Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The committee met at 0901 in committee room 2.

Less Red Tape, Stronger Economy Act, 2023 Loi de 2023 visant à réduire les formalités administratives pour une économie plus forte

Consideration of the following bill:

Bill 91, An Act to enact two Acts, amend various Acts and revoke various regulations / Projet de loi 91, Loi visant à édicter deux lois, à modifier diverses lois et à abroger divers règlements.

The Chair (Ms. Goldie Ghamari): Good morning, everyone. The Standing Committee on Justice Policy will now come to order. We are here to conduct clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 91, An Act to enact two Acts, amend various Acts and revoke various regulations. We are joined by staff from legislative counsel, Hansard, and broadcast and recording.

Please wait until I recognize you before starting to speak and, as always, all comments should go through the Chair. Are there any questions before we begin?

We will now begin clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. Bill 91 is comprised of three sections which enact 37 schedules. In order to deal with the bill in an orderly fashion, I suggest we postpone these three sections in order to dispose of the schedules first. Is there agreement on this? Okay.

Turning now to schedule 1: There are no amendments to schedule 1. I propose we bundle them. Is there agreement? Okay. Is there any debate on schedule 1? Are members prepared to vote? Shall schedule 1, sections 1 to 5, carry? All those in favour, please raise your hands. All those opposed? I declare schedule 1, sections 1 to 5, carried.

Shall schedule 1 carry? All those in favour, please raise your hands. All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 1 carried.

Turning now to schedule 2: There are no amendments. I propose we bundle the sections. Is there agreement? Shall schedule 2, sections 1 to 4, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare it carried.

Shall schedule 2 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 2 carried.

There are no amendments to schedule 3, sections 1 to 5. I propose we bundle them. Is there any debate? Are members prepared to vote? Shall schedule 3, sections 1 to 5, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 3, sections 1 to 5, carried.

Shall schedule 3 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 3 carried.

Turning now to schedule 4: There are no amendments. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 4, sections 1 to 23, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 4, sections 1 to 23, carried.

Shall schedule 4 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 4 carried.

Turning now to schedule 5: There are no amendments. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 5, sections 1 to 4, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 5, sections 1 to 4, carried.

Shall schedule 5 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 5 carried.

There are no amendments to schedule 6. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 6, sections 1 and 2, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 6, sections 1 and 2, carried.

Shall schedule 6 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 6 carried.

There are no are no amendments to schedule 7. I propose we bundle sections 1 to 15. Shall schedule 7, sections 1 to 15, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 7, sections 1 to 15, carried.

Shall schedule 7 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 7 carried.

There are no amendments to schedule 8. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 8, sections 1 to 26, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 8, sections 1 to 26, carried.

Shall schedule 8 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 8 carried.

There are no amendments to schedule 9. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 9, sections 1 to 32, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 9, sections 1 to 32, carried.

Shall schedule 9 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 9 carried.

There are no amendments to schedule 10. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 10, sections 1 to 3, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 10, sections 1 to 3, carried.

Shall schedule 10 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 10 carried.

Schedule 11, sections 1 and 2, have no amendments. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 11, sections 1 and 2, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 11, sections 1 and 2, carried.

Shall schedule 11 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 11 carried.

There are no amendments to schedule 12, sections 1 and 2. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 12, sections 1 and 2, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 12, sections 1 and 2, carried.

Shall schedule 12 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 12 carried.

There are no amendments to schedule 13, sections 1 to 3. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 13, sections 1 to 3, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 13, sections 1 to 3, carried.

Shall schedule 13 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 13 carried.

There are no amendments to schedule 14, sections 1 to 8. I propose we bundle them.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: Chair?

The Chair (Ms. Goldie Ghamari): Yes?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: The official opposition recommends that we remove this schedule.

We heard from the Ontario Sporting Dog Association and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, but we have not heard from folks who are concerned about animal welfare and animal cruelty.

During our committee hearings, we heard from the Ontario Sporting Dog Association, and they indicated that there were man-made culverts for wildlife to hide, but there are really no solid assurances that they are entirely safe within those man-made structures. I believe the words that were used by Mr. Bell were that dogs would most likely not go into those areas with an alligator at the other end, but there were no assurances of safety.

I would like to recommend to the committee that we remove this schedule and that the committee vote against it so that there can be further community consultation and an opportunity for voices to be heard on this schedule, because it is something that we need to get right and it’s something that we should be concerned about.

