CHIROPODY ACT / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PODOLOGUES
CHIROPRACTIC ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES CHIROPRATICIENS
CONTENTS
Tuesday 8 October 1991
Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, and companion legislation / Loi de 1991 sur les professions de la santé réglementées et les projets de loi qui l'accompagnent
Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology Act, 1991 /
Loi de 1991 sur les audiologues et les orthophonistes
Chiropody Act, 1991 / Loi de 1991 sur les podologues
Chiropractic Act, 1991 / Loi de 1991 sur les chiropraticiens
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Chair: Caplan, Elinor (Oriole L)
Vice-Chair: Cordiano, Joseph (Lawrence L)
Beer, Charles (York North L)
Haeck, Christel (St. Catharines-Brock NDP)
Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent NDP)
Malkowski, Gary (York East NDP)
Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie NDP)
McLeod, Lyn (Fort William L)
Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre NDP)
Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre NDP)
Wilson, Jim (Simcoe West PC)
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North PC)
Clerk: Mellor, Lynn
Staff: Spakowski, Mark, Legislative Counsel
The committee met at 1530 in room 151.
REGULATED HEALTH PROFESSIONS ACT, 1991, AND COMPANION LEGISLATION / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PROFESSIONS DE LA SANTÉ RÉGLEMENTÉES ET LES PROJETS DE LOI QUI L'ACCOMPAGNENT
Resuming consideration of Bill 43, the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, and its companion legislation, Bills 44-64.
Reprise de l'étude du projet de loi 43, Loi sur les professions de la santé réglementées et les projets de loi, 44 à 64, qui l'accompagnent.
AUDIOLOGY AND SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES AUDIOLOGUES ET LES ORTHOPHONISTES
The Chair: The standing committee on social development is now in session. I understand there has been an agreement that we proceed today with Bills 44, 45 and 46. Discussions regarding outstanding matters on Bill 43 will come forward at a future time. Everybody should have a new, integrated package of proposed amendments. We begin with section 1.
Section/article 1:
The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that the French version of section 1 of the bill be amended,
(a) by striking out "audiologues" in the definition of "ordre" and substituting "audiologistes"; and
(b) by striking out "d'audiologue" in the definition of "profession" and substituting "d'audiologiste."
Mr Wessenger: It is to comply with the language preferred by the college.
Motion agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
L'article 1, modifié, est adopté.
Section/article 2:
The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that the French version of subsection 2(2) of the bill be amended,
(a) by striking out "audiologues" in the definition of "ordre" and substituting "audiologistes"; and
(b) by striking out "d'audiologue" in the definition of "profession" and substituting "d'audiologiste."
Motion agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
L'article 2, modifié, est adopté.
Section/article 3:
The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that the French version of subsection 3(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "d'audiologue" in the first and second lines and substituting "d'audiologiste."
Motion agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
L'article 3, modifié, est adopté.
Section/article 4:
The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that the French version of section 4 of the bill be amended by striking out "d'audiologue" in the first and second lines and substituting "d'audiologiste."
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Mr J. Wilson moves that section 4 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(2) In the course of engaging in the practice of audiology or speech-language pathology, a member is authorized, subject to the terms, conditions and limitations imposed on his or her certificate of registration, to communicate a diagnosis identifying an auditory or speech and language disorder as the cause of a person's symptoms."
Mr J. Wilson: The reasoning behind the amendment is that we believe speech-language pathologists and audiologists do diagnose communication problems within their scope of practice. Currently, audiologists and speech-language pathologists routinely present conclusions to the patient or the patient's family and counsel them regarding the results of the assessment as part of the assessment process.
Speech-language pathologists and audiologists are trained to assess, diagnose and treat a very specific group of communication disorders and dysfunctions, as set out in their scope of practice. As the legislation is currently written, only physicians and psychologists would be allowed to communicate the conclusion of a hearing or speech-language assessment to the patient, even though they may not perform the assessment or be present during the assessment, they are not specially trained in the assessment of all communicative disorders or dysfunctions, they may not be involved in the design of a treatment program based on the assessment results and they may not be involved in the long-term treatment of the patient's communicative disorder or dysfunction.
