750 SPADINA AVENUE ASSOCIATION ACT, 1997
CONTENTS
Wednesday 4 June 1997
4588 Bathurst Act, 1997, Bill Pr74, Ms Bassett
Mr Marcel Beaubien
Mr Gerald Ross
Mr Joseph Steiner
750 Spadina Avenue Association Act, 1997, Bill Pr75, Ms Bassett
Mr Marcel Beaubien
Mr Harvey Kotler
Mr Gerald Ross
STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS
Chair / Président: Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)
Mr TobyBarrett (Norfolk PC)
Mr MarcelBeaubien (Lambton PC)
Mr GillesBisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)
Mr TonyClement (Brampton South / -Sud PC)
Mr CarlDeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mr JohnGerretsen (Kingston and The Islands / Kingston et Les Îles L)
Mr ErnieHardeman (Oxford PC); parliamentary assistant
to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Mrs HelenJohns (Huron PC)
Mr GerardKennedy (York South / -Sud L)
Mr TonyMartin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Mr TonyRuprecht (Parkdale L)
Mr DerwynShea (High Park-Swansea PC)
Mr FrankSheehan (Lincoln PC)
Mr BillVankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington PC)
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Mr MonteKwinter (Wilson Heights L)
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Rosemarie Singh
Staff / Personnel: Ms Laura Hopkins, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1009 in committee room 1.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
The Chair (Mr Toby Barrett): Good morning, and welcome all to this regular meeting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills for today, Wednesday, June 4, 1997.
We have a number of new committee members. We also have a new gavel this morning. We will have a proper gavel at our next meeting. This committee has a new clerk, Rosemarie Singh, sitting next to me on my right and a new legislative counsel, Laura Hopkins, and there has also been the appointment of a new parliamentary assistant for this committee representing municipal affairs and the government, MPP Ernie Hardeman on my left.
You have two pages of agenda. Two private bills today, very similar bills as I read them, but separate bills. Our first order of business, however, is organization and under that first order of business our task is the election of a Vice-Chair. Are there any nominations?
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Chairman, I will move that Mr Marcel Beaubien be appointed Vice-Chair of the committee.
The Chair: Are there any further nominations for the position of Vice-Chair? Seeing no further nominations, I understand a vote would not be necessary and I declare MPP Marcel Beaubien Vice-Chair of the standing committee on regulations and private bills.
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I'd like to have a chance to vote on this, though, that my name be associated with the Vice-Chair because I think he's going to do a good job and you are now exempting me from doing that.
The Chair: I would say all in favour and, Mr Ruprecht, I would say this is unanimous but I think you've been recorded in Hansard.
Mr Shea: I'm defending your ruling, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Yeah, right, and congratulations to Mr Beaubien. Motion carried. I declare this order of business closed.
The next order of business under agenda item 1 is subcommittee membership. This is our subcommittee to deal with any committee business, meetings usually held in between meetings.
Mr Shea: Chairman, I move that Mr Ernie Hardeman replace Mr Gilchrist on the subcommittee on committee business.
The Chair: Okay, we have received a motion. All those in favour? Opposed? I declare that motion carried. The subcommittee stands with this change in membership. I declare the business of organization closed. This item of business is closed.
4588 BATHURST ACT, 1997
Consideration of Bill Pr74, An Act respecting 4588 Bathurst.
The Chair: The next item of business is bills, and our first order of business is Bill Pr74. I would ask both the sponsor and the applicants for this bill to please approach the witness table.
Apparently there has to be some discussion with respect to amendments, so the request is that we have a five-minute recess to pin down the wording on these amendments.
Mr Shea: Agreed.
The Chair: Recess for five minutes.
The committee recessed from 1015 to 1019.
The Chair: I wish to thank the committee for bearing with us and I trust issues have been resolved. What we normally do now is we ask the sponsor and the applicants to introduce themselves and make opening remarks. We do throw the discussion of the bill out to the committee. We go in rotation. I would now ask MPP Marcel Beaubien, who is standing in for sponsor MPP Isabel Bassett, for any brief opening remarks.
