. Shall sections 19 through 22 carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Sections 19 through 22 carry.

The next section is section 23. There's a government amendment on page 86 to subsection 7(1). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to section 7 on page 86A. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 23, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 23, as amended, carries.

Shall section 24 carry? Same vote?

Section 24 carries.

Section 25: There is a Liberal amendment on page 86B to subsection 25(1), clause 14(1)(c.1). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: Shall section 25 carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 25 is carried.

Shall section 26 carry? Same vote? Section 26 is carried.

Section 27. There's a government amendment to subsection 27(1), clause 36(1)(d), on page 87. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote?

Shall section 27, as amended, carry? Same vote? Section 27, as amended, carries.

There are no amendments to sections 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32. Shall sections 28 through 32 carry? Same vote? Sections 28 through 32 are carried.

Shall schedule G, as amended, carry? Same vote?

Mrs Caplan: I'd like to actually record it.

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Schedule G, as amended, is carried.

Ms Lankin: I have a procedural question about this afternoon as to whether you will be taking any kind of five-minute, 10-minute or 15-minute break at any point in time, particularly before the next amendment comes up, because the next amendment supports the Canada Health Act, and I want the government members to have a chance to think about that. So I wondered if you were going to take a five-minute break. This might be a good time to do so.

The Chair: Unfortunately, we're not.

The next schedule is schedule H.

Ms Lankin: Wait a minute. This is an interesting question on a point of personal privilege. Are you saying that if I feel compelled, for whatever reason, to have to leave this room for a couple of minutes that I am denied the opportunity to vote on sections in the bill that I have dedicated so much time and listening to the public and understanding and preparing amendments, that you will deny me that opportunity?

The Chair: Unfortunately, that would appear to be the case.

The next schedule is schedule H, amendments to the Health Insurance Act and the Health Care Accessibility Act.

Shall section 1 carry?

Mrs Caplan: Is this the amendment by the NDP?

The Chair: No, this is section 1.

I stand corrected. There is the opportunity for one 20-minute recess if somebody requests it.

1440

Mr Sampson: Mr Chair, is the reading of the order only one 20-minute, or is it cumulative 20-minutes?

The Chair: No, it's one 20-minute.

Ms Lankin: Actually, I think, Mr Chair, given the fact that we know we would never get unanimous consent on when to use that, it must have meant one 20-minute for each party, right?

The Chair: No.

Ms Lankin: How about we try to get unanimous consent to see if we can split that 20 minutes three ways to be used by each party?

The Chair: I think it would probably take us the rest of the afternoon to do that.

Ms Lankin: But, you see, I wouldn't feel compelled to stay for that debate.

The Chair: So that 20 minutes is available to us to use. It's actually to prepare for a vote, but since we're going through the votes one at a time, I guess we --

Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, I think actually technically, since we deemed the earlier portions, we've gone beyond that 20 minutes and we're now voting on the division. So we technically, I think, could take a break at any time that we agreed to.

Ms Lankin: Actually, I think you mean technically we can't even take the 20 minutes.

The Chair: No, I think we have access to a 20-minute break at some point in time, but just the one, and there wouldn't be another one available to us.

Mr Silipo: Do you get paid extra for this, Mr Chair?

Ms Lankin: Is it worth it?

The Chair: I'm not sure.

Shall section 1 of schedule H carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 1 carries.

There's been a proposed new section 1.1, a New Democratic Party amendment, on page 88. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

In section 2, the first amendment we're dealing with is a government amendment to subsection 2(1), subsections 2(4.1) and (4.2), on page 89.

Mrs Caplan: Just a minute, please.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: The amendment is carried.

The next amendment is a New Democratic Party amendment which is out of order, because it seeks to strike out sections of the bill that have now been replaced.

The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 2(2), clause 2(5)(c), on page 91.

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, I have a Liberal amendment 90A. Has that been withdrawn?

The Chair: Yes, it has.

Ms Lankin: It has? It's not on my list of any withdrawn amendments. It's not a big deal, because it's out of order, if it hasn't been withdrawn.

Mrs Caplan: I think they withdrew it because it's out of order.

The Chair: Shall the government amendment on page 91 carry? Same vote? The amendment is carried.

The next amendment is a government amendment on page 92 to subsection 2(3), subsection 2(6). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, Phillips, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

Shall section 2, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 2, as amended, carries.

There's a proposed new section 2.1, a government amendment, page 95. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, Phillips, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

The next amendment as proposed by the New Democratic Party is out of order, basically because it is at cross-purposes with the amendment we just approved.

Ms Lankin: Was 96A withdrawn? It's not on my list.

The Chair: That's one we just discussed, okay?

Mrs Caplan: He just ruled that out of order.

Ms Lankin: Hold on. The Liberal motion 96A, which is very similar to the NDP motion that you just ruled out of order --

Mr Clement: Before we got the binder, you gave us the first set, but 96A, the Liberal motion, was not in the binder. So was it withdrawn?

The Chair: But 96A is an NDP motion.

Ms Lankin: It's also a Liberal motion.

Mrs Ecker: It was also distributed as a Liberal motion.

Mrs Caplan: It was the same. You can rule it out of order, or I'll withdraw it. It's a farce anyway.

The Chair: Maybe you could withdraw it, Mrs Caplan.

Mrs Caplan: If it's easier for you, I withdraw it. It's going to be ruled out of order, so I might as well.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Section 3. The first amendment is a government amendment, on page 97, to subsection 3(1), subsections 5(3) and (3.1). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, Phillips, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

1450

Shall section 3, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 3, as amended, is carried.

There's an amendment to section 4, a government amendment on page 98. It amends subsection 4(1), subsections 6(3) and (3.1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote?

Shall section 4, as amended, carry? Same vote?

Interjections: Recorded.

The Chair: Okay.

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 4, as amended, carries.

Sections 5 and 6. There are no amendments. Shall sections 5 and 6 carry? Same vote. Sections 5 and 6 carry.

Section 7. The first amendment is a NDP amendment. It amends subsections 11.2(6) and (7) and it's on page 99.

Ms Lankin: What happened to 98A and B?

The Chair: They must have been withdrawn.

Ms Lankin: They're not on any list where I've been informed that they've been withdrawn. They haven't been removed from the binder.

The Chair: Each party was given a copy of the final book today and asked to proofread it to make sure that any amendments they had still outstanding were in there.

Ms Lankin: By the way, I'm not sure if that happened at a staff level, but the binder that was given to me was not one I was asked to look at to proofread. What I've just assumed as we've gone along --

The Chair: The terminology was a little wrong. Each of the parties was asked to provide a list of the amendments they wanted to make sure were in the final binder, and that is what is in the binder.

Mrs Caplan: We never withdrew these two amendments. The amendments to section 7 were duly tabled and they should be voted on.

The Chair: Basically, the situation -- they're not in my binder. They weren't in my binder yesterday. All three parties were given the responsibility to confirm by 4 o'clock yesterday that the amendments they wished to have in the final section were in fact there.

Mrs Caplan: But they were duly tabled and they were in the first binder that was collated.

Ms Lankin: You must have deemed our response, because nobody asked me that question.

The Chair: I understand we did --

Mrs Caplan: I object. I just want it on the record that I object. They were duly and properly tabled. They were in the first binder that was circulated. There are hundreds of amendments. It is unreasonable and unfair for us to assume that it would be left out of the second binder and have to go through each and every one to make sure they're all there when they were in the first one. I object.

The Chair: I do understand that the government and the NDP both confirmed the contents of the binders and the Liberals didn't.

Okay. The next section we're dealing with --

Mr Phillips: Mr Chair, I'm sorry. I wasn't sure what you said there. Did you say that yesterday you said we should check your binder?

The Chair: The clerk's office notified each of the caucuses that they should let them know by 4 o'clock yesterday what the final contents of the amendment binder should be. The government and the New Democrats did that; the Liberals didn't.

Mr Phillips: You said that at committee?

The Chair: I didn't. The clerk's office said that to the caucuses.

Mrs Caplan: That was never placed on the record. That was never said at committee. I was not aware of that. I think that's very unfair.

Mr Phillips: I'm sorry, Mr Chair. Those were not your instructions?

The Chair: No, they were not my instructions.

Mr Phillips: Whose instructions?

The Chair: The clerk's instructions.

Mr Phillips: My memory's going on me. Was I instructed to do that?

The Chair: All I can go by is what I was told happened on the responsibility to make sure that the binder was up to date. Each party was asked to verify the final content.

