[Report continued from volume A]

1740

ADVOCACY ACT, 1992, AND COMPANION LEGISLATION / LOI DE 1992 SUR L'INTERVENTION ET LES PROJETS DE LOI QUI L'ACCOMPAGNENT

Continuing consideration of Bill 74, An Act respecting the Provision of Advocacy Services to Vulnerable Persons / Loi concernant la prestation de services d'intervention en faveur des personnes vulnérables; Bill 108, An Act to provide for the making of Decisions on behalf of Adults concerning the Management of their Property and concerning their Personal Care / Loi prévoyant la prise de décisions au nom d'adultes en ce qui concerne la gestion de leurs biens et le soin de leur personne; Bill 109, An Act respecting Consent to Treatment / Loi concernant le consentement au traitement; and Bill 110, An Act to amend certain Statutes of Ontario consequent upon the enactment of the Consent to Treatment Act, 1992 and the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 / Loi modifiant certaines lois de l'Ontario par suite de l'adoption de la Loi de 1992 sur l'intervention, de la Loi de 1992 sur le consentement au traitement et de la Loi de 1992 sur la prise de décisions au nom d'autrui.

The First Deputy Chair (Mr Dennis Drainville): Mrs Ziemba has moved an amendment to section 30. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Chairman: The unanimous agreement which was presented before we went into committee of the whole this afternoon was that at 5:30 today -- admittedly, we're slightly delayed -- the Chair will read all of the amendments into the record and will then put all of the questions. Mr Chair, I suggest to you that you will have to read all of the amendments, as if they were being presented by the minister, on this bill and on every other bill.

The First Deputy Chair: I thank the honourable member for indicating what is the clear duty and the agreement that's been made among the parties in the House.

That being the case, Mrs Ziemba has moved that section 30 of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "sections 31 to 35" in the first line and substituting "sections 31 to 35.2."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mrs Ziemba has moved that subsection 31(1), as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "a vulnerable person" in the third line and substituting "an individual."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mrs Ziemba has moved that subsection 31(4) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "a vulnerable person" in the third line and substituting "an individual."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."

Those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred.

Mrs Ziemba has moved that subsection 31(5) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Permitted disclosure related to provision of advocacy services

"(5) If the disclosure is related to the provision of advocacy services to a vulnerable person, an advocate may disclose information about an individual obtained in the course of the advocate's duties,

"(a) to the vulnerable person;

"(b) to any other person, with the vulnerable person's consent;

"(c) to the vulnerable person's guardian of the person, guardian of property, attorney under a power of attorney for personal care or attorney under a power of attorney that confers authority in respect of the vulnerable person's property, or to any other person authorized to make decisions on behalf of the vulnerable person, if the advocate is taking instructions from the guardian, attorney or other person under subsection 19(2) and,

"(i) the information was obtained under subsection 24(4), or

"(ii) the information is not contained in a record;

"(d) to any person, if the information was obtained under subsection 24(4) or (5) and the person who gave the consent required by that subsection consents to the disclosure;

"(e) to other persons who work for the commission, if the advocate works for the commission and the disclosure is necessary in connection with the commission's provision of advocacy services to the vulnerable person; and

"(f) to other persons who work for a community agency, if the advocate works for the community agency and the disclosure is necessary in connection with the agency's provision of advocacy services to the vulnerable person.

"Permitted disclosure, other grounds

"(5.1) An advocate may disclose information about an individual obtained in the course of his or her duties,

"(a) to other persons who work for the commission or a community agency, if the advocate is designated under subsection 25(3) and the disclosure is necessary in connection with the provision of advocacy services under clause 7(1)(c),

"(b) to a coroner, if the individual is dead;

"(c) to the advocate's lawyer;

"(d) in a proceeding brought against the commission, a member of the commission, the advocate or,

"(i) if the advocate works for the commission, any other advocate or other person who works for the commission, or

"(ii) if the advocate works for a community agency, the community agency or any other advocate or other person who works for the community agency;

"(e) in response to a complaint made against the advocate under the review procedure established under clause 7(1)(m) by a vulnerable person to whom the advocate has provided advocacy services or by the vulnerable person's estate."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): May I speak on this?

The First Deputy Chair: No, you may not. I'm sorry. At this point, there's no debate, no questions and/or comments. We move through each one of these sections at this point.

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Do you mean that this House is not going to allow debate on an amendment which is two pages long, which deals with the disclosure of information about a vulnerable person's record? We cannot debate it in this Legislature?

The First Deputy Chair: In terms of the order as set down on May 28, that's correct, you may not debate it.

Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion please signify by saying "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Mr Sterling: We would like a division.

The First Deputy Chair: This is a deferred vote.

Mrs Ziemba has moved an amendment that subsection 31(6) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same, serious bodily harm

"(6) Despite subsection 17(1), if an advocate has information that constitutes reasonable grounds to believe that an individual is likely to cause serious bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person, the advocate may disclose the information to the appropriate persons."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Could I ask the honourable member for Carleton, if he's asking for a division, to stand at that point? It just gives us a little extra time and the table officers can also see it.

Mr Sterling: I was standing, Mr Chairman.

The First Deputy Chair: I'm too wise to make any comment on that.

Mrs Sullivan has moved an amendment that subsection 31(6.1) of the bill, as reprinted to show the amendments made by the standing committee on administration of justice, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"(6.1) If an advocate has information that constitutes reasonable grounds to believe that a vulnerable person is likely to suffer serious bodily harm, the advocate shall disclose the information to the appropriate persons."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion please say "aye."

Those opposed to the motion, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Mrs Sullivan: Deferred vote.

The First Deputy Chair: Deferred.

Mrs Ziemba has moved an amendment that subsection 31(9) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Required disclosure related to provision of advocacy services

"(9) Subject to section 32 and despite subsection 17(1), if the disclosure is related to the provision of advocacy services to a vulnerable person, an advocate shall disclose information about an individual obtained in the course of the advocate's duties,

"(a) to the vulnerable person, at the vulnerable person's request;

"(b) to any other person, at the vulnerable person's request;

"(c) to the vulnerable person's guardian of the person, guardian of property, attorney under a power of attorney for personal care or attorney under a power of attorney that confers authority in respect of the vulnerable person's property, or to any other person authorized to make decisions on behalf of the vulnerable person, if the advocate is taking instructions from the guardian, attorney or other person under subsection 19(2), the guardian, attorney or other person requests the information, and

"(i) the information was obtained under subsection 24(4), or

"(ii) the information is not contained in a record.

"Required disclosure, other grounds

"(9.1) Despite subsection 17(1), an advocate shall disclose information about an individual obtained in the course of the advocate's duties,

"(a) to a member of the commission or a person who works for the commission, at the commission's request;

"(b) to the public guardian and trustee, if the advocate has reasonable grounds to believe that,

"(i) the individual is a vulnerable person,

"(ii) the individual is incapable of instructing an advocate, and

"(iii) there is a risk of serious harm to the health or safety of the individual."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Sterling: No, I said no.

1750

The First Deputy Chair: I now hear that the honourable member has said no. Might I counsel the honourable member to please say no in such a way that the Chair of this committee can hear the honourable member.

All those in favour of the motion, signify by saying "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mrs Ziemba has moved that subsection 31(10) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out the portion before clause (a) and substituting the following:

"(10) An advocate may be required to testify in a proceeding with regard to information about an individual obtained in the course of providing advocacy services to a vulnerable person, but only,"

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mrs Ziemba has moved that subsection 31(11) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "vulnerable person's" in the third line."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mrs Ziemba has moved that subsection 32(1) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "clause 31(9)(a), (b) or (c)" in the third line and substituting "subsection 31(9)."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mrs Ziemba has moved that subsections 32(2), (4), (5) and (6) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by,

(a) striking out "requested the information" in the second line of subsection (2) and substituting "requested the disclosure of the information";

(b) striking out "requested the information" in the first and second lines of subsection (4) and substituting "requested the disclosure of the information";

(c) striking out "requested the information" in the fourth line of subsection (5) and substituting "requested the disclosure of the information"; and

(d) striking out "requested the information" in the second and third lines of subsection (6) and substituting "requested the disclosure of the information."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mrs Ziemba has moved that subsection 32(9) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Procedure

"(9) Sections 39 to 45 of the Consent to Treatment Act, 1992, and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act do not apply to an application under this section."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mrs Ziemba has moved that section 33 of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by,

(a) striking out "a vulnerable person" in the fourth and fifth lines of subsection (1) and substituting "an individual";

(b) striking out "a vulnerable person" in the fourth line of subsection (4) and substituting "an individual"; and

(c) striking out "a vulnerable person" in the fourth and fifth lines of subsection 5 and substituting "an individual."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mrs Ziemba has moved that section 34 of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "a vulnerable person" in the second line and substituting "an individual."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mrs Ziemba has moved sections 35.1 and 35.2, that the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by adding the following sections after section 35:

"Identifying information obtained under section 25

"35.1 Despite any other provision of this act, an advocate who obtains access to a record under section 25 that contains the name of or any means of identifying an individual shall not disclose to any person, directly or indirectly, any information from the record that includes the name of or any means of identifying the individual, except with the consent of the individual.

"Complaints re health professionals

"35.2 Despite any other provision of this act, if a complaint or report against a member of a college as defined in the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, is made to the college, an advocate who learns of the complaint or report from a record to which the advocate obtained access under this act shall not disclose to any person, directly or indirectly, the fact that the complaint or report was made."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mrs Sullivan has moved an amendment that subsection 36(2.1) of the bill, as reprinted to show the amendments made by the standing committee on administration of justice, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Entry to private dwellings

"(2.1) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who refuses to allow an advocate to enter a private dwelling, a dwelling unit in a controlled-access residence, or private accommodation in a facility without a warrant for entry."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? The motion is lost.

Mrs Ziemba has moved that subsection 36(3) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Offence, obstructing access to records etc.

"(3) No person shall hinder or obstruct an advocate who is exercising a right of access to records conferred by section 24, 25 or 26 or a right under section 29.1, or who is seeking to do so."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mrs Ziemba has moved that subsection 38(1) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Offence, improper disclosure by advocate

"(1) An advocate who discloses, in contravention of this act, information about an individual obtained in the course of his or her duties is guilty of an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding,

"(a) $5,000, if the disclosure does not contravene sections 35.1 or 35.2; or

"(b) $10,000, if the disclosure contravenes section 35.1 or 35.2."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

1800

Mrs Sullivan moves that subsection 39(1) of the bill, as reprinted to show the amendments made by the standing committee on administration of justice, be amended by striking out "The commission may, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, make regulations" in the first three lines and substituting "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. The motion is lost.

Mrs Ziemba moves that clauses 39(1), (a.1) and (d.1) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by adding the following clauses:

"(a.1) prescribing circumstances in which the public may be excluded from a meeting or part of a meeting of the commission;

"(d.1) prescribing persons to whom identification shall be presented under subsection 20(2)."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Those in favour of the motion say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mrs Ziemba moves that clause 39(1)(e) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "clauses 24(1)(c), 25(1)(c) and 26(1)(c) in the first and second lines and substituting "clauses 24(1)(c), 25(2)(c), 26(2)(c) and 29.1(2)(c)."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

I would like to say to the honourable members that there was an agreement previously as regards the order of the bills, as we are to go through them. We've dispensed with Bill 74 at this point. It was agreed we would go to Bill 109 and then Bill 108 and then Bill 110. So we now have Bill 109 before us.

Mr Sterling: Since they're being read, I haven't been given a copy of the amendments, the government motions.

The First Deputy Chair: We are now dealing with Bill 109.

Mrs Ziemba has moved amendments to subsection 1(1) of the bill, that the definition of "rights adviser," as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by adding at the end --

Interjection: Dispense.

The First Deputy Chair: Dispense.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Yes, the honourable member for Carleton.

Mr Sterling: Do you dispense with the reading of the amendment into the record the first time?

The First Deputy Chair: I heard that there was unanimous consent before, on Bill 74, that it was important they all be read out. They have been. We've moved to another bill. If the honourable member is saying that he wants to hear --

Mr Sterling: The problem becomes, where is the public record of the amendment?

The First Deputy Chair: The honourable member has every right to request that each amendment be read out. If that's the will of the honourable member --

Mr Sterling: That's the will of the honourable member.

The First Deputy Chair: Thank you.

Mrs Ziemba has moved amendments to subsection 1(1), that the definition of "rights adviser" be amended by the administration of justice committee by adding at the end, "other than a health practitioner or a person who is employed by a health practitioner or health facility."

Interjection.

The First Deputy Chair: I'm sorry. My apologies to the House. We've now moved on to a different bill and a different minister.

Ms Lankin has moved amendments to subsection 1(1), definition of "rights adviser," that the definition of "rights adviser" in subsection 1(1) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by adding at the end "other than a health practitioner or a person who is employed by a health practitioner or health facility."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mrs Sullivan moves amendments to subsection 1(1), "rights adviser," that the definition of "rights adviser" in subsection 1(1) of the bill, as reprinted to show the amendments made by the standing committee on administration of justice, be struck out and the following substituted:

"'Rights adviser' means, in the prescribed circumstances, a person who is a member of a prescribed category, other than a health practitioner or a person who is employed by a hospital, psychiatric facility or by an organization that provides health care services."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it. Deferred vote.

Mrs Sullivan has moved an amendment to subsection 1(1), "rights adviser." Let me just say before I read the motion by Mrs Sullivan that this is an alternate motion to the one that was just done a moment ago.

Mrs Sullivan has moved an amendment to subsection 1(1): "Rights adviser," as reprinted to show the amendments made by the standing committee on administration of justice, be amended by striking out the definition of "rights adviser" and substituting the following:

"'Rights adviser' means, in the prescribed circumstances, a person who is a member of a prescribed category (conseiller en matière de droit").

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mrs Sullivan has moved an amendment to subsection 6(1) of the bill, as reprinted to show the amendments made by the standing committee on the administration of justice, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Capacity with respect to treatment

"(1) A person is capable with respect to a treatment if the person is able to understand the information in respect of which consent is required and is able to appreciate the consequences of giving or withholding consent."

1810

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Sterling has moved that section 9 of the bill be amended by:

(a) striking out "twelve years of age" in the second line of subsection (1) and substituting "fourteen years of age";

(b) striking out "twelve years of age" in the second and third lines of subsection (2) and substituting "fourteen years of age";

(c) striking out "twelve years of age" in the third line of subsection (3) and substituting "fourteen years of age" --

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but in moving through the motions that were filed, I believe there was a Liberal motion to subsection 9(1). Had you dealt with that, or do you not have that?

The First Deputy Chair: We're getting to that next. I have section 9 here and I'll be moving to 9(1) next.

Hon Ms Lankin: Thank you very much for the clarification. I appreciate that.

The First Deputy Chair: No problem. Where was I? I think I was on (c). Did I finish (c)? Let's say we finished (c).

(d) striking out "twelve years of age" in the second line of subsection (4) and substituting "fourteen years of age."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mrs Sullivan has moved that subsection 9(1) of the bill, as reprinted to show the amendments made by the standing committee on administration of justice, be amended by striking out "twelve years" in the second line and substituting "sixteen years."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

Mrs Sullivan has moved that subsections 9(2) and (3) of the bill, as reprinted to show the amendments made by the standing committee on administration of justice, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(2) If the health practitioner finds that a person who is sixteen years of age or more is incapable with respect to a treatment that is a controlled act within the meaning of subsection 27(2) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, the health practitioner shall ensure that the person is given a written notice, which may be in the prescribed form, indicating that the person is entitled to meet with a rights adviser and is entitled to make an application to the board under section 28."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

Mrs Sullivan has moved that subsection 9(2) of the bill, as reprinted to show the amendments made by the standing committee on administration of justice, be amended by striking out "twelve years" in the second and third lines and substituting "sixteen years."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

Mrs Sullivan has moved that subsection 9(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(3) If in a place other than a psychiatric facility a health practitioner finds that a person who is sixteen years of age or more is incapable with respect to a treatment that is a controlled act within the meaning of subsection 27(2) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, other than a prescribed controlled act, the health practitioner shall ensure that the person is given a written notice, which may be in the prescribed form, indicating that the person is entitled to make an application to the board under section 28."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

Mrs Sullivan moves that subsection 9(3) of the bill, as reprinted to show the amendments made by the standing committee on administration of justice, be amended by striking out "twelve years" in the third line and substituting "sixteen years."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Sterling has moved --

Mr Sterling: Withdrawn.