Essentially, it should be obvious to all members of the committee that we strongly believe and feel there was a great deal of testimony before the committee that speech-language pathologists and audiologists should have the ability to diagnose and communicate that diagnosis and the result of their assessment to their patients directly without having to go through a general practitioner or physician.
Mr Wessenger: I oppose the amendment on the basis that, in our opinion, audiologists do not diagnose; audiologists assess. There is nothing in the legislation that prevents them from communicating their assessments and the results of their tests to the patient; therefore, this amendment is not appropriate in the circumstances.
Mr J. Wilson: We had a number of letters from physicians -- from the Toronto Hospital, for instance -- attached to one of the briefs from the speech-language pathologists. They specifically said to the committee that they do diagnose and are asked to diagnose and communicate the results of their diagnoses to their patients. What is the government's response to that specifically?
Mr Wessenger: The government's response is that they do not diagnose. There has been a lot of loose language used with respect to the whole question of the meaning of "diagnosis." Many groups have said they diagnose, when the correct language is that they are doing assessments. We clearly set out in the act the fact that we have changed it from "communicating a conclusion" to "communicating a diagnosis." We made it very clear in the act that there is a difference between a diagnosis and an assessment. We believe that more than amply solves the problem with respect not only to the unregulated but also to the regulated groups, making it clear that assessments are different from conclusions.
Motion negatived.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
L'article 4, modifié, est adopté.
Section/article 5:
The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that the English version of section 5 of the bill be amended by striking out "audiologues" in the fourth line and substituting "audiologistes."
Mr Wessenger further moves that the French version of section 5 of the bill be amended by striking out "audiologues" in the second line and substituting "audiologistes."
Motion agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
L'article 5, modifié, est adopté.
1540
Section/article 6:
The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that clause 6(1)(a) of the bill be amended by striking out "at least six and no more than ten" in the first line and substituting "at least eight and no more than nine."
Mr Wessenger further moves that clause 6(1)(b) of the bill be amended by striking out "at least four and no more than six" in the first line and substituting "at least six and no more than seven."
Mr Wessenger: It gives effect to the government's decision to increase public representation on the college's council to just under half, as agreed with the college.
Mr J. Wilson: I will certainly be voting against this particular amendment, given our position that it would further erode the principle of self-regulation.
Mr Hope: With regard to the comment about the ability for self-regulation, I believe that as long as you have 50% plus one you still have the ability to self-regulate. You have the majority.
Motion agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
L'article 6, modifié, est adopté.
Section 7 agreed to.
L'article 7 est adopté.
Sections 8 to 14/articles 8 à 14:
Mr Wessenger: I would like to indicate to members that sections 8 to 14, inclusive, of this bill are now rendered unnecessary by reason of the amendment that was previously made by the Liberals, which provided that the matter would be dealt with by regulation.
The Chair: So you are moving that sections 8 through 14, inclusive, be deleted.
Mr Wessenger: Yes, I move that sections 8 through 14, inclusive, be deleted.
The Chair: Do you have something in writing for us?
Mr Wessenger: I do not know whether I have.
The Chair: You will have something in writing for us before the end of this meeting. Thank you.
Mr Wessenger: Okay.
The Chair: We have a motion to delete sections 8 to 14, inclusive. All in favour? Any opposed? That carries.
Motion agreed to.
Sections 8 to 14, inclusive, deleted.
Les articles 8 à 14, inclusivement, sont rayés.
Section/article 15:
The Chair: Mr Beer moves that subsection 15(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(1) No person other than a member shall use the titles `audiologist,' `speech-language pathologist' or `speech therapist,' a variation or abbreviation or an equivalent in another language in the course of providing or offering to provide, in Ontario, health care to individuals."
Mr Wessenger: I have an amendment to that motion. We have a government motion.
