Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The committee met at 1404 in room 151.

Better Business Climate Act, 2014 Loi de 2014 visant à instaurer un climat plus propice aux affaires

Consideration of the following bill:

Bill 7, An Act to enact the Burden Reduction Reporting Act, 2014 and the Partnerships for Jobs and Growth Act, 2014 / Projet de loi 7, Loi édictant la Loi de 2014 sur l’obligation de faire rapport concernant la réduction des fardeaux administratifs et la Loi de 2014 sur les partenariats pour la création d’emplois et la croissance.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Okay, we’re going to call the meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs to order.

As ordered by the House on Thursday, November 27, 2014, we assemble here today for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 7, An Act to enact the Burden Reduction Reporting Act, 2014 and the Partnerships for Jobs and Growth Act, 2014. Tara Partington from legislative counsel is here to assist us with our work, and she is sitting right beside the Clerk. The committee is authorized to sit today from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.

A copy of the numbered amendments received at last Friday’s noon deadline is on your desks. Last Friday, when the Clerk sent us the amendments, there was no numbering, so this time on your desks there is numbering. The amendments have been numbered in the order in which they appear in the bill.

Committee members will know that at 3 p.m. today—that’s why we are already five minutes into 2 o’clock—I’m required to interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of Bill 7 and any amendments thereto. From that point forward, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and any division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession, with one 20-minute waiting period allowed. Do we have any questions before we begin? I see none.

You probably noticed that Bill 7 is comprised of only three sections which enact two schedules. In order to deal with the bill in an orderly fashion, I’m going to suggest postponing the sections in order to dispose of the two schedules first. Does everybody agree with that?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Agreed.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): All right. Thank you.

Amendment number 1 relates to section 1 of schedule 1 of the bill before you. We will consider amendment number 1. Are there any general comments or questions? All right, I have—

Mrs. Laura Albanese: No, no.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Okay, no general question.

Do we have any questions or comments generally of the bill?

Mr. Randy Hillier: You’re dealing with just the amendment right at the moment?

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): No, general comments on the entire bill.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I have a comment.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Mr. Hillier.

Mr. Randy Hillier: While we’re discussing this today, I just want to put it out for people to consider. In this bill, it says about forming clusters of businesses. If you just read that in schedule 2: “Clusters, which are geographically concentrated groups of interconnected businesses and related entities....” I don’t know of any business that isn’t interconnected and that isn’t connected geographically with other businesses in those areas. I’d like to just put it to the members of the committee: Is there any business that you’re aware of in the GTA which is not part of a cluster? No? These are—

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Mr. Hillier, the purpose of today’s clause-by-clause—you cannot ask questions and answers.

Mr. Randy Hillier: No, no, but this is a question relating to clusters which are part of the bill. I’m just putting it out there that I find it interesting that we’re using this terminology now as if it’s something new and unique and something innovative, but all our businesses are part of clusters. I don’t know of any business that isn’t interconnected or interrelated or within a geographical area. I just put that out for consideration, and I’ll leave it at that.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Okay. Do we have any more comments or questions? Ms. Vernile.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I would respond by saying that although we encourage clusters, there might be some businesses that don’t wish to cluster because they consider the other businesses to be their competition. They don’t necessarily want to get together and share information for fear that it might somehow harm them. They’re in competition with each other, but there are many businesses where if business co-operate with each other, if they network, they can actually help each other and get ahead.

I see that in my region in Kitchener Centre. We have a tech cluster and we’re seeing phenomenal things coming from the Communitech hub, which is supported by the Ontario government. In just five years, we have seen an explosion of tech businesses—1,700 businesses in just that time, creating 10,000 jobs.

So there are times where clusters do work, and I think we need to be respectful of the fact that there are other industries where they may not necessarily want to get together and share information because they are in competition with each other.

Mr. Randy Hillier: This is good. I don’t want to belabour this point, and I don’t want to be seen to be antagonistic or anything. However, you generally see that most businesses recognize that competition and clusters of competition draw more people, more customers, to that area.

I’ll just give you my background in retail. There was a strip in Ottawa, the Merivale strip. It became a cluster of audio and video shops. That whole strip was pretty much all audio-video electronics, home consumer electronics. They recognized that—and this is going back into the early 1970s—there was benefit to them, because customers could now just go to one area and shop at 20 or 30 different stores—

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Mr. Hillier, I’m going to remind you, because it’s already 10 after 2, that if we do not get through this clause-by-clause by 3 o’clock, there are no questions or discussion because I will have to interrupt the proceedings, and I think—

Mr. Randy Hillier: We’ll have that discussion further after.

