Personal Health
Information Privacy Act, 2000, Bill 159, Mrs Witmer
/Loi de 2000 sur la confidentialité des
renseignements personnels sur la santé,projet de
loi 159, Mme Witmer
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair /
Président
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain L)
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton PC)
Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North / -Nord PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr Dave Levac (Brant L)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / -Nord PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington PC)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan L)
Mr Bob Wood (London West / -Ouest PC)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Anne Stokes
Staff /Personnel
Mr Andrew McNaught, research officer,
Research and Information Services
Mr Michael Wood, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1537 in committee room
1.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Steve
Gilchrist): I call the committee to order for the
purpose of accepting the report of the subcommittee for Bill 159,
An Act respecting Personal Health Information and related
matters. To get it on the record, Mr Wood.
Mr Bob Wood (London
West): I move adoption of the subcommittee's report.
The Chair:
It has to be read into the record, if you would be so kind.
Mr Wood: Can
we waive the reading of it? Do I have to read it?
The Chair:
It depends on how nasty the looks are I get from the various
clerks assembled in the room here.
Mr Wood:
Everybody has a copy of it, I take it? All right.
I move adoption of the report
of the subcommittee. Call the vote.
The Chair:
Any discussion?
Mrs Lyn McLeod
(Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Just a couple of things. First
of all, I have as of today, Mr Chair-you may not have received it
yet-provided you with a written request to have the committee
consider a couple of related issues that are beyond the immediate
scope of the bill, as you had suggested at the subcommittee
hearing. So you will have that in writing, and I have provided a
copy to the clerk, if you wish to have that distributed to all
committee members.
Second, I understand the
clerk is going to be distributing a list of the people who were
to be invited to make presentations. I understood you to say at
the subcommittee meeting that if we had other groups that weren't
on the list that we wanted to propose, we could make that
recommendation to the clerk. Is that an accurate statement?
The Chair:
That is completely accurate, Ms McLeod, and I look forward to
getting a copy. I have not seen that.
Mrs McLeod:
It was just done today, so you wouldn't have received it yet.
The Chair:
Mr Marchese?
Mr Rosario Marchese
(Trinity-Spadina): I'm just an innocent bystander.
Mrs Julia Munro (York
North): I just wanted to ask about point 8, "a minimum
of 20 minutes." It seems to me that normally we make a
distinction where people are representing organizations or are
private individuals. Is the intent here that only those
representing organizations would be making submissions or are we
suggesting that everyone has 20 minutes regardless of the breadth
of their representation?
The Chair:
An excellent point. I believe there was some discussion around
the subcommittee of making a distinction between groups and
individuals. I recall we had agreed to go from 15 up to 20 for
groups, but I think perhaps in the course of that discussion we
lost sight of the fact that we had said 10 minutes for
individuals. I don't know if anyone would wish to make that a
formal amendment to the subcommittee report.
Mr Marchese:
I don't know whether Lyn has any point to make with respect to
that. Because obviously I was not there in subcommittee-Frances
Lankin was-I'm not sure what the agreement was, but normally we
suggest 10 minutes for individuals and 15 for organizations.
Unless the subcommittee decided that perhaps this issue is a
little more complicated and requires a little more in-depth
deputation, that I would suggest would be the norm. But I'd like
to hear from Lyn.
Mrs McLeod:
My understanding of the discussion at the subcommittee was that
because this is an extremely technical bill we're doing it
somewhat differently.
Mr Marchese:
So 15-20 then.
Mrs McLeod:
That's right, because it would be virtually impossible for
anybody to address the detail of the bill in a very short
presentation. So it's not as though we're looking for opinions;
we're looking for really technical analysis of the legal
implications.
Mr Marchese:
So is it 15 minutes for individuals and 20 for organizations that
you might have agreed to?
The Chair:
Again, Ms McLeod, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think our
discussions then segued almost exclusively into groups, and you
did raise the very valid point that the groups would be coming
in, in most cases, with fairly specific and technical questions
that they would like to have answered. I don't think we really
spent a lot of time on individuals. I guess I would just draw it
to the attention of the members of the committee that when we're
looking at scheduling, particularly here in Toronto, if our goal
is to do a balancing act between making sure all questions are
answered but also making sure we hear from as many people as
possible, that is why we historically have adopted a different
standard for individuals.
