LONG-TERM CARE ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE
CONTENTS
Monday 21 November 1994
Long-Term Care Act, 1994, Bill 173, Mrs Grier / Loi de 1994 sur les soins de longue durée,
projet de loi 173, Mme Grier
STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Beer, Charles (York-Mackenzie L)
Vice-Chair /Vice-Président: Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L)
*Carter, Jenny (Peterborough ND)
Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC)
*Gigantes, Evelyn, (Ottawa Centre ND)
Jamison, Norm (Norfolk ND)
*Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)
*McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
*O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York ND)
*O'Neill, Yvonne (Ottawa-Rideau L)
Rizzo, Tony (Oakwood ND)
*Wilson, Jim (Simcoe West/-Ouest PC)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC) for Mrs Cunningham
Malkowski, Gary (York East/-Est ND) for Mr Jamison
Sullivan, Barbara (Halton Centre L) for Mr Eddy
Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre ND) for Mr Rizzo
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Strang, Dave, legal counsel, Management Board Secretariat
Wessenger, Paul, parliamentary assistant to Minister of Health
Clerk / Greffier: Arnott, Doug
Staff / Personnel: Gottheil, Joanne, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1533 in room 151.
LONG-TERM CARE ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE
Consideration of Bill 173, An Act respecting Long-Term Care / Projet de loi 173, Loi concernant les soins de longue durée.
The Chair (Mr Charles Beer): We are considering Bill 173, and this afternoon we meet to continue clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
Before we resume, I would remind all members that by order of the House dated Thursday, 17 November 1994, at 4 o'clock today, the Chair is required to interrupt the proceedings regardless of where we are with the amendments. At that time, there shall be no further amendment or debate. The Chair will "put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. The Chair may allow only one 20-minute waiting period if requested pursuant to standing order 128(a)."
I have directed the clerk to distribute to all members a set of all amendments filed with the clerk of the committee prior to 12 noon today, and I believe you all have that.
That being said, we were, at the close of proceedings when last we met, dealing with a Progressive Conservative motion.
Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Just to clarify, is that subsection 13(1.1) or subsection 13(2)?
The Chair: It's 13(1.1).
Mr Jim Wilson: And it had been read into the record?
The Chair: Yes, it had.
Mr Jim Wilson: Again, given that the government has flexed its muscles and imposed its majority and we'll be shut down on debate in just 25 minutes, this motion is an attempt to remove the 80-20 rule which we feel is the most draconian part of this legislation. We've had extensive debate on it, and given the time limitations, I suggest we vote on the PC motion.
The Chair: All those in favour of --
Mr Jim Wilson: Recorded vote for this.
The Chair: All those in favour of Mr Wilson's motion?
Ayes
Jackson, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Carter, Gigantes, Malkowski, Martin, O'Connor, Wessenger.
The Chair: I declare the motion lost. We then move to another Progressive Conservative motion, Mr Wilson.
Mr Jim Wilson: I move that clause 13(2) of the bill be struck out. Again, an attempt to remove the 80-20 rule provisions from Bill 173.
Ms Evelyn Gigantes (Ottawa Centre): I'm just looking at the specifics, but haven't we just had a motion to that effect?
The Chair: Yes. Now, are you working out of the material that the clerk has just distributed?
Ms Gigantes: Yes. So perhaps you could remind me.
The Chair: Yes. The motion that we are dealing with is an amendment to 13(2) of the bill. We'll just take a moment to doublecheck to make sure you have that. That would have been in the original set of amendments, and we're going to check because with all of the amendments, it should be there. Maybe I could just ask the clerk to have a quick look and see if --
Ms Gigantes: What my question is, is whether this particular motion is not redundant considering the nature of the motion we just voted on. According to Mr Wilson, it has the same purpose.
The Chair: Mr Wilson, did you wish to comment on that?
Mr Jim Wilson: Subsection 13(1.1) was certainly an addition to the bill saying there shall be no limitation in the amounts of purchased service within the approved budget. When that's defeated, it's necessary now to move to a different motion which would strike out the government's original section, and I think it's in order and not redundant.
The Chair: Any further discussion on Ms Gigantes's point? One moment.
The motion, Mr Wilson, is redundant and out of order.
We then move on to the next amendment, which is a Liberal amendment.
Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I move that subsections 13(2) and (3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"13(2) Within the approved budget, a multiservice agency shall determine from time to time the optimum mix of community services which it may provide directly and the amount of community services which it may purchase from other service providers.
"(3) A multiservice agency may purchase a community service from another multiservice agency, a service provider, an individual or a person."
This amendment would give increased responsibility to the MSA for analysing and evaluating the services that are required in their area, and for ensuring the delivery either from within the agency or from without the agency as the agency determines. I'd suggest that we proceed to vote on this amendment.
Ms Gigantes: I would have the same question about this motion.
The Chair: The motion is out of order.
Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): It doesn't seem to be redundant in that it's an entirely different idea and that's what we're trying to substitute. I don't understand; is it duplication? This is what everybody's been asking for and we wanted to place it in the bill.
The Chair: I appreciate that, but it is still covering what has been dealt with, and that's why it is out of order.
We then move to a government motion.
Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I move that clause 13(2)(a) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(a) for the purchase of community support services, other than adult day programs, from other service providers, more than 20% of the amount budgeted for community support services other than adult day programs in the agency's approved budget."
This amendment exempts adult day programs from the purchase-of-service limit and ensures that existing day programs which are tied to facilities or other programs can continue.
1540
Mrs Sullivan: We like what the government has done as far as it goes. Unfortunately, we don't feel that it's gone far enough because there are other specialized services that are not considered which are also frequently day programs such as those provided for children in treatment centres and specialty services such as those which have been identified by people who've come before the committee, such as individuals requiring specialized respiratory care and other types of care. What the government has done is to say that where programs have been established in facilities, only in adult day care will there be an exemption of the 20% rule. We feel that it is just not adequate to meet the real need that exists.
Mr Jim Wilson: Again the government has not gone far enough. There was a whole ream of services that needed to be exempt from the 80-20 rule and I think it's rather hypocritical and unfair of the government to only be exempting adult day programs in this section of the act. I hope government members can live with their consciences with respect to their ruining of the rest of the sector.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I just want to say that this amendment brought forward reflects very clearly our attempt to, as much as we can without taking away from the essence of the bill, respond to some of the very legitimate and sincere concern raised as we travelled the province. This issue particularly was raised in a number of locations and it's nice to see it here on the table today by way of amendment and we hope it will go a long way to protect some of the very excellent day programs that are out there being offered by folks in many communities across the province. So I will certainly, as will I'm sure my caucus colleagues, be supporting this amendment.
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I'm a little concerned that we heard the exact same thing from children's treatment centres in terms of services for disabled children, and although I will support this I want the government members to realize that they're saying yes to adults and they're saying no to disabled children in terms of this additional movement beyond the 20%. That is of serious concern. I thought the bill in and of itself would not contain discriminatory language or differentiation based on a range of disabilities, and clearly this motion implies that. It's nice that the government will pop out one part of it, but they're also saying no to several others.
The other point I want to make is with a question. We don't have the regulations, but is it possible then that the regulations can be written in such a way that for every expenditure beyond the 20 percentile for adult programs will result in an equal and opposite decrease in the external purchasing power for an MSA? I suspect that could be written into the regs. We don't have the regs so it's even possible to reduce even more one other support service to seniors because they're ballooning or going beyond the 20%.
Since we don't have the regs in front of us, unless the government's prepared to give us an absolute assurance that it'll allow the ceiling to be breached but under no circumstances will there be a coterminous adjustment for other programs, since the 80-20 rule is in and of itself a restrictive formula -- so when you break it out in one area, are you going to make it up in another? The regs could clearly do that, and I am frightened of that.
Mr Wessenger: I think, first of all, the 20-80 rule applies to each service across the board and there is no provision of making up with respect to one area what might be exceeded in another. Anyway, it's not the intention really. The intention here of excluding the adult day programs is the fact that arguments were made that we should be encouraging the integration of facility and community care, and by having this exemption we are encouraging the fact that facilities are providing some of these day programs and ought to be able to continue.
Last, I'd like to indicate that, with respect to children's services, it is very clear that the 20% rule would very easily accommodate any of the purchased services for shelter. Of course, in addition children's treatment centres are funded separately to some extent, and there's that flexibility as well in the program.
Mr Jackson: The parliamentary assistant is dreaming in Technicolor. He doesn't know very much about children's disabilities.
The Chair: Are there any other comments? We'll move to the vote on the government motion.
All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Mr Wilson, the next motion is yours.
Mr Jim Wilson: I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.
Mr Jackson: Where is 13(3)(b)?
The Chair: Sorry, Mr Wilson, I will give you a further opportunity to withdraw that, but I jumped ahead of myself. There is another government motion which you have by hand.
Mr Wessenger: I move that clause 13(3)(b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"(b) the purchase is necessitated by a short-term absence of an employee of the multiservice agency and the absence is due to the employee's illness or an unplanned event but is not due to a strike or lockout."
The purpose of this amendment is to make clear that an unplanned event would not include a strike or lockout. It was never the intention that it would include such a situation.
Mrs Sullivan: We will not be supporting this motion. In fact, we think it's an unconscionable one. What it says is that during any period of labour strife, whether it is a strike or a lockout, people will not receive the care from providers, there will be no exemption to the 20% rule for those individuals who are providing service to people in the community, and as a consequence the person who's at home receiving care, usually who is frail, usually who's elderly, usually who's lonely, usually who's sick, just won't get the care. This is absolutely appalling.