1410

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): The members are here to do clause-by-clause, so I just want to be respectful of everybody’s time. All right? Is that fair with everybody? Okay, all right, let’s go.

I am going to talk about schedule 1, section 1, and I believe, Mr. Gates, you have a motion here before us.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I do. I move that section 1 of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection—and I believe that you all have a copy of that subsection. You do, right?

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): You have to read it for the record.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I didn’t know if I had to read it. Okay.

“Meaning of ‘unnecessary’

“(2) For the purposes of the definition of ‘burden’ in subsection (1), the minister shall only consider a burden to be unnecessary if the minister, in consultation with other members of the executive council or on his or her own, has carried out a cost-benefit analysis that clearly demonstrates that the statutory, regulatory, procedural, administrative or other requirement that creates the cost is not necessary to achieve the purpose of the statutory, regulatory, procedural, administrative or other scheme.”

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Any questions or comments about this particular motion? Ms. Albanese.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: We will not be supporting this motion, because this amendment would require that all proposed burden reductions be examined by cabinet. For cabinet to deem a regulation unnecessary, it would have to go through a cost-benefit analysis. The approach of the bill is that of reducing the burden to business and specifically, I guess, to mind not what we regulate but how we regulate it. That would be the reason why we won’t be supporting this motion.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Mr. Hillier.

Mr. Randy Hillier: We’ll be opposing this motion as well, and I’ll just add I believe there is a time for cost-benefit analysis, but it’s at the time when the regulation is introduced, not at a time to remove it. If he got the horse and the cart in a different order on that one, we would be supportive. We have long advocated that there should be a cost-benefit analysis before regulations are undertaken.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: There is a time and a place for the cost-benefit analysis. Agreed.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Okay. Any questions or comments? Mr. Gates.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Well, I’m smart enough to know that we’re probably going to lose seven-one, but at the end—

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): It’s not personal.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Six-one.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Okay, sorry; six-one.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): I’m going to call the question. Shall schedule 1, section 1, be carried?

All those in favour? Opposed? I’ve got to see the hands up.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I almost got Ann there. It was close. I saw you grab her arm.

Interjections.

Mr. Randy Hillier: We’re talking about the amendment. We’re opposed.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Yes, amendment. Opposed? Okay. So we talked about definition—

Interjection: Are we starting over?

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Motion number 1, the definition: Shall schedule, 1 section 1, carry?

All those in favour? I saw Mr. Gates.

All those opposed?

Interjections.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Okay. So shall schedule 1, section 1, be carried? All those in favour?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: A point of clarification: Are we receiving clarification to carry into a vote?

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): The first part we just voted on is motion number 1 from Mr. Gates. I asked the question, “Shall motion number 1 be carried?” So I saw it was done. It was defeated.

The next question is, shall schedule 1, section 1, be carried?

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Carried.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Carried. So am I hearing carried?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Without amendment.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Without amendment. That’s right. Carried.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I voted against it.

Interjections.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Just to make sure everybody knows what they’re voting on, I’m going to ask the question one more time, because it’s new to some members here.

Shall schedule 1, section 1, be carried? All those in favour? Raise your hands.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Do you want us to carry it as it is here?

Interjection: This is the original.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Yes, the original.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Carry without amendments.

Interjection: Right, carry without amendments. You need to say that.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Okay. All those opposed? Carried.

Because we have defeated motion number 1, motion number 2 will be out of order. Okay? So we will not be entertaining motion 2.

I believe we have motion 3 here. Mr. Hillier or Mr. McDonell, do you want to read it on the record?

Mr. Randy Hillier: I move that subsection 2(1) of schedule 1 to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“Annual report on burden reduction

“(1) The minister shall make available to the public an annual report with respect to,

“(a) actions taken by the government of Ontario to reduce burdens; and

“(b) the government of Ontario’s future burden reduction goals.”

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Any questions or comments to this particular motion? Ms. Hoggarth?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Because of what we heard last week, we will be supporting this amendment. We listened. We like the fact that it says “shall” in number 1. We will be voting in favour.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Any other comments?