The First Deputy Chair: Mr Sterling has withdrawn the motion to amend subsection 9(3).

Mrs Sullivan moves that subsection 9(4) of the bill, as reprinted to show the amendments made by the standing committee on administration of justice, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(4) A health practitioner who finds that a person who is sixteen years of age or more is incapable with respect to a treatment shall ensure that a rights adviser is notified of the finding if,

"(a) the finding is made in a psychiatric facility, or

"(b) the person requests a meeting with a rights adviser."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

Mrs Sullivan moves that subsection 9(4) of the bill, as reprinted to show the amendments made by the standing committee on administration of justice, be amended by striking out "twelve years" in the second line and substituting "sixteen years."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Sterling has moved an amendment to subsection 9(4) --

Mr Sterling: Withdrawn.

The First Deputy Chair: Mr Sterling has withdrawn his amendment to subsection 9(4).

Ms Lankin has moved that subsection 12(1) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "to be used if the person becomes incapable" in the second and third lines.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Ms Lankin has moved that subsection 13(1) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by:

(a) striking out "while capable" in the third line of paragraph 1 and substituting "while capable and after attaining sixteen years of age" and,

(b) striking out "while capable" in the third and fourth lines of paragraph 2 and substituting "while capable and after attaining sixteen years of age."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Ms Lankin has moved that clause 13(2)(b) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(b) any wishes expressed by the incapable person with respect to the treatment that are not required to be followed under paragraph 1 of subsection 1, and"

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Ms Lankin has moved that the French version of paragraph 4 of clause 13(2)(c) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "et" in the second line and substituting "ou."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

1820

Mrs Sullivan has moved that section 14 of the bill, as reprinted to show the amendments made by the standing committee on administration of justice, be struck out.

This amendment is out of order.

Mrs Sullivan has moved that subsection 19(1.1) of the bill, as reprinted to show the amendments made by the standing committee on administration of justice, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"(1.1) A hospital, psychiatric facility or prescribed health facility may detain an incapable person who is admitted in accordance with the consent given under this section for the purpose of treatment subject to subsection (2)."

Is the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

Mrs Sullivan has moved that subsection 23(1) of the bill, as reprinted to show the amendments made by the standing committee on administration of justice, be amended by striking out the word "bodily" in the fourth line of clause (b) and in the sixth line of clause (c).

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

Mrs Sullivan has moved that subsection 23(2) of the bill, as reprinted to show the amendments made by the standing committee on administration of justice, be amended by striking out the word "bodily" in the fifth line of clause (b).

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Sterling has moved that subsection 23(10) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Admission to hospital

"(10) The authority to administer treatment under subsection (1), (2) or (3) includes authority to have the person admitted to a hospital or psychiatric facility for the purpose of the treatment."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

Ms Lankin has moved that section 24 of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by

(a) striking out "while capable" in the fourth line of clause (a) and substituting "while capable and after attaining 16 years of age"; and

(b) striking out "while capable" in the third line of clause (b) and substituting "while capable and after attaining 16 years of age."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Might I just say to the honourable members, I do need to hear clearly whether there is a disagreement on this particular issue, so it would be very helpful if the members of the House would please express themselves so that I can hear them clearly.

Mr Sterling: Mr Chairman, I will give you advance notice that I intend to disagree on most things.

The First Deputy Chair: I appreciate the comments of the honourable member for Carleton, but I still need to hear that as we go through this process. Thank you very much.

Mrs Sullivan has moved an amendment that clause 25(a) of the bill, as reprinted to show the amendments made by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out the word "bodily" in the fifth line.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. Deferred vote.

Ms Lankin has moved an amendment that section 27 of the French version of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by inserting after "consentement" in the second line "à un traitement."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Ms Lankin has moved an amendment that subsection 30(1) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "or" at the end of clause (b), adding "or" at the end of clause (c) and adding the following clause:

"(d) it is not clear whether the wish was expressed after the incapable person attained 16 years of age."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Ms Lankin has moved an amendment that section 31 of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by:

(a) striking out "while capable" in the eighth and ninth lines of subsection (1) and substituting "while capable and after attaining 16 years of age"; and

(b) striking out "while capable" in the fourth line of subsection (3) and substituting "while capable and after attaining 16 years of age."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Ms Lankin has moved an amendment that subsection 39(1) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "written notice of a proceeding" in the first and second lines and substituting "an application."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Ms Lankin has moved an amendment that section 44 of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be struck out.

Might I say to Ms Lankin that this motion is out of order and that at the vote stage the government should vote against this particular section.

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I was under the impression that there was an agreement made that certain motions were in order. Maybe this was not one of them.

The First Deputy Chair: I thank the honourable member. This was not one of them, however.

Hon Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, just as a procedural question for clarification that would be of help to me, when we were going through the amendments earlier on Bill 74 and there was debate at the end of each of the amendments to a section, we actually took a vote as well on the section. Going through Bill 108, we are not doing that at this point in time. I'm wondering if there is just an explanation. I wanted to make sure it was in order.

1830

The First Deputy Chair: We will be doing that when the members are called in, at that point.

Ms Lankin has moved that clause 49(1)(j) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by inserting after "standards" in the second line "procedures."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

I would ask the Attorney General if he would like to move down to the table, close to his support staff. We will now move to Bill 108.

Mr Hampton has moved that subsection 7(5) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "shall continue" in the fifth line and substituting "are authorized."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved that subclause 12(1)(a)(i) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "continues" in the first line and substituting "is authorized."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved that the French version of clause 24(5)(a) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by inserting after "est" in the first line "ou non."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Sterling: Non. It was a French vote.

The First Deputy Chair: As many will tell the honourable member, the Chair needs no help in distracting.

Mr Hampton has moved that subsection 37(2) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by:

(a) striking out "more than" in the third line of paragraph 2; and,

(b) striking out "more than" in the third line of paragraph 3.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved that clause 42(7)(d) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "examination" in the first line and substituting "assessment."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: Order, please.

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): Are you speaking to me?

The First Deputy Chair: I am.

Mr Hampton has moved that subclause 53(1)(a)(i) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "continues" in the first line and substituting "is authorized."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved that clause 57(3)(a) of the French version of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by inserting after "est" in the first line "ou non."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved that subsection 83(3) of the French version of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by inserting after "devait" in the third line "avoir pour effet probable d'."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

1840

Mr Hampton has moved that section 90.1 of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by adding the following section after section 90:

"Transition

"90.1 Subject to subsections 46(10) and (11), if a power of attorney for personal care is made in accordance with this act before this act comes into force, the power of attorney takes effect when this act comes into force."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

I would say to the honourable members that we are now moving to the fourth and final bill, which is Bill 110.

Mr Hampton has moved an amendment that subsection 7(2) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by,

(a) striking out "the day this act comes into force" in the first and second lines and substituting "the day section 16 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 comes into force"; and

(b) striking out "the act" in the fourth line and substituting "the Developmental Services Act."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved an amendment that subsection 7(4) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "the coming into force of this act" in the third and fourth lines and substituting "the coming into force of section 16 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved an amendment that subsection 7(5) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "the act before the day this act comes into force" in the second and third lines and substituting "the Developmental Services Act before the day section 16 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 comes into force."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved an amendment that subsection 13(6) of the Mental Health Act, as set out in subsection 20(8) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "sections 42 and 43" in the first line and substituting "section 42."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved an amendment to subsection 20(9) of the bill, subsection 35(2) of the Mental Health Act, that subsection 20(9) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

(9) Subsection 35(2) of the act is amended by striking out "subsections (3) and (5)" in the first and second lines and substituting "this section."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved an amendment to subsection 20(11.1) of the bill, clauses 35(3)(e.1) and (e.2) of the Mental Health Act, that section 20 of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"(11.1) Subsection 35(3) of the act is amended by adding the following clauses:

"(e.1) if the patient has died, the personal representative of the patient;

"(e.2) a lawyer acting on behalf of the psychiatric facility or on behalf of any person employed in or on the staff of the facility."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved an amendment to subsection 20(12.1) of the bill, subsection 35(6) of the Mental Health Act, that section 20 of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"(12.1) Subsection 35(6) of the act is amended by striking out the portion after clause (b) and substituting the following:

"No person shall comply with the requirement with respect to the clinical record or the part of the clinical record specified by the attending physician except under an order made by the court or body before which the matter is or may be the issue after a hearing from which the public is excluded and that is held on notice to the attending physician."

Hon Ms Lankin: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Again for procedural clarification, if the Chair makes an error in the reading into the record, does that need to be corrected at this time?

The First Deputy Chair: I added the word "the," didn't I?

Hon Ms Lankin: That's right.

The First Deputy Chair: I realized that at the time. Shall I read it over again just to make sure the record is clear?

Hon Ms Lankin: Thank you.

The First Deputy Chair: "No person shall comply with the requirement with respect to the clinical record or the part of the clinical record specified by the attending physician except under an order made by the court or body before which the matter is or may be in issue after a hearing from which the public is excluded and that is held on notice to the attending physician."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved that section 20, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"(15.1) Section 35 of the act is further amended by adding the following subsection:

"Other proceedings

"(11) Subsection (9) does not apply to a proceeding before a court or any other body that is commenced by or on behalf of a patient and that relates to the assessment or treatment of the patient in a psychiatric facility."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved an amendment that subsection 36(12) of the Mental Health Act, as set out in subsection 20(16) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Procedure

"(12) Sections 42 and 48 of this act, sections 39 to 45 of the Consent to Treatment Act, 1992 and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act do not apply to an application under subsection (4).

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved that subsection 36(15) of the Mental Health Act, as set out in subsection 20(17) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "sections 42 and 43" in the first line and substituting "section 42."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

1850

Mr Hampton has moved an amendment to subsection 20(21) of the bill, subsection 38(1) of the Mental Health Act, that subsection 38(1) of the Mental Health Act, as set out in subsection 20(21) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be struck out, and the following substituted:

"Notice of certificate

"(1) An attending physician who completes a certificate of involuntary admission or a certificate of renewal shall promptly give the patient a written notice that complies with subsection (1.1) and shall also promptly notify a rights adviser.

"Contents of notice to patient

"(1.1) The written notice given to the patient shall inform the patient,

"(a) of the reasons for the detention;

"(b) that the patient is entitled to a hearing before the board; and

"(c) that the patient has the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved an amendment to subsection 20(21) of the bill, subsection 38(3) of the Mental Health Act, that subsection 38(3) of the Mental Health Act, as set out in subsection 20(21) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "states the reasons for the detention and" in the sixth and seventh lines.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved an amendment to subsection 20(21) of the bill, subsection 38(5) of the Mental Health Act, that subsection 38(5) of the Mental Health Act, as set out in subsection 20(21) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "states the reasons for the detention and" in the fourth and fifth lines.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved an amendment to subsection 20(22.1) of the bill, section 43 of the Mental Health Act, that section 20 of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"(22.1) Section 43 of the act is repealed."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved amendments to subsections 20(24), (24.1) and (24.2) of the bill, sections 46 and 47 of the Mental Health Act, that subsection 20(24) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be struck out, and the following substituted:

"(24) Section 46 of the act is repealed.

"(24.1) Subsection 47(1) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

"Communication re subject matter of hearing

"(1) The members of a review board conducting a hearing shall not communicate directly or indirectly in relation to the subject matter of the hearing with any party, counsel, agent or other person, unless all the parties and their counsel or agents receive notice and have an opportunity to participate.

"Exception

"(1.1) However, the members of the review board conducting the hearing may seek advice from an adviser independent of the parties, and in that case the nature of the advice shall be communicated to them so that they may make submissions as to the law.

"(1.2) Subsections (1) and (1.1) are repealed on the day subsection 41(1) of the Consent to Treatment Act, 1992 comes into force.

"(24.2) Subsections 47(2), (3) and (4) of the act are repealed."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved an amendment to subsection 20(34) of the bill, sections 50, 51 and 52 of the Mental Health Act, that subsection 20(34) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(34) Sections 50, 51 and 52 of the act are repealed and the following substituted:

"Application to board

"50. If a patient or another person on a patient's behalf gives or transmits to the officer in charge an application to the board under this or any other act, the officer in charge shall promptly transmit the application to the board."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved an amendment to subsection 20(38) of the bill, subsection 60(2) of the Mental Health Act, that subsection 60(2) of the Mental Health Act, as set out in subsection 20(38) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "sections 42 and 43" in the third line and substituting "section 42."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved that subsection 20(46) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "the day this act comes into force" in the fifth line and substituting "the day subsection 20(19) of this act comes into force."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved that the definition of "old board" in subsection 20(47) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "the day before this act comes into force" in the third and fourth lines and substituting "the day before section 35 of the Consent to Treatment Act, 1992 comes into force."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved that subsection 20(48) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "the day this act comes into force" in the second and third lines and substituting "the day section 35 of the Consent to Treatment Act, 1992 comes into force."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved that subsection 20(50) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "the day this act comes into force" in the second line and substituting "the day section 35 of the Consent to Treatment Act, 1992 comes into force."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved that subsection 20(51) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by,

(a) striking out "the day this act comes into force" in the first and second lines and substituting "the day section 15 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 comes into force";

(b) striking out "the act" in the third line and substituting "the Mental Health Act"; and

(c) striking out "the act" in the sixth line and substituting "the Mental Health Act."

1900

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved that subsection 20(52) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by,

(a) striking out "the day this act comes into force" in the first and second lines and substituting "the day section 16 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 comes into force"; and

(b) striking out "the act" in the third line and substituting "the Mental Health Act."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved that subsection 20(54) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "the coming into force of this act" in the third and fourth lines and substituting "the coming into force of section 16 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved that subsection 20(55) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by:

(a) striking out "the act" in the second line and substituting "the Mental Health Act"; and

(b) striking out "the day this act comes into force" in the third and fourth lines and substituting "the day section 15 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 comes into force."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved that subsection 21(2) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "the day this act comes into force" in the second line and substituting "the day section 22 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 comes into force."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved that subsection 21(4) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by striking out "the day this act comes into force" in the second line and substituting "the day section 55 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 comes into force."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved that subsection 21(5) of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same

"(5) A guardianship referred to in subsection (2) is terminated on the second anniversary of the coming into force of section 22 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, unless the guardian, before that day, files a statement with the public guardian and trustee in the form provided by the public guardian and trustee.

"Same

"(6) A guardianship referred to in subsection (4) is terminated on the second anniversary of the coming into force of section 55 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, unless the guardian, before that day, files a statement with the public guardian and trustee in the form provided by the public guardian and trustee."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour say "aye."

Those opposed say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved that the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be amended by adding the following section:

"Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act"

"22.1 Clause 54(b) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection and Privacy Act is repealed and the following substituted:

"(b) by the individual's attorney under a continuing power of attorney, the individual's attorney under a validated power of attorney for personal care, the individual's guardian of the person or the individual's guardian of property; and"

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

Mr Hampton has moved that section 27 of the bill, as amended by the administration of justice committee, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Commencement

"(1) This act, except subsections 20(9), (11.1), (12.1), (15.1) and (24.1), comes into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor.