Mr Jim Wilson: I'll certainly be voting against this amendment also. It's just cruel, absolutely cruel in the extreme. It means that if there is a strike or lockout, whether it's illegal or otherwise, the people who are supposed to be receiving these necessary services will be simply out of luck. It enables a few unions in this province to deny the frail elderly and the disabled services during the period of a strike or lockout and is absolutely horrid, and I wish the government would rethink their amendment.
Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I certainly will be supporting this, and I think that it's important that we realize that as we go through this process, there have been people who have been in the provision of long-term care today who are in situations now where they do have a collective agreement and they aren't out there trying to undermine the services that they are providing and are providing good services. It's rather strange that my opposition colleagues are painting this as some sort of service when it's being provided by somebody with a collective agreement, that they don't care about individuals any more than any care provider out there today. So I certainly will be supporting this motion.
Mr Jackson: In good conscience I can't support this, but I will at least try an amendment because I caution the government. Perhaps I should move the amendment and then speak to the amendment to the amendment.
I move that clause 13(3)(b) of the bill be further amended by adding the word "legal" in front of the word "strike."
My reason for stating that is that it's the history of collective bargaining in this province, as seen in examples of people conducting illegal strikes or illegal lockouts, and this legislation written in this form would indicate that any kind of strike by definition would allow the system to be brought to its knees. Although the government would want to support what they think is the collective bargaining process, I'm sure they don't endorse the fact that, should there be a grievance and the union not be happy with that grievance and then they conduct an immediate walk off the job and leave our seniors in their homes by themselves, then that would be an illegal strike or an unauthorized strike within the meaning of the act and yet that could occur just as a wake-up call for the MSA in terms of getting any of the bargaining demands they want.
What frightens me is that this could become the norm in terms of an approach, and certainly to hear Sid Ryan come forward before this committee with his view of the world, there's a very real risk of that.
I think it's just a mild form of additional protection that the grievance procedure can't be used as a vehicle with this loose wording. I think it should be a legal strike in accordance with the appropriate act or a legal lockout in accordance with a given act, but the concepts of any kind of strike for any reason whatsoever.
Having done that, I also want to ask, when the parliamentary assistant responds, about occupational health and safety issues and refusing services to an individual on that basis as well.
1550
The Chair: I will ask the parliamentary assistant to comment, but just for everyone to understand, we are now dealing with the amendment to the amendment.
Mr Wessenger: I think it would benefit everyone in the committee to have the advice of legal counsel, Mr Strang, with respect to the whole question of the effect of the Labour Relations Act, because this type of service would undoubtedly be an essential service and there's certain protection built into that act with respect to the effect of a strike and lockout. So I'm wondering if Mr Strang might explain the effect of the Labour Relations Act with respect to the essential services.
The Chair: Mr Strang, if you'd be good enough to explain the matter to us and also just to identify yourself for Hansard and for the members of the committee.
Mr Dave Strang: Dave Strang with the legal services branch, Management Board Secretariat. I'm afraid I just walked in the room. What is the question you would like me to answer?
Mr Wessenger: The question is with respect to how the Labour Relations Act would apply with respect to essential services with respect to this particular situation.
The Chair: Perhaps in fairness, I should point out, just so you know where we are, do you have in front of you 13(3)(b)? We're dealing with an amendment that Mr Jackson has moved that would put the word "legal" in front of the word "strike" in the last line. So we are now dealing with the amendment to the amendment.
Mr Jim Wilson: Could I just add, while legal counsel is thinking, I think first we have to clarify whether the basket of services and the services contained in there are deemed essential services under the current act.
The Chair: Parliamentary assistant, do you want to comment on that while Mr Strang has an opportunity to look at the --
Mr Wessenger: It's certainly my opinion that the type of services --
Mr Jackson: Your opinion?
Mr Wessenger: We could ask legal counsel. I'd be happy to have them indicate their opinion, but nursing care and home care would definitely be in the category of essential services.
The Chair: I'll ask legal counsel, then, if he would comment, and then if there are further questions or comments, we'll continue.
Mrs Sullivan: This is incorrect information, Mr Chair. The committee is being misled.
Mr Wessenger: I'll ask the member to take that back.
The Chair: Mr Strang has the floor.
Mr Strang: You're asking questions that are quite divergent. The question of whether or not you want to have the word "legal" here, I don't think necessarily relates at all to whether or not the services are essential. You wanted to know whether just using the term "strike or lockout" would include only legal strikes or lockouts and whether or not they --
Mr Jim Wilson: Wildcat strikes.
Mr Strang: That would cover wildcats, I guess.
The Labour Relations Act does speak to both legal and illegal strikes, so it may well be prudent, if you don't want to cover illegal strikes, to put the word "legal" in there before "strike or lockout." As a practical matter, obviously if there was an illegal strike, presumably you would go before the labour relations board and get an order putting an end to it fairly quickly, so one would hope that the issue would be academic.
The Chair: Is there any question or comment? Miss Sullivan?
Mrs Sullivan: I want to pursue the question of essential services. I believe that the parliamentary assistant has misled the committee with the information that he's provided, and I'm asking counsel to provide that information.