Mr. Randy Hillier: That’s the first time in seven years.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Are the members ready for the vote?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: You say it every time.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Are the members ready for the vote? All those—

Mr. Wayne Gates: It’s funny you say that, because I’m trying to figure out why you guys agreed to it.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Because we’re nice people.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): All those in favour? Can I see the hands? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried. So motion number 3 is carried.

We have motion number 4. Mr. Gates, do you want to read your motion?

Mr. Wayne Gates: I move that section 2 of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

“First report

“(1.1) The first report under this section shall be prepared in respect of the calendar year 2015.”

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Any questions or comments to this particular motion? Ms. Lalonde?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Yes. Unfortunately, we will be voting against this amendment. The reason is because we’ve already started drafting our report and waiting for the calendar year of 2015 would actually delay us reporting what we have this bill for, which is reporting close to June 30.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Any other comments? Mr. Hillier?

Mr. Randy Hillier: We respect the idea behind it, the intent of it, but we’re of the view that that may actually delay the report, so we’ll be opposing.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Any other comments? Okay. Are the members ready to vote? All those in favour? All those opposed?

We’re going to motion number 5. Mr. Hillier or Mr. McDonell, do you want to read your motion?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Sure. I move that clause 2(2)(a) of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by striking out “or in such other manner as the minister considers advisable.”

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Any questions or comments? Ms. Lalonde?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I’m sorry to say that we will not be supporting this amendment. The reason why is because we feel that this amendment is definitely too prescriptive and limiting. I don’t think it’s fair to limit how our future government would choose to communicate, so unfortunately we will be against this amendment.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I would not want to limit government in being transparent and accountable, but the way the clause reads at the moment, any other publication or—it says you can put it on the website “or in such other manner as the minister considers advisable.” So we were concerned that some “other manner” may take away that website. I know that might not be the intent of the members on this committee, but I’ve seen subsequent governments not actually do things that we intended them to do.

1420

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I think the bill is for us to actually report. Definitely, that’s our goal—to report on how, but we don’t want to limit on how we’re going to be reporting.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Yes. Okay.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Okay. Any more? Mr. Gates?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Maybe you can give me some examples of other manners. Maybe that will help me understand where you’re headed. You’re going to do a report. It’s going to be on the website. So then, what other manners are you thinking of?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: It could be in the Gazette.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Pardon?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: The Gazette. I can think—I’m not sure. I think this is why we want to leave it open at this point. I don’t feel—

Interjection.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Yes, actually. That’s why we’re open and transparent. We’re going to try to educate our stakeholders and the business as much as possible.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Maybe I’ll just add one comment here. If we change that “or” to an “and”—“published on a government of Ontario website and in such other manners as the minister considers advisable”—it would be—

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): I just want to remind the committee we cannot accept any amendment. Right? So there’s no changing what’s on the table for discussion—what we’ve been discussing. This is how we voted. Mr. McDonell?

Mr. Jim McDonell: I was going to suggest the same thing, that we just change that. Because obviously they’re talking that they want to use the website and any other methods, but that’s not the way the bill is written.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): But unfortunately, the order of the House is that any amendments must be submitted to this committee on Friday, 12 noon, to the Clerks. Right? So no changes are acceptable at this late stage. Sorry.

Any more comments or questions? Okay, are we ready for the question?

All those in favour of the proposed motion? All those opposed? That got defeated.

Motion number 6: NDP motion. Mr. Gates, want to read it?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Okay. Schedule 1, section 3: “I move that section—

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): No, no, no. Schedule 1—

Mr. Wayne Gates: These are the ones I’ve got in order.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Okay. I think the Clerk is going to help you here and make sure—you’ve got to take our sheet here.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’ll just get the page. Okay. I move that clause 2(2)(b) of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by striking out “or, if the regulations prescribe another date, on or before the prescribed date in each year” at the end.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Okay. Any comment or discussion to this particular motion? Any questions or comments? Mrs. Lalonde, you have a comment for this particular motion?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Well, we’re going to be voting against it. I think it’s just to reiterate our commitment to look at a mid-year, closer to June 30, as our deadline to make the reports relevant for our business community. They need to see a report at half year. We want to definitely try to educate and make sure that, in preparation for their budget and seeing what we have done so far, they can also educate themselves but also maximize the opportunity on some of those burden reductions that have been reported.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Okay. Mr. Hillier?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Well, I would say, you know, we’re in favour of this because the regulations can prescribe a different date. If that was what you’re saying—you know, you’re saying that the government wants to have these tabled by mid-year. What your legislation actually does is it allows them to prescribe it later in the year. So, if you’re being very forthright about this, the NDP motion fits your argument—right?—by striking out some other date prescribed later in the year. I think your argument brings merit to the NDP motion. Under the NDP motion you would have to have it out before midyear.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Okay. Ms. Hoggarth?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: What has happened here is that we believe this June 30 deadline will make this report relevant for the business community. We listened to the stakeholders and they’ve asked for this so that they can plan well ahead and—