Mr Silipo: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: We have a situation where we have committee members who haven't been privy to that process you just described. In just checking around, it seems to me that what I'm hearing from the government members as well is that they've seen the amendment, they have it now in front of them, they're prepared to vote on it. So why don't we just proceed and vote on them instead of spending the next 15 minutes debating the procedure on this?

The parliamentary assistant I believe is aware of the amendment and certainly can give direction to her caucus members on whether to support this or not. Let's just get on with it that way. I think it would be a lot more straightforward than --

The Chair: Does everyone have a copy of 98A and 98B?

Interjections: Yes.

Mr Phillips: If I might, Mr Chair, just on process --

The Chair: Does everybody want to vote on it? Is that what the disposition is?

Mr Phillips: Mr Chair, if I might --

The Chair: If we're going to vote on them, Mr Phillips, let's just vote on them.

Mr Phillips: But this is actually quite important. I'm what's called the whip on the committee. One of my few duties is that theoretically I'm the person who I guess should have known that there was a rule that you had to check your binder.

The Chair: It wasn't my binder.

Mr Phillips: I thought you said your binder.

The Chair: I just said they're not in my binder.

Mr Phillips: I thought you said that by 4 o'clock you had to check your binder.

The Chair: No, I did not say that, sir. Do you want to argue about it or do you want to vote on them? You have a choice here. Why don't we just vote on them?

Mr Phillips: I don't want to argue about it at all. I'm just saying that we're trying to go through a process of fairness here. Nobody told me that the thing wasn't filed. This is a ridiculous enough process that you're put in charge of, Mr Chair, without saying to us that we were told when in fact I wasn't told, my colleague wasn't told, we didn't know. I'm, frankly, once again very upset with the process we're going through here. I think the public must be scratching their heads at the incompetence of a government to force us into this kind of nonsense.

The Chair: Is it the decision of the committee to vote on 98A and 98B? Okay. The Liberal amendment on page 98A, shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

Liberal amendment 98B. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a New Democratic Party amendment, number 99, amending subsections 11.2(6) and (7). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote.

1500

The next amendment is a New Democratic Party amendment to subsections 11.2(8) and (9).

Mrs Caplan: What page?

The Chair: Page 100.

Shall the amendment carry? Same vote?

The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 7 carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 7 carries.

Shall section 8 carry? Same vote?

Section 8 carries.

Section 9: The first amendment is a government amendment on page 101. It amends clause 14(1)(c). Shall the amendment carry?

Mrs Caplan: Which page is that one on?

The Chair: Page 101. Same vote?

Mrs Caplan: Just hold it a minute, please.

The Chair: Same vote?

Mrs Caplan: Yes.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment amending clause 14(1)(c). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 9, as amended, carry? Same vote reversed?

Section 9, as amended, carries.

Section 10: An amendment from the Liberals on page 103 amends subsection 17(3). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, Phillips, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

Shall section 10, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 10 carries.

Section 11: The first amendment is a Liberal amendment on page 104. It amends subsection 17.1(3). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment on page 105 is the Liberal amendment that amends subsection 17.1(3.1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote?

Mrs Caplan: Of this Liberal motion?

The Chair: Yes.

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment on page 106 to subsection 17.1(4). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 17.1(6) on page 107. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment carries.

The next amendment --

Mrs Caplan: I think it's out of order, contrary to what you've just passed.

The Chair: The next amendment, a Liberal amendment, is out of order.

The next amendment is on page 109. It's a Liberal amendment to subsection 17.1(8). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment on page 110, subsection 17.2(4). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 11, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: The section carries.

The next section is section 12. The first amendment we will deal with is on page 111. It's a government amendment to subsections 18(2) to (7).

Mrs Caplan: I'd like to ask a question about this one. It was tabled yesterday as page 111. Is there any way that I can get a question asked from the ministry before we vote on this?

The Chair: I'm sorry, Ms Caplan, you cannot.

Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

The next amendment, on page 113, is a Liberal amendment. It amends subsection 18(2), paragraph 5. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a New Democratic Party amendment. This is on page 114. It amends subsection 18(2.1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to amend subsection 18(7). This is on page 116. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a government amendment. It amends subsections 18.1(1) through (4). It's on page 117.

Mrs Caplan: This is also a new one. Can you hold just for a minute so we can have a minute to look at it?

Interjections.

The Chair: As I understand it, 115 was replaced by the new number 111.

Mrs Caplan: I thought we just passed 115.

1510

The Chair: They're asking how come we didn't deal with it, and it was replaced by the new number 111. So number 117 is where we are supposed to be. Shall the amendment carry?

Mrs Caplan: I have a problem because in the book that I have -- this is not a question on the amendment but it's on my book. I have page 117. Then I have another page 117, then page 118 that says "new," then page 118, then 119 is new. Did we have 117, 118 and 119 all replaced? This is what it should look like. Can you give me a minute now to have a look at it?

Interruption.

Mrs Caplan: Thank you. I really appreciate your help. Got it. In that case, I would support it because it's the expedited MRC.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, Phillips, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

The next amendment on page 120 is a Liberal amendment to subsection 18.1(3). This amendment is out of order because the section that it wants to -- has been replaced. So it'll be withdrawn.

The next amendment is a government amendment that amends subsection 18.1(8). It's on page 121. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Phillips, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Silipo.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsections 18.1(8) and (8.1).

Mrs Caplan: This is the same as the one we've just amended. This does what we wanted it to do and we voted for it. So we'll withdraw our amendment.

The Chair: The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 18.1(10). Shall the amendment carry?

Mrs Caplan: All this does is publish the information.

Ayes

Caplan, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment, on page 124, is a Liberal amendment to subsection 18.1(11). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote. The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 18.1(13). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed. The amendment is carried.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 18.2(2.1), on page 126. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed. The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 12, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 12, as amended, carries.

Shall section 13 carry? Same vote. Section 13 carries.

Section 14.

Mrs Caplan: Mr Chairman, is there any way that I can ask the government why they would allow an appeal if it's the full committee but not an appeal for a single member?

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mrs Caplan. You can't.

Mrs Caplan: That question is not answered. There's no way I can ask that question?

The Chair: No, you cannot, Mrs Caplan.

The first amendment to section 14 is a government amendment, page 127. It amends paragraph 3 of subsection 20(1). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 20(1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote, reversed? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 14, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 14, as amended, carries.

There are no amendments to sections 15, 16 and 17. Shall sections 15, 16, and 17 carry? Same vote. Sections 15, 16 and 17 are carried.

Section 18. There's a Liberal amendment, page 129, which amends section 26.1. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 18 carry? Same vote, reversed. Section 18 carries.

Section 19, there is a Liberal amendment on page 130. It amends subsections 27.1(5) and (6). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 19 carry? Same vote, reversed. Section 19 carries.

Shall section 20 carry? Same vote. Section 20 carries.

Section 21. The first amendment is a Liberal amendment, on page 131. It amends subsection 29(1). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is on page 133. It's an NDP amendment to subsections 29(1) and (2). Since it is identical to the amendment we just defeated, therefore it's out of order.

The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 29(2), on page 132. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Phillips, Silipo.

Mrs Caplan: I'd like a question answered before I vote on this. I'd like to support it if I understood -- they're striking out a clause. I want to know if they're striking it out because it's been changed and amended somewhere else. If that's the case, then I'll vote for this. If that's not the case, it's put here --

The Chair: Unfortunately, Mrs Caplan --

Mrs Caplan: I can't have that clarified by staff before I'm forced to vote?

The Chair: Sorry, Mrs Caplan.

Mrs Caplan: In that case I'll vote against it.

The Chair: The amendment is carried.

The next amendment is a government amendment, subsection 29(4),on page 134. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote. The amendment is carried.

Shall section 21, as amended, carry? Same vote. Section 21, as amended, carries.

1520

Section 22. There's a government amendment to subsection 29.1(2.1). It's on page 135.

Shall the amendment carry? Same vote. The amendment carries.

Shall section 22, as amended, carry? Same vote.

There's a new proposed section 22.1, the Liberal amendment on page 136. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

We now move to section 23. The first amendment to section 23 is on page 137. It's a government amendment to subsection 29.2(2). Shall the amendment carry?

Mrs Caplan: On 123?

The Chair: On 137.

Mrs Caplan: I'll support that.

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Phillips, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Silipo.

The Chair: The motion carries, the amendment carries.