Mr Marchese: I'm not sure whether
Lyn has an opinion on that. Are we agreeing to 15 for
individuals, or 10; and 20 for organizations?
The Chair: I
would invite comment from all the members around the table.
Mr Wood: I
would endorse Mr Marchese's suggestion of 10 and 20, but I'm not
particularly strong. I might point out that I do think the Chair
has been given the authority to increase, so what we're talking
about here are minimums. So it's not that someone, if it was felt
more time was needed, might not get more than 20 if they were an
organization. What you're talking about, as I understand it, are
minimums, which I'm quite happy to support. I am open to
suggestion on it, but I think your suggestion is a reasonable
one, provided the Chair does have the authority, as he does, to
extend it.
Mr Dave Levac
(Brant): The Chair has always exercised some discretion
in terms of allowing people to go over if it looked like it was
getting us somewhere; and a compliment to him, because there were
times when we were in the middle of a deputation that it was
obvious more needed to be said by this particular witness. I
would bow to the Chair's judgment on that because it makes sense
to me that we not shortcut anybody, unless they decide not to
speak for 10 minutes or 20 minutes, individuals or groups.
I needed a clarification on a
comment you made about distinguishing groups. Was there a request
to make sure that we had a distinction between a group, per se,
and an individual, or different types of groups that we were
looking for?
The Chair:
We have historically tended not to be judgmental about what
constitutes a group, as long as it's clearly not just a name
somebody has manufactured for the purpose of artificing a longer
period of time. But an individual hospital and the OHA, I would
suggest, would be considered equally valid group
presentations.
Mrs McLeod:
I guess the reason why I'm hesitant to see the flexibility of
either the Chair or the committee restricted is because we may,
for example, on a bill of this nature, if we're in Kingston, find
value in having a law professor from Queen's University who has
some expertise in this who is not an organization but to whom we
would like to give an extensive period of time because we would
all benefit from that kind of an analysis.
The Chair:
Perhaps if I might offer a compromise then, that once the final
list of presenters is before you, if there are some you would
like to bump up from the category of individual to group because
of their expertise, I would be more than happy to take those
representations. My only concern again is that if here in Toronto
we were to get such a lot more applications from individuals that
it compromised our ability to hear from the groups, then I think
we would not be serving this bill to the extent we possibly
could.
If we could make it 10 and 20
on the understanding that once the deadline for the application
to be a witness before the committee has passed, that list would
be circulated and if you see someone whose expertise you'd like
to see rewarded, we would take that direction.
Mr Wood:
Further to the discussion, could I put a motion on the floor that
I think will encapsulate what we've just said?
"Witnesses be allotted a
minimum of 10 minutes per individual and 20 minutes per group per
presentation, and that the Chair be authorized to expand the
length of time" etc, "depending on the individual or group being
represented" etc.
Mr Marchese:
We could do that. Steve was recommending that once we see the
list we can all agree on the length of time rather than-
Mr Wood: I
think he's inviting submissions, actually. He's saying if you
think more time is needed, you tell him. Certainly if the
committee gives instructions-in the past I think there's been
reasonable discretion used, but others don't feel that,
obviously.
Mr Marchese:
I could live with the discretion of the Chair, obviously.
The Chair:
We have in fact covered off in section 10 "That the Chair, in
consultation with the clerk, be authorized to make decisions"
including scheduling. I would be happy to see two amendments:
first off, the one in 8 that would say 20 minutes for
presentations for groups and 10 minutes for individuals, but then
that in number 5 we insert a sentence after the first sentence
that says, "As soon as possible after the deadline, the clerk
shall circulate the list of prospective witnesses to all caucuses
for their input."
Mr Wood:
I'll add that to my motion. That will be put as another amendment
in my motion.
The Chair:
So are we clear about those two sentences? All in favour of that?
Thank you.
The amendment having been
dealt with, all those in favour of the adoption of the
subcommittee report, as amended? It is adopted.
I believe, Mr Wood, you had
another matter to bring before us.
PERSONAL HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT, 2000 / LOI
DE 2000 SUR LA CONFIDENTIALITÉ DES RENSEIGNEMENTS PERSONNELS
SUR LA SANTÉ
Consideration of Bill 159, An
Act respecting Personal Health Information and related matters /
Projet de loi 159, Loi concernant les renseignements personnels
sur la santé et traitant de questions connexes.