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): It certainly is a pleasure for me to present Bill Pr74 on behalf of my colleague Isabel Bassett. Bill Pr74 deals with 4588 Bathurst. The two Jewish community centres would like the province to re-establish the centres as tax-exempt properties. Until bankruptcy forced the centres to reorganize into two separate bodies, the Jewish community centres had tax-exempt status.
The Crombie panel recommended that the province treat all properties equally and offer grants in lieu of taxes as an alternative to tax exemptions. Crombie advised against the patchwork quilt of property classifications which currently exists.
The directors of the two centres, Bill Emery and Morris Zbar, are aware that the Minister of Finance has not made any decisions regarding property tax exemptions and may adopt Crombie's recommendation in the minister's second property tax bill due this summer.
At this point in time I would like the presenters to introduce themselves.
Mr Gerald Ross: My name is Gerald Ross. I'm the head of the legal committee of the Jewish Federation of Greater Toronto. On my left is Joseph Steiner, who is the president-designate of the Jewish Federation of Greater Toronto. On my right is Michael Kerbel, who is president of Bathurst Jewish Centre, which operates the north JCC. Behind me, in the first row, Mr Zbar, who is with the Jewish Federation of Greater Toronto as a staff person and the person in charge. Behind him we have Harvey Kotler, who is the vice-president of 750 Spadina Avenue Association, which I think the world knows as the Bloor JCC, and beside him we have Bill Emery, who is the director of the Bloor JCC.
From 1918 on, when the organization was known as the YMHA of Toronto, through 1951 when the name was changed to Jewish Community Centre of Toronto, and continuing up to the present date, the Jewish Community Centre has been the central organization within the Jewish community for outreach and for the provision of programs which are funded by the Jewish Federation of Greater Toronto. It was an active organization, it was vital, it flourished through the years, and indeed, in another form, flourishes today.
Unfortunately, through the dirty 1980s, if I can call them that, expansion took place overoptimistically. There were financial difficulties encountered which led to what we consider to be a massive rescue operation by the Jewish community in Toronto to the extent that approximately $15 million was pumped into the Jewish Community Centre and the Jewish Community Centre was restructured through a proposal in bankruptcy.
As a result of that restructuring, two new entities came: one, 4588 Bathurst Street, and the other, 750 Spadina Avenue Association. These are both non-profit corporations that were put in place for the purpose of acquiring title to the former two branches of the Jewish Community Centre of Toronto. There was a third branch that did not survive because it was not necessary for community purposes just north of Steeles Avenue and it was lost through this, but we were fortunate enough, through an awful lot of effort on the part of the community, to save the two JCCs. While one is formally 4588 Bathurst and the other is formally 750 Spadina, I think to the person on the street they are still the Bloor JCC and the Bathurst JCC, or for those of us who are old enough, the Bloor Y and the Bathurst Y.
The Jewish Community Centre of Toronto had an exemption from real property taxes under the Jewish Community Centre Act, 1951. That statute was specific to the organization and was lost when the proposal in bankruptcy was completed. The purpose of our petition for the two bills is merely to replace the tax-exempt status that was lost by the Jewish Community Centre. It's business as usual.
In recognition of the importance of this -- and it is vitally important for the Jewish community in Toronto -- Metro council, the city of Toronto and the city of North York have all passed resolutions in support of these bills. Without these bills, two centres serving 15,000 people may well be forced to close.
The purpose of our being here today is to ask the Legislature to support the tradition -- the note to me says 45 years of excellent services to the Jewish community and other users, but it's at this point closer to 80 years of continuous service, and that's why we are here.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ross. Do any of the other applicants wish any comments before we go to questions?
Mr Joseph Steiner: I don't think so, Mr Chair. Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any other interested parties present who wish to make comment? Seeing none, I now will turn to the parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs, Ernie Hardeman, for any comments on behalf of the government.
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Very simply the government, upon reviewing the application, would register no objection.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hardeman. That's a very brief comment. Mr Hardeman is replacing a fairly long-standing PA to this committee, Derwyn Shea, and you have a little different style. We have Mr Shea over here and there may be some questions from Mr Shea. I would now throw this open to the committee.
Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I want to thank the committee for its indulgence in allowing me to make some comments. I'm not a member of this committee but I have a very strong and long-lasting interest in this issue.