The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that subsection 15(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "in the course of providing or offering to provide, in Ontario, health care to individuals" in the last three lines.
That is the government motion in our package.
Mr J. Wilson: Had the government not moved that amendment to the amendment, I would have moved the amendment to the amendment. We totally agree.
The Chair: You also have an amendment here to subsection 15(1). Do you want to move it now?
Mr J. Wilson: I will withdraw our amendment at this point, since it is exactly the same as the Liberal amendment.
The Chair: Mr Wilson's motion is withdrawn.
Mr Malkowski: I think it is important that those titles be very clear to avoid confusion in the public. I strongly encourage our members to support the motion.
The Chair: Any further discussion? First is the amendment to the amendment.
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: To Mr Beer's amendment?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that the French version of subsection 15(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "audiologue" in the second line and substituting "audiologiste."
Mr Wessenger further moves that the French version of subsection 15(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "d'audiologue" in the third and fourth lines and substituting "d'audiologiste."
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
L'article 15, modifié, est adopté.
Sections 16 and 17 agreed to.
Les articles 16 et 17 sont adoptés.
Section/article 18:
The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that section 18 of the bill be amended by striking out "college" in the third line and substituting "council" and by striking out clause (b).
Mr Wessenger: This amendment is necessary because the council is the college body that makes regulations.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
L'article 18, modifié, est adopté.
Sections 19 and 20 agreed to.
Les articles 19 et 20 sont adoptés.
Section/article 21:
The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that section 21 of the bill be amended by adding following subsection:
"(4) Despite subsection (1), section 81.1 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, as it applies in respect of this act, does not come into force until one year after this act comes into force."
Mr Wessenger: This gives the college one year after proclamation to establish a patient relations committee.
Mr J. Wilson: I am surprised the government is moving forward with this amendment today, because I thought we stood down and had some sort of an agreement yesterday that the patient relations committee would not be discussed in any of these bills for at least two weeks. I think I had a private agreement for at least two weeks; certainly my public agreement is till after Bill 64. But I am willing to wait at least two weeks till we have further consulted on the whole idea of a patient relations committee.
Mr Beer: I think we would want to discuss that issue when we are discussing all of the attendant issues and that we should stand this down until that time.
Mr Owens: Later on, when we have finished the actual passage of these sections, I will be moving a motion that we deal with this issue on the patient relations and sexual abuse two weeks from yesterday.
The Chair: Mr Wessenger, I hear consensus at committee that we defer consideration of this section for two weeks and deal with it at the same time. Mr Hope, do you want to speak against that?
Mr Hope: No. It is a concern that I have dealing with the issue around assistive devices, because we are talking, I guess, about patient relations. I want to put a question about the assistive devices program to the parliamentary assistant. Is there an assessment ongoing on that assistive devices program, or will there be changes coming in the future?
Mr Wessenger: I am afraid I cannot say anything at this time on that matter. We do not really have the information available.
The Chair: Are you speaking in opposition to the deferral of section 21, Mr Hope?
Mr Hope: I had my hand up to comment on patient relations, and that is why I got this comment in on the assistive devices program.
The Chair: The problem is, it is not in order now to discuss the clause as there has been agreement by the committee that it be deferred for two weeks.
1550
Mr Hope: I did not hear anybody make the motion, so I asked the question.
The Chair: There has been agreement by the committee that this be deferred. There has been agreement on Bill 43 to defer everything related to a patient relations committee. That has been the discussion at the committee, so it would be more appropriate for you to engage in the debate at the time when this is discussed. That is why I am asking if what you want to do is speak against the deferral.
That being the case, I see agreement from the committee that section 21 be stood down and dealt with at the same time we deal with all other matters relating to sexual assault. I have a formal motion from Mr Owens that this be dealt with two weeks from yesterday. Is that agreed by the committee? That will be October 21, for any members of the public who are interested. The committee will be dealing with all matters related to sexual assault at that time, so we will stand down section 21.
Motion agreed to.