The Chair: Excuse me, Miss Sullivan. Could I ask you to rephrase that.
Mrs Sullivan: I believe that the information which the parliamentary assistant provided to the committee is not correct, and I'm asking counsel to confirm what health services are deemed as essential services in the Labour Relations Act. I will tell you that nurses in hospitals aren't essential services; ambulance workers are not essential services. Where does the parliamentary assistant come up with the idea that home care workers are designated as essential workers under the Labour Relations Act? That information is incorrect.
Mr Jackson: He did say it was his opinion, though.
Mr Strang: Obviously, there can be some debate as to what are essential services. That's a fairly new term -- we've got it in two places now -- but I would think it's fairly clear that any service where the withdrawal of that service is going to imperil the life or health of a citizen would be essential. I've now got a copy of the definition in front of me. No. We're dealing here with the definition under the Labour Relations Act. Let's see --
Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, in the interests of time, would it not be appropriate to stand down this section until such time as we've got a clarification. In fairness to Mr Strang, he just walked into the room. We have two other lawyers, counsel, at this table as we speak. Nobody's jumped in, but let me just suggest that maybe we should stand down the section. I think it's an important question to have answered.
Mr Strang: I think the definition of "essential service" under the Labour Relations Act appears in 73.2 of the act. There are some specific services that are enunciated in the section, but subsection (3) --
The Chair: This is of the Labour Relations Act?
Mr Strang: The Labour Relations Act, yes -- indicates that replacement workers can be used where it's necessary to enable the employer to prevent danger to life, health or safety, the destruction or serious deterioration of property or premises or serious environmental damage. Clearly, you'd be dealing with danger to life, health or safety, and I would think that if you were talking about nursing service or care necessary to keep somebody fed, you'd have a fairly easy time arguing that that affected health.
Ms Gigantes: There are two issues that are being discussed and mixed together here. The question of whether we want to add the word "legal" strike is the issue associated with the amendment; the question of definition of essential services really does not have to do with the amendment that's before us. Can I suggest, however, that what the opposition is casting before us as an image is some kind of experience that we've never had before in Ontario. We've just never had the people who provide services to old, frail people who have chronic health problems --
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, order. Let Ms Gigantes finish.
Ms Gigantes: -- behaving in such a way. What we're discussing here is different from the issue --
The Chair: Order, please. We have a point of order. Mr Jackson.
Mr Jackson: My point of order, Mr Chairman, is on the impugning of a member through the course of the debate.
Ms Gigantes: I didn't impugn anybody.
Mr Jackson: Yes, you did. Mr Chairman, it was the parliamentary assistant who raised the issue of essential services. I did not. I raised it on the issue of illegal or legal strikes. I'd like to remind the former Health minister of that point.
1600
Ms Gigantes: I'm speaking to that --
Mr Jackson: That is my point --
Ms Gigantes: -- if you would allow me to speak.
The Chair: Ms Gigantes, if you would complete your comments.
Ms Gigantes: The issue that is before us is the issue of what purchase of service will be allowed to a multiservice agency, and what is suggested by this amendment is that there are certain conditions, the absence of an employee for reasons unrelated to a strike or lockout situation. They have to do with the health of the employee. We're saying the multiservice agency should be allowed to hire additional to 20% within that category of service. That's the issue before us in your amendment.
In our amendment --
Interjections.
The Chair: Order. Ms Gigantes?
Ms Gigantes: The question of whether this is a legal strike or not a legal strike is, as Mr Strang has pointed out, somewhat academic, and to raise the notion of whether it's legal or illegal and associated with the 20% rule is different from the question of replacement workers under the Labour Relations Act. The Labour Relations Act will determine whether replacement workers from some other part of the MSA, for example, might be used to substitute a service. If there was a group that was providing service through the MSA which was in a strike or a lockout --
The Chair: Order, please. At this point, it being four of the clock, under the order of the House we must then revert to voting on the various amendments. I would like to just note again that I will call the various items and we will have to vote with no debate.
Members will recall that we carried section 1, so we will begin, once I get my notes and you get all of yours -- and we will be following the material that the clerk gave out earlier. We will be starting with 2, because we had already approved 1, I believe, and in 2 we had started --
Mr Jim Wilson: May I ask the clerk for a new section 2, please?
The Chair: Does anyone else need a new roadmap? We're about ready, then. Okay?
We're going to be starting at subsection 2(1), the government motion. I guess we will do that and then we will go back to do 2. So I would then ask all those in favour of the government motion to subsection 2(1) of the bill. Those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
We then go back to subsection 2(1) of the bill, government motion, the one that is at the beginning of your set of papers. All those in favour of subsection 2(1) of the bill? Opposed? Carried.
Again, government motion, subsection 2(1) of the bill. All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Subsection 2(1) of the bill. All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Again, government motion, subsection 2(1) of the bill. All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Progressive Conservative motion, subsection 2(1) of the bill --
Mr Jim Wilson: Withdraw.