The next amendment is a government amendment, it's on page 138 and it amends section 29.2.1. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Phillips, Silipo.

Mrs Caplan: Mr Chair, on a point of order: Since the questions we have asked have not been able to be answered, could the government please table the legal opinion they have that says this section is constitutional? I think it's wrong to be voting on something that may be unconstitutional. I'd like to see the legal opinion.

The Chair: That's not a point of order, Mrs Caplan.

Shall section 23, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 23, as amended, carries.

Shall section 24 carry? Same vote. Section 24 carries.

Section 25. There was a Liberal amendment. It's on page 139. It amends subsections 29.4(9) to (11). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 25 carry? Same vote, reversed. Section 25 is carried.

Section 26. There's a Liberal amendment. It's on page 140. It amends subsection 29.5(8). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote, reversed.

Ayes

Caplan, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 26 pass? Same vote, reversed. Section 26 carries.

Section 27 has a Liberal amendment. It's on page 141. It amends section 29.6. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 27 carry? Same vote, reversed. Section 27 carries.

Section 28 has a Liberal amendment. It's on page 142 and amends subsection 29.7(2). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 28 carry? Same vote, reversed. Section 28 carries.

Section 29. The first amendment is a government amendment to subsections 37(1) and (2). It's found on page 143. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote. The amendment carries.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsections 37(1) and (2), and it is out of order.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment to subsections 37(1) and (2), and it is also out of order.

The next amendment is a government amendment to section 37. It's on page 146. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

Shall section 29, as amended, carry? Same vote. Section 29, as amended, carries.

Section 30 has a government amendment. It's found on page 147. It amends subsection 37.1(6). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote. The amendment carries.

Shall section 30, as amended, carry? Same vote. Section 30, as amended, carries.

Section 31. The first amendment is a government amendment. It amends subsection 38(4) and is found on page 148.

Mrs Caplan: Could you give us a minute? I'll support that.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, Phillips, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsections 38(4) and (5). It is out of order.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment to subsections 38(4) and (5), which is also out of order.

Shall section 31, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 31, as amended, carries.

Section 32 has an amendment from the government that amends subsections 39.1(2.1) and (2.2). It's found on page 151. Shall the amendment carry?

Mrs Caplan: I would like to support this one if I could understand the reason why they wouldn't allow a review where it's by a single member.

1530

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mrs Caplan.

Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 39.1(3). It's found on page 152. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is carried.

The next amendment is a government amendment. It amends subsection 39.1(4). It's found on page 153. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment's carried.

Shall section 32, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 32, as amended, carries.

Section 33, the government amendment to subsection 40(1), as found on page 154. Shall the amendment carry?

Interjections.

Mrs Caplan: Can anybody stop this railroad long enough to tell me what page number we're on?

The Chair: Page 154. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment's carried.

The next amendment is a government amendment that amends subsection 40(2). It's found on page 155. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Phillips, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

The next amendment is a government amendment that amends subsection 40(4). It's found on page 156. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment carries unanimously.

The next amendment is a New Democratic Party amendment found on page 157 that amends subsection 40(6). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a government amendment found on page 158. It amends paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of subsection 40.1(1). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated. The next amendment is found on page 159. It's a government amendment. It amends subsection 40.1(1.1). Shall the amendment carry?

Mrs Caplan: It's not in my book. Can I have a copy of the amendment before I'm asked to vote on it or is that also an unreasonable request?

Mr Chairman, could I make a request as a point of order? Could you slow down enough that if we can't ask the question on the record, we could privately get an answer so that we could decide whether or not to support a government amendment? Is that an unreasonable -- I'm not saying put it on the record, just to hold for a minute while we quietly get it so we can decide how to vote. There's nothing to say you have to go at this speed in the directions from the House leader.

The Chair: I put the questions. That's the job I have to do.

Mrs Caplan: But it is reasonable that we ask you just to hold it for a minute while we privately get a question answered so that we can decide if we are able to support something from the government.

The Chair: Page 159. Excuse me. The previous amendment was carried. I said it was defeated.

Page 159, a government amendment. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: The amendment is carried. The next amendment is a Liberal amendment on page 160. It amends subsection 40.2(8). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 33, as amended, carry? Same vote reversed?

Mr Clement: Same vote reversed, please.

The Chair: Section 33, as amended, carries.

Section 34: The first amendment on page 161 is a government amendment. It amends subsection 34(1), clause 45(1)(e.1).

Mrs Caplan: I do not have 161 in my book. It's not here.

Interjection.

Mrs Caplan: Thank you.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

The next amendment, found on page 162, is a government amendment that amends subsection 34(3), clause 45(1)(bb). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is carried.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment, found on page 163. It amends subsection 34(5), subsection 45(1.1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends subsection 34(6), clauses 45(1.1)(k) to (m), found on page 164. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a government amendment on page 165. It amends subsection 34(7), subsection 45(1.2). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is carried.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends subsection 34(8), subsection 45(3.2.1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 34, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 34, as amended, carries.

There's a proposed new section 34.1 from a Liberal amendment found on page 167. Shall the Liberal amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Phillips, Lankin, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

Section 35: The first amendment is a government amendment, found on page 168. It amends subsection 35(1), subsection 2(1). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Caplan, Hardeman, Johns, Phillips, Lankin, Maves, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

The next amendment is the Liberal amendment found on page 169. It amends subsection 35(2), subsection 2(3) of the act. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Phillips, Lankin, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment that amends subsection 35(2), subsection 2(3) of the act.

Ms Lankin: It was withdrawn two days ago.

The Chair: It's been withdrawn.

Shall section 35, as amended, carry?

1540

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 35, as amended, carries.

Section 36: There is a government amendment found on page 172. It amends section 6.1. Shall the amendment carry?

Mrs Caplan: Could we have a minute on this one?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona.

Nays

Phillips.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

Shall section 36, as amended, carry? Agreed. Section 36, as amended, carries.

Section 37 has a government amendment that is out of order. Shall section 37 carry?

Nays

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, Phillips, Sampson, Tascona, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 37 does not carry.

Section 38 has no amendments. Shall section 38 carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 38 carries.

Section 39: There's a government amendment on page 175. It amends subsections 9(1) and (2). Shall the amendment carry?

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, there was a replacement for this, was there not? I'm missing that. I did have it at one point in time, I know, but I'm missing that. Could you give me just a moment, please.

Mrs Caplan: This is the new 175 that we're voting on.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment to subsection 9(2) that is out of order.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 9(3) found on page 177.

Ms Lankin: Why was the motion out of order?

Mrs Caplan: It referred to the Canada Health Act.

Ms Lankin: As I understand it, it's not contradictory to the motion that we just passed. What it does do is suggest that it has to be done in accordance with the Canada Health Act. Surely, that would be in order.

The Chair: The section that you wanted to amend with those words, Ms Lankin, has been struck out.

Ms Lankin: Well, I want to put it back in.

The Chair: Some other day.

Ms Lankin: I find your attitude less than helpful.

The Chair: The next amendment is on page 177. It's a Liberal amendment to -- I guess I just called it -- subsection 9(3). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment, page 178, also amending subsection 9(3). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment amending subsection 9(4). It's on page 179. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 39, as amended, carry? Same vote reversed? Section 39, as amended, carries.

Shall section 40 carry? Same vote? Section 40 carries.

Shall schedule H, as amended, carry? Same vote? Schedule H, as amended, carries.

Schedule I, the Physician Services Delivery Management Act. There are no amendments to sections 1, 2, 3 and 4. Shall sections 1 through 4 carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Sections 1 through 4 are carried.

Shall schedule I carry? Same vote? Schedule I is carried.

Schedule J, amendments to the Pay Equity Act. Shall sections 1 and 2 carry? Same vote? Sections 1 and 2 are carried.

Section 3. The first amendment, from the government, is on page 181. It amends subsection 21.22(2.1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona.

Nays

Caplan, Phillips.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

The next amendment is a government amendment, on page 182. It amends subsection 21.22(3.1). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, Phillips, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment that amends subsections 21.22(3.1) and (3.2). That amendment is out of order.

Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, why is it out of order?

The Chair: Because of the amendment we just voted on.

Mr Silipo: The amendment we just voted on was just a technical one, just corrects some wording errors, so how could this amendment be out of order?

The Chair: I stand corrected. It is not out of order.

On page 183, the NDP amendment to subsections 21.22(3.1) and (3.2), shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 3, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 3, as amended, carries.