Section/article 22:
The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that the French version of section 22 of the bill be amended by striking out "audiologues" in the second line and substituting "audiologistes."
Motion agreed to.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
L'article 22, modifié, est adopté.
The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that the French version of the long title of the bill be amended by striking out "d'audiologue" and substituting "d'audiologiste."
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Le titre, modifié, est adopté.
CHIROPODY ACT / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PODOLOGUES
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Les articles 1 et 2 sont adoptés.
Section/article 3:
The Chair: Mr Wilson moves that subsection 3(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "1993" in the third line and substituting "1994."
Mr J. Wilson: The explanation is that the legislation disallows entrance to the College of Podiatry after July 31, 1993, and we are proposing that this not come into effect until July 1994.
Apparently podiatrists had an understanding with the Schwartz committee and the ministry that the effective date of the cap would be three years after the date on which the legislation was tabled, and that is July 1994. The delay is in bringing forward this legislation. By moving the date to 1994, all Ontario residents currently in a podiatry program would have the opportunity to return to practise in Ontario. The government should note that both podiatrists and chiropodists have called for this amendment.
Mr Wessenger: I would like to oppose the amendment because I understand that it was not the agreement that it would be three years after the tabling of the legislation. I would like to point out that this amendment is not supported by the board of regents of the chiropodists. They in fact oppose this.
With respect to the question of fairness, the government's policy has been well known for several years. In addition, by extending this we are providing additional costs to OHIP because podiatrists have billing privileges, so it would have a financial impact by adding one more year.
The Chair: Because there is a financial impact in this amendment, I would suggest that it is ultra vires and beyond the scope of this committee to include an amendment that would have financial impact, without the support of the government.
Mr J. Wilson: Madam Chair, it is impossible to move any amendment without the support of the government. They have the committee stacked.
The Chair: Because of the information from Mr Wessenger that this has financial implication, I declare that it is not a valid motion before the committee. Shall section --
Mr J. Wilson: Just let me point out to the committee that the Ontario chiropodists' association does support this amendment. Perhaps the board of regents does not, but certainly the association does.
Section 3 agreed to.
L'article 3 est adopté.
The Chair: I think Hansard should note Mr Wilson's objection to section 3, since his amendment was ultra vires. I am sure it does.
Section 4 agreed to.
L'article 4 est adopté.
Section/article 5:
The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that paragraphs 2 and 3 of subsection 5(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"2. Administering, by injection into feet, a substance designated in the regulations.
"3. Prescribing drugs designated in the regulations."
Mr Wessenger further moves that paragraphs 3 and 4 of subsection 5(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"3. Administering, by injection into feet, a substance designated in the regulations.
"4. Prescribing drugs designated in the regulations."
Mr Wessenger: This amendment rephrases the authorized acts authorizing members to administer specified substances and prescribe specified drugs. The amendment makes it clearer that the substances and drugs will be designated in regulations under the Chiropody Act.
Mr J. Wilson: We do not have any particularly strong feelings about this amendment and we will support it. But we do feel strongly that chiropodists should be able to communicate a diagnosis, unless it is the subject of the next amendment. But I thought it was appropriate to also mention it in this context here.
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Mr Wilson moves that subsection 5(1) of the bill be amended by adding the following paragraph:
"1 Communicating a diagnosis identifying a disease or disorder of the foot."
Mr J. Wilson: We are proposing this amendment on behalf of chiropodists because we believe they should be allowed to communicate a diagnosis identifying a disease or disorder of the foot. As a result of the changing demography in our society, an increasing number of chiropodists are practising in community-based clinics and providing chiropody services to nursing homes where there is little or no medical supervision of the treatment the chiropodists provide. We believe it is only logical that chiropodists be allowed to communicate a diagnosis identifying a disease or disorder of the foot.