The Chair: Government motion, subsection 2(1) of the bill. All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 2, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Sections 3, 4 and 5 were carried, so we're going to section 6. Are we all on the same --
Mr Jim Wilson: We've got section 6, cover page, but nothing in between. There's nothing there?
The Chair: We'll just be voting on section 6 as is. Shall section 6 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
We're at section 7. A government motion, subsection 7(1) of the bill. Shall the government motion carry? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 7, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Sections 8, 9 and 10 were previously carried. We have a new section 10.1, a government motion. Shall section 10.1 carry?
Mr Jim Wilson: Could I just point out for the record that --
The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Wilson. I am under direction from the House. We can have no discussion or debate.
Shall section 10.1 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Section 11. A Liberal motion, clause 11(2)(c).
Mrs Sullivan: Mr Chairman, all of our motions with respect to first nations have been withdrawn.
The Chair: Okay, that's withdrawn. Thank you.
Government motion, subsections 11(2.2) and (2.3) of the bill. Shall the government motion carry? Opposed? Carried.
Government motion, subsection 11(5) of the bill. Shall the motion carry? Opposed? Carried.
PC motion.
Mr Jim Wilson: Withdraw.
The Chair: Shall section 11, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
New section 11.1, a Liberal motion. Shall section 11.1 carry?
Mrs Sullivan: Mr Chairman, this amendment was withdrawn.
The Chair: Withdrawn. Thank you.
Section 12 was previously carried, I believe.
Section 13. We'll go through in order. Although we had started, I think it would be simpler just to move through in the order in which you find them in your book. Sorry, just one second. Let me just stop for a moment here and make sure my head is clear. We have already voted on the various motions that are there, up to but not including Mr Jackson's amendment to the government amendment. So the first vote will be on Mr Jackson's amendment to the government motion.
Mr Jim Wilson: Recorded vote.
The Chair: All those in favour of Mr Jackson's amendment?
Ayes
McGuinty, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Carter, Gigantes, Malkowski, Martin, O'Connor, Wessenger.
The Chair: We will then vote on the government motion, clause 13(3)(b).
Mrs Sullivan: A recorded vote, please.
The Chair: All those in favour?
Ayes
Carter, Gigantes, Malkowski, Martin, O'Connor, Wessenger.
The Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
McGuinty, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: The amendment is carried.
1610
We then have Conservative motion, subsection 13(3) of the bill.
Mr Jim Wilson: Withdrawn.
The Chair: Withdrawn. Shall section 13, as --
Mr Jim Wilson: Recorded vote.
The Chair: Shall section 13, as amended, carry? All those in favour?
Ayes
Carter, Gigantes, Malkowski, Martin, O'Connor, Wessenger.
The Chair: Opposed?
Nays
McGuinty, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: We then move to section 14. The first motion is a Liberal motion, subsection 14(1). All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.
Conservative motion, subsection 14(1) of the bill. All those in favour?
Ms Gigantes: It's the same.
The Chair: Same. Defeated.
Government motion, subsection 14(1.1). All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
The next one is a Liberal motion, subsection 14(2). All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Conservative motion, subsection 14(2). All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Liberal motion, section 14. All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Shall section 14, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Government motion for section 14.1 of the bill. Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
We then have a Conservative motion. Shall the motion carry? All those opposed? Defeated.
Ms Gigantes: Can I ask you, Mr Chair, on a point of order: We passed government motion 14(1.1) earlier.
The Chair: We did.
Ms Gigantes: And as I read it, that really incorporates the Conservative motion.
Mr Jim Wilson: The government would be forced into voting for the PC motion, I would think.
Ms Gigantes: But the PC motion is out of order, given that we've already passed it.
The Chair: It is redundant.
Ms Gigantes: Did you vote against it? I bet you did.
Mr Jim Wilson: We voted in favour of it.
The Chair: The second motion then is redundant.
Conservative motion, section 15 of the bill. All those in favour? Opposed. Defeated.
Another Conservative motion. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Government motion, subsection 15(1) of the bill.
Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I request a ruling with respect to the admissibility of this amendment because I believe it to be out of order.
The Chair: We'll just take a moment to --
Mrs Sullivan: Sorry, Mr Chair, I'm on the wrong section. I thought it was 15.1.
The Chair: All right. We'll then proceed with the vote on government motion subsection 15(1). All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Mrs Sullivan: We're not putting forward an amendment to 15(1).
The Chair: The Liberal motion is withdrawn.
The next is a Liberal motion. I'm just going to read that so your copy is like mine: "that subsection 15(2) of the bill be struck out." That's what we're voting on. All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Conservative motion to 15(2) is next. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
We then have a Liberal motion to section 15 of the bill. All in favour? Opposed? Defeated. Shall section 15, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? It carries.
We now have a new section, 15.1 to 15.3.