I believe the minister said that these animals are bred for this purpose, and I don’t know that that sort of explanation is one that is suitable. We’re not talking about animals that are caught and then let go. We are talking about animals that will be meeting the end of their life with this exercise. So I implore my colleagues across the way to give this serious, sober thought, some second consideration to remove this from this bill, to invite a broader array of voices who can consider this and make sure that you get it right.

There are reasons why the Harris government removed this in 1997, and there was no opposition from any party to removing the opportunity for these licences and the transfer of these licences.

While we’ve heard that there will be a 90-day period for applications, that is still quite wide considering that there might be lots of people who are interested in applying for this.

0910

Just to make sure we get this right, I implore the members across who are concerned about animal welfare, animal safety and animal cruelty to vote against this schedule so that we can study this, so that we can get this right and make sure that we’re listening to all the voices of Ontarians.

The Chair (Ms. Goldie Ghamari): Is there further debate? MPP Oosterhoff.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Chair, I just want to respectfully disagree with my colleague from the NDP. We know that well-trained dogs are indispensable for locating, tracking, recovering and overall enhancing the outdoors experience, as they were bred to do. For example, we know that retrievers were bred primarily to retrieve birds or other prey and return them to the hunter without damage. Animals that have been bred for tracking and recovery need safe facilities to train, and fenced areas which are multiple acres in size are designed to keep both the wildlife and the dogs confined to a controlled area. We’re supporting facilities that train hunting dogs to only track specifically targeted game species, exercise dogs in the off-season and run trialling competitions where dogs are scored by judges for their locating abilities. We know that all of the train and trial facilities have to meet strict regulatory requirements, including meeting care standards for wildlife, so we will not be moving on the opposition member’s suggestion.

The Chair (Ms. Goldie Ghamari): Further debate? MPP Kernaghan.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: I’d like to thank the member from Niagara West for his assurances. When we consider folks who are involved in animal agriculture, we consider how animals meet the end of their life in a humane way. We are assured that the folks who breed livestock, who are supplying meat to market will make sure that animals are not meeting their end in a way that is violent, is inhumane.

The member talked about the tracking and the recovering of birds who are hunted, but what I think we need to see within this are assurances that they are simply locating the animals. Are they killing the animals as well? Are these animals being torn apart? That’s the question. We want to make sure it’s not just simply animals who are meeting a very grisly end. It is important that we do train dogs. They are an important facet in Ontario. However, what is the purpose of these animals? Are they there to be savaged or are they there to be simply located?

The Chair (Ms. Goldie Ghamari): Further debate? Seeing none, schedule 14, sections 1 to 8: There are no amendments. I propose we bundle them.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: Recorded vote.

The Chair (Ms. Goldie Ghamari): A recorded vote has been requested.

A recorded vote for the bundling or a recorded vote for the actual—

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: For the schedule. Pardon me, Chair. Thank you.

The Chair (Ms. Goldie Ghamari): Okay.

Is there any further debate on schedule 14, sections 1 to 8? Are members prepared to vote? A recorded vote has been requested. Shall schedule 14, sections 1 to 8, carry?

Ayes

Bailey, Dixon, Hogarth, Trevor Jones, Kusendova-Bashta, Oosterhoff, Saunderson.

Nays

Blais, Kernaghan, Mamakwa, Wong-Tam.

The Chair (Ms. Goldie Ghamari): I declare schedule 14, sections 1 to 8, carried.

Shall schedule 14 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 14 carried.

Turning now to schedule 15, there are no amendments. I propose we bundle schedule 15, sections 1 to 2. All those in favour, please raise their hands. All those opposed? I declare schedule 15, sections 1 to 2, carried.

Shall schedule 15 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 15 carried.

There are no amendments to schedule 16, sections 1 to 28. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 16, sections 1 to 28, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 16, sections 1 to 28, carried.

There’s also a schedule to schedule 16. Shall the schedule to schedule 16 to the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare the schedule to schedule 16 of the bill carried.

Shall schedule 16 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 16 of the bill carried.

Turning now to schedule 17: There are no amendments. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 17, sections 1 to 7, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 17, sections 1 to 7, carried.

Shall schedule 17 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 17 carried.

Turning now to schedule 18: There are no amendments. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 18, sections 1 and 2, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 18, sections 1 and 2, carried.

Shall schedule 18 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 18 carried.

There are no amendments to schedule 19. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 19, sections 1 to 4, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 19, sections 1 to 4, carried.

Shall schedule 19 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 19 carried.

There are no amendments to schedule 20. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 20, sections 1 to 3, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 20, sections 1 to 3, carried.

