The committee met at 0903 in committee room 1.

Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023 Loi de 2023 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne la ceinture de verdure

Consideration of the following bill:

Bill 136, An Act to amend the Greenbelt Act, 2005 and certain other Acts, to enact the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act, 2023, to repeal an Act and to revoke various regulations / Projet de loi 136, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2005 sur la ceinture de verdure et d’autres lois, édictant la Loi de 2023 sur la Réserve agricole de Duffins-Rouge et abrogeant une loi et divers règlements.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Good morning, everyone. The Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy will now come to order. We’re here to conduct clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 136, An Act to amend the Greenbelt Act, 2005 and certain other Acts, to enact the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act, 2023, to repeal an Act and to 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. As always, all comments should go through the Chair. Are there any questions before we begin?

Seeing none, the Clerk has distributed the amendment package to all members and staff electronically. Are there any comments or questions to any section or schedule of the bill, and if so, to which section? Seeing none, we will now begin clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Bill 136 is comprised of three sections which enact four 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? Agreed? Thank you very much.

We’re going to begin with schedule 1, the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act, 2023. There are no amendments to schedule 1, sections 1 and 2. I therefore propose that we bundle sections 1 and 2. Is there agreement?

Is there any debate? No debate? Okay. Shall schedule 1, sections 1 and 2, carry? Are the members ready to vote? MPP McMahon.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: According to something-something subsection, may I ask for a recess?

Interjection: There are no amendments.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: No, before the vote.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): The member has requested a 20-minute recess. According to standing order 131(a), we’re going to recess till 9:25, at MPP McMahon’s request. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 0905 to 0925.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): We’re now going to resume clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 136.

Schedule 1, sections 1 and 2, was what we were at. There is no further debate. The members had already said that they were prepared to vote, so I will say: All those in favour of schedule 1, sections 1 and 2, please raise your hands. I declare schedule 1, sections 1 and 2—

Interjection.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Oh. Any opposed? I apologize. I missed saying “any opposed” because everybody put their hands up in favour. Okay, none opposed. Are you opposed?

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: I was in favour.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): That’s what I mean. That’s why I moved quickly, because you’re all in favour.

Schedule 1, sections 1 and 2 are carried.

We do have an amendment in section 2.1. Is there anyone prepared to move amendment number 1?

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Yes, I will, but I actually don’t have it, though.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Okay. MPP McMahon, we will get you amendment number 1.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: Can they do that?

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): They can. We’re just double-checking that—

Interjections.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): I recognize MPP McMahon to present amendment number 1.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: I move that section 2.1 be added to schedule 1 to the bill:

“Ontario Regulation 154/03

“2.1 Ontario Regulation 154/03 (Zoning Area—Regional Municipality of Durham, Part of the City of Pickering) made under the Planning Act is deemed to have never been revoked.”

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Okay. Is there any debate or discussion? MPP McMahon, do you want any debate or—

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: I’ll just say that’s my colleague’s amendment.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Okay. Thank you. Any further debate or discussion? MPP Rae.

Mr. Matthew Rae: Good morning, Chair. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for my independent colleague doing the work of the NDP. It’s rather shameful that the NDP couldn’t find the time to be here, as all of our independent Liberal members are here and all of the government members are here this morning. Speaking for myself, I do not live in downtown Toronto, and so I’m still here and spending extra time in Toronto—not that I don’t like Toronto, but not going back to my riding.

Chair, on this motion, for the record, the minister addressed this issue in his remarks yesterday about how this would create duplication and the protections would be maintained within the proposed bill before us. So we are recommending that we vote against this amendment.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Any further debate or discussion? Seeing none, are the members ready to vote? All those in favour of amendment number 1, please raise your hand. All those opposed—

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: On that vote—oh, sorry. I missed “recorded.” Next time.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Okay, next time. All those opposed, please raise your hand. I declare amendment number 1 lost.

Moving on to schedule 1, section 3: Any discussion? Are the members ready to vote? Shall schedule 1, section 3, carry? All those in favour, please raise your hands. All those opposed, please raise your hands. Schedule 1, section 3, is carried.

Section 3.1, a new section: We have another amendment, amendment number 2. Are there any members willing to introduce amendment number 2? MPP McMahon.

0930

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Sure, and I will do that for my colleague.

“I move that section 3.1 be added to schedule 1 to the bill:

“Central Pickering Development Plan

“3.1 The Central Pickering Development Plan as made by order in council 985/2006 under the authority of the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994 and as subsequently amended is deemed to have never been revoked.”

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Any debate, discussion? MPP McMahon, do you want to start?

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: It’s just an amendment from my colleague.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Any further discussion? MPP Rae.

Mr. Matthew Rae: Again, thank you to my independent colleague for carrying the water of the NDP this morning. Again, it’s disappointing how the opposition is not here to debate this important legislation, as they had many important questions and discussions with the ministry yesterday. It’s unfortunate they chose not to respect all of our time and your time, Chair, and the staff’s time for this morning to be here to debate their two motions now that the independent Liberal had to move. Again, thank you to my colleague for doing that this morning.

And Chair, again, referring specifically to this amendment before us, as the minister mentioned in his remarks yesterday, the proposed bill in front of us would maintain these protections and codify it, obviously, in legislation, and these would be redundant. I know the opposition members, the NDP members, like red tape, but our government is looking to reduce red tape.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Any further debate? Are the members ready to vote on amendment number 2?

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Recorded.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): A recorded vote is asked.

Ayes

McMahon.

Nays

Coe, Grewal, Kusendova-Bashta, Pang, Rae, Sabawy.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): I declare amendment number 2 lost.