1550

There are no amendments to sections 4 through 8. Shall sections 4 through 8 carry? Same vote? Sections 4 through 8 carry.

There's a proposed new section 8.1 in an NDP amendment, page 184. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

Section 9, no amendments. Shall section 9 carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 9 carries.

Shall section J, as amended, carry? Same vote? Section J, as amended, carries.

Mrs Ecker: It's schedule J.

The Chair: Schedule J, as amended, carries. I'm glad to see everybody is so on top of this.

Mrs Ecker: We're right on the ball, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Schedule K, amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Ms Lankin: When are we going to take that 20-minute break?

The Chair: Whenever anybody asks for it. I'm at your discretion. Technically, it needs to be asked at the point I'm going to ask a question on a vote. Ask whenever you want; I don't care.

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, I'm going to deem that you are asking us if we want to vote on this.

The Chair: Are you requesting a 20-minute recess?

Ms Lankin: No, I'm not, actually.

The Chair: Schedule K. There's a Liberal amendment, page 186, that amends section 10.

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The next is an NDP amendment that is identical; therefore it is out of order.

Shall section 1 carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 1 carries.

Section 2. There's a Liberal amendment that amends subsection 24(1.1). It's on page 188. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment, on page 189, is out of order.

Ms Lankin: Why?

The Chair: It's the same intent as the amendment we just defeated.

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, it would be helpful if you would give the reasons; for example, that it's not out of order because it was inappropriately drafted, but because we just passed an amendment which had the same intent.

Mrs Johns: That's what he said.

Ms Lankin: After we asked the question, he said that. I'm just wondering if he would give the reasons as he rules it out of order so we don't have to interject each time.

The Chair: I'm just a little slow with my explanation.

Mr Silipo: Don't you think a 20-minute break might help?

The Chair: Shall section 2 carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 2 carries.

Shall section 3 carry? Same vote? Section 3 is carried.

Section 4. The first amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends section 27.1, page 190. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

Because the next amendment is identical to the one we just defeated, it is out of order.

Ms Lankin: Thank you.

Mr Phillips: Why don't you just say it's out of order? It'll speed things up.

The Chair: You want me to forget about the long explanations?

Shall section 4 carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 4 is carried.

Section 5. A Liberal amendment that amends subsection 28(2.1), page 192. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

Because the next amendment is identical to one we just defeated, it is out of order.

Shall section 5 carry? Same vote reversed? Section 5 is carried.

Section 6. The first amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends subsection 29(3.1), page 194. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment, because it duplicates the one we just defeated, is out of order.

Shall section 6 carry? Same vote reversed? Section 6 carries.

The proposed new section 6.1, put forward in a Liberal amendment, page 197. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

Section 7. An amendment put forward by the Liberals found on page 198 amends subsection 48(1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment, put forward by the NDP, since it is a duplicate of the amendment already defeated is out of order.

Shall section 7 carry? Same vote reversed? Section 7 carries.

Section 8. The first amendment, page 200, is a Liberal amendment that amends subsection 50(1.1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is found on page 201, a Liberal amendment that amends subsection 50(1.1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment, put forward by the New Democratic Party, is the same as the first Liberal amendment and therefore is out of order.

Mrs Caplan: Page number?

The Chair: Pages 200 and 202.

Shall section 8 carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 8 carries.

Shall section 9 carry? Same vote? Section 9 carries.

Shall section 10 carry? Same vote? Section 10 is carried.

Section 11. The first amendment is a Liberal amendment, page 203, that amends subsection 11(1), clause 57(1)(a).

Mrs Caplan: They're going to support this because it's very reasonable.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is an identical amendment by the New Democrats, therefore it is out of order.

1600

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment found on page 205. It amends subsection 11(1), subsection 57(1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment, for the same reason that it's similar to the motion we just defeated, is out of order.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment. It amends subsection 11(2), subsection 57(4). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a New Democratic amendment similar to the amendment we just defeated, therefore it's out of order.

The next amendment, page 209, is a Liberal amendment. It amends subsection 11(3), subsection 57(5). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a New Democratic Party amendment similar to the one we just defeated, therefore it's out of order.

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, I just want you to know that we are doing this to facilitate the speed with which we can deal with these because we're actually now dealing with them two at a time, if you've noticed.

The Chair: Shall section 11 carry? Same vote reversed? Section 11 carries.

Section 12: The first amendment is a Liberal amendment. It amends subsection 12(1), clause 60(1)(0.a) found on page 211. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

Can I just say "ditto," Ms Lankin?

Ms Lankin: Yes.

The Chair: The next amendment is out of order.

The next amendment, Liberal amendment on page 213, amends subsection 12(2), clause 60(1)(g). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is another Liberal amendment. It amends subsection 12(2), clause 60(1)(g). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment, an NDP amendment, is a duplicate of one we've already passed, therefore it is out of order.

Shall section 12 carry? Same vote reversed?

Section 12 carries.

Section 13: The first amendment on page 216 is a Liberal amendment that amends section 4. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment which serves the same purpose as the one we just defeated, therefore it is out of order.

Shall section 13 carry? Same vote reversed?

Section 13 carries.

The next section is section 14. The first amendment is a Liberal amendment found on page 218. It amends subsection 17(1.1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a New Democratic Party amendment. It duplicates the amendment we just defeated, therefore it is out of order.

Shall section 14 carry? Same vote reversed?

Section 14 carries.

Shall section 15 carry? Same vote?

Section 15 carries.

Section 16: The first amendment found on page 220 is a Liberal amendment. It amends section 20.1. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment which, because it's a duplicate of one we already defeated, is out of order.

Mr Silipo: You'll notice that the typeface is bold on this one.

The Chair: Yes, I did.

Shall section 16 carry? Same vote reversed?

Section 16 carries.

Section 17: The first amendment is a Liberal amendment. It amends subsection 21(2.1), found on page 222. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed?

The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment similar to the one we already defeated. Therefore, it is out of order.

Mrs Caplan: What page, Mr Chair?

The Chair: Page 222.

Ms Lankin: I just want to make sure I'm following the right section with you. All of these duplicates are all of the ones that are the exact recommendations of the privacy commissioner that both the Liberals and the New Democrats have put in. That's why they're all --

The Chair: Yes, they are, Ms Lankin.

Ms Lankin: Okay, I just wanted to make sure I was with you on which ones we were dealing with.

The Chair: Shall section 17 carry? Same vote reversed?

Section 17 carries.

Section 18, the first amendment, found on page 224, is a Liberal amendment. It amends subsection 22(3.1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment, a duplicate of the one we just defeated, therefore it is out of order.

Shall section 18 carry? Same vote reversed? Section 18 carries.

Mrs Caplan: There is another, motion 224.

The Chair: Section 18.1.

Mrs Caplan: No, Mr Chairman, on page 224, did you call for that amendment?

The Chair: Yes, I did.

Mrs Caplan: Mr Chairman, while you're reading, if the government would answer whether they are prepared to accept any of the opposition amendments, maybe in the interests of speed we could just hear from them that they're not going to support anything; they haven't supported anything the freedom of information commissioner recommended. I mean, if they're not going to support anything, just deem them all, we might as well all just pack up and go home.

We've just seen them not accept anything that was recommended by the privacy commissioner and, frankly, I'm getting fed up, so I'd like to know, is there any intention of the government to support any opposition motion from now until the end of this bill? If they could answer that one question, it would tell me whether I'm wasting my time or not.

The Chair: Ms Caplan and Ms Lankin have to be part of this discussion -- are you asking for unanimous consent that all opposition amendments be defeated and all government amendments be approved?

Mrs Caplan: No, what I'd like to know is whether or not the government has any intention whatever of accepting any opposition motion. If they're not, I'm leaving; I'm going home. What's the point of sitting here?

The Chair: The answer is yes.

Mrs Caplan: Yes? In that case, I'm happy to stay and watch this railroad. I'm waiting to see which one.

Interjections.

The Chair: There's a new section 18.1 by the Liberals, amendment 226. Shall the amendment carry?

Mrs Caplan: Is this the one?

Interjections: No.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

Section 19, the first amendment is a Liberal amendment. It amends subsection 37(1), found on page 228.

Shall the amendment pass? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment very similar to the one we just defeated, therefore it's out of order.

Ms Lankin: It's not exactly the same.

The Chair: I said very similar that time.

Shall section 19 carry? Same vote reversed? Section 19 carries.