"Same

"(2) Subsections 20(9), (11.1), (12.1), (15.1) and (24.1) comes into force on the day this act receives royal assent."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Deferred vote.

The division bells rang from 1908 to 1924.

The Second Deputy Chair (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Would all members please take their seats. We have a number of bills to deal with and I want to remind all members that we will be here with locked doors.

Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I have a point of order with respect to the vote that was taken on subsection 24(7) of Bill 74. I inquired of the Chair at the time as to whether that amendment, which was proposed by the government, was in order, because it proposed to strike out subsection 24(7) of the bill. The Chair ruled at the time that the amendment as proposed was in order.

Without challenging the Chair, I'm asking the Chair to reconsider that decision and to determine whether that amendment was in order, which I do not believe, and whether the process should be that when the vote is considered, that subsection of the bill should be either voted for or against in the usual manner.

The Second Deputy Chair: I'm advised by the Clerk that with regard to subsection 24(7), to remove a subsection is indeed in order.

Mrs Sullivan: Then may I ask, Mr Chairman, why in other sections of the bills that we were considering tonight, when there were other amendments proposed to strike out sections of the bill or subsections of the bill, they were deemed to be out of order? This is a very unusual ruling from the Chair.

The Second Deputy Chair: It's my understanding that to remove a subsection, the vote was held. However, to remove a section can be deemed out of order, because the section was simply voted against in total. Does that satisfy your point of order?

Mrs Sullivan: No, it doesn't, Mr Chairman, because indeed we were dealing with a subsection of the bill, a motion concerning which subsection was placed to the House to strike out that particular subsection. When the subsection was placed, voting against that subsection or the entire section, the ruling was that the amendment proposed to strike out was in order. In fact, the tradition in this place has been to vote against the subsection rather than to accept an amendment which moves to strike out a section of the bill as it's printed and as it has been circulated.

The Second Deputy Chair: A subsection can be removed and struck from the bill. However, a section in total must be considered out of order. When you are voting against a complete section, you vote for or against that section, whereas a subsection can be deleted by a vote in committee of the whole. Does that clarify the point for the honourable member?

Mrs Sullivan: I understand your ruling, Mr Chair. I do not believe that that is the ruling that has been the precedent and the tradition in this place.

Mr Mancini: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I understand that the voting procedures we're going to embark upon this evening may take up to one hour in length. I was wondering if we could have the unanimous consent of the House to have the doors opened so that members could come and go because of the length of the voting.

No? Well, I thank all the members for their thoughtful consideration.

The Second Deputy Chair: We are now moving into Bill 74, An Act respecting the Provision of Advocacy Services to Vulnerable Persons.

We have an amendment to section 2 by Mrs Sullivan. We are now voting on Mrs Sullivan's amendment to section 2.

All those in favour of Mrs Sullivan's amendment to section 2, please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed to Mrs Sullivan's amendment to section 2, please rise and remain standing.

1930

The ayes are 17, the nays are 47. I therefore declare Mrs Sullivan's amendment defeated.

Shall section 2 stand as part of the bill? Agreed. Section 2 is carried.

We now move to section 7. Mrs Sullivan has an amendment to clause 7(1)(k).

All those in favour of Mrs Sullivan's amendment to section 7, please stand and remain standing.

The ayes are 17, the nays are 47. I therefore declare the amendment lost.

We are now moving to a further amendment by Mrs Sullivan to clause 7(1)(l). All those in favour of Mrs Sullivan's amendment?

Same vote. The ayes are 17; the nays are 47. I therefore declare Mrs Sullivan's amendment defeated.

An amendment to clause 7(1)(m) by Mrs Sullivan. Same vote.

The honourable member for Carleton.

Mr Sterling: I wanted to tell you I was in favour of this amendment. We didn't get a chance to debate it during the other part of the process.

The Second Deputy Chair: The ayes are 17; the nays are 47. I therefore declare Mrs Sullivan's amendment lost.

Shall section 7, as amended, carry?

All those in favour of section 7, as amended, please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed to section 7, as amended, please rise.

The ayes are 47, the nays are 17. I therefore declare section 7, as amended, carried.

We are now moving to a new section, 16.1: an amendment moved by Mr Jim Wilson pertaining to section 16.1. Shall the amendment by Mr Wilson from Simcoe West carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

Same vote reversed? Agreed. The ayes are 17; the nays are 47. I therefore declare the Mr Wilson's amendment to be defeated.

Section 16 has been carried; 17 has been carried; 18 has been carried.

We are now moving into a new section, section 19.1: an amendment moved by Mrs Sullivan to section 19.1. All those in favour of Mrs Sullivan's amendment, please rise.

Same vote? Agreed? Agreed. The ayes are 17; the nays are 47. I therefore declare Mrs Sullivan's amendment to section 19.1 defeated. This is a new section.

Therefore, section 19 carries.

We have an amendment to section 21. Mrs Sullivan has moved an amendment to subsection 21(2).

All those in favour of Mrs Sullivan's amendment, please rise.

Same vote? Agreed. The ayes are 17; the nays are 47. Therefore I declare Mrs Sullivan's amendment to subsection 21(2) defeated.

Shall section 21 stand as part of the bill?

Same vote reversed? Agreed. The ayes are 47; the nays are 17. Therefore I declare section 21 carried.

We have an amendment to subsections 22(2) and (3) by Ms Ziemba. All those in favour of Ms Ziemba's amendment, please rise.

All those opposed to Ms Ziemba's amendment, please rise.

The ayes are 47; the nays are 17. Therefore I declare Ms Ziemba's amendment to subsections 22(2) and (3) carried.

A further amendment to subsection 22(3.1) by Mr Sterling. All those in favour of Mr Sterling's amendment, please rise.

Same vote reversed? Agreed. The ayes are 17; the nays are 47. I therefore declare Mr Sterling's amendment to section 22 defeated.

Shall section 22, as amended, carry? Same vote? Same vote reversed.

The ayes are 47; the nays are 17. I therefore declare section 22 of the bill carried.

1940

We now have further amendments to section 24.

Ms Ziemba has moved an amendment to subsection 24(7). All those in favour of Ms Ziemba's amendment to section 24, please rise. Same vote.

The ayes are 47, the nays are 17. I therefore declare Ms Ziemba's amendment to subsection 24(7) carried.

Shall section 24, as amended, carry as part of the bill? Agreed. I declare section 24, as amended, carried.

There was an amendment to section 30 by Ms Ziemba. Carried?

Shall section 30, as amended, carry? Same vote.

The ayes are 47, the nays are 17. Therefore, I declare section 30, as amended, to carry.

We have a number of amendments to section 31.

Ms Ziemba has moved an amendment to subsection 31(4). Is it the pleasure of the House that Ms Ziemba's amendment carry? Same vote.

The ayes are 47, the ayes are 17. Therefore, I declare Ms Ziemba's amendment to subsection 31(4) carried.

A further amendment by Ms Ziemba, to subsection 31(5). Is it the pleasure of the House that Ms Ziemba's amendment to subsection 31(5) carry? Same vote.

The ayes are 47, the nays are 17. I therefore declare Ms Ziemba's amendment to subsection 31(5) carried.

A further amendment by Ms Ziemba, to subsection 31(6). Is it the pleasure of the House that Ms Ziemba's amendment carry? Same vote.

The ayes are 47, the nays are 17. Therefore, I declare Ms Ziemba's amendment to subsection 31(6) carried.

On a point of order, the honourable member for Carleton.

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Because my caucus is voting against the government motions on the basis that there was no opportunity to debate them, I'm quite willing to indicate to the Chair that my caucus will be voting against every government amendment on Bill 74 and can be recorded as such in order to shorten this process.

The Second Deputy Chair: The votes have been deferred, and it's my understanding that we have to proceed with the stacked and deferred votes as per what we have been doing.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Surely we can do it by unanimous consent.

Mr Mancini: We can do anything by unanimous consent.

The Second Deputy Chair: Do we have unanimous consent? We do not have unanimous consent. Thank you.

We are now moving to an amendment by Ms Sullivan to subsection 31(6.1). All those in favour of Mrs Sullivan's amendment to subsection 31(6.1)? Carried. The same vote reversed? Agreed.

The ayes are 17; the nays are 47. I declare Ms Sullivan's amendment defeated.

A further amendment, to subsection 31(9), by Ms Ziemba: Is it the pleasure of the House that Ms Ziemba's amendment to subsection 31(9) carry? Carried. The same vote reversed.

The ayes are 47; the nays are 17. I therefore declare Ms Ziemba's amendment to subsection 31(9) carried.

A further amendment by Ms Ziemba, to subsection 31(10): The same vote? Agreed.

The ayes are 47; the nays are 17. I declare the amendment to subsection 31(1) carried.

A further amendment, to subsection 31(11), by Ms Ziemba: Is it the pleasure of the House that Ms Ziemba's amendment carry? Same vote.

The ayes are 47; the nays are 17. I therefore declare Ms Ziemba's amendment to subsection 31(11) carried.

This completes amendments to section 31. Shall section 31, as amended, carry? Carried. Same vote.

The ayes are 47; the nays are 17. I therefore declare section 31, as amended, carried as part of the bill.

We now move to section 32. Ms Ziemba has an amendment to subsection 32(1). Is it the pleasure of the House that Ms Ziemba's amendment carry? Same vote? Agreed.

The ayes are 47; the nays are 17. I therefore declare Ms Ziemba's amendment carried.

A further amendment by Ms Ziemba to subsections 32(2), (4), (5) and (6): Shall Ms Ziemba's amendment carry? Same vote? Agreed.

The ayes are 47; the nays are 17. I therefore declare Ms Ziemba's amendment to subsections 32(2), (4), (5) and (6) as carried.

A further amendment by Ms Ziemba to subsection 32(9): Shall Ms Ziemba's amendment carry? Same vote? Agreed.

The ayes are 47; the nays are 17. I therefore declare Ms Ziemba's amendment to subsection 32(9) as carried.

We will now deal with section 32.

Shall section 32, as amended, carry? Same vote? Agreed.

The ayes are 47; the nays are 17. I therefore declare section 32, as amended, carried and become part of the bill.

We have an amendment to section 33 by Ms Ziemba. Is it the pleasure of the House that Ms Ziemba's amendment to section 33 carry?

Carried. Same vote? Agreed.

The ayes are 47, the nays are 17. I therefore declare Ms Ziemba's amendment to section 33 carried.

1950

Shall section 33, as amended, carry? Same vote? Agreed.

The ayes are 47, the nays are 17. I therefore declare section 33 carried, as amended, and becomes part of the bill.

Ms Ziemba has moved an amendment to section 34. Shall Ms Ziemba's amendment carry? Same vote? Agreed.

The ayes are 47, the nays are 17. I therefore declare Ms Ziemba's amendment to section 34 carried.

Shall section 34, as amended, carry? Same vote? Agreed.

The ayes are 47, the nays are 17. I therefore declare section 34 carried, as amended.

Shall section 35, without amendment, stand as part of the bill? Same vote? Agreed.

The ayes are 47, the nays are 17. Therefore, I declare section 35 to stand as part of the bill.

Ms Ziemba has moved a new section known as 35.1 and 35.2. Shall Ms Ziemba's amendment carry as part of the bill? Same vote? Agreed.

The ayes are 47, the nays are 17. Therefore, Ms Ziemba's amendment on a new section 35.1 and 35.2 will stand as part of the bill.

We now have an amendment to section 36, subsection 36(3) moved by Ms Ziemba. Is it the pleasure of the House that Ms Ziemba's amendment to subsection 36(3) carry? Same vote? Agreed.

The ayes are 47, the nays are 17. I therefore declare Ms Ziemba's amendment to subsection 36(3) carried.

Shall section 36, as amended, carry? Same vote? Agreed.

The ayes are 47, the nays are 17. I therefore declare section 36, as amended, carried and becomes part of the bill.

Shall section 37 stand as part of the bill? Same vote?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I agree with that section, Mr Chairman.

The Second Deputy Chair: We will now have a vote.

All those in favour of section 37, please rise.

All those opposed to section 37?

The ayes are 48, the nays are 16. I declare section 37 carried and becomes part of the bill.

Shall section 38 become part of the bill? Same vote?

Mr Sterling: Mr Chairman, I'd like to vote in favour of that section.

The Second Deputy Chair: There's an amendment to subsection 38. Your Chair was not looking far enough ahead here.

Ms Ziemba has an amendment, subsection 38(1). Shall Ms Ziemba's amendment carry?

All those in favour of Ms Ziemba's amendment, subsection 38(1), please stand.

All those opposed to Ms Ziemba's amendment to subsection 38(1)?

The ayes are 57, the nays are 7. I therefore declare Ms Ziemba's amendment to subsection 38(1) carried.

Shall section 38, as amended, carry and become part of the bill?

On a point of order, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings.

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I'm just curious to know what the vote was when the member for Simcoe East voted with the government. I just want to know the numbers, please.

The Second Deputy Chair: The numbers were given and the member can refer back to Hansard, I'm sure.

Shall section 38, as amended, carry and become part of the bill?

All those in favour of section 38, please stand.

All those opposed to section 38, as amended?

The ayes are 61, the nays are 3. I therefore declare section 38, as amended, carried and part of the bill.

We are now moving to amendments to section 39.

Ms Ziemba has moved an amendment to subsection 39(1), clauses (a.1) and (d.1).

All those in favour of Ms Ziemba's amendment, please rise.

All those opposed to Ms Ziemba's amendment, please rise.

The ayes are 47, the nays are 17. I therefore declare Ms Ziemba's amendment carried.

Ms Ziemba has a further amendment to clause 39(1)(e). All those in favour of Ms Ziemba's amendment? Same vote.

The ayes are 47, the nays are 17. I therefore declare Ms Ziemba's amendment to clause 39(1)(e) carried.

Shall section 39, as amended, carry? Same vote? Agreed.

The ayes are 47, the nays are 17. I therefore declare section 39 carried and becomes part of the bill.

2000

Shall sections 40 and 41 stand as part of the bill? Same vote.

The ayes are 47, the nays are 17. I therefore declare sections 40 and 41 carried and part of the bill.

Shall the schedule and title stand as part of the bill? Same vote.

The ayes are 47, the nays are 17. I therefore declare that the schedule and title become part of the bill and are carried.

Shall the bill be reported as amended?

All those in favour, please rise.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Chairman, a recorded vote, please.

The Second Deputy Chair: We are in committee of the whole and this is a recorded vote; we have been stacking.

All those opposed to reporting the bill?

The ayes are 47, the nays are 17. Therefore the bill shall be reported as amended.

We are now dealing in committee of the whole with Bill 109, An Act respecting Consent to Treatment. We have amendments to section 1.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Can we open the doors now?

The Second Deputy Chair: The doors will remain in voting mode, which is closed and locked.

We are now dealing with Bill 109, An Act respecting Consent to Treatment.

Ms Lankin has moved an amendment to subsection 1(1).

All those in favour of Ms Lankin's amendment, please rise.

All those opposed to Ms Lankin's amendment to subsection 1(1)?

The ayes are 57, the nays are 7. I therefore declare Ms Lankin's amendment to subsection 1(1) carried.

An amendment by Ms Sullivan to subsection 1(1).

All those in favour of Ms Sullivan's amendment, please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed to Ms Sullivan's amendment, please rise.

The ayes are 17, the nays are 47. I therefore declare Ms Sullivan's amendment defeated.

Ms Sullivan has a further amendment to subsection 1(1).

The ayes are 17, the nays are 47. I therefore declare Ms Sullivan's amendment defeated.

Shall section 1, as amended, of Bill 109 carry? Agreed? Same vote reversed.

The ayes are 47, the nays are 17. I therefore declare section 1, as amended, carried and part of Bill 109.