Mrs Sullivan: This amendment, on which I request a ruling, is, I believe, out of order.
The Chair: Just so I'm clear, on the government motion 15.1 to 15.3, you're asking for a ruling.
Mrs Sullivan: Yes.
The Chair: The Chair rules that this motion is in order. All those in favour of --
Mr Jim Wilson: Recorded vote.
The Chair: Recorded vote. All those in favour of the government motion?
Ayes
Carter, Gigantes, Malkowski, Martin, O'Connor, Wessenger.
The Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
McGuinty, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: The motion carries. We have next a Conservative motion to sections 15.1 to 15.3 of the bill.
Mr Jim Wilson: Recorded vote.
The Chair: All those in favour of the Conservative motion?
Ayes
McGuinty, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: Opposed?
Nays
Carter, Gigantes, Malkowski, Martin, O'Connor, Wessenger.
The Chair: The motion is defeated.
Section 16: We need to vote on section 16. All those in favour of section 16? All those opposed? Carried.
We move on to section 17. Shall section 17 carry? All those opposed? Section 17 of the bill is defeated.
Shall section 18 of the bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
1620
Shall section 19 of the bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
We come then to section 20 of the bill, government motion 20(2)(b). Shall clause 20(2)(b) of the bill carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Government motion to 20(2.1). Shall that subsection carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Conservative motion to subsections 20(2.1) and (4.1). Shall the Conservative motion carry? All those in favour? Opposed. Defeated.
A Conservative motion to section 20 of the bill. Shall the motion carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
A Liberal motion to subsection 20(3) of the bill. Shall the Liberal motion carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Government motion to subsection 20(3.1) of the bill. Shall the subsection carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Government motion to subsection 20(3.2) of the bill. Shall it carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Subsection 20(4), government motion. shall the subsection carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 20 of the bill, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed. Carried.
We then move to section 21. Government motion, subsection 21(1), shall the subsection carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Liberal motion --
Mrs Sullivan: Withdrawn.
The Chair: Conservative motion --
Mr Jim Wilson: Withdrawn.
The Chair: Liberal motion, section 21 of the bill, all those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Conservative motion to section 21, recorded vote, all those in favour?
Ayes
McGuinty, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: Opposed?
Nays
Carter, Gigantes, Malkowski, Martin, O'Connor, Wessenger.
The Chair: Defeated.
Shall section 21, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 22 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Section 23, government motion, section 23 of the bill. Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
What's the next one? I believe the next one is redundant, a Liberal motion, Ms Sullivan?
Mrs Sullivan: That's withdrawn.
The Chair: Conservative motion, Mr Wilson?
Mr Jim Wilson: That's withdrawn.
The Chair: Shall section 23, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
We then have a new section 23.1, a government motion. All those in favour of section 23.1? Opposed. Carried.
Shall section 24 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 25 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 26 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 27 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
We have a new section 27.1, a Liberal motion. Shall the Liberal motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Shall section 28 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
We then have a government motion, new sections 28.1 to 28.4. Shall the government motion carry? Opposed? Carried.
Section 29, a government motion to section 29 of the bill. Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
We then have a Liberal motion to subsection 29(1) of the bill. Mrs Sullivan, is this one of the ones that's withdrawn?
Mrs Sullivan: That's being withdrawn.
The Chair: Government motion, subsections 29(3.1) and (3.2). Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Government motion to subsection 29(4) of the bill. Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Government motion to subsections 29(9.1) and (9.2). Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Government motion to subsections 29(13), (14) and (15) of the bill. Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Government motion to subsection 29(16). Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Government motion to subsection 29(17). Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 29, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Section 30 of the bill. Government motion, clause 30(3)(a). Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 30, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 31 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
New section, 31.1: a government motion. Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
A Liberal motion to section 31.1 is the same, I believe.
Mrs Sullivan: No, it isn't. It's different in the time lines.
The Chair: Okay, sorry. So the Liberal motion, section 31.1. Shall the Liberal motion carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Section 32 of the bill, a government motion. Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
A Liberal motion, section 32 of the bill. Shall the Liberal motion carry?
Mrs Sullivan: Withdrawn.
The Chair: Shall section 32 of the bill, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Section 33, a government motion to subsection 33(1). Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
A government motion to subsection 33(2). Shall the government motion carry? Approved? Opposed? Carried.
A government motion to subsection 33(3) of the bill. Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 33 of the bill, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
1630
Section 34, government motion. Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 34 of the bill, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Section 35, government motion, subsection 35(1). Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 35 of the bill, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
We then have a new section 35.1. Government motion, section 35.1 of the bill. Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 36 of the bill carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 37 of the bill carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 38 of the bill carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Section 39, government motion, subsection 39(2) of the bill. Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Government motion, subsection 39(3). Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Government motion, subsection 39(4). Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 39, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 40 of the bill carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Section 41, a Liberal motion to clause 41(c). Shall the Liberal motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Conservative motion to clause 41(v) of the bill. Shall the Conservative motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Shall section 41 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 42 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Section 43, Liberal motion, clause 43(d). Shall the Liberal motion carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Government motion, section 43 of the bill. Shall section 43 of the bill carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 43, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Section 44. We have a Conservative motion to subclause 44(1)(c)(vii). Shall the Conservative motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Government motion to subparagraph 44(2)(1)(ii). Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 44, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 45 of the bill carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 46 of the bill carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 47 of the bill carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 48 of the bill carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 49 of the bill carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Section 50, Liberal motion, subsection 50(1).