Under the existing Chiropody Act chiropodists have exercised the right to diagnose. Chiropodists are trained to diagnose in their clinical and didactic training. Without the power to diagnose, the practice of chiropody will be restricted to simply those institutions in which a physician is supervising. So I would ask the government to seriously consider this also. We go back to remarks made both by the minister and the parliamentary assistant that the intent of this legislation is to expand the practices in medicare, not to maintain the status quo where only physicians can diagnose.
Mr Wessenger: I would like to oppose this amendment on the basis that chiropodists in fact do not diagnose, as indicated with respect to the prior amendment made to the previous act: They assess. It is interesting to note under the act, though, that podiatrists can diagnose because they have the extra training which enables them to do that because they do surgery on the foot, which chiropodists do not do.
Motion negatived.
The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that paragraph 1 of subsection 5(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"1. Communicating a diagnosis identifying a disease or disorder of the foot as the cause of a person's symptoms."
Mr Wessenger: This is a consequential amendment resulting from the amendments to the diagnosis controlled act in subsection 26(2) of Bill 43.
Motion agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
L'article 5, modifié, est adopté.
1600
Section 6 agreed to.
L'article 6 est adopté.
Section/article 7:
The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that clause 7(1)(a) of the bill be amended by striking out "at least seven and no more than ten" in the first line and substituting "at least six and no more than nine."
Mr Wessenger further moves that clause 7(1)(b) of the bill be amended by striking out "at least four and no more than six" in the first line and substituting "at least five and no more than eight."
Mr J. Wilson: I certainly will not be supporting this amendment on behalf of my caucus because we believe it erodes the principle of self-regulation.
Motion agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
L'article 7, modifié, est adopté.
Section 8 agreed to.
L'article 8 est adopté.
Sections 9 to 15/articles 9 à 15:
The Acting Chair (Mr Brown): Mr Wessenger moves that sections 9 to 15, inclusive, be struck out.
Mr Wessenger: These are no longer required because of the Liberal amendment that was accepted that designated that these matters would be dealt with in regulations as distinct from being in the act.
Motion agreed to.
Sections 9 to 15, inclusive, deleted.
Les articles 9 à 15, inclusivement, sont rayés.
Section 16 agreed to.
L'article 16 est adopté.
Section/article 17:
The Acting Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that subsection 17(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "in the course of providing or offering to provide, in Ontario, health care to individuals" in the last three lines.
Mr Wessenger: Again, this is to give title protection outside health care, as we are getting involved in the titles with this act.
Motion agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
L'article 17, modifié, est adopté.
Sections 18 and 19 agreed to.
Les articles 18 et 19 sont adoptés.
Section/article 20:
The Acting Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that section 20 of the bill be amended,
(a) by striking out "college" in the third line and substituting "council";
(b) by striking out "restricting" in the first line of clause (a) and substituting "designating"; and
(c) by striking out clause (c).
Motion agreed to.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
L'article 20, modifié, est adopté.
Sections 21 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
Les articles 21 à 23, inclusivement, sont adoptés.
The Chair: I assume the committee would like to hold down section 24 to be dealt with two weeks from last Monday, on the 21st.
Mr Wessenger: Yes.
The Chair: We will hold that down.
Section 25 agreed to.
L'article 25 est adopté.
Title agreed to.
Le titre est adopté.
The Chair: We will hold the rest now until we complete the bill.
CHIROPRACTIC ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES CHIROPRATICIENS
The Chair: The clerk is handing out a replacement amendment to section 3. It replaces what is in your package.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Les articles 1 et 2 sont adoptés.
Section/article 3:
The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that section 3 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"3. The practice of chiropractic is the assessment of conditions related to the spine, nervous system and joints and the diagnosis, prevention and treatment, primarily by adjustment, of,
"(a) dysfunctions or disorders arising from the structures or functions of the spine and the effects of those dysfunctions or disorders on the nervous system; and
"(b) dysfunctions or disorders arising from the structures or functions of the joints."
Mr Wessenger: This amendment recognizes that chiropractors are qualified to diagnose and treat dysfunctions and disorders related to the spine and joints.