Shall sections 2 through 5 stand as part of Bill 109?

All those in favour of sections 2 through 5, please rise.

All those opposed to sections 2 through 5, please rise.

The ayes are 64, the nays are 0. I therefore declare sections 2 through 5 carried and part of Bill 109.

We are now dealing with an amendment by Ms Sullivan to subsection 6(1).

All those in favour of Ms Sullivan's amendment, please rise.

All those opposed to Ms Sullivan's amendment, please rise.

The ayes are 17, the nays are 47. I therefore declare Ms Sullivan's amendment to subsection 6(1) defeated.

Shall sections 6, 7 and 8 stand as part of the bill? Agreed? Same vote.

The ayes are 47, the nays are 17. I therefore declare -- -

Mr Sterling: Sorry, Mr Chair. No, we agreed that they should be part of the bill. We are voting against the amendments, but we are agreeing to the sections.

The Second Deputy Chair: Then we shall put the question to the House.

All those in favour of sections 6, 7 and 8, please rise.

All those opposed to sections 6, 7 and 8, please rise.

The ayes are 64, the nays are 0. I therefore declare sections 6, 7 and 8 carried and they will stand as part of the bill.

We are now dealing with section 9, with a number of amendments. Ms Sullivan has moved an amendment to subsection 9(1).

All those in favour of Ms Sullivan's amendment, please rise.

All those opposed to Ms Sullivan's amendment, please rise.

The ayes are 17, the nays are 47. I therefore declare Ms Sullivan's amendment to subsection 9(1) defeated.

A further amendment by Ms Sullivan, to subsections 9(2), (3).

All those in favour of this amendment? Same vote.

The ayes are 17, the nays are 47. I therefore declare Ms Sullivan's amendment defeated.

A further amendment by Ms Sullivan to subsection 9(2). All those in favour of Ms Sullivan's amendment. Same vote.

The ayes are 17, the nays are 47. I therefore declare Ms Sullivan's amendment to subsection 9(2) defeated.

A further amendment by Ms Sullivan, subsection 9(3). Same vote? Agreed.

The ayes are 17, the nays are 47. I therefore declare Ms Sullivan's amendment to subsection 9(3) defeated.

2010

A further amendment by Ms Sullivan to subsection 9(3).

All those in favour of Ms Sullivan's -- same vote.

The ayes are 17, the nays are 47. I therefore declare Ms Sullivan's amendment defeated.

An amendment by Ms Sullivan to subsection 9(4).

All those in favour of Ms Sullivan's amendment? Same vote? Agreed.

The ayes are 17, the nays are 47. I therefore declare Ms Sullivan's amendment to subsection 9(4) defeated.

A second amendment by Ms Sullivan to subsection 9(4): Same vote? Agreed.

The ayes are 17, the nays are 47. I therefore declare Ms Sullivan's amendment defeated.

Shall section 9, as amended, carry?

All those in favour of section 9, as amended, please rise.

All those opposed to section 9, as amended, please stand.

The ayes are 54, the nays are 10. I therefore declare section 9, as amended, carried.

Shall sections 10 and 11 carry and become part of the bill?

All those in favour of sections 10 and 11, please rise.

All those opposed to sections 10 and 11, please rise.

The ayes are 64, the nays are 0. I therefore declare sections 10 and 11 carry and become part of the bill.

We now move to section 12. We have an amendment by Ms Lankin to subsection 12(1). All those in favour of Ms Lankin's amendment to subsection 12(1)?

All those in favour, please rise..

All those opposed to Ms Lankin's amendment to subsection 12(1)?

The ayes are 57, the nays are 7. I declare Ms Lankin's amendment carried.

Shall section 12, as amended, carry?

All those in favour of section 12, as amended, please rise.

All those opposed to section 12, as amended, please rise.

The ayes are 64, the nays are 0. I therefore declare section 12, as amended, carried.

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: When everybody says they agree when you ask the question, I suggest the vote is 64 to 0.

The Second Deputy Chair: I sometimes do hear a no. However, it's funny, it turns out the other way.

Mr Sterling: It's not coming from this area, is it?

The Second Deputy Chair: We move on. Section 13 we are now dealing with. We have an amendment by Ms Lankin to subsection 13(1).

All those in favour of Ms Lankin's amendment to subsection 13(1), please rise.

All those opposed to Ms Lankin's amendment, please rise.

The ayes are 47, the nays are 17. I declare Ms Lankin's amendment to subsection 13(1) carried.

Ms Lankin has a further amendment to clause 13(2)(b). All those in favour of Ms Lankin's amendment? Same vote.

The ayes are 47, the nays 17. I therefore declare Ms Lankin's amendment to clause 13(2)(b) is carried.

Further amendment by Ms Lankin to paragraph 13(2)(c)4. All those in favour of Ms Lankin's amendment? Same vote.

The ayes are 47, the nays are 17. I declare Ms Lankin's amendment to subsection, paragraph 13(2)(c)4 carried.

Shall section 13 as amended carry and become part of the bill? Agreed? Same vote? No?

All those in favour of section 13, as amended, please rise.

All those opposed to section 13, as amended, please rise.

The ayes are 54, the nays are 10. I therefore declare section 13, as amended, carried, and it becomes part of the bill.

Shall sections 14 to 18, inclusive, stand as part of the bill? Separate votes.

Shall section 14 carry and become part of the bill? Same vote? No?

All those in favour of section 14, please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed to section 14, please rise and remain standing.

The ayes are 63, the nays are 1. I therefore declare section 14 carried, and it becomes part of the bill.

Shall section 15 carry? Same vote.

The ayes are 63, the nays are 1. I declare section 15 carried, and it becomes part of the bill.

Shall section 16 carry? Same vote.

The ayes are 63, the nays are 1. I declare section 16 carried, and it becomes part of the bill.

Shall section 17 carry? Same vote? Agreed..

The ayes are 63, the nays are 1. I declare section 17 carried, and it becomes part of the bill.

2020

Shall section 18 carry? Same vote.

The ayes are 63, the nays are 1. I declare section 18 carried, and it becomes part of the bill.

We have an amendment by Mrs Sullivan to subsection 19(1.1).

All those in favour of Mrs Sullivan's amendment, please rise.

All those opposed to Mrs Sullivan's amendment, please rise and remain standing.

The ayes are 17, the nays are 47. I therefore declare Mrs Sullivan's amendment defeated.

Shall section 19 carry? Same vote reversed?

Interjection: No, carried.

The Second Deputy Chair: Carried. The ayes are 64, the nays are 0. I therefore declare section 19 carried and it becomes part of the bill.

Shall sections 20, 21 and 22 carry as part of the bill? Agreed. Same vote.

The ayes are 64, the nays are 0. I therefore declare sections 20, 21 and 22 carried and they become part of the bill.

We have amendments to section 23. Mrs Sullivan has moved an amendment to subsection 23(1).

All those in favour of Mrs Sullivan's amendment, please rise.

All those opposed to Mrs Sullivan's amendment, please rise.

The ayes are 17, the nays are 47. I declare Mrs Sullivan's amendment to subsection 23(1) defeated.

Mrs Sullivan has a further amendment, to subsection 23(2).

The honourable member for Mississauga South on a point of order.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Point of order, Mr Chairman: I know recently, during private members' business on a Thursday morning, we discovered that we were able to leave the House between votes. I'm asking respectfully if that applies in these proceedings that we're in at this point in time.

The Second Deputy Chair: We are dealing with a bill and they are stacked votes, and the mode of the House is now in voting procedure, where the doors remain locked.

Interjections.

The Second Deputy Chair: I must remind members that the quicker we get through these, the quicker we will unlock the doors.

Mrs Sullivan has moved an amendment to subsection 23(2).

All those in favour of Mrs Sullivan's amendment? Same vote.

The ayes are 17, the nays are 47. I declare Mrs Sullivan's amendment defeated.

We have a further amendment by Mr Sterling to subsection 23(10).

All those in favour? Same vote? Agreed.

The ayes are 17, the nays are 47. I declare Mr Sterling's amendment to subsection 23(10) defeated.

Shall section 23 stand as part of the bill? Agreed? We have some noes.

All those in favour of section 23, please rise.

All those opposed to section 23, please rise and remain standing.

The ayes are 53, the nays are 11. I declare section 23 as carried and becoming part of the bill.

The honourable member for Bruce on a point of --

Mr Elston: Point of order, sir: I did not answer the bell to come and vote on this upcoming section. I wish to be excluded from the vote on this next section.

The Second Deputy Chair: The House is in voting mode.

Mr Elston: No, I answered to come to vote for the sections to this point, but I did not intend to vote or answer the bell for these others.

The Second Deputy Chair: The House is in voting mode and we cannot break the rules.

Mr Elston: No, no. You cannot close the door on us in between sections, sir. I answered the bell to come and vote on the sections which have already been called, but I did not answer the bell to come to vote on this section.

The Second Deputy Chair: We are still dealing with Bill --

Mr Elston: But you cannot, sir, close the doors on all of these sections if I did not intend ever to vote on this section. Sir, it's against my privilege for you to rule that I cannot leave between a vote called for one section and a vote called for a section I did not intend to vote on.

The Second Deputy Chair: The House is in voting mode.

Mr Elston: No, no. It's my privilege, sir, not to vote on a section. If I choose to, I only need to bring it to your attention before you call that, and I should be allowed to exit the building.

The Second Deputy Chair: Standing orders on stacked votes remain --

Mr Elston: There is no standing order on stacked votes, sir.

The Second Deputy Chair: Are you challenging the decision, sir?

Mr Elston: Well, you show me the standing order on stacked votes. The point is, sir, that I have the privilege of not voting on a section, and I ask to be excluded from voting on this section.

Interjections.

The Second Deputy Chair: The practice of the Legislature --

Mr Elston: Mr Chairman, I refuse to vote on something that is going to be constitutionally challenged when I believe that it is contrary for us to be pushing people into having to take court cases into the Supreme Court.

Hon Mr Wildman: Well, then, you can vote against.

Mr Elston: No, no. I refuse to vote on the section, sir.

Hon Mr Wildman: You can't do that.

Mr Elston: I refuse to vote on the section, as is my right as a member.

The Second Deputy Chair: We must proceed with the vote.

Mr Elston: No, sir. I refuse to vote on the section, and I ask for my privileges as a member to be recognized, sir.

The Second Deputy Chair: You can therefore abstain, and the penalty for abstaining will be whatever occurs.

Mr Elston: The problem with abstaining is that I will not be allowed to vote on the following sections, sir, and that is not my intention. My intention, sir, is not to vote on this section, and I ask to be excluded. I did not ask to be excluded from the rest of the votes, but I do ask to be allowed to leave on this one. It is my right, sir, not to vote on sections if I believe it to be important so to do.

The Second Deputy Chair: We are proceeding with the vote, and the honourable member can do as he chooses. We have to proceed with the vote.

Mr Elston: You are forcing me then not to be able to vote on the rest of the sections. That is a violation of my privileges.

The Second Deputy Chair: The Chair is forcing no one to do anything.

Mr Elston: Yes, you are.

2030

The Second Deputy Chair: We are now dealing with section 24.

Mr Elston: I challenge the Chair.

The Second Deputy Chair: The Chair has been challenged. We will have to call the Speaker.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): The doors are locked. How's he going to get in here?

The Second Deputy Chair: The Speaker is on his way. I understand that, to accommodate a number of our colleagues here, we will unlock the doors for a few minutes.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I think it's important, in that, if the doors are open -- I would dearly love to go out and use the facilities.

Interjection.

Ms Murdock: No, I'm just concerned about the bill itself and whether it could be challenged later.

The Second Deputy Chair: As soon as the Speaker arrives we will probably have an official 10-minute break for a decision. That will be coming from the Speaker. The Speaker, at the call of the Chair, will provide information to the members as to whether there is a bell, be it five minutes or longer. It will be in the hands of the Speaker.

2040

The committee requested a ruling of the Speaker.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: I challenged the Chair, who had indicated that I do not have the privilege, as a member, of abstaining from a vote without risking being ejected from the chamber. Once the member is in the chamber it is impossible, as you know, not to vote.

I had asked prior to the next section, being section 24, which deals with prior consent and which unfortunately has not been fully debated in this chamber obviously -- we really haven't had a chance to go through it, but I realize that there are tremendous judicial difficulties, at least possibly, coming out of the section's passage -- I had asked to be allowed to exit the chamber because I'd answered the bell to attend to prior sections.

I do not wish to vote on section 24, and in fact I'm doing this as a way of gaining attention to its difficulty and potential problems that are going to be associated with its passage. I do not intend to leave the chamber for the rest of the evening but wish to continue voting after section 24.

It is, sir, the privilege of each member and every member to choose which sections to vote on and which sections not to vote on. The fact that the doors have been closed and I am not able to leave the chamber forces me to risk ejection from the chamber for the rest of the sitting, and I rather suspect it is not the intention of the standing orders to take from me my options, the options being to abstain, to vote for or to vote against. I choose, sir, in this case to abstain from voting and ask to be allowed to exit the chamber because I have done what I wish to do with the prior sections.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: I wholeheartedly concur with my colleague. I think that every member should be able to come and go with respect to different votes that are being taken in between those votes. The very least that should happen, I would submit, is that members should be able to leave between bills when the votes are stacked.

However, I concur with what the member for Bruce has just said. I think that in previous votes around here we have been able to leave between different sections of the bill if there are different votes being called, because there may be particular votes that I as a member do or do not want to participate in, or I may have some other reason for being absent. I think the member is quite correct.

Hon Mr Wildman: I would concur with my friend's comment that between bills the member should be able to leave when we're in a stacked vote or in a voting mode in the House, to use the Chair of committee of the whole's term. I would point out to you that on Thursday mornings, during private members' hour, it has been indicated to members that between the votes on the two matters before the House on deferred votes on those they can indeed leave.

However, it is my understanding that on agreement to stack, once the House begins to vote, members must participate in the vote and the doors are closed and they must remain closed. I draw to your attention, and I can't remember the exact date this occurred, but a distinguished former member of the House, Eddie Sargent, who was well known for his understanding of the rules of the House, attempted at one point to abstain from a vote, and when he was unable to leave because the doors were closed, he vacated this chamber and went, I believe, to the gallery.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Up there.

Hon Mr Wildman: Yes, the gallery up here. You're right, Mr Speaker. At that time the Speaker ruled that Mr Sargent was out of order and had to participate in the vote. It was probably one of the only times in his whole career that Mr Sargent was out of order, but I do bring that ruling to your attention.

The Speaker: First, to the member for Bruce, I acknowledge his concern and indeed I also acknowledge his long-standing respect for the traditions of this House. To the member for Parry Sound and to the member for Algoma, I've listened to you very carefully. I realize that there is a difficulty here. I think that the intention is to allow the members an opportunity to be able to express their opinions with respect to each and every item that is brought before the House.

We will have a 10-minute recess and then we'll return. I'm sure I'll do my best to try to find a way to resolve this amicably.

The House recessed from 2046 to 2058.

Mr Bradley: I have a question for the Minister of Health. She is here.

Mr Mahoney: Is it question period?

The Speaker: No, it's not question period. We lose track of time, I realize.

To the member for Bruce, he has indeed identified quite frankly a difficulty which is not there in a number of legislatures, in a number of jurisdictions. The privilege of abstaining is one which is allowed in various jurisdictions but hasn't been here. I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument that the member puts forward, because indeed what the member's saying, that he should have the opportunity to vote on one measure and not on another, surely should be the right of every person who is elected to the assembly.

I must say that the Chair of the committee was correct in his interpretation of the rules, that the rules specify that if you're in the chamber you must vote. The member presents a dilemma. The rules specify that if you are in the chamber you must vote. Once called to the chamber, then all the questions that are put before the members must be voted upon. But the member wishes to vote on some measures and not on others. There is nothing in the rules which will allow us to do what the member wants.