Shall schedule 20 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 20 carried.

There are no amendments to schedule 21, sections 1 to 4. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 21, sections 1 to 4, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 21, sections 1 to 4, carried.

Shall schedule 21 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 21 carried.

Turning now to schedule 22: There are no amendments. I propose we bundle schedule 22. Shall schedule 22, sections 1 to 20, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 22, sections 1 to 20, carried.

Shall schedule 22 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 22 carried.

Turning now to schedule 23: There are no amendments. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 23, sections 1 to 14, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 23, sections 1 to 14, carried.

Shall schedule 23 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 23 carried.

Turning now to schedule 24: There are no amendments. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 24, sections 1 to 9, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 24, sections 1 to 9, carried.

Shall schedule 24 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 24 carried.

Turning now to schedule 25: I propose we bundle sections 1 and 2. Shall schedule 25, sections 1 and 2, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 25, sections 1 and 2, carried.

Shall schedule 25 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 25 carried.

Turning now to schedule 26, sections 1 and 2: There are no amendments. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 26, sections 1 and 2, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 26, sections 1 and 2, carried.

Shall schedule 26 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 26 carried.

There are no amendments to schedule 27. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 27, sections 1 to 3, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 27, sections 1 to 3, carried.

Shall schedule 27 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 27 carried.

Turning now to schedule 28: There are no amendments. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 28, sections 1 and 2, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 28, sections 1 and 2, carried.

0920

Shall schedule 28 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 28 carried.

Turning now to schedule 29: Is there any debate on schedule 29, section 1? Yes, MPP Kernaghan.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: The official opposition is currently concerned about the change that is found within schedule 1 which allows private career colleges—

The Chair (Ms. Goldie Ghamari): Sorry, schedule 1?

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: Yes.

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: Section 1.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: Oh, pardon me. Section 1. Sorry, my bad.

The Chair (Ms. Goldie Ghamari): That’s okay.

Mr. Terence Kernaghan: It changes the term “private career college” to “career college.” At this time and in the briefing with ministry staff, questions were raised about how these private career colleges would be presenting this information to prospective students, and I don’t know that it was answered in a fulsome way.

Furthermore, at this moment Ontario has the opportunity to issue monetary penalties to private career colleges who are out of compliance with regulation. We know that the superintendent can authorize a person to act as a collector and may authorize a collector to collect a reasonable fee from each person for administrative penalties. This bill would repeal that section and would have the ministry of revenue enforce the collection of administrative penalties. But it was not clear how this would be announced.

Considering that it was, I believe, a Conservative government who first created the community college system in Ontario, I think that it’s something that we ought to protect. I would implore the members opposite to consider this very significant change. I think it’s important that we get this right. We want to make sure that there is no confusion between what are publicly funded community colleges, who do wonderful work across the province, as opposed to these private career colleges.

I hope that members can support voting against section 1 of schedule 29 to this bill. Thank you.

The Chair (Ms. Goldie Ghamari): Is there further debate? MPP Oosterhoff.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Yes. My thanks to my colleague from the opposition for raising their concerns. I would just say that Ontario is recognized as a leader around the world in post-secondary education, offering students the ability to obtain a world-class education that will lead to a rewarding career. We believe that career colleges across the province do play an exceptionally important role in providing education to students and will continue to play a large part in training and reskilling Ontario’s workers to support key sectors of our economy—such as health care, for example—today and into the future.

The changes that we’ve proposed in our legislation will ensure that the unfortunate negative connotations associated with the word “private,” which unfairly stigmatize these institutions and their students, are put to an end. Whether a student attends a public or a private institution, our government expects to see the level of education meet the provincial standards and continue to set the students up for success.

I know that the Ministry of Colleges and Universities is going to continue to enforce rules around these institutions that will protect students against career colleges which make misleading statements in advertising or elsewhere. We want to continue to show support for the important role that they play, but also recognize that students will still be able to clearly distinguish whether the college is a career college or a publicly assisted college through the program information provided by the career colleges as well as publicly assisted colleges.

The Chair (Ms. Goldie Ghamari): Further debate? MPP Wong-Tam.

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: To the member across: Thank you for your comments. I think that largely the request to remove the word “private” from career colleges and to group them together as publicly funded colleges would be premature, especially considering we know that enforcement when it comes to legislation is always lacking. In this case, we’ve seen a number of breaches with private career colleges where they have broken the rules and government has been reactionary, as opposed to proactively ensuring that the students as well as faculties and even just the quality of education is protected. So I think it would be extremely premature to remove that word, because it does provide some level of awareness and protection to the consumer and the public.