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Ms. Hoggarth, we’re not doing motion 7. We’re doing motion 6. Okay?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Oh, I’m sorry.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Motion 6, which Mr. Gates has read, is clause 2(2)(b), an NDP motion. Okay? That’s your motion next.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Sorry.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Please refer to what’s on the table because this is what the Clerk is advising me, the Chair. The motion right now is motion number 6, which has been read by Mr. Gates. It’s the NDP motion. Okay?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Further to that, the way the legislation is written presently would allow the government, by regulation, to make that report public at any time in the year; right? At any time. Whether the House is sitting or not sitting, it’s got a target date of June 30. However, they can change regulations and we know how easy that is to accomplish. It doesn’t even come before a committee to change a regulation—

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Mr. Hillier, I think you’re also debating your motion, which is motion 7.

Mr. Randy Hillier: No, I’m not. No, no.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): We want to focus on motion—

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Madam Chair, can you please repeat which motion we are debating?

Mr. Randy Hillier: NDP motion number 6.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): NDP motion number 6: I move that clause 2(2)(b) of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by striking out “or, if the regulations prescribe another date, on or before the prescribed date in each year” at the end.

Ms. Lalonde?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I apologize for earlier. I think we got a little bit distracted in between the PCs and the order.

So to respond to this amendment by the NDP, I’m just going to make sure what you’re suggesting is that we would make the June 30 reporting deadline a hard deadline. We’re definitely against it. One of the reasons is, we’re saying that we don’t want to be set as a date. We want to be flexible. Being flexible in our date, as closer to, will allow us—if there was a change in government or what we’ve experienced this time going through an election, this would definitely impair our mechanism to actually report to the public and our stakeholders.

We have listened to our stakeholders. We want to make sure that we give them enough notice so they can plan ahead of time, but we are not prepared at this point to make this a set date.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Mr. Hillier?

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’m just going to add, the way the legislation is written right now, you can table this, make it available to the public at any time before June 30. It’s not a hard date of when it must be done. It’s a hard date of when it must be done by. Under the existing legislation, you could table it January 1, May 1 or any other date before June 30. The NDP motion makes sure that you must do it by June 30. The second half of that clause (b) says it must be done by June 30 unless we change our minds. That’s essentially what it’s doing.

Once again, if you are fully committed to indicating to the business community how these things may affect them and that you want to have it done by June 30, I think you really ought to be supporting the NDP motion.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Okay. Do we have any more comments?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Your support staff is fully aware of this, particularly coming forward, I would think, from our meeting, when we talked. My concern was exactly, quite frankly, what my colleagues the PCs are talking about, that you have a business community that’s expecting something to happen by June 30—up to June 30. You’re absolutely right: It could happen February 10. So the thing about the election really does make a lot of sense. But what we want to do is say no—the business community, you want to be open and transparent. They want to know when the report is coming out. They want to know exactly where you’re going to be. What we’re saying is, let’s have a hard date, because the problem that I see going forward is that you now have an annual report that could be 18 months, which I don’t think is fair to anybody, quite frankly. In particular, if you’re trying to do this to help the business community, I don’t think they’re going to appreciate that very much.

1430

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Okay. Do we have any more comments? Ms. Hoggarth first.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: As I said before, the stakeholders are the ones who thought that June was a good time.

Mr. Randy Hillier: We’re not arguing that.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Ms. Lalonde?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I think when we make the bill, when it says “shall report,” it gives us a little bit of flexibility. So this time, if you look in a minority government, how hard it would have been to report—we want this bill to be not only for today but to carry through other governments, right? For now, “shall report” by June 30 gives us flexibility and it also gives some predictability for the business industry to expect a report.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Mr. McDonell?

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’m not sure why a minority or majority government—I would assume ministry staff are doing this. I don’t think they expect the members to do this. So having a fixed date that the government service should have these reports done—it should make no difference what the status of the Legislature is.