I must say quite candidly to the member that I am searching to find a way to accommodate his wish, not just because it's his wish but because it is something that, it seems to me, is very fundamental to what a Parliament is about. The members have the opportunity to vote for or against on each measure that is brought before the assembly. The member for Bruce is not being allowed to do that.

Our standing rules are very clear and I am obliged to sustain the decision by the Chair.

The only out that I can find for the member is that if the House is willing to allow the member to vote on one measure and not another, then indeed that's what can happen. All I can say is, whether it's the member for Bruce or any other member of the assembly, surely that member should have the opportunity to vote on measure 1 but not on measure 2, and so on through the procedure so that there is a free expression of will by the members.

I must say, in conclusion, to the member that I appreciate, first, that he's brought it to my attention. Second, I realize he will be disappointed in the fact that I must support the ruling by the Chair.

The rules perhaps should be revisited, because I can tell the member that there are other jurisdictions in which members have the opportunity to abstain on certain measures within a bill and maintain the integrity of the chamber. Such is not the case in our Legislature.

I leave it to the House, that if it would allow the member for Bruce to abstain from one measure and vote on another, then indeed his conscience will be satisfied and the business of the House can proceed.

So I sustain the ruling of the Chair and return the business to the Chair.

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: A point of order, the member for Parry Sound.

Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, I understand the ruling you've just made, but could you please then clarify whether or not members have the right to leave the chamber in between bills. I believe the member for Algoma, the Minister of Natural Resources, the member for Bruce and myself all seem to be in agreement on that, not that that makes it correct. As a matter of fact, it probably makes it incorrect, the fact that the three of us have chosen to agree.

I thought the example he pointed out was a very valid one. During private members' hour, for example, there may well be two votes back to back, yet members do have an opportunity to vote on each particular bill or each particular resolution.

Mr Elston: Just before you get into the ruling, sir, I would remind you that during private members' hour, as pointed out by my friend the member for Algoma, we do call the members but once for the vote on two items and we do allow an exit. So in that sense, this would certainly be well in keeping with that as a precedent.

The Speaker: I understand. The member for Bruce is absolutely correct with respect to private members' hour. To the member for Parry Sound, indeed he would be correct if the bills were separated. My understanding is that this is a special order of the House which puts together more than one bill, and hence as a package then, the House is obliged to deal with that as a package. I understand full well the member's concern and I share that concern, but it is a special order of the House and the only way in which you can effect a positive change for what you wish to do is by unanimous consent of the House.

All I would say, in conclusion, is that I would ask the House, with calmness, to take a look at that and allow the individual member the opportunity to vote on one measure and not on another, because I think that reflects a democratic will of the individual members who are elected to represent their constituents.

Mr Elston: Sir, may I point out one thing, not to take issue with you, but only to point out for the record that while the bills are combined in the sense that they are all before us in a period of time called committee of the whole House, which is restricted to two days, it was agreed unanimously, or at least it was consented to by the House leaders, that the bills not be dealt with together in that time period. In fact, the bills are being dealt with separately, although the time has run out on our even getting to the last three bills in the package of four. We dealt singly and debated solely Bill 74, which was the first matter we dealt with.

I only ask you to consider that in light of the fact that I know somebody at some stage is going to reflect back and I did not want you to think that in committee of the whole House we have debated anything but Bill 74. That's quite clear.

The Speaker: I understand what the member is saying. What he speaks of is an agreement which is not to the knowledge of the Chair, because it's not an order of the House. That always leaves the chair occupant in a bit of a dilemma, because the chair occupant is not aware of agreements but only of motions which have been adopted by the House.

Again, I come back and ask the House to consider very carefully its process to allow, at every opportunity, the minority voice.

Mrs Sullivan: On the same point, Mr Speaker: I'm going to ask you to clarify your instruction to the House that the House should consider itself the point of order placed by the member for Bruce, which was a considerably different point of order than that placed by the member for Parry Sound. The point of order placed by the member for Parry Sound dealt with timing and the right of members to leave the chamber between bills, which is in fact a convenience rather than an issue of privilege.

To the question of privilege that the member for Bruce addressed, you responded by suggesting to us that it was a reasonable point of privilege. Our orders didn't happen to deal with it and you suggested that the House should deal with it. Are you suggesting to us that the House should deal with it in committee? The reason I raise this is that there is a very legitimate issue of concern with this particular section of this bill, as there may well be in other pieces of legislation that deal with ethical or other issues.

In this case, there was no information with respect to this amendment, either in committee or in public hearings. The issue is one where information has come to us recently that indeed there may well be a constitutional challenge associated with it. I am asking you, though, because you said to us that the House should consider it, if you are asking us to consider it now.

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat. First, though I have attempted, in a spirit of generosity, to try to be of assistance, I must draw the House's attention to the fact that I was summoned to the House to deal with a challenge to the Chair, with which I have dealt. I would entertain, lastly, the member for Algoma, very quickly.

Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, just in response to my friend the member for Parry Sound, it would seem to me that in this particular case there has been an agreement among the House leaders to deal with the three bills by a special order, that this is a particular situation. The House is supreme. If the House were to decide, by unanimous consent, to allow for a member to leave between bills, that could be done. But my understanding is that it would require unanimous consent, and that is the way we should proceed.

The Speaker: As I leave the chair, I commend the member for Algoma that perhaps he will be able to set a course whereby members can express their individual wishes and that will in fact be the wish of the House.

House in committee of the whole.

The Second Deputy Chair: The honourable member for Bruce, on a point of order.

Mr Elston: Mr Chairman, now having had the order given by the Speaker, which says that no one may leave, what is our situation now that people have left? May I have your advice on that?

Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Chair, I recognize that the House is in fact supreme and the members of the House can make a decision by unanimous consent, but it is our view that during a vote, as you've said, when the House is in the mode for voting, members should not be able to come and go. Between bills, that's another matter and we could indeed provide unanimous consent, if that's the members' wish, in the House.

Mr Sterling: On a point of order: I think we have a real problem here. We had seven members in my caucus. We now have only one member, myself, who was here during those other votes. The member for Parry Sound was not here during the earlier votes.

Now, if in fact the ruling of the Speaker is that no one can leave, then no one should have left. People have left; therefore, the votes on the remaining sections of Bill 109 -- I believe that's the bill we're presently considering -- are not going to be consistent in the total number of votes or the same members as on the previous sections. Therefore, we are out of order.

2110

The Second Deputy Chair: We may well be out of order. However, we do have to proceed and we have orders of the House to proceed till 12 of the clock. The Chair has attempted to accommodate members prior to the opening of the doors. I have not heard anyone request unanimous consent for a five-minute bell or something like that, so if indeed we don't have that, we will have to lock the doors and proceed.

Mr Sterling: Mr Chairman, we have never had a situation that I know of in the last 15 years that I've been a member here where we have had to come back in committee of the whole House under a time allocation motion. The government has introduced at the last moment over 100 amendments to a bill. That's led to this problem. That's why we have the problem. Therefore, I don't think you can proceed. Is your ruling that you can proceed?

The Second Deputy Chair: Yes. We are proceeding simply because there was a challenge to the Chair, and the Chair at that point, to accommodate members of this Legislature, allowed the doors to be unlocked. We are now proceeding as if there was not a challenge to the decision.

Mr Sterling: Mr Chairman, with respect, we don't have the same members here.

Interjections.

Mr Sterling: Notwithstanding the generosity of the Chair -- yourself, at that time -- you could not predict whether or not there was going to be a challenge.

The Second Deputy Chair: We are in a position of having to proceed and as soon as we are back into a voting mode, the doors will be locked.

Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Chair, His Honour the Speaker, when he came in subsequent to the challenge, recessed the House for 10 minutes. Surely my friend from Carleton is not arguing that the members of the House should not have been able to leave during that recess, or that if they did they would be required to come back before we could proceed.

Mr Sterling: I'm arguing exactly that. If that is what the rules of this House were, then no one should have left this chamber, including myself.

The Second Deputy Chair: We will now proceed, and unless I hear a unanimous consent to have a five-minute bell, we will proceed in voting mode. I see no request for unanimous consent for a five-minute bell.

Mr Sterling: Mr Chairman, I challenge your ruling on this matter.

The Second Deputy Chair: My ruling has been challenged, we will be calling on the Speaker.

The committee requested a ruling of the Speaker.

The Speaker: To the member for Carleton, the member should know that when in committee, we do not record the names of individuals. We certainly make a head count, but we do not record things.

The Chair was absolutely right. Having dealt with the challenge to the Chair, we then revert back to the committee and then we simply proceed. There is no way the Chair or anybody else can account for who may or may not be in the chamber. Since names are not recorded anyway, simply numbers, when we're in committee, it should be of little consequence.

I can tell the member that the Chair made the absolutely correct ruling on it. Indeed, perhaps now we can proceed with public business.

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You may talk about specific individuals who may or may not have been here, but there aren't the same numbers here any more. If your ruling is that there has to be consistency during all the votes, which is what your ruling was, that there has to be a total of 64 votes in this Legislature on each section of each bill, you're not going to get that on the remaining sections of Bill 109.

The Speaker: I appreciate the member for Carleton's interest in this, but he should recall that what happened is that a point of order was raised and the Chair ruled on it. That ruling was challenged. That prompts the Speaker to be here. During that time, of course, the doors are unlocked. Members will come and go. They come and go at will and no one is going to keep track of that. Therefore, the Chair cannot rule on who is here and who isn't here.

Having dealt with the procedural matter, then you go back to the business that's before the House, and at that point we will find out how many members are in favour and how many are opposed. That's the appropriate way to proceed. That's traditional and there's nothing wrong with it. The Chair in fact did absolutely the right thing.

2120

House in committee of the whole.

The Second Deputy Chair: I want to remind all members that we have to proceed now under voting mode. The doors will be locked, and I want to remind members that we must complete the vote regardless of the time. We're now proceeding. All members should be in their seats. We are resuming in voting mode.

Section 24: Ms Lankin has moved an amendment to section 24. Is it the pleasure of the House that Ms Lankin's amendment carry? Agreed? No.

All those in favour of Ms Lankin's amendment, please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed to the amendment to section 24 by Ms Lankin?

We have an honourable member who has not voted. Would the honourable member please cast a nay or a yea.

Mr Murray J. Elston: Mr Chairman, I refuse.

The Second Deputy Chair: The honourable member will therefore be recorded as a no vote.

Mr Elston: Mr Chair, I do not wish to be recorded as a no vote.

The Second Deputy Chair: Do we have unanimous consent for the honourable member for Bruce to abstain? No?

I will have no recourse, then, but to name the honourable member, because he is not conforming to the rules of the House. I therefore name the honourable member for Bruce, Mr Murray Elston.

Mr Elston left the chamber.

Interjections.

The Second Deputy Chair: I would like to remind the honourable member for Algoma-Manitoulin, please take your seat, sir.

We now have to renew the vote on the amended section 24 by Ms Lankin.

All those in favour of Ms Lankin's motion, please rise.

All those opposed to Ms Lankin's motion, please rise.

The ayes are 38; the nays are 8. I declare Ms Lankin's amendment carried.

Shall section 24, as amended, carry? Same vote.

The ayes are 38, the nays are 8. I declare section 24, as amended, carried.

On a point of order, the member for Carleton.

Mr Sterling: Mr Chairman, under the standing orders, when a division of the House is called for, the bells are to be rung. We've now voted on, I believe, two or three matters without the bells being rung after the doors have been opened. I would like to know how we proceeded with the taking of those votes without a division bell.

The Second Deputy Chair: The bells rang at 5:45, and a challenge to the Chair came on two occasions. We are now proceeding with the division bell at 5:45 to deal with the motions as in the orders of the day.

Mr Sterling: Surely, Mr Chairman, the idea of the division bells is to notify members of the Legislature that votes are going to be taken and the doors are going to be locked if they don't get within those boundaries. Six of my colleagues who voted in this Legislature on previous votes left this Legislature. There was no notice to them that additional votes would be taken.

The Second Deputy Chair: A challenge did occur and the doors were open for a period of some 15 to 20 minutes when members were allowed to come and go. I am quite sure that members were aware that this indeed was occurring.

Mr Sterling: Mr Chairman, the fact of the matter is that you are calling divisions now with the door locked, without division bells having been rung to notify members who have left. So I would ask you, at least for the remaining votes, to ring the bells for 30 minutes.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order. Division bells did ring, and we are in voting mode and will proceed.

Section 25: An amendment was moved by Mrs Sullivan to clause 25(a). Is it the pleasure of the House that we have the same vote in reverse? Agreed. Same vote reversed.

The ayes are 8, the nays are 38. I declare Ms Sullivan's amendment to clause 25(a) defeated.

Shall section 25 carry? Same vote reversed? Agreed.

The ayes are 38, the nays are 8. I therefore declare section 25 carried.

Shall section 26 of the bill carry? Same vote? Agreed.

The ayes are 38, the nays are 8. I declare section 26 as part of the bill.

The honourable member for Halton Centre.

Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: We had indicated that we would be supporting that section and that it should be carried. The same vote would not indicate that.

The Second Deputy Chair: I heard no negative when I asked for same vote.

We refer back to section 26. All those in favour of section 26, please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed to section 26?

The ayes are 46, the nays are 0. I declare section 26 as part of the bill and carried.

We move on to section 27. Ms Lankin has moved an amendment to section 27 FR.

All those in favour of Ms Lankin's amendment? Same vote.

The ayes are 46, the nays are 0. I declare Ms Lankin's amendment carried.

2130

Shall section 27 carry as amended? Agreed? Same vote.

The ayes are 46, the nays are 0. I declare section 27 carried, as amended.

Shall sections 28 and 29 carry and become part of the bill? Agreed? Same vote.

The ayes are 46, the nays are 0. I declare sections 28 and 29 as part of the bill and carried.

Section 30 has an amendment by Ms Lankin, under subsection 30(1). Shall Ms Lankin's amendment carry? No?

All those in favour of Ms Lankin's amendment, please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed to Ms Lankin's amendment, please rise and remain standing.

The ayes are 38, the nays are 8. I declare Ms Lankin's amendment carried.

Shall section 30 carry, as amended? Same vote.

The ayes are 38, the nays are 8. I declare section 30 carried as amended, and it becomes part of the bill.

Ms Lankin has an amendment to section 31. Shall Ms Lankin's amendment to section 31 carry? Same vote.

The ayes are 38, the nays are 8. I declare Ms Lankin's amendment carried.

Shall section 31 carry as amended? Same vote.

The ayes are 38, the nays are 8. I declare section 31, as amended, carried.

Shall sections 32 to 38, inclusive, carry? Agreed? We have no negatives?

The ayes are 46, the nays are 0, therefore I declare sections 32 to 38 carried and they become part of the bill.

Ms Lankin has an amendment to subsection 39(1). All those in favour of Ms Lankin's amendment to section 39? Same vote? No?

All those in favour of Ms Lankin's amendment, please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed, please rise and remain standing.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 2. I declare Ms Lankin's amendment to subsection 39(1) carried.

Shall section 39 as amended, carry? Same vote? No?

All those in favour of section 39, as amended, please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed, please rise and remain standing.

The ayes are 46, the nays are 0. I declare section 39, as amended, carried and becoming part of the bill.

Shall sections 40 to 48, inclusive, carry?

The honourable Minister of Health.

Hon Ms Lankin: Sir, I wish to deal with section 44 separately.

The Second Deputy Chair: Shall sections 40, 41, 42 and 43 carry? Agreed? Same vote.

The ayes are 46, the nays are 0. Therefore I declare sections 40, 41, 42 and 43 carried.