We’re going to move on to schedule 1, Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act. There are no amendments to schedule 1, sections 4 to 6, so I propose that we bundle sections 4 to 6. Is there agreement? There is agreement.

Is there any debate on schedule 1, sections 4 to 6? We see none. Are the members prepared to vote? All those in favour of schedule 1, sections 4 to 6, please raise your hands. All those opposed, please raise your hands. I declare schedule 1, sections 4 to 6, carried.

Shall schedule 1 carry? Any discussion? Are the members prepared to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hands. All those opposed, please raise your hands. I declare schedule 1 carried.

Moving to schedule 2, the Greenbelt Act—schedule 2 section 1. There is an amendment, number 3, by the independent. MPP McMahon.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Finally doing my own work.

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

“(2) Section 1 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:

“‘Interpretation

“‘(3) Every provision of this act shall be interpreted on the basis that the protection for the Greenbelt Area is irrevocable, and in particular shall be interpreted to ensure, as much as possible, that none of the land which is in the Oak Ridges moraine, the protected countryside or the Niagara Escarpment shall be removed from those areas or otherwise made available for urban suburban development or for any use that does not maintain, improve or restore its ecological and hydrological functions or agricultural use.’”

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Further debate, discussion? MPP McMahon.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: I think it’s pretty self-evident: Preserve the land. Keep it there. Lock it down. I’d love your support on this, because I have been working so collegially with you already this morning—thank you—minus the recess.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Any further debate, discussion? MPP Rae.

Mr. Matthew Rae: I won’t hold the recess against my independent colleague this morning.

Unfortunately, we’re recommending voting against this amendment. It may be awkward for my independent colleague come Saturday, depending on who wins the Liberal leadership race, because I know Bonnie Crombie, who is the front-runner, has said there may be justification for opening up parts of the greenbelt. So I think that will be awkward, especially with some of the other amendments my colleague also has in the amendment package this morning.

I will highlight for the record that the former Liberal government changed the greenbelt 17 times without—as the minister mentioned in his remarks yesterday. This would codify the process, which means it’s through legislation, which means this process would most likely occur if there were any changes to the greenbelt in the future. So you’d have to bring forward a bill; it would go through first reading, second reading, committee, again, third reading—plenty of time for public debate.

For those watching at home, we are required to have so many hours of debate on a piece of legislation in the Legislature, and so this would be required with the proposed bill we’re moving forward.

Again, I do thank my independent colleague for showing up to work today, unlike the NDP members, and for her contributions, but it will be kind of awkward, I think, on Sunday morning for her.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Any further debate or discussion?

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Sorry, I can’t let that go—from my second-favourite government MPP. I would say that it’s easy to say, “17 times,” but without the context, it’s a little confusing, because it was brought forward by environmental groups to do a lot of those re-evaluations, shall we say.

And nothing will be awkward for me because I’m always true to myself.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Any further debate or discussion on amendment number 3? Seeing none, are the members ready to vote?

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Recorded, please.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Members are ready to vote and there will be a recorded vote.

Ayes

McMahon.

Nays

Coe, Grewal, Kusendova-Bashta, Pang, Rae, Sabawy.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): I declare amendment number 3 lost.

Shall schedule 2, section 1, carry? Is there any debate? Seeing none, are the members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hands. All those opposed, please raise your hands. I declare schedule 2, section 1, carried.

Moving on now to schedule 2, section 2, I believe: amendment number 4 by the independent. MPP McMahon, when you’re ready, if you would please go ahead.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: I move that section 2 of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following paragraph to subsection 2(1) of the Greenbelt Act, 2005:

“7. Such additional areas of land or water as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, designate.”

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Debate? Discussion? MPP McMahon.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Sure. We have a new Lieutenant Governor, who we’re all excited to work with, so let’s give her some amazing things to do. Basically, this is allowing for more lands to be added to the greenbelt by regulations—never removed, but allowed to be added, because who doesn’t want more green space, more wetlands, more forests and more farmlands? Thank you in advance for your rock-solid support.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Is there any further debate?

Mr. Matthew Rae: Again, I just want to highlight that I think it’s very disrespectful from the NDP members, who are not here to hear the debate from my independent colleague and the debate we’re having on the government side as well around these amendments.

We recommend voting against the motion.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Any further debate or discussion? Seeing none, are the members ready to vote?

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Recorded.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Recorded vote on amendment number 4.

Ayes

McMahon.

Nays

Coe, Grewal, Kusendova-Bashta, Pang, Rae, Sabawy.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): I declare amendment number 4 lost.

Shall schedule 2, section 2, carry? Any debate or discussion? Are members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hands. All those opposed, please raise your hands. I declare schedule 2, section 2, carried.

Moving on to new section 2.1: There is an amendment, number 5. Again, is there anyone willing to move that amendment?

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: All right, switching hats over here. It’s a good thing I wore a neutral colour. We don’t have a brown party.

0940

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): MPP McMahon, you can go ahead, please.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: I move that section 2.1 be added to schedule 2 to the bill:

“2.1 Subsection 6(1) of the act is amended by adding the following clause:

“‘(a.1) policies specific to the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve;’”

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): The Chair does have a ruling here: Committee members, the proposed amendment is out of order because it seeks to amend a section of a parent act that is not before the committee. As Bosc and Gagnon note on page 771 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, “An amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.” Therefore, amendment number 5 is ruled out of order. There is no debate or discussion on that.