Section 20, the first amendment is the Liberal amendment that amends subsection 39(1.1). It's found on page 230. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment. For the reasons stated above, because it's a duplicate, it's ruled out of order.

The next amendment, found on page 231, is a Liberal amendment. It's been withdrawn.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends subsection 39(1.1). It's found on page 232. Shall the amendment carry?

1610

Mrs Caplan: No? I figured that was the one. I thought that was the one you were going to --

The Chair: Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

Mrs Caplan: You should have liked that one.

The Chair: Shall section 20 carry? Same vote reversed?

Section 20 is carried.

There are no amendments to sections 21 and 22. Shall sections 21 and 22 carry? Same vote?

Sections 21 and 22 are carried.

Section 23. The first amendment to section 23 is a Liberal amendment. It amends subsection 23(1), clause 45(1)(a). It's found on page 233. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a New Democratic Party amendment, a duplicate of the one we just defeated, therefore it's out of order.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment found on page 235. It amends subsection 23(1), subsection 45(1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment, out of order because of a duplication with the previous amendment that was defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment found on page 237. It amends subsection 23(2), subsection 45(4). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment. It amends subsection 23(2), subsection 45(4). It's found on page 238. It is out of order because of duplication.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment found on page 239. It amends subsection 23(3), subsection 45(5). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next NDP amendment is a duplication, therefore it is out of order.

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, I know you're just speaking shorthand, but I just want to clarify. It's not out of order because it's the same as the previous amendment, it's out of order because a previous amendment that it's similar to was defeated. Therefore, there's no sense in voting on it again. Is that the reason why it's out of order?

The Chair: Correct.

Ms Lankin: I just want to make sure that we're correct.

The Chair: They are out of order --

Ms Lankin: Because, you know, it sounds like a whole lot of the NDP amendments are out of order, the way we're going here. I just want people to realize that we spent a lot of time on these and it's because they are similar to other areas --

The Chair: They are out of order because they have a similar intent to an amendment that was previously defeated.

Ms Lankin: Great. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you for clarifying that for us. Shall section 23 carry? Same vote reversed? Section 23 carries.

Section 24. The first amendment is a Liberal amendment. It amends subsection 24(1), clause 47(1)(0.a). Page 241. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment which the NDP party worked on very hard --

Interjections.

The Chair: -- which the New Democrats worked on very hard is out of order because the previous amendment put forward by the Liberals has been defeated.

Mrs McLeod: Believe it or not, there was no collusion in drafting the amendment. It just reflects the fact that we were listening to the concerns.

The Chair: The next amendment, page 243, is the Liberal amendment that amends subsection 24(2), clause 47(1)(f). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends subsection 24(2), clause 47(1)(f). It's found on page 244. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment and again, despite their hard work, it does duplicate a previous amendment, therefore is out of order.

Shall section 24 carry? Same vote reversed?

Section 24 is carried.

Shall section 25 carry? Same vote?

Section 25 carries.

Shall schedule K carry? Same vote?

Mrs Caplan: I'd like a recorded vote.

Ms Lankin: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Schedule K carries.

Schedule L, Amendments to the Public Service Pension Act and the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union Pension Act.

Interjections.

The Chair: There are no amendments to sections 1, 2 and 3. Shall sections 1, 2 and 3 carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Sections 1, 2 and 3 are carried.

Shall schedule L carry? Same vote.

Mrs McLeod: Let's make sure they know what they just did, Mr Chair. Do you know the name of schedule?

The Chair: Schedule L carries.

Mrs Caplan: Did you read that out, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: Yes, I did. Should we go on to schedule M?

Mr Clement: I request a 20-minute recess.

The Chair: Unanimous consent for a 20-minute recess?

Ms Lankin: No.

The Chair: We need unanimous consent --

Mrs McLeod: Unless you're prepared to reconsider the last vote.

Mr Clement: There's only one 20-minute recess, right?

The Chair: Yes, there's only one.

Mr Clement: But they don't want to recess.

Ms Lankin: You told us earlier you needed unanimous consent.

The Chair: There's availability in the thing for one 20-minute recess. Anybody can ask for it. We don't need unanimous consent.

Mrs Caplan: Oh, you said you did.

The Chair: I'm just semi-requesting it. If not, we'll carry on.

Mrs Caplan: Right. Carry on.

The Chair: We're now on schedule M. Amendments --

Mrs Caplan: Don't ask questions. No clarification.

The Chair: Mrs Caplan.

Mrs Caplan: I'm getting angry again, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: And I'm getting tired.

Mrs Caplan: Well, I'm angry.

The Chair: We're now on schedule M.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, we may all be getting frustrated and tired, but what --

The Chair: Amendments to the Municipal Act and Various Other Statutes related to Municipalities, Conservation Authorities and Transportation.

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, I'm looking for a point of information. The government members indicated that there was an opposition amendment that they were prepared to support. Perhaps they'd like to tell us where that is. It certainly isn't in one of the areas that we just passed, like the stealing of money from public pensions that we believe really strongly about. Maybe you'd tell us what schedule it's in, where it is.

Mrs Caplan: That's exactly what you're doing. You're not going to get away with this stuff. You're going to be challenged in the courts. It's going to cost you a fortune.

Mrs Ecker: We don't have to answer that.

Mr Clement: This is not question period, Mr Chairman.

Interjections.

The Chair: Ms Lankin --

Mr Clement: So what was the purpose of your asking?

The Chair: Ms Lankin.

Interjections.

The Chair: Let's return just a little bit of order to the proceedings. We've been reasonably dignified up till now. I'd hate to see us lose it totally. Is there a particular purpose for your question? Did you have something, Ms Lankin?

Ms Lankin: Yes. I asked the question and I wanted the information so that we could determine procedurally whether or not we continue this process for the next four or five schedules that are left to vote on of simply the government carrying every one of their amendments and defeating every one of the opposition amendments.

If there's only one that you intend to vote on in favour of an opposition amendment, why don't you indicate where it is? We can deal with that one, and then you can simply deem the rest of the sections and subsections to be passed. Quite frankly, this is not a useful process at this point in time. There's no give and take going on any more. I was just trying to be of assistance procedurally.

Mr Clement: I recognize that and I thank you for being of assistance. If the Liberal members of the committee have the same attitude to this, then certainly --

Mrs Caplan: We would be very happy to hear from you what you're going to support.

The Chair: According to what I'm told, the question is moot because we are obligated to vote on every section.

Mrs Caplan: We could deem them all, Mr Chairman. Everything else has been deemed.

Mr Silipo: Is it not possible, if we agreed to take the rest as one vote?

The Chair: We'll have a five-minute recess while I see whether or not we can do that.

The committee recessed from 1623 to 1630.

The Chair: I don't have a lot of answers. Because of the decisions we made at the beginning to have recorded votes on everything, we can't really go back and change that.

The only thing we can do to speed up the process would be if all of the opposition amendments were withdrawn. In that particular case then everything would at least be a yes vote, it would be one vote and it would be easy to go through. Other than that, there's nothing I've been able to come up with that would speed the process up.

Ms Lankin: Thank you very much, and I appreciate your ruling. I want to make it clear that my request for information about the procedure was not to speed things up; it was because of the level of frustration in the room that the opposition felt.

I have to inform the committee that I have no intention of withdrawing our proposed amendments. Those are there because we believe the bill is flawed and they need to be voted on. It's unfortunate that with the exception of one, it would appear that the government members will defeat them all.

But I just want to make it clear that it has nothing to do with time, because I'm prepared to stay here. I was prepared, as you know, to continue the public hearings and to continue the clause-by-clause process. I appreciate you, however, checking into that.

Perhaps the few minutes and/or a judicious use of the 20-minute break at some point would allow people to recoup and regain their tempers. I just think the level of frustration in the room was getting to a point where in fact it was quite destructive to the committee process.

The Chair: Okay. So we're into schedule M. The first amendment in schedule M is a government amendment that amends subsection 25.2(1). It's on page 247. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends subclauses 25.2(2)(b)(i) and (ii), found on page 247A. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a government amendment that amends subsection 25.2(4). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is carried.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends subsection 25.2(5.1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends clause 25.2(9)(c). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends subsections 25.2(11) to (13). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a government amendment that amends subsection 25.2(13) on page 249. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is carried.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends subsection 25.3(1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends subsection 25.3(3). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends clause 25.3(7)(g). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends subsection 25.3(8.1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a government amendment that amends subsections 25.3(1) to (4). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is carried.