Mrs Sullivan: Withdrawn.
The Chair: A second Liberal amendment, section 50. All those --
Mrs Sullivan: Withdrawn.
The Chair: Shall section 50 of the bill carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 51 of the bill carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
We then have a new section 51.1, government motion to section 51.1 of the bill. Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Section 52, government motion, subsection 52(2). Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 52, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall 53 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
New section 53.1, government motion. Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
New section 53.2, government motion. Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Section 54, government motion to clause 54(1)(b). Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Government motion, subsection 54(5) of the bill. Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 54 of the bill, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 55 of the bill carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Section 56, government motion, paragraph 1 of subsection 56(1) of the bill. Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Government motion to paragraph 9.1 of subsection 56(1) of the bill. Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Government motion, paragraph 11 of subsection 56(1) of the bill. Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
A Liberal motion, paragraph 11 of subsection 56(1). Shall the Liberal motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
Conservative motion to subsection 56(1) of the bill. Shall the Conservative --
Mr Jim Wilson: Withdrawn.
The Chair: Government motion, paragraph 16 of subsection 56(1) of the bill. Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Government motion, paragraph 18 of subsection 56(1) of the bill. Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Government motion to paragraph 22.1 of subsection 56(1) of the bill. Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Government motion to paragraph 23 of subsection 56(1) of the bill. Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Government motion, paragraph 40.1 of subsection 56(1) of the bill. Shall the government motion carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 56, as amended, carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 57 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
We have a new section 57.1.
Ms Gigantes: We've got duplicates in our pile here. Just a sec.
The Chair: Okay, just one second. I just have one --
Ms Gigantes: You're up at 57, are you?
The Chair: Section 57.1.
Ms Gigantes: We have duplicates starting at 50 at that stage.
The Chair: Let's just pause for one second here. Duplicates of 50 --
Ms Gigantes: From 53 to 57.
The Chair: Okay, which we have dealt with; right?
Mr Wessenger: You've dealt with.
The Chair: Okay. If you could remove those. We are at new section 57.1. Are we all singing from the same hymn book? Okay, new section 57.1, Conservative motion. All those in --
Mr Jim Wilson: Recorded vote.
The Chair: All those in favour of the Conservative motion?
Ayes
McGuinty, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Carter, Gigantes, Malkowski, Martin, O'Connor, Wessenger.
The Chair: It is defeated.
We then move to section 58.
1640
Mrs Sullivan: I have questions with respect to the next series of government amendments to section 58 and I can name them for you, if you'd like, or do you want me to just do them one by one? This government motion regarding subsection 58(0.1) is one on which I request a ruling.
The Chair: Just one moment.
With respect to this subsection, and just for the information of members of the committee, you have all received a copy of the letter from Miss Sullivan regarding a number of motions, so as we go through those I will indicate whether they are in order or out of order.
Mr O'Connor: Mr Chair, if I might.
The Chair: A point of order?
Mr O'Connor: Just on that letter, there was a letter circulated by myself at the beginning of the committee hearings --
The Chair: Yes. I appreciate that.
Mr O'Connor: -- and in your consideration, keep that in mind.
The Chair: I thank you. I should note that we have two letters: one from Miss Sullivan and from Mr O'Connor. I have been able to consult in terms of both of those and will be making a ruling on the motions as we go through.
We are then at subsection 58(0.1) of the bill, a government motion. The Chair rules it out of order.
Subsection 58(1.0.1) of the bill is out of order.
We are dealing with subsection 58(1.0.2). It is out of order.
Subsection 58(1.0.3) is out of order.
Subsection 58(1.1) of the bill is out of order.
Subsection 58(1.2) of the bill is out of order.
Government motion, subsection 58(1.3), is out of order.
Government motion, 58(1.4) of the bill, is out of order.
Government motion, subsection 58(1.5), is out of order.
Government motion, subsection 58(1.6), is out of order.
Government motion 58(1.7) is out of order.
Government motion 58(1.8) is out of order.
Government motion, subsection 58(1.9), is out of order.
Government motion, subsection 58(3.1) of the bill, is out of order.
Government motion, subsection 58(6), is out of order.
Government motion 58(7) is out of order.
Shall section 58 of the bill carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall section 59 carry? All those in favour?
Mr Jim Wilson: Recorded vote.
The Chair: All in favour?
Ayes
Carter, Gigantes, Malkowski, Martin, O'Connor, Wessenger.
The Chair: All opposed?
Nays
McGuinty, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: The section carries.