We’re going to move on to amendment number 6 by the independent, MPP McMahon.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: I move that section 2.1 be added to schedule 2 to the bill:

“2.1 Section 5 of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

“‘Objectives

“‘5. The objectives of the Greenbelt Plan are,

“‘(a) to establish and maintain in perpetuity a network of permanently protected countryside and open space areas which support the Oak Ridges moraine and the Niagara Escarpment;

“‘(b) to sustain the countryside, rural and small towns and contribute to the economic viability of farming communities;

“‘(c) to preserve agricultural land in perpetuity as a permanent commercial source of food and employment;

“‘(d) to recognize the critical importance of the agriculture sector to the regional economy;

“‘(e) to provide permanent protection to the land base needed to maintain, restore and improve the ecological and hydrological functions of the greenbelt area;

“‘(f) to promote connections between lakes and the Oak Ridges moraine and Niagara Escarpment;

“‘(g) to provide open space and recreational, tourism and cultural heritage opportunities to support the social needs of a rapidly expanding and increasingly urbanized population;

“‘(h) to promote linkages between ecosystems and provincial parks or public lands;

“‘(i) to permanently prevent urbanization or suburban development of the lands designated as protected countryside;

“‘(j) to prohibit any transportation or infrastructure in the Oak Ridges moraine, the protected countryside or the Niagara Escarpment that has an adverse effect on ecological or hydrological functions or agricultural use;

“‘(k) to promote sustainable resource use;

“‘(l) to prohibit uses of land and resources anywhere in the greenbelt area that do not maintain, improve or restore the ecological or hydrological functions of the Oak Ridges moraine, the protected countryside or the Niagara Escarpment;

“‘(m) to maintain the Niagara Escarpment and land in its vicinity as a continuous natural environment;

“‘(n) to foster certainty among landowners, prospective purchasers, agricultural tenants and Ontarians that none of the land in the Oak Ridges moraine, protected countryside or Niagara Escarpment will ever be made available for urban or suburban development or for any use that does not maintain, improve or restore its ecological and hydrological functions or agricultural use;

“‘(o) to ensure human needs are met in a way that minimizes expansion of the total urban and suburban built up area within the Lake Erie lowlands and the Manitoulin-Lake Simcoe ecoregions;

“‘(p) to prevent residential and commercial development associated with employment in the city of Toronto, the region of Peel, the region of York, the region of Durham, the region of Halton and the city of Hamilton from spreading further into other parts of the Lake Erie lowlands and Manitoulin-Lake Simcoe ecoregions;

“‘(q) any other prescribed objectives.’”

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): That was amendment number 6, and the Chair does have a ruling: Committee members, the proposed amendment is out of order because it seeks to amend a section of a parent act that is not before the committee. No debate on my ruling—as Chair, not personally.

We are going to move to amendment number 7. If MPP Shaw wants to begin reading? The Clerk is going to get you the amendment package.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: As is the intention of this bill, and as is the intention of people that are supportive of making sure that the greenbelt is—

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Just read the amendment in, sorry.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I move that section 2.2 be added to schedule 2 to the bill:

“2.2 Subsection 6(1) of the act is amended by adding the following clause:

“‘(b.1) policies specific to the natural heritage and agricultural systems of the greater Golden Horseshoe;’”

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): On amendment number 7, I do have another ruling by the Chair: Committee members, the proposed amendment is out of order because it seeks to amend a section of a parent act that is not before the committee. The Chair’s rulings are—

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Chair?

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Yes, MPP Shaw?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Can I seek unanimous consent to hear the motion?

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): The member can seek unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent among the committee? Seeing none—

Interjection.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Yes, I heard a no.

We’re now going to move on to amendment number 8, by the independent. MPP McMahon.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: I move that section 2.2 be added to schedule 2 to the bill:

“2.2(1) Subsection 10(2) of the act is amended by adding the following clause:

“‘(a.1) consult meaningfully with the national governments of Indigenous nations whose territorial claims overlap with the greenbelt area or whose interests might otherwise be affected by alterations to the Greenbelt Plan, as well as with the band councils of any band whose members belong to those nations;’

“(2) Section 10 of the act is amended by adding the following subsections:

“‘Limitation

“‘(3) Despite subsection (2), the minister shall,

“‘(a) limit consultations with respect to the boundaries of the greenbelt area;

“‘(b) limit consultations with respect to the natural heritage system, the agricultural system, specialty crop areas and prime agricultural land designated in the Greenbelt Plan and with respect to which lands should be added to those designations;

“‘(c) not consider removing any land from the greenbelt area; and

“‘(d) not consider reducing any land that is designated in the Greenbelt Plan as part of the natural heritage system or agricultural system or as a specialty crop area or prime agricultural land to a less protective category.

“‘Purpose

“‘(4) The minister shall only conduct a review under this section if the purpose of the review is to enhance the Greenbelt Plan’s performance as a means to accomplish the objectives set out in section 5.’”

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): On amendment number 8, the Chair does have a ruling again: Committee members, the proposed amendment is out of order because it seeks to amend a section of a parent act that is not before the committee. So it’s ruled out of order.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Chair, can we seek unanimous consent to hear—

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): MPP Shaw has asked for unanimous consent. I heard a no.

Moving now to amendment number—

Interjection.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Sorry about that. We’re going to do amendment 10 first before amendment 9—just an order issue there.

Amendment number 10: MPP Shaw, when you’re ready, you can begin.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Is it 10? It says here the independent is number 10.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Okay, just a second. We’re going to clarify. I apologize. It’s MPP McMahon.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Thank you very much—

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Point of order, Chair?