The next amendment is a New Democratic Party amendment that amends section 25.3. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a New Democratic Party amendment that amends subsections 25.3(6.1) to (6.3). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a government amendment that amends subsection 25.3(8.1). Shall the amendment carry?

Mrs McLeod: More powers to the minister; this one will carry.

The Chair: Same vote reversed?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: The amendment is carried.

Shall section 1, as amended, carry? Same vote? Section 1, as amended, carries.

Section 2, the first amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends subsection 83.1(2.1). Shall the amendment carry?

Mrs McLeod: What page number please, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: Page 255A.

Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends subsections 83.1(5) and (6). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 2 carry? Same vote reversed? Section 2 carries.

Shall sections 3, 4 and 5 carry? Same vote? Sections 3, 4, and 5 are carried.

Section 6, the first amendment, on page 256, is a New Democratic Party amendment that amends subsection 209.2(1.1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment that amends clause 209.2(2)(b.1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends clauses 209.4(1)(a) and (b). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment that amends subsection 209.4(1.1) Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends subsection 209.5(3). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends subsection 209.6(1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends subsection 209.6(3). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 6 carry? Same vote reversed? Section 6 carries.

Shall section 7 carry? Same vote? Section 7 carries.

Section 8: The first amendment is a government amendment found on page 259, that amends subsection 210.4(1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment carries.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends subsection 210.4(1). It's inconsistent with the amendment we just passed; therefore, it is out of order.

Mrs McLeod: Page number, please, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: Page 259A.

Mrs Caplan: Page 259A?

The Chair: Yes, A.

Mrs Caplan: And the reason that's being ruled out of order, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: It's inconsistent with the amendment we just passed.

Mrs McLeod: The only difference, just for clarification, then, is that we also think boards of health should not be dissolved by municipalities.

Mrs Caplan: Why is that inconsistent?

Mrs McLeod: That's a very different amendment.

Interjections.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, that's a very significant difference.

The Chair: That amendment specifically mentions two boards --

Mrs McLeod: The government amendment specifically mentions police services boards, school boards, conservation authorities. Our following amendment indicates that basically a municipality shall not be able to dissolve a school board, a board of health or a police services board. A board of health is a significant addition to that government amendment and we believe an important one, although I know that this government wants municipalities to be able to even dissolve boards of health, so they may not support it.

1640

Mrs Caplan: And the rest of it is consistent with --

Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, while you're dealing with that, you'll note that there's an NDP amendment which goes further than that and includes all of those mentioned plus library boards. So these are really amendments that are different.

The Chair: I'm not going to argue the point with you. We'll vote on it.

Liberal amendment 259A, subsection 210.4(1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment that amends subsection 210.4(1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends subsection 210.4(3.1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends subsection 210.4(7). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 8, as amended, carry? Same vote reversed? Section 8, as amended, carries.

Shall section 9 carry? Same vote? Section 9 carries.

Section 10, the first amendment is a government amendment, found on page 260C(i), amends subsection 210.1(1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment carries.

The next amendment is a government amendment that amends subsection 220.1(1), found on page 260C(ii). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment carries.

We're on page 261A, the Liberal amendment that amends subsection 220.1(2). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a government amendment that amends subsections 220.1(2.1) to (2.3) found on page 262. Shall the amendment carry? It's already been carried.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends subsection 220.1(2.1), page 263A. Shall the amendment --

Interjections.

The Chair: We could argue for a while whether it is or isn't out of order, so we'll say it is in order.

Shall the amendment on 263A pass? The same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends subsection 220.1(2.2). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends clause 220.1(3)(a). Shall the amendment carry?

Interjections.

Mrs Ecker: I can't hear you.

The Chair: The next amendment on page 263C is a Liberal amendment that amends clause 220.1(3)(a). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment on page 263D that amends subsection 220.1(3.1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment has already been defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment on page 264A, an amendment to subsection 220.1(9). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends subsection 220.1(12), found on page 264B. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment that amends subsection 223(2), found on page 264C. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote?

Mrs Caplan: I want a recorded vote on 264C, because this was what they promised in the election. I can't believe they're going to vote against it.

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: Shall section 10, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 10, as amended, carries.

Shall section 11 carry? Same vote? Section 11 carries.

There are no amendments to sections 12 through 21. Shall sections 12 through 21 carry? Same vote? Sections 12 through 21 carry.

Section 22. There's a government amendment, page 265, that amends subsection 257.1(1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is carried.

The government has an amendment, page 266, that amends subsection 257.1(1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment carries.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment, 266A, that amends subsection 257.2(1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a government amendment to subclause 257.2(2)(f)(i). Shall the amendment carry?

Mr Phillips: Mr Chair, on a point of information; Just so I'm not lost, on page 267 --

The Chair: That's the one we're doing right now.

Mr Phillips: Okay. I just wanted to be sure we're all right there.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment carries.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subclause 257.2(2)(f)(i). It is identical to the government amendment; therefore it is out of order.

The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 257.2(2.1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment carries.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 257.2(2.1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is an amendment to subsections 257.2(2.1), (2.2) and (2.3). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

1650

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 257.2(2.2). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to section 257.3. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 257.5(4). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a government amendment to section 257.7. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment carries.

Mrs Caplan: What page are we on?

The Chair: Page 270A.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment.

Mrs Caplan: This is the one. I bet this is it.

The Chair: It amends section 257.7. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment to section 257.7. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 22, as amended, carry? Same vote reversed? Section 22, as amended, carries.

Shall sections 23 and 24 carry? Same vote? Sections 23 and 24 carry.

Section 25. A Liberal amendment on page 271A amends subsections 1.1(1) and (1.1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment on page 272. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 25 carry? Same vote reversed? Section 25 carries.

A new section 25.4, a government amendment, page 273. No?

Mrs Caplan: We're not going to support that.

The Chair: That has been withdrawn.

There are no amendments in sections 26 through section 30. Shall section 26 through section 30 carry?

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, a question. I'm sorry, there was an amendment to section 25.4. Has that been withdrawn?

The Chair: That has been withdrawn.

Mrs Caplan: That was a government amendment.

The Chair: Shall sections 26 through 30 carry? Same vote? Sections 26 through 30 carry.

Section 31. There's a government amendment to subsection 2(1), page 273. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment carries.

Mrs Caplan: Without asking questions we cannot support these. If we understood what it was you were trying to accomplish, if you could answer a simple question, we might be able to support some of these. But without even being able to stop this bulldozing to be able to ask a question --

The Chair: The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 3(1) found at page 275. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment carries.

The next amendment is a government amendment found on page 276, subsection 3(4). Shall the amendment carry?

Interjection: Where's page 274?

The Chair: Page 274 has been withdrawn.

Shall the government amendment on page 276 that amendments subsection 3(4) carry? Same vote? The amendment carries.

Shall the Liberal amendment found on page 276A to amend section 3 carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 31, as amended, carry? Same vote reversed? Section 31, as amended, carries.

Shall section 32 carry? Same vote? Section 32 carries.

Section 33. There's a Liberal amendment found on page 276B, subsection 67(1). Shall this amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is found on page 277 and it's an NDP amendment. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 33 carry? Same vote reversed? Section 33 is carried.

A government amendment adding section 33.1 on page 280. Shall the amendment carry? That has been withdrawn.

Mrs Caplan: But I wanted to vote for that one.

The Chair: There's a government amendment to section 34 found on page 280. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment carries.

Shall section 34, as amended, carry? Same vote?

Section 34, as amended, carries.

Shall sections 35 through 40 carry? Same vote? Sections 35 through 40 are carried.

Section 41. Shall the Liberal amendment to subsection 13.1(3.1) found on page 280A carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a government amendment to subsections 13.1(4) and (5). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed?

The amendment is carried.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 13.1(4.1). Shall the amendment carry?

Mrs Caplan: Just a question, Mr Chairman: I just want to be clear that we're dealing with the Liberal amendment to the Conservation Authorities Act that would ensure that any donation that remains in the --

The Chair: Page 282A. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 41, as amended, carry? Same vote reversed? Section 41, as amended, carries.

Shall section 42 carry? Same vote? Section 42 carries.

Interjections.

The Chair: It's a new section. Shall section 42 carry? Same vote? Section 42 carries.

Section 42.1, there's a government amendment, page 283. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, McLeod, Phillips.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

Mrs Caplan: Do you believe that? That's the end of conservation authorities.