Mr Wood:
Yes. As members are aware, the government's not going to proceed
with subsections (2) and (3) of section 36 of the bill, and I
think we have unanimous consent to remove those. There are some
technical things I have to do to do that, so maybe I can plunge
into that if that appears to be in order.
I seek unanimous consent for
the committee to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of
Bill 159, to stand down
sections 1 to 35 to deal with subsections (2) and (3) of section
36, but stand down the remainder of section 36 and stand down
sections 37 to 95.
I have to seek that first and
then I move my amendment to get them out.
Mrs McLeod:
Just before giving consent, Mr Chair, we had agreed at
subcommittee to have these sections struck out before the bill
proceeds to committee, but I had understood it was to be done in
the House. I would appreciate an explanation of why it can't be
done in the House.
Mr Wood:
Apparently it's far more complicated to do that. It has to be
pulled out of the committee to go back to the House. After they
explained the procedure, I didn't understand it but I took their
word for it that it was more complicated. The simplest way to do
what the subcommittee wanted to do, apparently, is what I have
just done. If unanimous consent is given to that-I can even read
the motion I'm going to move, if you'd like to hear it. I can
give it to you right now.
The Chair:
In fact, I can add further to Mr Wood's comments. It not only has
to be pulled out of committee, it then must go into committee of
the whole House. We have to go through a whole procedure there,
at which point another motion would have to be passed to send it
back to committee. So having had those who deal with these sorts
of issues review the matter, it wasn't as simple as we thought it
would be in subcommittee. It has exactly the same effect, is my
understanding of what we're trying to do.
Mr Wood:
This is the easy way to do what we wanted to do, is the short
answer.
The Chair:
Might I just say, just for the purpose of procedural issues here,
we're not voting on that motion. Mr Wood is simply seeking
unanimous consent to, in effect, open up the floor for debate on
this.
Mrs McLeod:
I understand that and that's why I'm making my comments prior to
giving my unanimous consent.
Mr Wood: We
will read you the actual motion if you want to hear it.
Mrs McLeod:
I suspect I'm comfortable with the motion, which I expect would
say to strike down the two sections, and that's a motion which I
would support.
Mr Wood:
That is it.
Mrs McLeod:
My only reason for raising the concern, and one of the reasons
why both Ms Lankin and I agreed in the subcommittee that we would
be prepared to entertain this motion in the House, was so that
when the bill proceeds to committee for public hearings it goes
forward in a way which eliminates a clause that the government
clearly intends to strike from the bill. My concern then is
whether or not there is less public awareness prior to the public
hearings if this is done in committee, and in what manner
something which is done in committee is reported back to the
House. At what point is it reported back to the House? How does
it get out of committee? I think in some way there needs to be
perhaps even a letter that would go to stakeholders, some kind of
information that that portion of the bill has already been dealt
with in committee.
1550
The Chair:
As a supplementary motion, that would certainly be in order, that
the clerk could be directed to communicate whatever change is
made, if any, to all the groups which indicated an interest in
speaking to the committee, or even in the general mailout to
solicit feedback, written or oral.
Mrs McLeod:
So in granting consent I can have it on faith that that motion
would be entertained?
The Chair:
Just looking around the room, I guess I should nod my head.
Mrs McLeod:
I'm not trying to be tricky here, but the government wants, and
we agree, that this bill should go forward as cleanly as
possible, so we just want it to be communicated that way.
Mr Wood: I
think that point is well taken. I'd like to suggest that perhaps
when we invite people to make submissions we send a letter
saying, "Please note that subsections (2) and (3) of section 36
in the original bill have been removed."
Mrs McLeod:
I agree, because otherwise I think it will be a focus of
some-
Mr Wood:
That's an excellent suggestion. Could we invite you to instruct
that as part of-
The Chair:
Might I just ask that we deal with that as a separate motion. But
clearly we have an indication that it seems to have unanimous
consent.
Mr Wood: I
will move that first, if need be, after Mrs Elliott speaks.
Mrs Brenda Elliott
(Guelph-Wellington): There was just some concern about
whether or not people who had expressed interest in the bill and
making presentations on the bill would be alerted to this so it's
a technical brief.
The Chair:
If I may be so bold, I think Ms McLeod is suggesting that even
before we get to that stage, the people that the clerk will be
sending out notices of the hearings to will also know. So it
covers all the bases.