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Point of order.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: So we’re going back to 9—

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Yes, we’re going to go back to 9. It was just a clerical order problem.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): So we’re going to do amendment number 10 by MPP McMahon, please.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: I move that section 2.3 be added to schedule 2 to the bill:

“2.3(1) Subsection 11(1) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

“‘Amendment to plan

“‘(1) The minister may, in respect of the areas designated as protected countryside in the Greenbelt Plan, propose amendments to the Greenbelt Plan only if the amendments do not have the effect of,

0950

“‘(a) removing any piece of land from the greenbelt area; or

“‘(b) reducing land that is designated in the Greenbelt Plan as part of the natural heritage system or agricultural system or as a specialty crop area or prime agricultural land to a less protective category.’

“(2) Subsection 11(2) of the act is amended by striking out ‘and’ at the end of clause (a) and by adding the following clause:

“‘(a.1) To the national governments of Indigenous nations whose territorial claims overlap with the greenbelt area or whose interests might otherwise be affected by alterations to the Greenbelt Plan and to the band councils of any band whose members belong to those nations; and’”.

That’s it.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Again, committee members, on amendment number 10, I have a Chair ruling: The proposed amendment is out of order because it seeks to amend a section of a parent act that is not before the committee. Therefore, amendment number 10 is ruled out of order.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Chair?

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Yes, MPP Shaw?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I would like to ask for unanimous consent to consider the motion, even though it has been ruled out of order.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): MPP Shaw has moved unanimous consent. I ask the committee—and we’ve heard a no.

We will now move to amendment number 9, which is by the NDP. I’ll get the right paperwork going here. MPP Shaw, when you’re ready.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Again, this amendment is to ensure that no lands will be removed from the greenbelt, only added to—

Interjection.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Okay, sure.

I move that section 2.3 be added to schedule 2 to the bill:

“2.3 Subsection 12(2) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

“‘Limitation

“‘(2) The minister shall not recommend a proposed amendment under clause (1)(a) if the proposed amendment has the effect of removing any lands from the Greenbelt Plan.’”

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Again, I have a ruling. The Chair ruling is: Committee members, the proposed amendment is out of order because it seeks to amend a section of a parent act that is not before the committee on amendment number 9.

MPP Shaw, did you—

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I’m seeking unanimous consent to consider the amendment.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): MPP Shaw is seeking unanimous consent. I heard a no. Amendment number 9 is ruled out of order.

We’re going to move to number 11, under the new section 2.4. I believe it’s MPP McMahon.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: I move that section 2.4 be added to schedule 2 to the bill:

“2.4 Subsection 12(2) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

“‘Limitation

“‘(2) The minister shall not recommend a proposed amendment under clause (1)(a) if the proposed amendment has the effect of,

“‘(a) removing any piece of land from the greenbelt area; or

“‘(b) reducing land that is designated in the Greenbelt Plan as part of the natural heritage system or agricultural system or as a specialty crop area or prime agricultural land to a less protective category.

“‘Purpose

“‘(3) The minister shall only take an action under this section if the purpose of the action is to enhance the Greenbelt Plan’s performance as a means to accomplish the objectives set out in section 5.’”

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): I again have a Chair ruling for the amendment: Committee members, the proposed amendment is out of order because it seeks to amend a section of a parent act that is not before the committee. Therefore, amendment number 11 is ruled out of order.

Moving on to section 2.5, amendment number 12: MPP McMahon.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: I’m busy today.

I move that section 2.5 be added to schedule 2 to the bill:

“2.5(1) Section 13 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:

“‘Same

“‘(5.1) A report under subsection (5) shall not directly or indirectly recommend,

“‘(a) removing any piece of land from the greenbelt area; or

“‘(b) reducing land that is designated in the Greenbelt Plan as part of the natural heritage system or agricultural system or as a specialty crop area or prime agricultural land to a less protective category.’

“(2) Subsection 13(7) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

“‘Limitation

“‘(7) The minister shall not recommend a proposed amendment under subsection (6) if the proposed amendment has the effect of,

“‘(a) removing any piece of land from the greenbelt area; or

“‘(b) reducing land that is designated in the Greenbelt Plan as part of the natural heritage system or agricultural system or as a specialty crop area or prime agricultural land to a less protective category.’”

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): That was amendment number 12, and I have a Chair ruling: Committee members, the proposed amendment is out of order because it seeks to amend a section of a parent act that is not before the committee. Therefore, I rule amendment number 12 out of order.

MPP Shaw?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I’m seeking unanimous consent to consider the amendment.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Unanimous consent is asked by MPP Shaw. I heard a no.

Moving on to amendment number 13 under section 2.6: I believe the independent—MPP McMahon.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: I move that section 2.6 be added to schedule 2 to the bill:

“2.6 Subsection 14(1) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

“‘Decision of LG in C

“‘(1) After considering the recommendations under section 12 or 13, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may approve the proposed amendment, in whole or in part, make modifications and approve the amendment as modified or refuse the amendment, in whole or in part, if the approval does not have the effect of,

“‘(a) removing any piece of land from the greenbelt area; or

“‘(b) reducing land that is designated in the Greenbelt Plan as part of the natural heritage system or agricultural system or as a specialty crop area or prime agricultural land to a less protective category.’”

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): On amendment number 13, again, I have a Chair ruling: Committee members, the proposed amendment is out of order because it seeks to amend a section of a parent act that is not before the committee.

MPP Shaw?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I seek unanimous consent to consider this amendment.

Mr. Matthew Rae: Yes.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): MPP Shaw is asking for unanimous consent—has unanimous consent to have further debate and discussion.