Shall we deal with section 44? All those --

Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I believe that the amendment as proposed by the minister is out of order. She may want to --

Hon Ms Lankin: There is no amendment.

Mrs Sullivan: There is no amendment? I have an amendment in my package. I apologize.

The Second Deputy Chair: It was ruled out of order originally, and we are now dealing with section 44 without amendments.

All those in favour of section 44? Same vote? No?

All those in favour of section 44 standing as part of the bill will please rise.

All those opposed to section 44 of the bill, please rise.

The ayes are 0, the nays are 46. I declare section 44 of the bill defeated and it will be struck from the bill.

We now deal with sections 45, 46, 47 and 48.

Hon Ms Lankin: Same vote reversed.

The Second Deputy Chair: Agreed? Same vote reversed.

The ayes are 46, the nays are 0. I therefore declare sections 45, 46, 47 and 48 standing as part of the bill and carried.

We have an amendment by Ms Lankin to section 49. An amendment has been moved to clause 49(1)(j).

All those in favour of Ms Lankin's amendment? Is it the pleasure of the House that Ms Lankin's amendment carry? No?

All those in favour of Ms Lankin's amendment, please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed, please rise and remain standing.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 2. Therefore I declare Ms Lankin's amendment to clause 49(1)(j) as carried.

Shall section 49 as amended carry as part of the bill? Same vote? No?

All those in favour of section 49, as amended, please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed, please rise and remain standing.

The ayes are 46, the nays are 0. I therefore declare section 49, as amended, carried and part of the bill.

Shall sections 50 through 53, inclusive, stand as part of the bill? Same vote? Agreed.

The ayes are 46, the nays are 0. I therefore declare sections 50, 51, 52 and 53 as part of the bill and carried.

Shall the schedule and title of the bill as shown carry? Same vote.

The ayes are 46, the nays are 0. I therefore declare the schedule and title of the bill carried.

Shall the bill be reported to the House, as amended? Agreed.

Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I'd like to ask for unanimous consent of the House for a 10-minute recess before proceeding with Bill 108.

The Second Deputy Chair: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Shall the House reconvene without a division bell? Agreed.

This House stands adjourned for 10 minutes.

The House recessed at 2141 and resumed at 2151.

The Second Deputy Chair: We will now ask the Sergeant to have the House back in voting mode with locked doors. Would the members please take their seats.

We are now dealing with Bill 108, An Act to provide for the making of Decisions on behalf of Adults concerning the Management of their Property and concerning their Personal Care.

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I would like to indicate that my total caucus will be voting against all of the amendments put forward by the government but that we will be voting in favour of the sections as they're carried. Therefore, if I can expedite the process by doing that, I would invite other members of the Legislature to do so as well.

Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: We will be voting with the government on the amendments that are proposed, as they are technical amendments to the subsections, and therefore we'll be voting with the government on all the sections of this bill.

The Second Deputy Chair: Pursuant to those clarifications, shall sections 1 to 6 of Bill 108 stand without amendments as part of the bill?

All those in favour, please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed, please rise.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. Therefore, sections 1 through 6 shall stand as part of Bill 108 without amendments.

An amendment to subsection 7(5), moved by Mr Hampton. All those in favour of Mr Hampton's motion, please rise. Same vote? No?

All those in favour of Mr Hampton's motion, please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed, please rise and remain standing.

The ayes are 43, the nays are 1. I therefore declare Mr Hampton's amendment to subsection 7(5) carried.

Shall section 7, as amended, carry? Agreed. The ayes are 44, the nays are 0.

Shall sections 8 through 11 carry as unamended? Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. Therefore, I declare sections 8 through 11 carried and part of the bill.

Mr Hampton has an amendment to subclause 12(1)(a)(i). Shall Mr Hampton's amendment carry? Same vote minus one.

The ayes are 43, the nays are 1. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment to subclause 12(1)(a)(i) carried.

Shall section 12 of the bill, as amended, carry? Same vote plus one.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare section 12, as amended, carried.

Shall sections 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 stand as part of the bill? Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. Therefore, I declare those sections as standing part of the bill.

Mr Hampton has an amendment to section 24: clause 24(5)(a) FR. Shall Mr Hampton's amendment to section 24 carry? Same vote minus one.

The ayes are 43, the nays are 1. I therefore declare Mr Hampton's amendment to clause 24(5)(a) FR carried.

Shall section 24 of the bill, as amended, carry? Agreed. Same vote plus one.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare section 24 of the bill, as amended, carried.

Shall sections 25 through 36 inclusive carry? Same vote plus one.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0.

Mr Hampton has an amendment to section 37: subsection 37(2). Shall Mr Hampton's amendment to subsection 37(2) carry? Same vote minus one.

The ayes are 43, the nays are 1. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment to subsection 37(2) carried.

Shall section 37 of the bill carry as amended? Agreed. Same vote plus one? Agreed.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare section 37, as amended, carried.

Shall sections 38 to 41, inclusive, carry as part of the bill? Same vote?

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0.

Mr Hampton has an amendment to section 42, shown as clause 42(7)(d). Mr Hampton has moved this amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Hampton's amendment carry? Same vote minus one.

The ayes are 43, the nays are 1. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment to section 42 carried.

2200

Shall section 42, as amended, carry? Same vote plus one. Agreed.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare section 42 carried and becomes part of the bill, as amended.

Sections 43 to section 52, inclusive: Is the pleasure of the House that these sections carry? Agreed. Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare sections 43 to 52, inclusive, carried.

Mr Hampton has an amendment to section 53, shown as subclause 53(1)(a)(i). Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Hampton's amendment to section 53 carry? Agreed. Same vote minus one.

The ayes are 43, the nays are 1. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment carried.

Shall section 53, as amended, carry? Agreed. Same vote plus one.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare section 53, as amended, carried.

Shall sections 54, 55 and 56 carry as part of the bill? Agreed. Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare sections 54, 55 and 56 carried and become part of the bill.

Mr Hampton has an amendment to section 57, shown as clause 57(3)(a). All those in favour of Mr Hampton's amendment? Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Hampton's amendment carry? Agreed. Same vote minus one.

The ayes are 43, the nays are 1. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment carried.

Shall section 57 of the bill, as amended, carry? Agreed. Same vote plus one.

Mr Sterling: On a point of clarification, Mr Chair: When you say the same vote plus one, shouldn't that be then 44 to 2?

The Second Deputy Chair: Thank you.

Shall sections 58 through 82, inclusive, carry? Agreed.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0.

Mr Hampton has an amendment to section 83, known as subsection 83(3). Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Hampton's amendment to section 83 carry? Agreed? Same vote minus one.

The ayes are 43, the nays are 1. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment to section 83 carried.

Shall section 83, as amended, carry? Same vote plus one. Agreed.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare section 83, as amended, carried.

Shall sections 84 through 89, inclusive, carry and be part of the bill? Agreed. Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare sections 84 through 89 become part of the bill.

Shall section 90 of the bill carry? Agreed. Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare section 90 as part of the bill and carried.

We have a new section 90.1 by Mr Hampton. Mr Hampton has moved an addition to section 90 known as 90.1. Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Hampton's amendment, section 90.1 carry? Agreed. Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0.

Shall section 90.1 carry and be part of the bill? Same vote. Agreed.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare section 90.1, as amended, carried.

Shall sections 91 and 92 carry and be part of the bill without amendments? Same vote. Agreed.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare sections 91 and 92 as part of the bill and carried.

Shall the schedule and the title of the bill carry? Agreed. Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare the schedule and title of the bill carried.

Shall the bill be reported as amended? Agreed. Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. The bill shall be reported as amended.

We have one more bill before us in this series. It is Bill 110, An Act to amend certain Statutes of Ontario consequent upon the enactment of the Advocacy Act, 1992, the Consent to Treatment Act, 1992 and the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.

Hon Ms Lankin: Just to seek clarification from the members opposite, they were helpful at the beginning of voting on Bill 108 on indicating intentions. My understanding with respect to Bill 110 is that all amendments that will be considered are government amendments. I don't believe there are motions from either the Liberals or the Conservative Party. If they are voting in a consistent manner on all amendments, it may be of assistance to the table to know that. We might be able to proceed in an expeditious manner through the amendments and the bill.

The Second Deputy Chair: Shall sections 1 through 6, inclusive, carry without amendments as part of Bill 110?

All those in favour of those sections, please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed, please rise.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. Therefore, sections 1 through 6 shall become part of the bill and are therefore carried.

Mr Sterling: To assist other members who may not want to be involved in the next debate, notwithstanding my objection to not having an opportunity to deal with the amendments on other bills and my reason for not voting for those amendments, with regard to this bill the amendments are following the former amendments and therefore I'm willing to indicate my support for the amendments and the carried sections. Therefore, it may aid and assist in passing all the amendments to Bill 110 and its sections.

2210

The Second Deputy Chair: Thank you. We now move into section 7, and we have amendments.

Mr Hampton has moved an amendment to subsection 7(2). Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Hampton's amendment to section 7 carry? Agreed. Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment carried.

Mr Hampton has a further amendment, to subsection 7(4). Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Hampton's amendment carry? Same vote.

The are ayes 44, the nays are 0. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment to subsection 7(4) carried.

Mr Hampton has a further amendment, to subsection 7(5). Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Hampton's amendment carry? Agreed. Same vote. The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment to subsection 7(5) carried.

Shall section 7, as amended, carry? Agreed. Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare section 7, as amended, carried and part of the bill.

Shall sections 8 to 19, inclusive, carry and become part of the bill? Is it the pleasure of the House that these sections carry? Same vote. Agreed.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. Therefore, I declare sections 8 through 19, inclusive, as part of the bill and carried.

Section 20 has a number of amendments.

Mr Hampton moves an amendment to subsection 20(8). Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Hampton's amendment carry? Agreed. Same vote. The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment carried.

Mr Hampton moves an amendment to subsection 20(9). Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Hampton's amendment carry? Same vote. Agreed.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment to subsection 20(9) carried.

Mr Hampton has moved an amendment to subsection 20(11.1). Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Hampton's amendment carry? Same vote. Agreed. The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare the amendment carried.

Mr Hampton moves another amendment, to subsection 20(12.1). Is it the pleasure of the House? Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment carried.

Mr Hampton has a further amendment to subsection 20(15.1). Same vote. The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment carried.

Mr Hampton has a further amendment, to subsection 20(16). Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment to subsection 20(16) carried.

Mr Hampton has a further amendment, to subsection 20(17). Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment to subsection 20(17) carried.

Mr Hampton has a further amendment, to subsection 20(21), subsection 38(1), MHA. Same vote. Agreed.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment carried.

Mr Hampton has a further amendment, to subsection 20(21), subsection 38(3), MHA. Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Hampton's amendment carry? Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0.

Mr Hampton has a further amendment, to subsection 20(21), subsection 38(5), MHA. Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment carried.

Mr Hampton has a further amendment, to subsection 20(22.1). Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Hampton's amendment carry? Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0.

Mr Hampton has a further amendment, to subsections 20(24), (24.1), (24.2.). Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Hampton's amendment carry? Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare the amendment carried.

Mr Hampton has a further amendment, to subsection 20(34). Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment carried.

Mr Hampton has a further amendment, to subsection 20(38). Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Hampton's amendment carry? Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment carried.

Mr Hampton has a further amendment, to subsection 20(46). Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare the amendment carried.

Mr Hampton has a further amendment, to subsection 20(47). Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0.

Mr Hampton has a further amendment, to subsection 20(48). Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Hampton's amendment carry? Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare the amendment carried.

Mr Hampton has a further amendment, to subsection 20(50) Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment carried.

Mr Hampton has a further amendment, to subsection 20(51). Is it the pleasure -- yes, it's the pleasure of the House. Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment carried.

Mr Hampton has a further amendment, to subsection 20(52). Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Hampton's --

Mrs Sullivan: Same vote.

The Second Deputy Chair: Yes, the same vote. The ayes are 44, the nays are 0.

Mr Hampton has a further amendment, to subsection 20(54). Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment carried.

Mr Hampton has a final amendment, to subsection 20(55). Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Hampton's amendment carry? Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment carried.

Is it the pleasure of the House that section 20, as amended, carry? Agreed. Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare section 20, as amended, carried, and it becomes part of the bill.

Section 21, Mr Hampton has an amendment to subsection 21(2). Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment carried.

A further amendment by Mr Hampton to subsection 21(4): Is it the pleasure of the House --

Mrs Sullivan: Same vote.

The Second Deputy Chair: Same vote. The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment to subsection 21(4) carried.

Mr Hampton has a further amendment, to subsection 21(5). Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Hampton's amendment carry? Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0.

Is it the pleasure of the House that section 21, as amended, carry? Agreed. Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare section 21, as amended, to be part of the bill and carried.

Does section 22, without amendments, stand as part of the bill? Agreed. Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0.

2220

We now have an appendix and a new amendment shown as 22.1, moved by Mr Hampton. Is it the pleasure of the House? Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare Mr Hampton's amendment, an addition to section 22.1, carried.

Shall section 22, as amended, carry as part of the bill? Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0.

I declare section 22, as amended, carried and part of the bill.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Mrs Deborah Deller): It's 22.1.

The Second Deputy Chair: We've just done --

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: It wasn't 22, as amended.

The Second Deputy Chair: The member for Halton Centre.

Mrs Sullivan: My understanding is that the Attorney General presented a motion as subsection 22.1. That motion hasn't been circulated.

The Second Deputy Chair: It's the table's understanding that it had been circulated. Does the honourable member for Halton Centre want a bit of time to study the addition to section 22 -- Minister of Health?

Hon Ms Lankin: Mr Chair, if it's any assistance, I can indicate that this new section 22.1, which we believed had been circulated and had been sent with other packages of materials, simply extends the same protections with respect to freedom of information and protection to the Municipal Act.

Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Chair: We have not been allowed to debate any of the amendments passed -- section 29 of Bill 74. We cannot allow debate on an amendment that's presented now in the middle of a vote when the amendment has in fact not even reached at least one of the opposition parties. We don't need the explanation, clearly, when the government wouldn't allow us to explain our own amendments that were being put forward.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order. Section 22.1 is included in the bill. On time allocation there are times when this does occur.

We proceed with the vote on the different sections.

Shall sections 23, 24, 25 and 26 carry without amendments? Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare sections 23, 24, 25 and 26 carried.

Mr Hampton has moved an amendment to section 27. Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Hampton's amendment to section 27 carry? Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0.

I declare --

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I've had amendments given to me up to section 20. All of these amendments have never been given to me.

Interjection.

Mr Sterling: No. I don't have section 27.

The Second Deputy Chair: On a point of order, the honourable member for Halton Centre.

Mrs Sullivan: I think that what's occurred here is that amendments have come to us for discussion at one point and then have been altered after discussion. I have an amendment to section 27, but in the package I received, which was the package which was to be the official package, there was no amendment to the previous section, which I raised. The member for Carleton clearly has a different package which the Attorney General has made available to him, which is the package that finally is being dealt with before the House.

The Second Deputy Chair: It is my understanding that the Deputy Chair of the committee of the whole earlier today read all of these amendments into the record, into Hansard.

We are now proceeding with section 27, as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House that section 27, as amended, carry? Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare section 27, as amended, to stand as part of the bill and carried.

Shall section 28, without amendments, carry? Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare section 28 of the bill carried.

Shall the schedule and title of the bill carry? Same vote.

The ayes are 44, the nays are 0. I declare the schedule and title of the bill to carry and be part of the bill.

Shall Bill 110, as amended, be reported? Agreed.

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Mr Chair, I move that the committee rise and report.

The Second Deputy Chair: Miss Martel has moved that the committee rise and report. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

All those in favour of Miss Martel's motion, please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

All those opposed to Miss Martel's motion, please rise and remain standing until recognized.

Interjections.