Mr J. Wilson: I think it is appropriate at this time to commend the government for this new scope-of-practice wording. We will be supporting it, and I withdraw my amendment on the page following concerning the same section.
Motion agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
L'article 3, modifié, est adopté.
Section/article 4:
The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that paragraph 1 of section 4 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"1. communicating a diagnosis identifying, as the cause of a person's symptoms,
"i. a disorder arising from the structures or functions of the spine and their effects on the nervous system, or
"ii. a disorder arising from the structures or functions of the joints of the extremities."
Mr Wessenger: Again, this amendment authorises chiropractors to communicate a diagnosis of a disorder of the spine or joints of the extremities.
Mr J. Wilson: Again I would like to commend the government for this amendment. It shows that every once in a while it does listen to the groups that appear before this committee. I was wondering up to this point whether there was any sense having the hearings, but you have restored my faith in the fact that you do listen. Second, I will withdraw my amendment dealing with the same section.
Motion agreed to.
1610
The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that section 4 of the bill be amended by adding the following paragraph:
"3. putting a finger beyond the anal verge for the purpose of manipulating the tailbone."
Motion agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
L'article 4, modifié, est adopté.
Section 5 agreed to.
L'article 5 est adopté.
Section/article 6:
The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that clause 6(1)(a) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(a) nine persons who are members elected in the prescribed manner."
Mr Wessenger further moves that clause 6(1)(b) of the bill be amended by striking out "at least four and no more than six" in the first line and substituting "seven."
Mr Wessenger: This amendment gives effect to the government's decision to increase public representation to just under half.
Mr J. Wilson: I will be opposing this government amendment. Committee members will recall that we had introduced an amendment to Bill 43 that would have strengthened the principle of self-regulation in terms of allowing for a 60-40 split between professional and lay members. Consistent with that, I will be voting against this amendment.
Motion agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
L'article 6, modifié, est adopté.
Section 7 agreed to.
L'article 7 est adopté.
Sections 8 to 14/articles 8 à 14:
The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that sections 8 to 14, inclusive, be struck out.
Mr Wessenger: This is again because of the Liberal amendment which provides that these matters be dealt with by regulation.
Mr Beer: In the spirit of Mr Wilson's earlier comments I would like to commend the government, in each of these bills, for having responded in the way it has, which also shows the way this committee has been able to work co-operatively.
Mr Wessenger: Thank you very much, Mr Beer.
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: I would note the unanimous consent of the deletion of sections 8 to 14, inclusive. All in favour? No dissent.
Sections 8 to 14, inclusive, deleted.
Les articles 8 à 14, inclusivement, sont rayés.
Section 15 agreed to.
L'article 15 est adopté.
Section/article 16:
The Chair: Mr Wessenger moves that subsection 16(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "in the course of providing or offering to provide, in Ontario, health care to individuals" in the last three lines.
Motion agreed to.
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
L'article 16, modifié, est adopté.
Sections 17 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
Les articles 17 à 21, inclusivement, sont adoptés.
The Chair: I assume the committee would like to stand down discussion on section 22 until October 21, in two weeks?
Mr Wessenger: Yes.
The Chair: That is stood down on section 22.
Section 23 agreed to.
L'article 23 est adopté.
Title agreed to.
Le titre est adopté.
The Chair: The rest we will stand down until we have completed the bill.
A matter of housekeeping on the other two bills dealt with today which deleted significant sections: For the record, we have unanimous consent to delete those sections as they related to the other bills. I think they were 8 to 14 inclusive.
Could I have unanimous consent to delete, as per the appropriate sections of the previous two bills? All in favour? No dissent. Unanimous consent is noted.
Mr Owens: Now that we are on to housekeeping items, some are reruns already. I would like to take the opportunity to move that the committee deal with the sexual abuse and patient relations committee issues two weeks from yesterday, October 21 at 3:30 pm.
The Chair: Mr Owens moves that the committee deal with all matters relating to the sexual assault items in all pieces of the legislation before us on Monday, October 21, immediately following question period at approximately 3:30.