I think, again, a date that is in legislation is far better than giving the government the option of, “Well, we’ll just release it any time we want.” Really, what this is doing—we’re talking very clearly, that it has to be done by June 30. I think the motion just suggests that that date be there. It takes away the option of deciding that “maybe this year we’ll do it December 31”—

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Okay, I see Mr. Hillier has a comment.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Just to emphasize, minority or majority Parliament has no bearing on the release of—this becomes the work of the administration of government. They have time frames that become statutory obligations that the administration of government must do. It’s not the minister’s staff but the ministry staff and administration that does this.

Once again, this provides wiggle room and, if one was somewhat cynical, may also say that if the report is not very good, it could be delayed and stalled by regulation, substantially. I would also put this out: You’ve got a target date of June 30. Now, we all know that the House does not sit on June 30 or for the previous couple of weeks. Usually it’s the first week of June that we’re out of here. That may be more of a reason why that date has been chosen, but I’ll accept that you want to inform the business community of what has happened. If that is clearly certain, the first half of that clause gives you lots of flexibility and meets the objective of informing the people in the public early because it says “available to the public on or before June 30 in each year....” All the NDP motion does is strike out what follows that, which then holds government to actually having a statutory obligation.

We’ll be supporting the NDP motion.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Mr. Gates?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Yes, just interesting—on your own argument, you’re saying that this is what the business community is telling you, that they want a report by June 30. Yet the language that you’re proposing can drag it out to December 31. So if you’re saying that you’re listening to the stakeholders, you’re not listening very well on that particular issue.

Also, the language here, where you said that it said “shall”—I am getting older, but in the clause that we’re talking about, I can’t find the word “shall,” so maybe you could point that out to me.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): The Clerk is going to show you where the word “shall” is, okay? You found the word, Mr. Gates?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Yes, but I think what she was talking about is “shall do the report,” and what I’m saying is, the report is supposed to be by June 30, but it’s not; it’s actually an extension of the entire year. I think I’m right on this. You actually can do that report any time from January 1 until December 31 the way that language is right now. What we’re saying is, we’re agreeing with you: Listen to the stakeholders and have it on or before June 30. We’re agreeing with you.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Ms. Lalonde.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I will just end the discussion from our side, just reiterating that during the public hearings, I think some of you asked some of the major stakeholders that were in this room, and when we asked them what type of amendment they felt was needed, the answer was very clear: none. So we’re going to maintain our position with this amendment in voting against.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Any more comments or questions? I’m going to call the question. All those in favour of motion number 6? All those against? Okay.

Since motion number 6 is defeated—

Interjection.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): I just want to make sure. Okay. We’re going to go to motion 7.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’d like to withdraw PC motion number 7.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): So you withdraw motion 7. All right.

We’ll go to motion number 8, a PC motion. Mr. Hillier or Mr. McDonell, do you want to read the motion?

Mr. Randy Hillier: I move that section 2 of schedule 1 of the bill be amended by adding the following:

“Tabling

“(3) The minister shall table the annual report in the Legislative Assembly as soon as possible after it is published.”

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Any comments or questions for the mover? Ms. Lalonde.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Sorry. Mr. Hillier, could you just reaffirm what you just mentioned?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Yes. All it is is making sure that the minister shall table the annual report in the Legislative Assembly as soon as possible after it is published. So once it’s in the public domain, it’s tabled with the assembly as well.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: And I can say from our side we’re very happy to accept this amendment. Definitely, our government is open and transparent when it comes to burden reduction.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Is this being recorded?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: And this is a recording.

Interjections.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): We’ve got 20 minutes before the gavel comes down at 3 o’clock. So any more debate or discussion on motion number 8? Can I call the question? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.

All right, motion number 9—

Interjection.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Sorry. Shall schedule 1, section 1, as amended, carry? Carried.

Interjection.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): So I’m going to call the question. I want to see the hands first, okay? Shall schedule 1, section 2, as amended, carry? Can I see a show of hands? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.

Motion number 9: Mr. Gates.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I move that section 3 of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by striking out “may make regulations” in the portion before clause (a) and substituting “shall make regulations”.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Any comments or questions on this particular motion? Ms. Albanese.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Again, just like in the first motion that I spoke on, the bill is focused on removing the unnecessary burden, unnecessary government regulations, and this amendment would enforce that regulations are made on how governments quantify, specify scope of the report, and therefore we won’t be supporting it.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Okay. Any other comments? Mr. Hillier?

Mr. Randy Hillier: We won’t be supporting this amendment.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): You will not be supporting it.