MPP McMahon, would you like to begin?

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Yes, I would love you to consider this not out of order and actually debate and vote on it. It’s just adding more protections to the greenbelt legislation that’s before us, Bill 136, and I really appreciate that.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Further debate? MPP Shaw.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Before I begin, I just wanted to say that I apologize for my lateness this morning. Particularly to MPP Rae: I do not live in downtown Toronto, and I had a very upsetting family emergency—so God forbid the same should occur to you. And it seems to me that we are not to mention the absence or the presence of members for our parliamentary procedure. So I’m disappointed that MPP Rae took advantage of the situation, and I hope that he will consider extending courtesy to his fellow MPPs in the future.

The entirety of this bill was to reverse, as we know, what the government has done, which was to remove protected greenbelt lands without proper consideration and particularly without proper consideration to the environmental impacts of the greenbelt land. Particularly, this amendment addresses the fact that the greenbelt lands are important for our agricultural system.

As we know, we have precious agricultural land that we are losing at a rate of 319 acres per day, something that is not sustainable. That specialty crop areas specifically were removed from the greenbelt area shows a complete lack of consideration for the importance of agriculture in this province. We have been calling for an agricultural impact assessment for years from this government so that, had we done that, this kind of bill would not have been passed in the Legislature.

I also want to point out particularly the idea that natural heritage systems are just that: They’re a system. So removing parts of the greenbelt, when we have waterways and we have systems that are integrated—just as conservation areas consider their protection of these lands as part of an integrated system, I think it’s important that we have an amendment here that specifies our understanding—which I hope the government now has an understanding—of the importance of these lands and the importance of them being an integrated system that we can’t intersect or bisect and expect to function. These are lands that protect us from flooding. It cleans our drinking waters.

This amendment that was put forward by my independent colleague MPP McMahon addresses very specifically that important consideration. I would ask and expect that the government would accept this amendment because it speaks, in my mind, to the intention of Bill 136.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Any further debate or discussion? MPP Rae.

Mr. Matthew Rae: To MPP Shaw, I offer my thoughts to her family during this emergency. However, that is why we have caucus members. I would like to highlight that we are literally in MPP Bell’s riding. And many other caucus members—I know there is division within the NDP caucus right now, but there are caucus members. At least, that’s how we conduct our business on the government side, Chair.

As was mentioned earlier with the members who were here around these amendments, this bill is codifying the greenbelt in legislation. So there will be a very robust process in the future around any changes any future government were even to consider—again, the only one currently within the political world of Ontario considering any changes to the greenbelt is Bonnie Crombie, mayor of Mississauga, front-runner for the Liberal leadership race. But they would be codified in legislation, so it would have to come to committee. It would have to be debated in the House again for a certain amount of time. So we’re recommending we vote against this amendment.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Thank you, MPP Rae.

I will just encourage all members not to speak of another member’s—

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Absence.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): —absence—I was going to say “attendance”—going forward.

Is there any further debate or discussion on amendment number 13. MPP Shaw?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Yes, I would just like to, for the record, say that the “sorry, not sorry” comments from MPP Rae are not acceptable to me, and I’d like that on the record.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Any further debate or discussion on amendment number 13? Seeing none, are the members ready to vote? Okay. MPP Shaw?

Ms. Sandy Shaw: A 20-minute recess, please.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): MPP Shaw has asked for a 20-minute recess, and that’s allowed under standing order 131(a). Thank you.

The committee recessed from 1003 to 1023.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): We’re going to resume the meeting of the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy, resuming clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 136.

We are about to vote on amendment 13. So I will—

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Recorded vote.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): MPP Shaw has asked for a recorded vote, so there will be a recorded vote on amendment 13.

Ayes

McMahon, Shaw.

Nays

Coe, Grewal, Kusendova-Bashta, Pang, Rae, Sabawy.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): I declare amendment 13 lost.

We’re going to move on to amendment number 14. MPP McMahon, if you would begin, please.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: I move that section 2.7 be added to schedule 2 to the bill:

“2.7 Subsection 16(1) of the act is repealed and the following is substituted:

“‘Zoning orders

“‘(1) The minister may make orders exercising any of the powers conferred upon the minister under section 47 of the Planning Act in respect of the areas designated as protected countryside in the Greenbelt Plan if the order,

“‘(a) does not have the effect of,

“‘(i) removing any piece of land from the greenbelt area, or

“‘(ii) reducing land that is designated in the Greenbelt Plan as part of the natural heritage system or agricultural system or as a specialty crop area or prime agricultural land to a less protective category;

“‘(b) does not have an adverse effect on ecological and hydrological functions or agricultural use of any part of the Oak Ridges moraine, protected countryside or on the Niagara Escarpment or on the lands to which the order applies; and

“‘(c) does not foster uncertainty as to the fact that land which is presently in Oak Ridges moraine, protected countryside or Niagara Escarpment will never be made available for urban or suburban development or for any use that does not maintain, improve or restore its ecological and hydrological functions or agricultural use.’”

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Again, the Chair has a ruling: Committee members, the proposed amendment is out of order because it seeks to amend a section of a parent act that is not before the committee.

Moving on, amendment number 14 is out of order, and we’re going to go to schedule 2, section 3. Is there any debate or discussion? Seeing none, are the members ready to vote?

Mr. Matthew Rae: Recorded vote.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): A recorded vote is asked for by MPP Rae.

Ayes

Coe, Grewal, Kusendova-Bashta, Pang, Rae, Sabawy.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): All those opposed, please raise your hands. Seeing none, I declare schedule 2, section 3, carried.