The Chair: Section 43. The first amendment in section 43 is found on page 284 and it applies to subsection 43(1.1), clause (m.1). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment to subsection 43(2), subsections 21(2) and (3), found on page 285. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment found on page 286 that amends subsection 43(4), subsections 21(5) and (6). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 43, as amended, carry? Same vote reversed? Section 43, as amended, carries.

1700

Shall section 44 carry? Same vote? Section 44 carries.

Section 45, government amendment, has been withdrawn.

Shall section 45 carry? Same vote.

Section 46: Liberal amendment on page 287A, amending subsection 46(4), subsection 27(17). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a government amendment that amends subsection 46(5), found on page 288. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed?

Interjection: No.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry then?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, McLeod, Phillips.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

Shall section 46, as amended, carry? Section 46, as amended, is carried.

Shall sections 47, 48 and 49 carry? Same vote? Sections 47, 48 and 49 are carried.

Section 50, a government amendment, page 289, amending subsection 50(1), subsection 44(2). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is carried.

The next amendment, found on page 290, is a government amendment that amends subsections 50(2) to (4), subsections 44(7) to (10). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment carries.

Shall section 50, as amended, carry? Carried.

There are no amendments in sections 51 through 57. Shall sections 51 through 57 carry? Same vote? Sections 51 through 57 are carried.

Section 58 is a government amendment, page 291, amending subsection 75(1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is carried.

A government amendment on page 292 amends subsection 75(3). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is carried.

Shall section 58, as amended, carry? Same vote? Section 58 carries.

There are no amendments in section 59 through section 66. Shall sections 59 through 66 carry? Same vote? Sections 59 through 66 are carried.

Section 67 is a government amendment on page 293, amending clause 117(e). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is carried.

Page 294, a government amendment, amending subsection 118(1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment's carried.

Page 295, a government amendment, amending subsection 118(2). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is carried.

Shall section 67, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 68 through 70 carry? Same vote? Sections 68 through 70 are carried.

Shall schedule M, as amended, carry? Same vote? Schedule M, as amended, carries.

Schedule N, Amendments to Certain Acts administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Section 1. Shall the Liberal amendment that amends subsection 1(10), subsections 36(2) and (3), and is found on page 296 carry?

Interjections.

The Chair: Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 1 carry? Same vote reversed? Section 1 carries.

Section 2. There is a government amendment to subsection 2(1), subclause 5(3)(c)(i), found on page 297. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote?

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment. it amends subsection 2(1), subsections 5(6) to (8). It's found on page 298. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 2, as amended, carry? Same vote reversed? Section 2, as amended, carries.

Section 3: The first amendment is a Liberal amendment found on page 299 and it amends subsection 3(1), clause 3(1)(e).

Interjections.

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, I want you to know that I have been trying to follow along very carefully, staying in touch with which ones were up, but I've also been looking ahead, and I want you to know that I have come to the conclusion that the most weaselly worded amendment left in this whole section is the one we're about to deal with, 299, and I bet you the government votes in favour of it.

The Chair: Page 299. Shall this Liberal amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, McLeod, Phillips. Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries unanimously.

The second amendment, found on page 300, is a Liberal amendment. It amends subsection 3(1.1), subsections 3(2.1) and (2.2). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, McLeod, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Ecker, Johns, Hardeman, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 3, as amended, carry? Same vote reversed? Section 3, as amended, is carried.

Section 4: There is a Liberal amendment on page 301. It amends subsection 14(2.1) and (2.2). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Ecker, Johns, Hardeman, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 4 carry? Same vote reversed? Section 4 carries.

Shall section 5 carry? Same vote? Section 5 carries.

Shall schedule N, as amended, carry? Same vote? Schedule N, as amended, carries.

Schedule O, amendments to the Mining Act: The first section has a Liberal amendment, page 302. It amends section 1. Shall the Liberal amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 1 carry? Same vote reversed? Section 1 is carried.

There are no amendments to sections 2 and 3. Shall sections 2 and 3 carry? Same vote? Section 2 and 3 are carried.

Section 4 has a government amendment. It amends section 8. It's found on 303. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment carries.

Shall section 4, as amended, carry? Carried.

There are no amendments to sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Shall sections 5 through 11 carry? Same vote. Sections 5 through 11 are carried.

Section 12 has a government amendment, found on page 304. It amends subsection 44(1.2). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote. Carried. Shall section 12, as amended, carry? Same vote. Section 12, as amended, carries.

1710

There are no amendments to sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. Shall sections 13 through 18 carry? Same vote. Sections 13 through 18 are carried.

Section 19. The government has an amendment to subsections 70(7), (8) and (9). Shall the amendment carry?

Ms Lankin: Just a question: I understood that this deals with the section of the act that hadn't been opened up under the bill. Isn't it an amendment that you would have to rule out of order? You did so well ruling all of those NDP amendments out of order when they were duplicates of ones that had been defeated.

The Chair: Section 70 has been opened. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is carried.

Shall section 19, as amended, carry? Same vote. Section 19, as amended, carries.

Section 20. The government has an amendment, page 306. It amends subsection 73(2). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote. The amendment is carried.

Shall section 20, as amended, carry? Section 20, as amended, carries.

There are no amendments in sections 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25. Shall sections 21 through 25 carry? Same vote? Sections 21 through 25 are carried.

Section 26. The first amendment is a Liberal amendment to section 140. It's found on page 307. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to section 141. It's found on page 308. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote. The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment to sections 140 and 141. Shall the amendment pass? Same vote. The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to section 143. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote. The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 145(1). Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a New Democratic Party amendment, page 313, that amends subsection 145(1). Shall the amendment pass?

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 145(10). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed. The amendment is carried.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 145(11). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 26, as amended, carry? Oh, I was a little premature on the question. We've got a few more to do here. I retract the question and go back to another NDP amendment that --

Ms Lankin: Do you need unanimous consent to do that?

The Chair: Pardon? No, there's a line in a funny place here.

There is another NDP amendment to subsections 145(10) and 145(11). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a government amendment to subsections 147(1) and 147(2). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is carried.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 147(1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 148(9). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment carries.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 148(9). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is an NDP amendment to section 149.1. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote. The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 152(1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 26, as amended, carry? Same vote reversed? Section 26, as amended, carries.

Section 27. The first amendment is a government amendment to subsection 150(1). It's found on page 322. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment carries.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to subsection 150(1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

Shall section 27, as amended, carry? Same vote reversed? Section 27, as amended, carries.

Section 28. The first amendment is a government amendment to section 152. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment carries.

The next amendment is a Liberal amendment to section 153.1. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment is defeated.

The next amendment, found on page 326, is a government amendment to subsection 153.2(3). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment carries.

The next amendment is a government amendment to subsection 153.3(1). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment carries.

Shall section 28, as amended, carry? Same vote? Section 28, as amended, carries.

Sections 29, 30 and 31 have no amendments. Shall sections 29 through 31 carry? Same vote. Sections 29 through 31 are carried.

Section 32 has a Liberal amendment, found on page 328; it amends section 176. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, McLeod, Phillips, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

Shall section 32, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Section 32, as amended, carries.

1720

There are no amendments to sections 33 through 36. Shall sections 33 through 36 carry? Same vote? Sections 33 through 36 are carried.

There's a new government section 36.1 covered under the amendment on page 329. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? Section 36.1 carries.

Going back to the new section 36.1, the government amendment is out of order.

Mr Clement: Section 36.1?

The Chair: Section 36.1 is out of order.

Mr Sampson: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Could we have unanimous consent to consider that motion?

The Chair: It's been ruled out of order. With unanimous consent we can --

Mrs McLeod: What is the unanimous consent to do?

The Chair: To consider an amendment that's out of order.

Mrs McLeod: Why would do that? We haven't been able to ask a single question.

Mr Clement: I've already talked to Gerry about this amendment, so don't give me that.

Mrs Caplan: What are you talking about? Put it on the record.

The Chair: The amendment is in front of you. You can read it. They're asking for unanimous consent --

Mrs Caplan: We'll give you unanimous consent if you tell us --

The Chair: We cannot have a question and answer period. I've asked --

Mrs Caplan: Put it on the record.

The Chair: Mrs Caplan, would you let me take care of the meeting, please.

The amendment has been put before you. I've ruled it out of order. The government has asked for unanimous consent to vote on it, and basically it's a yes or no answer to the question.