Mr. Gates, do you have any final comments before I call the question?

Mr. Wayne Gates: No. I’m fine. I’m sure that we may lose this one.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? The motion is lost.

Motion number 10: Now, I need to inform the committee that this—

Interjection.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): The Clerk just advised me that this motion is inconsistent with the decision of the committee on motion number 6 because motion 6 was lost.

1440

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: It’s out of order?

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Yes, it’s going to be out of order because we lost motion number 6. This is inconsistent, so it’s out of order.

We’re going to go to motion number 11. Mr. Gates, you want to—

Interjection.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Oh, sorry. Shall schedule 1, section 3, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.

Now we’re doing motion number 11. Mr. Gates, do you want to read your motion on record?

Mr. Wayne Gates: I move that section 4 of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by striking out “on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor” at the end and substituting “on the day the Better Business Climate Act, 2014 receives royal assent.”

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Any comments or questions to this motion?

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: Mr. Gates, I’m very happy to report that we will be supporting this amendment.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’m done. There you go.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: You see. We’re balancing, you know.

Mr. Wayne Gates: You’re balancing.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: No, no. We realize the importance of implementing this bill and that’s why, actually, we reintroduced it as soon as the House came in order in July. So we will be supporting this amendment.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Mr. Hillier, do you have any comments?

Mr. Randy Hillier: We’re supportive as well.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): All right. So all those in—

Mr. Wayne Gates: Can I just add—because I don’t think everybody heard your comment. I think that was pretty good. He said that it didn’t take me seven years to get an agreement. So that’s kind of nice. There you go.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): Okay. All those in favour of motion number 11? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

Shall schedule 1, section 4, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.

It has been brought to my attention that for schedule 1, section 5, there are no amendments. So I’m going to call the question. Shall schedule 1, section 5, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Schedule 1, preamble: Is there any debate, questions or comments on the preamble? Schedule 1, preamble: comments or questions?

Shall schedule 1, preamble, be carried? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall the title of schedule 1 be carried? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 1, as amended, be carried? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Interjection.

The Chair (Ms. Soo Wong): The Clerk has advised me that there are no amendments to schedule 2, section 1. I’m going to go through them very quickly and then I’m going to call the questions. Okay? All right.

Shall schedule 2, section 1, be carried? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 2, section 2, be carried? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 2, section 3, be carried? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 2, section 4, be carried? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 2, section 5, be carried? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 2, section 6, be carried? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 2, section 7, be carried? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 2, section 8, be carried? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 2, section 9, be carried? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 2, section 10, be carried? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 2, section 11, be carried? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 2, preamble, be carried? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall the title of schedule 2 be carried? All those in favour? You’ve got to show your hands. All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 2 be carried? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

All right. Now we’re going back to the sections. Section 1: Are there any comments or questions on section 1 of the bill? I see none. Shall section 1 be carried? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Now we’re talking about section 2. Shall section 2 be carried? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

We’re talking about section 3. Shall section 3 be carried? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Now we’re dealing with the title. Shall the title of the bill be carried? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall Bill 7, as amended, be carried? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Thank you very much. The committee is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1447.

CONTENTS

Monday 8 December 2014

Better Business Climate Act, 2014, Bill 7, Mr. Duguid / Loi de 2014 visant à instaurer un climat plus propice aux affaires, projet de loi 7, M. Duguid F-55

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Chair / Présidente

Ms. Soo Wong (Scarborough–Agincourt L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn (Etobicoke–Lakeshore L)

Mrs. Laura Albanese (York South–Weston / York-Sud–Weston L)

Mr. Yvan Baker (Etobicoke Centre / Etobicoke-Centre L)

Mr. Victor Fedeli (Nipissing PC)

Ms. Catherine Fife (Kitchener–Waterloo ND)

Ms. Ann Hoggarth (Barrie L)

Mr. Monte McNaughton (Lambton–Kent–Middlesex PC)

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn (Etobicoke–Lakeshore L)

Ms. Daiene Vernile (Kitchener Centre / Kitchener-Centre L)

Ms. Soo Wong (Scarborough–Agincourt L)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr. Wayne Gates (Niagara Falls ND)

Mr. Randy Hillier (Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington PC)

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde (Ottawa–Orléans L)

Mr. Jim McDonell (Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry PC)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr. Katch Koch

Staff / Personnel

Ms. Tara Partington, legislative counsel