Moving on to schedule 2, section 4, I believe we have amendment number 15 by the government side. MPP Kusendova-Bashta, please.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: I move that the French version of section 4 of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by striking out “l’aliénation” in subclause 19(1)(f)(ii) of the Greenbelt Act, 2005 and substituting “la disposition”.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Any debate, discussion? MPP Kusendova-Bashta, please.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: The proposed motion would ensure that the French version of Bill 136 is consistent internally and with other legislation in terms of how certain concepts are translated.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Any further debate or discussion? Seeing none, are the members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hands. All those opposed, please raise your hands. I declare amendment number 15 carried.

Moving to amendment 16: I go to MPP Kusendova-Bashta again.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: I move that the French version of section 4 of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by striking out “le fait d’accorder, réellement ou éventuellement, une approbation, de délivrer un permis, de donner un ordre ou de prendre un arrêté, une ordonnance, un décret ou un autre acte à l’égard de terres” in subclause 19(1)(f)(iii) of the Greenbelt Act, 2005 and substituting “le fait d’accorder une approbation, de délivrer un permis, de donner un ordre ou de prendre un arrêté, une ordonnance, un décret ou un autre acte, réellement ou éventuellement, à l’égard de terres”.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Any debate, discussion? MPP Kusendova-Bashta.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: Same rationale as the previous one.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Any further debate or discussion? Seeing none, are the members ready to vote? All those in favour of amendment number 16, please raise your hands. All those opposed, please raise your hands. I declare amendment 16 carried.

Going to schedule 2, section 4, as amended: Is there any debate and discussion? Seeing none, are the members ready to vote? All those—yes, MPP Rae?

Mr. Matthew Rae: We have amendment 17, Chair.

Interjections.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): I believe we have it in a different schedule. Schedule 4, section 2, has amendment 17 in my papers. Do you want to double-check? That’s good? Okay. I just wanted to make sure we all have the same paperwork.

So, shall schedule 2, section 4, as amended, carry?

Mr. Matthew Rae: Recorded vote.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): A recorded vote.

Ayes

Coe, Grewal, Kusendova-Bashta, McMahon, Pang, Rae, Sabawy, Shaw.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): I declare schedule 2, section 4, as amended, carried.

There are no amendments to schedule 2, sections 5 and 6. I therefore propose that we bundle sections 5 and 6. Is there agreement?

Interjection.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Pardon me? MPP Kusendova-Bashta.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: Point of order, Chair: When are we going to consider government motion 17?

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): It’s in schedule 4.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: Oh, okay.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): I know. The numbers are—yes, schedule 4.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: My apologies. Thank you.

1030

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): That’s okay. All right, so everybody’s okay with the bundling of schedule 2 for sections 5 and 6?

Any debate or discussion? No? Are the members ready to vote?

Mr. Matthew Rae: Recorded vote.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): A recorded vote is asked for.

Ayes

Coe, Grewal, Kusendova-Bashta, McMahon, Pang, Rae, Sabawy.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): All those opposed? I declare schedule 2, sections 5 and 6, carried.

Shall schedule 2, as amended, carry?

Mr. Matthew Rae: Recorded vote.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Any debate or discussion? Seeing none, members are ready to vote. A recorded vote is asked for.

Ayes

Coe, Grewal, Kusendova-Bashta, McMahon, Pang, Rae, Sabawy.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): All those opposed? Seeing none, I declare schedule 2, as amended, carried.

Moving to schedule 3, there are no amendments. I therefore propose that we bundle sections 1 and 2, if there’s agreement. Is there agreement? Thank you.

Is there any debate on schedule 3, sections 1 and 2? Seeing none, members are prepared to vote?

Mr. Matthew Rae: Recorded vote.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): A recorded vote is asked for.

Ayes

Coe, Grewal, Kusendova-Bashta, McMahon, Pang, Rae, Sabawy.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): All those opposed, please raise your hands. I declare schedule 3, sections 1 and 2, carried.

Shall schedule 3 carry? Is there any debate or discussion? Seeing none, are the members ready to vote?

Mr. Matthew Rae: Recorded vote.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): A recorded vote is asked for.

Ayes

Coe, Grewal, Kusendova-Bashta, McMahon, Pang, Rae, Sabawy.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Any opposed? Schedule 3 is declared carried.

Moving to schedule 4, section 1: Is there any debate or discussion? Seeing none, are the members ready to vote? All those in favour of schedule 4, section 1—

Mr. Matthew Rae: Recorded vote.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): —with a recorded vote—please raise your hands.

Ayes

Coe, Grewal, Kusendova-Bashta, McMahon, Pang, Rae, Sabawy.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): All those opposed, please raise your hands. I declare schedule 4, section 1, carried.

Moving to schedule 4, section 2, I believe we have amendment number 17. MPP Kusendova-Bashta.

Ms. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: I move that the French version of section 2 of schedule 4 to the bill be amended by striking out “l’aliénation” in subclause 20(1)(d)(ii) of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 and substituting “la disposition”.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Is there any debate or discussion?

Ms. Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: The motion would ensure that the French version of Bill 136 is consistent internally and with other legislation in terms of how certain concepts are translated.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Any further debate or discussion? Are the members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hands. All those opposed, please raise your hands. I declare amendment number 17 carried.

Shall schedule 4, section 2, as amended, carry? Any debate or discussion? Seeing none, are members ready to vote?

Mr. Matthew Rae: Recorded vote.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): A recorded vote is asked for.

Ayes

Coe, Grewal, Kusendova-Bashta, McMahon, Pang, Rae, Sabawy, Shaw.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): All those opposed, please raise your hands. There are none. It is carried.