The one thing I really want to highlight is that nothing really has changed for the people who are being served by these two community centres. Nothing has been changed with the goals, aims and activities of these two community centres and nothing has really been changed with the leadership.
What had happened, as has been stated by Mr Ross, was that because of financial difficulties and the bankruptcy proceedings, there had to be a restructuring, an accommodation with the bank, an accommodation with those others who had been providing financial support, and as a result two new legal entities have emerged. All these bills really do is to recognize that the old legal entity has been wound up because of the bankruptcy, the new legal entities are in place and the benefits that accrue to the old legal entities should be passed on to the new.
Nothing else has changed. Everybody involved is the same, the people being served are the same and the programs that are being served are the same. I am very supportive of this, and as you've already heard, the municipalities that might have a great interest in getting this revenue have certainly supported this, and Metro, North York and the city of Toronto have all given their approval and support to these bills. I would urge members of committee to do the same. Thank you.
1030
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): I have no problem supporting the act, but I have a question. Are you putting the province in the position of being a party to a bankruptcy?
Mr Ross: No, sir, not at all. The bankruptcy is now over by -- it was a proposal rather than a bankruptcy. It's been over for two years. Creditors I think achieved almost 100 cents on the dollar right across the board, and I can see no embarrassment, no question at all as to the province's involvement. If so, we would not be here.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Marcel Beaubien): Any further comments or questions from committee members? I don't know whether the parliamentary assistant is going to let us off the hook or not.
Mr Hardeman: The reason the government does not register any objections -- we share some of the concerns Mr Sheehan just expressed, that this is not a party to a bankruptcy or a bailout for anyone, that it relates strictly to what Mr Kwinter referred to, that these exemptions would have been in existence had the transaction not taken place. We feel it appropriate to register no objection to this bill as it just allows the community centres to be tax-exempt under the new structure the same way they were under the old structure. They are still serving the same people and the same needs.
I would have one question that's not related from the ministry perspective but from my own involvement over the years with the municipal tax structure. I wondered why the bill to exempt the taxes of the past, as opposed to having communities just write off those taxes, relates to the retroactivity of the bill as opposed to starting it today and having the municipalities write off the taxes of the past?
Mr Ross: That's a difficult question to answer. I believe that's something neither of the municipalities have at any time expressed a desire to do. It may be an interplay between the municipalities and the province, with the province being in charge of assessment and the municipalities reaping the benefit of that. Certainly it has never been proposed to us as a method of proceeding.
Mr Hardeman: The other thing I want to say, and obviously all the community here, the municipal governments involved and the school boards involved, have supported this bill, so it's again for that reason we would not register objection, but I would like to put on the record the comments that were made by Mr Beaubien about the assessment changes that may or may not be forthcoming and that the impact of those would again affect these properties the same as other properties and would then supersede this bill. I wouldn't want, through this discussion, the applicants to think this bill would then override future legislation from the province and avoid the realities of what will happen to all properties if assessment reform is to be put forward.
Mr Ross: I think the applicants are trying to be in the same position they would have been in had this not occurred. We're not looking for any treatment or promises behind what is really a technical continuation of what was.
Mr Hardeman: Thank you very much. It would be our position too that we are prepared not to object to this bill based on the fact that it will take you right back or put you where you would have been, had these actions not taken place.
Mr Shea: Mr Ross's comments and response to the question by the parliamentary assistant give me some comfort and simply confirm what I believe to be the case as we began the hearings. Setting aside this application but picking up on comments implicit in the statements of the parliamentary assistant, I have to register my personal opinion that at some point I think municipalities in this province will have to be empowered to give grants in lieu.
Metropolitan Toronto, and let me speak for the city of Toronto particularly, has truly become over years just patchworked to death. If we ever took a map of all the tax-exempt properties across the municipality it would be astonishing in what it represents in terms of community good. But I think in most cases the broader community doesn't know the extent to which that's being done, and in some ways I think we save an awful lot of difficulty. We allow the municipalities to respond more quickly to changing circumstances if we encourage the finance minister to move towards that change in finances that indeed would eliminate the cumbersome process we have now and allow municipalities to deal with grants in lieu.