We know that when it comes to public education, there are high standards that have to be met. There are higher levels of accountability and scrutiny. Given the proliferation of private colleges and private schools that have opened up, we want to ensure that that same level of protection of high-quality education is afforded to all, especially concerning the cost of private education—the cost and oftentimes the prestige that comes with private education. On one hand, you’ve got some places and institutions that embrace the word “private” because it signifies, perhaps, a higher level of education. It signifies a higher level of prestige attached to it, and here, you have a government member saying that the word “private” somehow stigmatizes these colleges. I think that not having a proven and demonstrated effective enforcement regime to ensure that the rules are upheld means that we do have to leave the word “private” in there so therefore you can distinguish, for the public, who will be asked to judge all of those institutions equally when they’re not equal.

The Chair (Ms. Goldie Ghamari): Further debate? Seeing none, are members prepared to vote on schedule 29, section 1? Shall schedule 29, section 1, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 29, section 1, carried.

Turning now to schedule 29, section 2, is there any debate? Are members prepared to vote? Shall section 2 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 2 carried.

Turning now to schedule 29, section 3, is there any debate? Are members prepared to vote? Shall schedule 29, section 3, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 3 carried.

Turning now to schedule 29, section 4, is there any debate? Are members prepared to vote? Shall schedule 29, section 4, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 29, section 4, carried.

Turning now to schedule 29, section 5, is there any debate? Are members prepared to vote? Shall schedule 29, section 5, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 5 carried.

Turning now to schedule 29, section 6, is there any debate? Are members prepared to vote? Shall schedule 29, section 6, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 29, section 6, carried.

I propose, since there are no amendments, that we bundle schedule 29, sections 7 to 15. Is there committee approval? Okay. Shall schedule 29, sections 7 to 15, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 29, sections 7 to 15, carried.

We have NDP motion number 1. Who would like to move this motion—or are you going to withdraw your motion? MPP Wong-Tam.

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam: I move that subsection 16(2) of schedule 29 to the bill be struck out.

The Chair (Ms. Goldie Ghamari): MPP Wong-Tam has moved NDP motion number 1. Is there any debate? Are members prepared to vote? Shall NDP motion number 1 carry? All those in favour of NDP motion number 1? All those opposed? I declare the motion lost.

0930

Turning now to schedule 22: Shall schedule 22 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare—

Interjection.

The Chair (Ms. Goldie Ghamari): Shall schedule 29, section 16, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 29, section 16, carried.

Shall schedule 29 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 29 carried.

Turning now to schedule 30: There are no amendments. I propose we bundle schedule 30, sections 1 to 124. Is there agreement from the committee? Shall schedule 30, sections 1 to 124, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 30, sections 1 to 124, carried.

Shall schedule 30 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 30 carried.

Turning now to schedule 31: I propose we bundle. Shall schedule 31, sections 1 to 3, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 31, sections 1 to 3, carried.

Shall schedule 31 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 31 carried.

Turning now to schedule 32: There are no amendments. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 32, sections 1 to 3, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 32, sections 1 to 3, carried.

Shall schedule 32 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 32 carried.

Turning now to schedule 33: There are no amendments to sections 1 to 13. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 33, sections 1 to 13, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 33, sections 1 to 13, carried.

Shall schedule 33 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 33 carried.

Turning now to schedule 34, sections 1 to 2: I propose we bundle them. All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 34, sections 1 to 2, carried.

Shall schedule 34 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 34 carried.

Turning now to schedule 35: There are no amendments. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 35, sections 1 to 3, carry? All those in favour? All those in favour? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 35 carried.

I would remind members to please pay attention when votes are happening. I don’t want to repeat myself three times. Thank you.

Shall schedule 35 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 35 carried.

Turning now to schedule 36, section 1: We have government notice of motion number 2. Who would like to move this motion? MPP Oosterhoff.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I move that section 1 of schedule 36 to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“1. The Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021 is amended by striking out ‘tow driver’s’ wherever it appears and substituting in each case ‘tow driver’, except in the following provisions:

“1. Section 13.

“2. Subsections 20(3) and (5).

“3. Subsection 21(2).”

The Chair (Ms. Goldie Ghamari): MPP Oosterhoff has moved government motion number 2. Is there any debate? MPP Oosterhoff.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: This is a housekeeping motion to ensure that the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act aligns with other ministry programs in its wording. This motion corrects an overlap issue with other amendments made in the schedule.