There are no amendments to schedule 4, sections 3 to 6. I therefore propose that we bundle sections 3 to 6. Is there agreement?

Seeing agreement, is there any debate on schedule 4, sections 3 to 6? Seeing none, are the members ready to vote?

Mr. Matthew Rae: Recorded vote.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): A recorded vote is asked for.

Ayes

Coe, Grewal, Kusendova-Bashta, McMahon, Pang, Rae, Sabawy.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): All those opposed, please raise your hands. Seeing none, I declare schedule 4, sections 3 to 6, carried.

Shall schedule 4, as amended, carry? Any debate or discussion? Seeing none, are the members ready to vote?

Mr. Matthew Rae: Recorded vote.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): A recorded vote on schedule 4, as amended.

Ayes

Coe, Grewal, Kusendova-Bashta, McMahon, Pang, Rae, Sabawy.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): I declare schedule 4, as amended, carried.

We’re now going to return to sections 1, 2 and 3 of Bill 136. Shall section 1 carry? Any debate?

Mr. Matthew Rae: Recorded vote.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Yes. No debate or discussion? Are members ready to vote?

Ayes

Coe, Grewal, Kusendova-Bashta, McMahon, Pang, Rae, Sabawy.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): All those opposed, please raise your hands? Seeing none, I declare section 1 carried.

Moving to section 2: Any debate or discussion? Seeing none, are the members ready to vote?

Mr. Matthew Rae: Recorded vote.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Recorded vote, again.

Ayes

Coe, Grewal, Kusendova-Bashta, McMahon, Pang, Rae, Sabawy.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): All those opposed, please raise your hands. I declare section 2 carried.

Moving on to section 3: Any debate or discussion? Seeing none, are the members ready to vote?

Mr. Matthew Rae: Recorded vote.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): A recorded vote.

Ayes

Coe, Grewal, Kusendova-Bashta, McMahon, Pang, Rae, Sabawy.

 

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): All those opposed, please raise your hands. Seeing none, I declare section 3 carried.

Going to the last page: Shall the title of the bill carry? Any debate or discussion? All those in favour, please—

Mr. Matthew Rae: Recorded vote.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): —raise your hands. A recorded vote.

Ayes

Coe, Grewal, Kusendova-Bashta, McMahon, Pang, Rae, Sabawy, Shaw.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): I declare the title of the bill carried.

Shall Bill 136, as amended, carry—

Ms. Sandy Shaw: Debate, Chair?

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Yes, MPP Shaw, sorry. I couldn’t get it out fast enough.

Ms. Sandy Shaw: I didn’t want to miss the opportunity. Thank you very much.

I want to talk about Bill 136 so that we are all aware of why we are here. It took an Auditor General report and an Integrity Commissioner report to determine that the way in which the greenbelt lands were removed was deemed to have been preferential treatment to certain insiders and speculators. It’s a matter of public record that these same people were donors to the PC Party and friends of the Premier who sat at the Premier’s family function. This is why we are here, and now, as we know, in an unprecedented—I think it’s a first in the province of Ontario that this government is under RCMP investigation. So this bill is a very important bill to, in some way, restore what was lost to the people of the province of Ontario.

But having said that, this bill is important: It restores most, but not all, of the previous protections for the greenbelt lands, and certainly, for the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve, those protections have not all been put in place. I would like to say—let’s be clear—that the bill doesn’t restore the Central Pickering Development Plan and its associated ministerial zonings which protect the DRAP lands. To get things back to where they were, all of these protections should be restored. We moved amendments here that were either ruled out of order or voted down by the government that would have restored all of the protections for the DRAP.

I think that this still leaves the government open to be able to continue to attack farmland, wetlands, natural heritage, conservation authorities. And I would say that when the minister was here yesterday, I asked very specifically why there are still provisions in this legislation that would allow a process for removals. And so, if we are looking at protecting these greenbelt lands—as the Premier has said and the minister has said in the Legislature that no government is going to protect the greenbelt more than them—it’s really concerning that there continues to be a provision in this legislation that allows for removals.

We’re concerned this built-in ability will signal to municipalities and speculators that they may have future opportunities to develop this precious protected farmland, because I don’t imagine that they are going to go away easily. The minister didn’t really have a clear answer, in my opinion, as to why there was a process for removals.

What I find really upsetting in all of this is that we are now passing a statute, a law, that will reverse the repeal of another statute that the government did. It used to be that laws had a certain level of respect, I would say, and so I think—not only what was lost in terms of the greenbelt heritage, our natural heritage and waterways protections; what was lost was the idea that this government can use its vast majority to overturn legislation at their will.

1040

I also would really like to make clear, the fact that this committee, that the government, did not allow delegations to come to speak to this bill is really disturbing. I mean, yesterday, we had the galleries packed to overflowing. People were in the hall who wanted to come and speak to this. These are people that have worked really hard in this community, average folks that protested and rallied to show how much they cared about the greenbelt lands and how much they wanted to talk to their government. The fact that this committee and this government did not give people an opportunity to have their voices heard is really upsetting. I have to say, you have a majority. Everything that you put forward is going to pass. So what would have hurt us to hear from these people that have put their heart and soul into this, that came on their own time to sit here, to do research and to do something that they should have expected their government to do, which is to protect things that are important to them?

This committee will not be surprised and the government will not be surprised that there’s a healthy dose of cynicism and lack of trust in this government, not only because of the inability to come and just share their feelings and share the work that they have done—but that you still have a process for removal of lands in this bill and that you have not restored all of the protections to the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve.