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Having concluded discussion of the three bills, I think it might be appropriate at this time if we had agreement from the committee as to the tabling of amendments and ordering of business for the next time we meet, which will be next Tuesday.
Mr Wessenger: I might suggest we could deal with Bills 47 to 56 next Tuesday. We might not reach them, but those are the ones I would suggest we have on the agenda.
The Chair: The suggestion has been that we deal with Bills 47 to 56. That would mean trying to have amendments tabled by this Friday, if possible, so that we could deal next Tuesday with the package as proposed by Mr Wessenger. Mr Wilson, you wanted to comment?
Mr J. Wilson: I think, in all fairness to people who are watching these committee proceedings and are monitoring them on behalf of their associations, we are going quite quickly and we should not attempt to do such a large chunk next Tuesday. Perhaps it would be more reasonable to decide on doing the next four or five bills. That is as far as I would be willing to go at this time.
Mr Beer: Dare I add a compromise that we just do the next six?
The Chair: It may not be possible to do all six, but if we can at least table the amendments, then I think it would be helpful for anyone who is monitoring the hearings.
Mr Beer: That would take us up to Bill 52 if we did that.
The Chair: Yes, if that is possible.
Mr Owens: I was going to suggest that the province of Ontario has been dealing with this process for close to 11 years. It is not a new process. I am sure your party has had ample time to think about the kind of amendments it would like to put forward. With due respect to your researchers more particularly, I think the amendments should be ready to go, and we need to get this bill done so that the regulations and the interim advisory committee --
The Chair: Mr Owens, with your concurrence, I would like to intervene and remind all members of the committee that amendments can be posed at any time during the process. The fact that we are asking for caucuses to have tabled amendments by this Friday does not mean they cannot be proposed when we actually deal with those bills. Similarly, if at any point during the committee process any member of the committee wishes to ask that a bill be stood down, that is also appropriate at that time. I would just point out to all committee members that we have had a very good process to this point, and hopefully, by working together co-operatively, that can continue.
If Mr Wilson does not feel the Conservatives can have all six available, I think out of courtesy we can --
Mr J. Wilson: I do not think that is the question at all. The question is, going back to Mr Owens's comments, that simply I would take note of the fact that he says the process has gone on for 11 years. Many groups that appeared before this committee told us that this process and the intent of the legislation had changed dramatically over that period of time.
Second, if the government had had, as is tradition around here and as is expected around here from governments that have their shops in order, its amendments to us a month before we got into this process we would not be here today bickering about who is going to bring amendments forward, when and at what time. You are responsible as a government for bringing forward your amendments to us prior to the clause-by-clause of this legislation. So do not be throwing back at us any crap about not having amendments ready.
I was very angry at the beginning of this process, and I have kept quiet to date, at the fact that you guys did not seem to have your act together. I am not willing at this point to agree on anything for next Tuesday. I think we will proceed one bill at a time and see where we get, as I think you have indicated yourself, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Perhaps cooler heads will prevail. If we could try to have amendments available for this Friday for as many bills as members feel they could proceed with, we will reconvene next Tuesday and hopefully in the spirit of co-operation we will be able to proceed.
Mr Beer: I just want to note as well that in terms of the two opposition parties, as we discuss these individual bills with our caucuses, I think we need to be mindful of the time we have for that as well. I think we are moving with some dispatch and some co-operation. Despite the fact we have been at this for eight years, we want to make sure that the final product is thought through. I think next Tuesday we will try to deal with as many as we can. We are going to be finished all of these and if we get up to Bill 50, 51, 52 or whatever, I do not think that matters. We will try to get our amendments in and see if we can do it for those six. But as you yourself said, amendments can be moved at any time and we would want to do that.
The Chair: There has been a great deal of courtesy at the committee to stand down bills or any sections of bills there was further debate and discussion on.
The business for the committee being completed today, I suggest we adjourn at this time and reconvene on Tuesday of next week.
The committee adjourned at 1621.