The Second Deputy Chair: The honourable member for Carleton must vote in the affirmative or the negative.

Mr Sterling: But, Mr Chairman, I understand the only way I can get out of this place is if I get thrown out. Is that correct? I'll vote in the affirmative, Mr Chairman.

The Second Deputy Chair: The honourable member is voting in the affirmative.

The ayes are 39, the nays are 5. I declare Miss Martel's motion carried.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The committee of the whole House begs to report four bills, with amendments, and asks for leave to sit again. Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

LONG TERM CARE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

Ms Lankin moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 101, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Long Term Care / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne les soins de longue durée.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the minister have any opening comments?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health): I'm pleased to bring forth for second reading the Long Term Care Statute Law Amendment Act. It's An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Long Term Care.

As I indicated in my statement to the Legislature on November 26, 1992, this government is embarking on a major restructuring of long-term care facilities and community-based services. The central objective of our plan is to strengthen community services to ensure that elderly persons, adults with physical disabilities and those who need health care at home receive the services they need at home whenever possible.

2230

However, we also must ensure that quality residential services are available to elderly persons whose needs can no longer be met at home or in alternative community settings. To do that, long-standing inequities in funding policies, resident payment schemes and access to services in nursing homes and charitable and municipal homes for the aged must be corrected. Of paramount importance, we must strengthen our ability to ensure that quality of care and services and financial accountability are achieved.

The honourable members will know that the problems within the current facility service system have been recognized by past ministers of Community and Social Services, ministers of Health and provincial governments and addressed in this House many times. Today Bill 101 represents our collective opportunity to address these problems and move the facility service sector into the 21st century.

The amendments to the Nursing Homes Act, the Charitable Institutions Act and the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act will accomplish several objectives: first, a consistent, more equitable method of funding all three types of homes; second, a fair, consistent resident payment policy, with residents charged for accommodation, that's room and board, only; third, coordinated access to services and uniform eligibility criteria; and fourth, more effective quality assurance and enhanced accountability to residents, their families and to government.

First, the amendments will enable us to meet our objective of establishing a consistent and more equitable method for funding nursing homes and charitable and municipal homes for the aged. At present these three types of homes are funded through different arrangements with the province even though over time, as the residents have aged, their needs may be virtually identical regardless of which kind of home they may be in or whether they're in a residential or an extended care bed.

The current funding methods will be replaced by the amendments proposed here and will be replaced by a levels of care funding scheme which bases funding levels in large part on the actual care requirements of residents. It's an important move away from the unfair and discriminatory per diem and differential per diem system that has been in place.

On an annual basis, a levels of care classification survey will be undertaken to collect information on the needs of and the services received by each resident, with a focus on nursing and personal care needs and services. The results of the annual survey will provide a basis for determining how much funding each facility is to receive. Since the classification survey must be carried out on an annual basis, the changing needs of the residents will be captured and funding allocations adjusted accordingly. The levels of care classification scheme will replace the current extended care and residential care levels of service. Separate amounts will be allocated to all facilities to assist with programming and accommodation costs.

The second objective is to create a fair and consistent approach to resident payments, which will be based on accommodation costs only. There are individuals who are in extended care who are not required to pay for their nursing care. However, individuals in residential care, even though it's provided in a charitable and municipal home for the aged, are required to pay up to the full cost of their care and accommodation even though their needs may be as great as those of a person in extended care.

I want to stress here that the amendments will eliminate this inequity and establish a fair policy for charging residents for accommodation, for room and board costs only. That means that no resident will any longer pay for personal care or nursing care services, and that's an important differentiation from the present system as well.

Each person's charge will be based on his ability to pay, as determined by a simple income test. If a person is receiving a guaranteed income supplement from the federal government, he has limited ability to pay. Therefore, if the person indicates that he cannot pay the full per diem amount for accommodation, the charge would be reduced or eliminated, based on the amount of the guaranteed income supplement he receives. No person eligible for placement in a home would be refused placement on the basis of inability to pay.

In addition, the amendments establish a scheme for ensuring that homes do not charge excessive amounts for accommodation or for the extra services that may be requested by a resident, such as hairdressing. Homes will be prohibited from charging for services where no charges are allowed. If a resident is overcharged or charged for services for which no charge is permitted, under the amendments the province will have the authority to recover the excess charges from the home and return the money to the resident who was overcharged.

Third, these amendments will enable us to meet our objective of establishing a province-wide system for coordinating and managing access to facility services. The fundamental purpose of instituting a system for coordinating access is twofold: first, to ensure that all community service options have been explored and that a person's needs can be met only by entering a facility and, second, to ensure that facility services are available to those who need them most. A uniform set of eligibility criteria and guidelines for admission decisions will apply to all homes.

Fourth, the amendments will enable us to meet our objective of increasing accountability to ensure that services are of the highest quality possible and that provincial funds are spent appropriately on care and services for residents.

An increase in accountability is supported by eight components. Those eight components are as follows: a service agreement between the province and the home; a plan of care that must be developed by the home for each resident who has been admitted; a quality assurance plan that must be developed and implemented by the home; enhanced standards and criteria for care and services; enhanced financial reporting requirements; improved information sharing with residents, their families and representatives and staff of the home; improved powers of inspection for all homes to monitor and assess compliance with the act, the regulations and the service agreements; and sanctions for non-compliance.

I'm confident that all members of the House will recognize the value of adopting these facility reforms as expeditiously as possible to ensure that elderly persons in facilities receive the quality care and services they deserve.

Turning to the community services sector, the amendments include a major new thrust in the area of support for independent living for adults with physical disabilities and other disabled persons. For many years, adults with physical disabilities have been indicating their desire to gain more control over the services they require and to have the services tailored to their individual needs rather than having to fit into fixed service models.

An amendment to the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act, which is an enabling provision, will enable the minister to provide funds directly to eligible disabled persons 16 years of age and over who wish to self-manage their own services. The self-management model of service is designed to maximize individual dignity, independence and control over one's own life.

The amendments will also enable the minister to make payments to parents or service providers on behalf of persons with other types of disabilities to assist them in obtaining necessary services. Grants would be subject to terms, conditions and accountability requirements prescribed in regulations.

I'm sure that all members of the House would agree that we can wait no longer to correct the long-standing deficiencies in the facilities sector. I fully expect to hear that from the members opposite. I know that they have over the years supported moving in this direction. I am equally confident that all members will agree that the time to expand independent living opportunities for disabled persons is now as well.

Bill 101 is our opportunity to take positive and progressive steps together to make a difference in the lives of elderly persons and adults with disabilities. I look forward to the comments of my colleagues in the Legislature, to the concerns that they may raise, to having a debate and dialogue about these provisions and to moving forward supporting this much-needed change to legislation.

The Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Is it a two-minute operation now? Are we allowed two minutes to respond?

The Speaker: Two minutes, questions and/or comments.

Mr Bradley: The one concern I would like to express, among many about this, because it has been a long-awaited matter -- I'm not going to complain about the CAT scanner, because we have that now. We have a second CAT scanner in the Niagara Peninsula. I can't complain about the renal dialysis unit, because a renal dialysis unit has now been approved. So I'm looking for some other matters to discuss.

I must say it took a long time to get those, and naturally all of us are very pleased. We had other things that came when we were in power. It wasn't a big deal. We wouldn't even have had to make a big announcement when we were in power because it just routinely happened, almost monthly, that these matters were being taken care of.

But I do want to express concern. I used to follow the NDP very carefully when it was the CCF. I used to read Hansard of the federal House of Commons and once in a while I would sit in the gallery here and watch what was going on. I used to really admire the NDP back in the days when they were opposed to means tests. They almost spat the words out when they said "means tests." I believed that the members of the CCF always thought it was a "mean test" and not a "means test."

2240

I become very concerned when people have to declare their means -- in other words, it's their income in this case -- before they are able to determine just how much they're going to be paying in one of the long-term care facilities. I know there are many people out there who are concerned as well that they can go up by almost $11 a day in terms of their payments. These are often people who have saved every last penny they have and now find that because they happen to be unfortunate enough to be confined to a facility because of their health, they're going to be forced by the government to be involved in a significant increase in the amount of money they have to pay on a daily basis.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a number of concerns about Bill 101. When we're talking about long-term care, it encompasses a full range of ages and needs, and I think I'm most particularly concerned because I don't see anywhere in this bill that the government is really addressing the needs for long-term care of those people with developmental disabilities.

It seems that Bill 101 is explicitly for people with physical disabilities and illnesses, and although we've been promised that there's a list of more areas to be addressed and more areas that are coming, on the list that I've looked at I still see a big gap for people with developmental disabilities.

This is a very big concern not only because it's one of my shadow cabinet portfolios but because I personally feel very strongly for these particularly challenged individuals. I hope that at some time the minister will be able to tell us what her plans are for that particular group of people.

I also think we have to recognize that long-term care does involve children and that children are not just small adults. They have to have special treatment opportunities.

It's very difficult for me to tell you all my concerns in two minutes, but a lot of them revolve around that particular subject area.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I don't think there's been a piece of legislation that's been more awaited than the long-term care. I think everywhere I go, every single day, people ask me when I thought it was coming. It is unfortunate that at this time of the night we're beginning a very important debate that affects people's lives.

The legislation that is presented tonight is extremely nebulous. It lacks many details, it lacks time lines, and in the opinion of many people who have spoken to me in the last couple of days, it lacks real commitment. Again, we have a whole lot of nice words. We have monstrous decisions on people's lives being left in the position of, "We're going to deal with those in regulations." We have new positions in the community and people have no idea what the criteria for these positions will be. They don't know the community they will cover, and the people who have talked to me in the health care field in the last couple of days indicate to me, "My goodness, I've got more questions than I had last January."

We're promised a consultation paper in January and we're promised more directions and more guidelines, but what we're worried about is, will the people of this province have an ability to respond? We're hoping this government will agree to putting this piece of legislation out to committee. We certainly feel that the district health councils are being told to get up and get started. They're not being given very much direction but, "Get moving, boys," and people are hesitant.

Hon Ms Lankin: I'd never say, "Get moving, boys."

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): You'd say, "Get moving, ladies and gentlemen," I suppose, or something like that.

This is actually rather interesting, to be starting a debate. People may think they're watching a replay here. They flip on the parliamentary channel about this time at night just before they go to the 11 o'clock news.

Hon Ms Lankin: No, it's because they see you up on your feet again.

Mr Mahoney: Well, often it is. My mother-in-law, Edna -- hi, Edna -- watches quite often to see if her son-in-law's got something brilliant to say. Sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't.

[Laughter]

Mr Mahoney: Stop laughing. I think people should know that this is live, it's a quarter to 11 on Wednesday evening and we're beginning to debate, if you can imagine, one of the most important and serious pieces of legislation this government will ever introduce. I find it really rather incredible that having gone through a full day, the government House leader is unable to plan the agenda of this place so that we can deal with this properly, when everyone's fresh, not sitting around here with their ties undone and rubbing their eyes. I am, too; it's a little tiring.

But we really should be addressing issues of very serious concern to the people who are concerned about long-term health care in this province. We have a government that has just recently announced that it's transferring a mystical 2% in transfer payments, and yet I phoned up the hospitals in my community, two of them, the Mississauga and the Credit Valley, and said, "How much are you expecting, folks?" Guess what? Nothing. They're not expecting anything. It's a trick.

Hon Ms Lankin: Oh, tell them they're wrong.

Mr Mahoney: No, they're not wrong.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): Dead wrong.

Hon Ms Lankin: Absolutely.

Mr Mahoney: Boy, I'll tell you what: Show us the cancelled cheque. They're not wrong. They're getting nothing. This Health minister announces wonderful transfer payments to the hospitals and then --

Hon Ms Lankin: That was the Treasurer.

Mr Mahoney: -- it was the Treasurer -- and then takes it away. It's trickery, but of course we know this government is full of tricks. We know that.

The Speaker: The minister has up to two minutes to respond.

Hon Ms Lankin: I will very quickly try and touch on all the points that were raised by the members opposite. I appreciate their comments. I know that it is the beginning of debate and that with time people will have a greater understanding of the bill that's before us.

I say to the member for Mississauga South that she raises an important issue with respect to persons with developmental disabilities, and I should indicate to her that from the very beginning the target client group for long-term care redirection was seniors and persons with physical disabilities. That's not to say that there isn't a need for integration of services and a more continuing care approach for other clients of health and social services -- there is -- but this initiative is specifically with respect to those target groups.

I say to the member for Ottawa-Rideau that the amendments before us are only one very small part -- important, but very small -- of the long-term care redirection. It's the part that deals with fixing inequities in funding and payment provisions within nursing homes and homes for the aged. The other sorts of community initiatives are not legislatively based. They don't require that kind of change. We will be, in phase 2 of this next year, coming forward with more comprehensive, overriding legislation to establish a legislative base to the comprehensive multiservice agencies that I spoke about. That document I think is something that people can respond to in January.

May I say to the member for St Catharines that I find his comments quite odd. Of course we're not talking about a means test which include assets; we're talking about an income test, simply administered, much fairer than the system we have now where, irrespective of your income, you may pay as high as $90 a day. He talks about someone, an elderly person who has years of savings which would now be tapped. That's exactly what we won't be doing. We're not looking at assets; we're looking at income, and that income will be as is guaranteed through the guaranteed income supplement. Those people who have an inability to pay will not be asked to pay.

The Speaker: Is there further debate?

2250

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): In addressing Bill 101, as we are beginning to do this evening at a substantially late hour for most people who will be concerned with the content of this bill, we have to address many of the other issues associated with the entire question of delivery of long-term care reform. As we do that, I'd just like to read into the record statements that have been made in this place at another time and with another government, discussing long-term care reform.

This statement was made on December 6, 1989, by then-Minister of Community and Social Services, Charles Beer.

He said, "The reform is designed to maintain the independence of Ontario's seniors and people with physical disabilities, support their family care givers and strengthen the ability of communities to plan and manage responsive services."

He said, "We have found that there is real support for reform among our clients, their families and service providers, and an eagerness to take part in the reform process. We have heard, particularly from those with disabilities, that people want to maintain their independence and have more control over the services they require."

He said, "First, we will create new service access agencies that will simplify both the process of finding appropriate in-home services and the process of having someone admitted to a long-term care facility."

He said: "Second, we will introduce a new funding system for all homes for the aged and nursing homes. Under the new system, payments will vary, depending on the level of care required by residents in the home.

"Third, to avoid administrative confusion and duplication, the ministries of Health and Community and Social Services are establishing a single, interministry structure -- "

Mr Mahoney: On a point of order.

The Speaker: A point of order, the member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, considering the hour, I think it only fair that there be a quorum present to listen to the debate by my party's critic.

The Speaker: Would the Clerk check for a quorum?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Mrs Deborah Deller): Mr Speaker, a quorum is not present.

The Speaker: Would you call in the members. Five-minute bell.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is present, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: A quorum is present, and the member for Halton Centre may resume her speech.

Mrs Sullivan: The then minister went on to say: "Third, to avoid administrative confusion and duplication, the ministries of Health and Community and Social Services are establishing a single interministry structure to manage the reformed long-term care system, both provincially and at the local level. Already we have appointed an assistant deputy minister of community services who reports jointly to my ministry and the Ministry of Health.

"Fourth, we will develop a fully integrated in-home support program for seniors and disabled people. This new program will provide a wide array of services to assist people to be independent in their homes."

He said, "Existing services, such as the Ministry of Health's home care program and my ministry's integrated homemaker program, will be brought together as the core of a new consolidated in-home support program. As a result, services will be available with fewer barriers between agencies, ministries and professions.

"We shall increase provincial support for many in-home services, such as attendant care, in-home respite and in-home nursing care. There will also be further improvements in support for the lowest-paid workers to add to the $28.9 million we have already provided to improve the wages of homemakers.