Finally, what I want to say—we have seen this government pass or move all kinds of, what I would call, frivolous legislation. Right now, we have before the House the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act, which, right in the bill, gives the government immunity from breach of trust, from malfeasance, from all kinds of things that you should expect that the government would never engage in. But you’ve given yourself protection in your actions when it comes to Ontario Place and, I imagine, the Science Centre.

So if this government has learned the error of their ways—by removing the greenbelt, by acting in a way that has invited an RCMP investigation, that has shown to have given preferential treatment to your insider friends, that has shown a disregard for the environment—why would you not allow these amendments to have passed that were just to strengthen the bill in the way which you are saying that the spirit of the bill is intended, which is to restore the greenbelt lands? Why would you have not passed those amendments or voted against consideration when they were moved out of order? And why are you giving yourself—on the one hand, you’re saying, “We won’t do this again,” while there is a bill before the House that’s saying you’re going to do precisely the same thing. I mean the bill even says that the minister can issue MZOs herself. We’ve gotten this mess because of all these MZOs—that also have been shown to have been given preferential treatment. I mean, it needs to be said that more MZOs—18—were issued to guests at a Premier’s family function—18, to guests. That’s more than the Liberals did in their entire time in office, and yet here you are, extending the ability for another minister—not the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, which is usually the case—an infrastructure minister, to issue MZOs and to bypass any environmental assessment protections that we have at Ontario Place. Ontario Place: It’s an ecosystem. You’re going to remove 850 trees. There will be no environmental assessment.

So while this bill is important—this bill was something that you were forced to do. You didn’t come to the table willingly. This government had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, with the threat of an RCMP investigation, prosecution and charges to bring this bill forward.

The bill is supportable, but if we are to take you at your word, you would have accepted those amendments, you would not have had a process for removals and you would have returned all of the protections to these lands. Finally, you would not be, right now, in the House, considering a bill that you will likely pass, that does exactly the same thing: shut out people and their ability to talk about what’s important to them, shut out the ability of people to go through a proper process when it comes to amending zoning orders and zoning in the province, like you did with the urban boundary expansions.

So I just want to say, I wish, also, that I could trust this government, but it’s been my experience that this government seems to say one thing and do another, and their bills often reflect that.

With that, Chair, I thank you, and I cede my time.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Any further debate or discussion? MPP McMahon.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Well, I’ll just say it’s good news this bill is here; it’s unfortunate it has to be here, because it didn’t have to be, in my opinion, and I do feel we did delay and kind of distract from doing great things—other things—in the past year. It’s been a whole year delay when we could have just been focusing on, putting all our undivided attention into the housing crisis and every other crisis that’s happening right now.

The speed at which the committees are coming, the bills are coming—I’m an action girl; I’m all for getting it done, but honestly, you must be exhausted. I know the Clerks and the legislative lawyers and counsel and everyone else who works in committee—it’s honestly like an inhumane speed it’s coming at. We’re having the debate and then, an hour later, the amendments are due. It’s robbing people of their democratic right to give testimony, as well.

Believe me, I think that things can move a lot quicker here, but we have things—as my interim leader pointed out yesterday—three and a half years for a defibrillator bill to be passed. So how does this get passed and moved forward so quickly and then something like that doesn’t?

And then, last but very least is, hopefully, at least once in the four years I’m here with you—because I am trying to work collegially and co-operatively with you—I will get one amendment passed. But I did not get any so far. Especially the one that allows to add more land to the greenbelt, which is what—why not? For a lot of my amendments, I’m like, “Why not?”

Anyway—and we won’t mention my private member’s bill. That could have been passed. And now we’re having trouble with flooding in, I think, Essex that my private member’s bill might have helped, but that’s another topic for another day. Thank you for listening.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Any further debate or discussion? Seeing none, are the members ready to vote on Bill 136, as amended—

Mr. Matthew Rae: Recorded vote.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): And a recorded vote is asked for.

Ayes

Coe, Grewal, Kusendova-Bashta, McMahon, Pang, Rae, Sabawy, Shaw.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): All those opposed? Nobody is left. Shall Bill 136, as amended—carried.

Interjection.

The Chair (Ms. Laurie Scott): Sorry, as in, I’m saying it’s carried.

Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Any debate, discussion? We’re all good with that. Are the members ready to vote? All those in favour of reporting Bill 136, as amended? All those opposed? Okay, I will report Bill 136, as amended, back to the House. Thank you very much.

There being no further business, this committee now stands adjourned, with no other date scheduled.

The committee adjourned at 1050.

 

 

 

 

 

 

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HERITAGE, INFRASTRUCTURE AND CULTURAL POLICY

Chair / Présidente

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock PC)

 

Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong (London–Fanshawe ND)

 

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong (London–Fanshawe ND)

Mr. Lorne Coe (Whitby PC)

Mr. Hardeep Singh Grewal (Brampton East / Brampton-Est PC)

Mr. Joel Harden (Ottawa Centre / Ottawa-Centre ND)

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

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon (Beaches–East York L)

Mr. Billy Pang (Markham–Unionville PC)

Mr. Matthew Rae (Perth–Wellington PC)

Mr. Sheref Sabawy (Mississauga–Erin Mills PC)

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock PC)

 

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Ms. Sandy Shaw (Hamilton West–Ancaster–Dundas / Hamilton-Ouest–Ancaster–Dundas ND)

 

Clerk / Greffier

Mr. Isaiah Thorning

 

Staff / Personnel

Mr. Mark Spakowski, legislative counsel