Shall section 60 of the bill carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order: Mr Chairman, once again I respectfully request your ruling with respect to the admissibility of government amendments in section 61.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you. That is with respect to, first of all, government motion, subsection 61(0.1). I rule that that is out of order.
Government motion, subsection 61(1.1), out of order.
Government motion to subsection 61(3.0.1) is out of order.
The government motion to subsection 61(3.0.2) is out of order.
The government motion to subsection 61(3.1) is out of order.
Government motion to subsection 61(3.2) is out of order.
The government motion to subsection 61(3.3) is out of order.
The government motion to subsection 61(3.4) is out of order.
Government motion, subsection 61(3.5), is out of order.
Government motion, subsection 61(3.6), is out of order.
Government motion, subsection 61(3.7), is out of order.
Government motion, 61(3.8), is out of order.
Government motion, subsection 61(3.9), is out of order.
Government motion, 61(3.10), is out of order.
Government motion, subsection 61(5), is out of order.
Government motion, subsection 61(6), is out of order.
Government motion, subsection 61(7), is out of order.
Shall section 61 of the bill carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
1650
We then come to government motion, subsection 62(1) of the bill. All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Subsection 62(1) of the bill, government motion. All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Government motion to subsection 62(1). All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Government motion, subsection 62(1) of the bill. All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Another government motion --
Mrs Sullivan: Mr Chairman, could you clarify which reference we are now at since there are several to subsection 62(1)?
The Chair: Okay. Sorry. Do you want to know which one we're at right now?
Mr Jim Wilson: Yes. There are three 62(1)s.
The Chair: Okay. We're at subsection 8.1(6). Am I right? Okay. And we're going to vote on that. We just dealt with 8.1(5). We are now dealing with 8.1(6). Government motion. All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Government motion, subsection 62(1). Those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Government motion, subsection 62(2). All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Government motion, subsection 62(3). All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Ms Sullivan, the next one I would assume is withdrawn?
Mrs Sullivan: Yes.
Mr Jim Wilson: Really?
Mrs Sullivan: Oh, no. I think -- just give me a second. Perhaps the government counsel will just look at this too because I think that they may have left it out.
The Chair: I'm sorry. We cannot debate any of these. I'll have to call the motion or ask you to withdraw it.
Mrs Sullivan: Well then, let's vote on it because I think that the government may want to --
The Chair: Shall the Liberal motion, subsection 62(5), carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
A further Liberal motion, clause 62(5)(a). All those in favour? Opposed? Defeated.
A further Liberal motion --
Mrs Sullivan: Withdrawn.
The Chair: Shall section 62, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
We then have a new section 62.1. With respect to this government motion 62.1, it is out of order. I'm sorry. I have to make --
Mr Jim Wilson: I think your decision should have been exercised earlier.
The Chair: We then move to section 63.
Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Chair: Once again, I have questions with respect to a number of these amendments.
The Chair: Okay. The first amendment, government motion, subsection 63(0.0.1), is out of order.
Government motion, subsection 63(0.0.2), is out of order.
Government motion, subsection 63(0.0.3), is out of order.
Government motion, subsection 63(0.1), out of order.
Government motion, subsection 63(0.2), out of order.
Government motion, subsection 63(0.3), out of order.
Government motion, subsection 63(0.4), out of order.
Government motion, subsection 63(0.5), out of order.
Government motion, subsection 63(0.6), out of order.
Government motion, subsection 63(0.7), out of order.
Government motion, subsection 63(0.8), out of order.
Government motion, subsection 63(0.9), out of order.
Government motion, subsection 63(0.10), out of order.
Government motion, subsection 63(3), out of order.
Government motion, subsection 63(4), out of order.
Government motion, subsection 63(5), out of order.
Shall section 63 carry? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
New section 63.1: This government motion is out of order.
Government motion, section 64 of the bill, is in order. All those in favour? All those opposed?
Mr Wessenger: We'll withdraw it.
The Chair: Okay. Government motion is withdrawn.
Shall section 64 carry? Carried.
Shall section 65 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall the long title of the bill carry? Carried.
Shall Bill 173, as amended, carry? All in favour?
Mr Jim Wilson: Recorded vote.
The Chair: All in favour?
Ayes
Carter, Gigantes, Malkowski, Martin, O'Connor, Wessenger.
The Chair: Opposed?
Nays
McGuinty, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Sullivan, Wilson (Simcoe West).
The Chair: Shall Bill 173, as amended, be reported to the House? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
If I might, before adjourning, just note two things: One, I want to thank all members of the staff; the clerk, Hansard, translation, legislative counsel. This has been a very long series of meetings, and also thanks to ministry staff who have been with us during these hearings. I want to thank all of those people for their work.
I would like to ask members of the subcommittee if we could have a meeting tomorrow following routine proceedings to discuss our future workplan.
Unless there are any further matters arising before the committee -- seeing none -- the standing committee stands adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1702.