The Chair (Ms. Goldie Ghamari): Is there any further debate? MPP Oosterhoff has moved government notice of motion number 2. All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare the motion carried.

Shall schedule 36, section 1, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 36, section 1, as amended, carried.

Turning now to schedule 36, sections 2 to 18: There are no amendments. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 36, sections 2 to 18, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 36, sections 2 to 18, carried.

Turning now to schedule 36, section 19: We have government notice of motion number 3. Who would like to move this? MPP Oosterhoff.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I move that section 19 of schedule 36 to the bill be amended by:

(a) striking out “providing a notice” in clause 28(2)(f) of the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021 and substituting “giving a notice”;

(b) striking out “providing written notice” in the portion before clause (a) in subsection 28(7) of the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021 and substituting “giving written notice”;

(c) striking out “the day the notice is provided” in clause 28(7)(b) of the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021 and substituting “the day the notice is given”; and

(d) striking out “notice is provided” in subsection 28(8) of the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021 and substituting “notice is given”.

The Chair (Ms. Goldie Ghamari): Is there any debate? MPP Oosterhoff.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Section 28 of the act needs to be amended to change “providing written notice” to use the verb “give” throughout to be consistent with the notice of provision in section 57 of the act. So this is a housekeeping motion.

The Chair (Ms. Goldie Ghamari): Further debate? Are members prepared to vote? Shall government motion number 3 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare the motion carried.

Shall schedule 36, section 19, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 36, section 19, as amended, carried.

Turning now to schedule 36, section 20: We have government notice of motion number 4. MPP Oosterhoff.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I move that section 20 of schedule 36 to the bill be amended by striking out “paragraph 3 of” in subsection 30(2) of the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021.

The Chair (Ms. Goldie Ghamari): MPP Oosterhoff has moved government notice of motion number 4. Is there any debate? MPP Oosterhoff.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: The change from “providing written notice” to use the verb “give” is to be consistent with other parts of the legislation. This is a housekeeping motion to ensure that the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act aligns with other ministry programs.

The Chair (Ms. Goldie Ghamari): Further debate? Are members prepared to vote? Shall government notice of motion number 4 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare the motion carried.

Shall schedule 36, section 20, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 36, section 20, as amended, carried.

Turning now to schedule 36, sections 21 to 31: I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 36, sections 21 to 31, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 36, sections 21 to 31, carried.

Shall schedule 36, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 36, as amended, carried.

Turning now to schedule 37: There are no amendments. I propose we bundle them. Shall schedule 37, sections 1 to 3, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? I declare schedule 37, sections 1 to 3, carried.

Shall schedule 37 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 37 carried.

Turning to section 1, shall section 1 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 1 carried.

Shall section 2 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 2 carried.

Shall section 3, the short title, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare section 3 carried.

Turning now to the title: Shall the title of the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare the title of the bill carried.

Shall Bill 91, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare Bill 91, as amended, carried.

Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare that I shall report it to the House.

All right. Thank you, everyone. There being no further business, I just want to thank everyone for being very co-operative and getting through this. I hope you have the rest of the day.

Committee is now adjourned until next Tuesday, I believe, at 9 a.m.

The committee adjourned at 0945.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE POLICY

Chair / Présidente

Ms. Goldie Ghamari (Carleton PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr. Sol Mamakwa (Kiiwetinoong ND)

Mr. Robert Bailey (Sarnia–Lambton PC)

Mr. Stephen Blais (Orléans L)

Mr. Lorne Coe (Whitby PC)

Ms. Jess Dixon (Kitchener South–Hespeler / Kitchener-Sud–Hespeler PC)

Ms. Goldie Ghamari (Carleton PC)

Ms. Christine Hogarth (Etobicoke–Lakeshore PC)

Mr. Trevor Jones (Chatham-Kent–Leamington PC)

Ms. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta (Mississauga Centre / Mississauga-Centre PC)

Mr. Sol Mamakwa (Kiiwetinoong ND)

Mr. Brian Saunderson (Simcoe–Grey PC)

Mrs. Jennifer (Jennie) Stevens (St. Catharines ND)

MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam (Toronto Centre / Toronto-Centre ND)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr. Terence Kernaghan (London North Centre / London-Centre-Nord ND)

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff (Niagara West / Niagara-Ouest PC)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms. Thushitha Kobikrishna

Staff / Personnel

Ms. Heather Conklin, research officer,
Research Services

Mr. Andrew McNaught, research officer,
Research Services

Ms. Catherine Oh, legislative counsel