"Finally, home support services run by community agencies, such as Meals on Wheels and Friendly Visiting, will be expanded. We will develop a more complete range of services throughout the province, looking towards greater multicultural involvement."

The then minister, Charles Beer, went on to say, "We will be ready to begin implementing changes in some communities by early fall of 1990. We are also preparing long-term care legislation for presentation to the House at the same time."

The then Minister of Community and Social Services, Charles Beer, was prepared in 1990 to present to the House a bill that is not unlike what we have received today from the Minister of Health, two years later, without a substantial difference in approach. Admittedly, the election intervened and we know well that the entire consultation period had not been completed. But did it take two years for the completion of that consultation phase? The only real thing that has changed in terms of this government and the statements that were made in 1989 is that the shift in the carriage of long-term care reform has been from one minister to another minister. That's a significant change.

Admittedly, over the period of time of the consultation and from the period of time when Mr Sweeney, the Minister of Community and Social Services, first introduced the concept of long-term care reform to the House, there has been substantial new information that has come forward, not the least of which is a questioning of some of the assumptions which were made earlier and which I believe would have been questioned during the previous government's approach to long-term care. One of those assumptions is that the Alberta patient classification model would work holus-bolus in Ontario.

There have been substantial interventions that I think are worth listening to with respect to the interpretation of that decision. That commentary had begun to come forward during the period of time of the previous government, and the patient classification system is certainly a major part of Bill 101.

During the course of my remarks on Bill 101 and the long-term care issues that are associated with it, I would like to return to that particular issue. Certainly, the minister has spoken about the need for a service continuum. We absolutely concur with that. Unfortunately, what we don't see is the continuum being put in place or the facilities for the continuum being put in place. We believe the continuum should include acute and other long-term care services. Chronic care services should be an integral part of the decision-making associated with long-term care reform. We do not have now, and will not have until at least January, the report with respect to chronic care services in the province.

We believe there should be a balanced model for long-term care and that model should include diagnostic, residential treatment services and support, and other support services.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I'm sorry to do this, but this is really annoying. At this hour of the night, again we are without a quorum. This government doesn't want to listen to these arguments. Why don't we just adjourn this place and we'll all go home?

The Speaker: Will the clerk count for a quorum, please.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: Mr Speaker, a quorum is not present.

The Speaker: Please call in the members. Five-minute bell.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: Quorum is present, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: The member for Halton Centre may resume her remarks.

2300

Mrs Sullivan: Our view is that the approach to long-term care reform must include accountability and governance, and there are certainly, in Bill 101, some steps towards that. Throughout the long-term care reform system, however, those issues have not been particularly addressed, and during the course of my remarks I'd also like to take another look at the district health councils and their role. The district health councils, as you know, were set up as advisory bodies to the Minister of Health; I believe it's the Ministry of Health Act that governs them.

Over a period of time, not limited to this government, but over a period of time, increasing responsibilities have been placed on the district health councils which are, as you know, volunteer bodies. We are asking those volunteer bodies to be health planners. One assumes, and indeed I hope to see a response from the Minister of Health, that ultimately it's the Minister of Health's intention that those district health councils will become decision-making bodies and may be responsible for a funding envelope.

Clearly that impression is on the ground around the province, and I think that not only members of the district health councils but other people in the health care professions and in the consumer organizations deserve a more complete exposition of where the minister sees the district health councils ending up in terms of decision-making on long-term care reform.

I want to raise an issue that is particularly included in Bill 101, amendments to the Community and Social Services Act, that addresses issues with respect to disabled people. Disabled networks, advocacy groups for the disabled, organizations such as PUSH and others have indicated very strongly to the previous government and to this government that there is a difference between the needs of the young disabled and the needs of seniors. Those needs, not only from a care point of view but also a psychological point of view, are not only related to age.

You will recall that in reintroducing Mr Beer's remarks, he noted three years ago that he intended to introduce a system as part of the long-term care reform that would provide a fully developed, in-home support program for seniors and disabled, which in addition to that would enable disabled people themselves to manage their own resources and contract with service providers for services they believed that they required and indeed did require and to ensure that those service providers were selected by the disabled people themselves. That was very much a part of the old program.

In the estimates process this year we specifically asked the Minister of Health if she concurred with that approach. She indicated that although it was going to be called by a different word -- now it's going to be direct funding; the word with our minister was a different one -- that it was very much a part of the approach of the government and, further, that a pilot project was going to be undertaken in the autumn of this year to address the issues associated with the direct funding program. Individualized funding, we believe, increases the independence of the disabled by enabling them to manage their own resources in a way that most effectively meets their needs.

None the less, we now understand that the pilot project never took place, that indeed while this legislative change is being made, it's being made in a vacuum without a pilot project having been undertaken, as the minister indicated to us in estimates that it would, and that in fact there may well be, as a result of a pilot project, essential items that are left out of the legislative changes which are proposed in Bill 101.

There are many other areas that I wish to address as we proceed in the debate on Bill 101. I believe, however, that people who are most concerned with this bill would appreciate being advised of the debate among members at a different period of time of the day. I therefore move the adjournment of the House.

The Speaker: The member for Halton Centre has moved adjournment of the House. Is is the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. There will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 2306 to 2336.

The Speaker: Mrs Sullivan has moved the adjournment of the House.

All those in favour of her motion will please rise.

All those opposed to her motion will please rise all at once and remain standing until counted.

You may be seated.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 8, the nays 32.

The Speaker: The ayes being 8 and the nays 32, I declare the motion lost, and the member for Halton Centre may resume her remarks.

Mrs Marland: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: It is 25 minutes before midnight on the clock, and I have sat in this House all day anticipating the opportunity of speaking to Bill 101.

It was my understanding, from the orders that were printed today, that there was some agreement with the House leaders that we would be reaching Bill 101 early in the evening. Now, as it's evolved, I won't even be able to speak on Bill 101 today. So I feel that my privileges are somewhat infringed upon and I hope that tomorrow the government House leader will bring Bill 101 back as the first item of business so that I may represent the concerns of the people I represent that deal with Bill 101.

The Speaker: To the member for Mississauga South, all of us always hope for a better day, but the member for Halton Centre has the floor and she may resume her remarks.

Mrs Sullivan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. You will recall that I began my remarks by referring to remarks which were made in 1989 by the then Minister of Community and Social Services. Once again, I would like to refer to the same speech he made in this House on December 6, 1989, almost exactly to the day three years ago.

He indicated that a consultative process would be established in four areas to bring forward detailed plans, and those four areas were:

"A new classification system to aid us in making funding decisions for nursing homes and homes for the aged; the design of the new community service access agenciesthe guidelines for new community and in-home service and the role of chronic care facilities within the reformed long-term care system."

I previously referred to the fact that as we are looking at the continuum of health care services and social services, which must be involved in a fully integrated approach to long-term care reform -- basically what the minister is doing now is simply picking up where the minister left off precisely three years ago. The consistent funding arrangements, the consistent service expectations, the consistent accountability for homes for the aged and for nursing homes and for charitable homes for the aged is something that has been on the table for well over two years. Indeed, this bill could have come forward a long time ago.

2340

There is an element, though, that I'd like to spend some time in bringing to the table, and that is the entire question of the transition period as we move into long-term care reform. In that transition period, we do not believe there should be any patient service gaps, and I think the Minister of Health concurs with that view. Unfortunately, the decisions, particularly recently, that the Minister of Health has brought to the floor of this place and that have been announced in other locations will create and add to patient service gaps.

Now, before we even looked at a long-term care reform proposal on any basis, we knew that there were gaps, and I suppose that if I look around this place, the member for Halton North would be able to identify the deficiencies in long-term care facilities in our own region. The member for Oxford would be able to identify in his region where there are deficiencies in in-home care. The honourable the Minister of Labour would be able to identify in his city where there are service deficiencies and where people are unable to achieve equity and access to a long-term care service and continuum.

That problem has been exacerbated by the recent announcements which have come from the Minister of Health in her approach to hospital funding. Our view is that you cannot view the role of hospitals in isolation from the entire question of long-term care reform, that issues which the minister put on the table today and which I believe are not addressed at all in Bill 101 -- I understand why they're not addressed, but that gap is clearly there on issues such as palliative care.

The discussion the minister put on the table with respect to palliative care spoke only to one aspect of the palliative care issue, and that is to the question of the delivery of palliative care in a home situation where people who want to die in their own home with their family around them are able to do so in comfort, with the support of people who have received appropriate counselling and with the support of their family, who have also received appropriate counselling.

The palliative care announcement the minister made today made no mention at all of the increased need, given demographic change, given increased chronicity of our aging population, for an incremental service and availability of palliative care services in our institutional sector, and indeed for increased training and incremental training in palliative care for care givers themselves.

As people are moving out of acute care delivery, we hope the minister will put her attention into training of personnel who are leaving that hospital system and moving into a community base, into the palliative care area. But the minister cannot ignore the needs for palliative care service delivery in an institutional or facility setting, whether that's the nursing home, the home for the aged or another setting.

Let me tell you that we know, and I think that it's clear from the demographic evidence, that there are many people who are in facilities, whether they're chronic care facilities or other facilities, who have no families, who have no homes. They have themselves. I know that the Minister of Labour, by example, has visited St Peter's Centre in Hamilton and is fully cognizant of the excellent work that's done there. He has probably walked the rehabilitation walk at that particular facility.

A large number of the patients there are people who have no other place to be and no family or friends to be with. They are in a chronic care situation and have no other place to be as they approach death. The death they approach is a lonely one. I know the Minister of Labour understands that as they approach that death they will want to do that with the therapeutic supports to the maximum capability our society is able to offer, with the maximum personal supports our society is able to offer.

I am concerned when the Minister of Health today, in reference to palliative care enhancements, provided enhancements only in the in-home situation. The situation in the facility is one that deserves the real attention, concern and consideration of the Minister of Health as we move into a continuum of care for people whether or not they have other supports.

The downsizing of hospitals which we have seen over the past year and a half, perhaps two years, and indeed perhaps before that, reflects absolutely directly on how we are developing our long-term care reform programs. Where possible, we are moving people out of an institutional setting.

I believe, and I think the Minister of Health concurs, that our acute care hospitals have responded in a very positive way, and sometimes with enormous difficulty, in cutting the services offered within their own communities and changing the expectations of the population around them. In doing that, the hospitals have had not only to cut beds; they've had to lay off staff. In many cases, the ethical problem that is faced by the practitioners themselves is one that I feel merits attention; that is, what is the place of the practitioner in a situation where he knows that in his or her community there is no place else for the patient to go?

In this pile I will refer to this document latterly. I have a report from the placement commissioner and another report from the Minister of Health herself issued at the beginning of this fiscal year -- actually in January -- that indicates that my community, Halton, is the lowest in Ontario in terms of availability of any long-term care facility. We are already the lowest in the entire province in terms of availability of long-term care facilities, and we are a growing area.

I point out to you that the long-term care facilities that are included on this list include chronic care facilities, extended care facilities, and residential care facilities. They include a relationship that is a demographic ratio with the over-75 population and a ratio that's expressed in the long-term care beds per thousand population over the age of 75. When I look at the second-lowest geographic region on the list, I see Peel. Halton and Peel are two areas in Ontario which are the fastest-growing demographic areas in the province. If we are going to address in those communities the downsizing of hospitals, the ethical questions that practitioners have to face about where people will go -- and understand that in our communities there is no place, there is no other opportunity for people who are being moved out of an acute care facility; even if the beds are being used inappropriately for chronic care purposes, there is no other place to move them -- the practitioner will have no other alternative than to say, "I cannot discharge that patient into a vacuum."

2350

We can look at this list. Metro Toronto is about seventh from the bottom of the list. The availability of long-term care places for a diverse community in Metro Toronto is seventh from the bottom of the list. The ratios are singularly low in comparison, by example, to the number one geographic area on the list, which is Sudbury. On a long-term care ratio basis, the long-term care beds per thousand population over 75, Sudbury is able to offer 484.9 beds per thousand population. On the other hand, Halton is able to offer 111 beds per thousand of population over 75 and Metro Toronto is able to offer 127 beds per thousand of population.

In my community there is no place for people to go if they require a long-term care facility. Believe me, while we haven't had what is known to be an official patient classification system, our practitioners have been in fact implementing a patient classification system on an ongoing basis over a period of time. That Sudbury has available to people five times the long-term care facilities available in my own community gives me an enormous cause for concern and for pause. I'm not saying that people in Sudbury shouldn't have access to those facilities -- indeed, they should -- but there is an extraordinary ill balance in terms of what we as a society are making available to people simply because of the geography of our communities.

If we are in fact going to have a continuum of care that includes a balance between in-home services and facility-based services, we had better be very sure, as legislators and as government, that those facilities are available on an equitable and equal basis to all persons, wherever they live and whether or not they have families to take care of them. I hope I will hear a response from the Minister of Health on this. I think this is an enormous problem.

As we are talking about a restructuring of the entire health care delivery, the Minister of Health must pay attention to whether the delivery systems that we are able to put in place on an equitable and timely basis, and based on the minister's own time lines, can in fact be done and whether services that are available to people in the riding of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines are as equally available to people in her community as they are in my community.

I think that minister, the Minister of Citizenship and the Minister of Labour, whose community is also well down on the list in terms of availability of facilities for long-term care for people who cannot be cared for in their homes or through community-based agencies which deliver home care with a person who moves to an agency for rehabilitation or whatever -- we have to put our minds to how we are going to deal with what is already an established inequity and how that inequity is going to be corrected.

Once again, we have not seen, as our hospital structures are being downsized, an incremental enhancement in community-based care. For the long-term care patient, that is the key. I believe that in the consumer report which was prepared by the Senior Citizens' Consumer Alliance For Long-Term Care Reform over the past summer and which was a very interesting document and one that I think we've all paid attention to -- they put an enormous amount of work into it. But one of the singular and most important recommendations that the Seniors' Alliance made was that -- in fact, I believe they called it emergency funding that should be made available to the community-based services that must only accompany and in fact must be there as an integral part, as a base part, of long-term care reform. They called for emergency funding -- yes, I found the chapter.

"Urgent Issues" it's called, chapter 2, subheading 1: "Provide emergency funding for community-based services. We believe," they say, "that the most urgent priority facing the ministers responsible for long-term care is to bring some stability to the existing system of community-based services."

We saw on the steps of the Legislature -- the Speaker and I know a different song about "on the steps," having come from the same university -- but we know that, within the past week, on the steps of this place there was a gathering of some several thousands of people who were deeply concerned about the delivery of community-based services and the enhancement of community-based services, which will in fact be the linchpin of long-term care reform.

There's no question in my mind that when our government began the discussion of long-term care reform, as individuals who were bringing issues to our caucus from the community, many of us spoke with some passion about the need for almost a hit, an incremental adjustment fund, to ensure that as we moved out of the facility, the institutional-base, there was an appropriate enhancement of services available at the community base. The argument was put that there cannot be any gap as one moves from a system that has been in place since the early 1960s, and indeed before that, to a vision of long-term care, particularly given an aging population, that is a vision for the 1990s.

One of the things that I have probably been disappointed in in the approach that my government took and the approach that this government is taking is that there has been no real acknowledgement that there will probably have to be a one-time hit of funding to ensure that the infrastructure is in place, that the service agencies are able to produce what has been promised to the people who rely on it and in fact whose expectations are that a new system will be in place.

I see behind your throne, Mr Speaker, a number of people from the ministries who are probably wrestling with this very question. I think that if that question is not addressed, it's a fallacy that we will have a smooth transition to long-term care services.

Mr Speaker, we're about three minutes from midnight. I think that at that juncture in the debate, I will move adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker: Actually, with the indulgence of the House, it being almost 12 of the clock, this House can stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 2400.