Mr Silipo: There's no explanation?

The Chair: No explanation. It's out of order because it deals with a section of the act that hasn't been opened up.

Mr Silipo: I can understand why it's out of order. I don't understand why we're being asked for unanimous consent. We don't want to be unreasonable. Why would it not be possible for someone from the government side to give a 30-second explanation of why this is needed?

Mr Sampson: Mr Chairman, maybe I can ask that we give unanimous approval to reconsider this motion because the change in time will allow for a safer environment in which the prospecting can be done.

The Chair: Mr Sampson has asked for unanimous consent to reconsider a motion I've ruled out of order. Does he have unanimous consent?

Mrs McLeod: It's absolutely incredible that the government is still making mistakes that they want us to fix by unanimous consent.

Interjections.

The Chair: Okay. We have unanimous consent to consider a motion that's been ruled out of order.

Mr Phillips: Mr Chair, we get a chance to comment on it, I assume?

The Chair: Basically, no. There's not going to be any comments on it.

Mrs Caplan: So we give unanimous consent but we don't even have a chance to ask a question or make a comment.

The Chair: You can say yes or no. If you don't want to say yes to the unanimous consent request, be my -- that's going to be the rule.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Chairman, can we take a five-minute recess so that off the record we can find out what this is about?

The Chair: Say yes or no.

Mrs McLeod: I thought we could request a recess. Mr Chairman, I didn't think it took unanimous consent to request a recess.

The Chair: We've got an opportunity for one 20-minute recess, if you want to use it.

Mrs McLeod: I'd be happy to have a two-minute recess. I want to find out what this is about. I'm not prepared to be forced into unanimous consent to fix mistakes without even knowing what we're fixing.

The Chair: You've got an option of one 20-minute thing, so you can take as much of it as you want.

Mrs Caplan: Two minutes is all we need to get an answer here.

Mrs Ecker: If you can't keep your caucus together, that's not our problem.

Mrs Caplan: What's your problem, Janet? All we're asking for is an explanation. I know that's hard for you.

The Chair: Did somebody ask for a two-minute recess?

Mrs McLeod: Yes.

The Chair: Granted.

The committee recessed from 1725 to 1726.

The Chair: Mr Sampson has asked for unanimous consent to reconsider an amendment that I ruled out of order. Do we have unanimous consent? Okay. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Caplan, Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Lankin, Maves, McLeod, Phillips, Sampson, Silipo, Tascona, Young.

The Chair: The amendment carries. Section 36.1 carries unanimously.

Mrs McLeod: May I just know for the record why it was out of order and had to be reconsidered?

The Chair: Because it dealt with a section of the act that had not been opened up previously.

Sections 37, 38 and 39 have no amendments. Shall sections 37, 38 and 39 carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Sections 37 through 39 are carried.

Shall schedule O, as amended, carry? Same vote? Schedule O, as amended, is carried.

Schedule P amends the Ministry of Correctional Services Act. There are no amendments to sections 1 and 2. Shall sections 1 and 2 carry? Same vote? Sections 1 and 2 are carried.

Shall schedule P carry? Same vote? Schedule P is carried.

Schedule Q amends various statutes with regard to interest arbitration. The first amendment is on section 1, a government amendment to subsections 6(5.1) through (5.3), page 330. Shall the amendment carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: The amendment carries.

Shall section 1, as amended, carry? Same vote? Section 1, as amended, is carried.

Section 2. There's a government amendment, page 332, amending subsections 9(1.1) to (1.3). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment carries.

Shall section 2, as amended, carry? Same vote? Section 2, as amended, carries.

Section 3. There's a government amendment to subsections 122(5) to (5.2), page 334. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment is carried.

Shall section 3, as amended, carry? Same vote? Section 3, as amended, carries.

There's a government amendment to section 4 found on page 336, amending subsections 27(3.2) to (3.4). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment carries.

Shall section 4, as amended, carry? Same vote? Section 4, as amended, carries.

Section 5 has two amendments. The first is a government amendment to subsection 5(1), subsections 35(1.1) to (1.3), page 338. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment carries.

The second amendment, on page 340, amends subsection 5(2), subsections 47(2) to (4). Shall the amendment carry? Same vote? The amendment carries.

Shall section 5, as amended, carry? Same vote? Section 5, as amended, carries.

Shall section 6 carry? Same vote? Section 6 carries.

Shall schedule Q, as amended, carry? Same vote? Schedule Q, as amended, carries.

The NDP amendment to the long title of the bill. Shall the amendment carry? Same vote reversed? The amendment does not carry.

Shall the title of the bill carry?

Nays

Clement, Ecker, Johns, Hardeman, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Ayes

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: The title of the bill carries. Shall the bill, as amended, carry?

Mrs McLeod: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I believe we have now completed the clause-by-clause amendment process as dictated by the terms of the agreement in the direction to this committee.

The Chair: Not yet, we haven't.

Mrs McLeod: But before you place the motion to report back to the House, I want it on record that what we have just been through, reluctantly, is the greatest violation of democratic due process that any of us not only has ever seen before but will ever see again. Normally, a week of clause-by-clause is sufficient time to get through the detailed debate on the amendments to a bill. We have just rammed through, of approximately 350 amendments, all but 45 of those amendments. We were not dealing with one bill; we were dealing with 47 different pieces of legislation.

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs McLeod. Shall the bill, as amended, carry?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Johns, Hardeman, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, McLeod, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House?

Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, before you place that motion --

The Chair: Is this a point of order, Ms Lankin?

Ms Lankin: I would hope so. As you will recall --

The Chair: If it's not a point of order, I don't have an opportunity --

Ms Lankin: You'll have to tell me if it is. You will know I tabled a motion with the clerks and with yourself earlier in the week and indicated that I would like that called later in the week. I would like to have the opportunity, before you adjourn -- and it may not be before this motion to report back; it may be immediately subsequent -- to place that motion for debate.

The Chair: From 1 o'clock today, the specific instructions we are working under do not allow that motion to be in order.

Ms Lankin: Could I ask you a question about that, Mr Chair? I understand that I couldn't interrupt the proceedings in any way from 1 o'clock on, and it may be that I'm just a minute too soon in terms of the next vote you have to place, which is to report the bill. But I don't believe there is anything that prohibits this committee -- and if it takes unanimous consent, I ask for unanimous consent -- from considering a matter.

I don't want to interrupt the business that was directed by the House, but I tabled a motion and I gave everyone fair notice that I would like the opportunity to place that motion. It doesn't have to be a long debate. But I would ask that after you proceed with the vote on the motion of reporting the bill to the House and before you adjourn or recess the committee, you at least allow me to read my motion into the record. If members opposite won't give unanimous consent or you rule it out of order at that time, that's fine, but I would like the opportunity, if the clerk would provide me with a copy, that it could be read into the record.

Mr Silipo: Could I just --

The Chair: I've got to give Ms Lankin an answer on her motion.

Mr Silipo: I want to add something which may be of some help to you in giving that answer. It is a point of order I'm raising. When Ms Lankin placed this motion, she made it clear that this was something we wanted the committee to deal with at some appropriate time. My

understanding in the way you received it was that you indicated that, fine, that was received by the committee and the committee would be dealing with it at some point. There's an onus, therefore, on you as the Chair to ensure that the motion is dealt with by the committee.

As Ms Lankin indicated, we understand the procedure in terms of 1 o'clock forward. The motion either should have been dealt with before 1 o'clock -- and I think there's some responsibility on you and the clerk to have brought that forward -- or once we complete the items we were called upon to do starting at 1 o'clock today, it's appropriate for us to deal with that.

The Chair: Wait a minute. First of all, we're going to finish the business we set out to do this afternoon.

Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House?

Ayes

Clement, Ecker, Hardeman, Johns, Maves, Sampson, Tascona, Young.

Nays

Caplan, Lankin, Phillips, Silipo.

The Chair: The motion carries.

Mrs Caplan: Mr Chairman, I would like to register my protest as a point of order. I think it is a legitimate point of order. We had the assurance that we would have our questions answered before this bill was reported to the House. There was no parliamentary assistant carrying this legislation. There was no minister carrying this legislation. We were told we had to place our questions on the record and we were given the assurance that those questions would be answered before this bill was reported to the House. Very important questions have not been answered --

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Caplan. The position --

Mrs Caplan: I believe it's a legitimate point of order. We had the assurances --

The Chair: The position I'm taking now is that the job that I was given to do I have finished, and the meeting is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1737.