Mr Wood: We
don't have to formally instruct you to do that, do we? Do you
wish a motion?
The Chair:
It certainly makes it easier for the clerk to have that on the
record formally.
Mr Wood: I
move that in the notices sent out-
The Chair:
Are we not getting a little ahead of ourselves? We haven't made
any change yet.
Mr Wood:
You're right. I will move it when I'm in order.
The Chair:
Mr Wood has sought unanimous consent to open up for
clause-by-clause for the purpose of dealing with one motion.
Agreed? Agreed.
Mr Wood: I
move that subsections 36(2) and (3) of the bill be struck
out.
The Chair:
Any debate? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in
favour? Opposed? It's passed unanimously.
Mr Wood: I
move that in the requests or invitations for submissions that it
be noted to those being communicated with that subsections 36(2) and (3) of
the original bill have been struck out.
The Chair:
Any debate? All those in favour? It is passed unanimously.
Mrs McLeod:
Procedurally, then, where does that stand legally now? Because
the bill is not being reported. We're not reporting this
amendment. It's basically an amendment. We're not reporting this
amendment back to the House for the House's approval at this
point, so it stands as part of clause-by-clause. It stands as
intent of the committee amendment process. It's not legally
struck yet?
The Chair:
You can imagine that it is comparable to a typical
clause-by-clause at the end of a bill that might go more than one
day. So in the absence of a time allocation motion, in theory,
when you make each change to a bill, that change is now done and,
save only the final vote at the end of the bill to refer it back
to the House, I think to the extent that everything we do is
intent until that final vote is taken, it has exactly the same
weight today as it would have had on the last day of
clause-by-clause.
Mrs McLeod:
Theoretically, though, according to our rules of order, it would
be possible for that part of the recommendation of the committee
to be struck by the Legislature.
The Chair:
After second reading the House could change anything we do in
first reading, yes.
Mrs McLeod:
I just think the way in which we communicate it should make it
clear that this has been done by committee, it has not been done
in the Legislature. It's been done by committee, that the
sections have been struck in the initial review of the bill.
Mr Wood: The
Legislature, once a report comes back, either endorses it or they
don't.
Mrs McLeod:
In its entirety?
Mr Wood:
Exactly. So as long as this stays out, they've either got to
reject it or accept it. They can't make amendments, I don't
think.
The Chair:
Forgive me. On the assumption that everything else proceeds as
one would expect it to, at the end of public hearings and
clause-by-clause, the moment the committee agrees to send the
bill back to the House, these clauses are gone. They would have
to be reintroduced. There would be nothing for them to debate
because they aren't there. So it would have, again, the same
weight as if we had done this at the end of the hearings.
Mr Marchese:
I wondered about that, Steve.
Mrs McLeod:
I'm not sure that there isn't some way. I don't think there's
precedent for it, technically.
Mr Wood: I
think the answer is that the House, in and of itself, can't amend
this bill. It either accepts it or it doesn't. If it wants to
amend it, it has to come back to a committee.
The Chair:
Aside from committee-
Mr Wood:
In other words, you can't go back in unless it comes back to a
committee.
The Chair:
As we launch into a procedural debate here, the clerks are by far
the most expert to handle this. Aside from committee of the whole
House, strictly speaking, the Legislature never amends bills;
committees are the ones that amend bills. So it is in all
respects typical. The clerk very correctly suggested my wording
was slightly off. When we refer a bill, even then it has no force
until, of course, we consent to its introduction again in the
House.
Mr
Marchese: Except that it's probably been very rare, if
ever done, where we've sent a recommendation from this committee
and the Legislature, the assembly, has either changed an aspect
or a section of a bill, for that matter.
Mr Wood:
But they can't-
Mrs
McLeod: It's technically possible.
Mr
Marchese: It's technically possible but I don't think
it's ever happened.
Mr Wood: I
don't think it is, no.
Mrs
McLeod: This has become more a curiosity than anything
else.
Mr
Marchese: We're just debating it.
Mr Wood:
They can't amend it in the House. Folks, it is gone for sure, I
promise you.
Mr
Marchese: I think we can move on.
Mr Wood: I
think we have too many lawyers in this committee, even though I
only have one.
Interjections.
The Chair:
Are there any other issues before the committee this
afternoon?