I'm mindful of this particularly. I guess because of my grey hair I can remember the YMHA at the corner: 750 is one that strikes me as one case in point. It is prime commercial property, indeed it is prime residential property, and there is no argument on my part on anything except that the services offered from that facility have been of the highest order and of the greatest need to the community -- not a question about that.
Somewhere along the line, and we've all been through this, things may change. Something additional may want to happen in terms of development and so forth. I think instead of having to move back and forth into the parliamentary process, the municipality has to have that ability to respond with greater flexibility and negotiate with the community where there are changes. So I would hope, picking up on the comments of the parliamentary assistant, there will be changes brought forward in terms of the entire municipal financing structure and along the lines, I would think, that David Crombie has recommended. I think that would be much more helpful to everybody involved. It may have a difficult transition period, but I think in the long run it will be helpful to us all. In the meantime, without any reservations at all, I support the bill before us today.
The Vice-Chair: Are there any further questions from committee members either to the applicants or to the parliamentary assistant?
Mr Ruprecht: Mr Shea is making a good point. He is reiterating what we've been saying on this side for a long time, that this whole process needs restructuring. I've talked to you about this, Mr Chair, and I would only hope that these comments will be taken seriously and that this process will indeed be sped up and that we don't have to come back here time and time again, year after year for 15 years and listen to some of the same applicants. I would only hope that these comments will be taken seriously.
The Vice-Chair: I have heard these sentiments from other members of the committee as well.
1040
Mr Hardeman: In answer to both Mr Shea and Mr Ruprecht, I would point out that I have a letter that was sent from the Minister of Finance in comment to inquiry on this bill. He suggested they register no objections. However, we suggest it may be useful not to proceed with these private bills until the Who Does What panel has considered the exempt properties issue.
As you know, David Crombie in his third letter included exempt properties as one of the items on the continuing agenda, to be exempted in the near future. That points out that the minister is looking at this issue. We would hope they would continue looking at that and solve this problem, to not require this type of process to deal with the issue.
We are prepared to look beyond the second paragraph of the letter, suggesting that it not be done, that we proceed with this bill and that this organization carry on doing the good work in the community while we address the other issue. Hopefully, that will come in the very near future.
The Chair: Are there any comments from the applicants?
Mr Ross: Only to thank this committee for hearing us and for understanding the reason why we're here.
The Chair: At this point I will ask the committee, are the members ready to vote? I understand there are some amendments to Bill Pr74, An Act respecting 4588 Bathurst, sponsor Mr Marcel Beaubien, MPP.
Are there any amendments to section 1?
Mr Ruprecht: I have some amendments. I am delighted to make these amendments, knowing full well that the Jewish Federation of Greater Toronto has done a great job. I'd like to be associated with these amendments in terms of speeding this process up so it hopefully will not be the last organization or association or cultural group which will get these exemptions.
I move that the definition of "Metro school board" in section 1 of this bill be struck out.
That's the first amendment.
The Chair: All those in favour of this amendment?
Mr Hardeman: I have a question on the amendment. I need an explanation of why we are striking out a definition. For the record, I think it relates to what the next amendment may or may not do, but for me to vote on striking out a definition, I need some clarification as to why I would want to support such an amendment.
The Chair: I'll ask legislative counsel.
Mr Ruprecht: Yes, that's a good point. We'll get legal counsel to do the footwork.
Ms Laura Hopkins: This is a technical amendment needed for drafting reasons. It relates to a substantive amendment that will be made to section 4. What it does is replace the reference to the Metro school board with a reference to school boards generally. It will work both in the current regime of school board governance and also in the regime that will exist under Bill 104 changes.
Mr Hardeman: If the definition change were approved, the other amendment not approved would not change the impact of the bill? The bill could proceed, changing this definition and then not approving the other amendment?
Ms Hopkins: I need a minute.
Mr Hardeman: In all fairness, I don't want to be caught voting for half of the change and then find the other half does not succeed and the bill is not operable.
Ms Hopkins: The two amendments are related. If this amendment were to pass and the next amendment were not to pass, the next amendment would be a little more difficult to understand.
Mr Sheehan: Why would this amendment not include this change from "Metro school boards" to just "school boards"?
Ms Hopkins: It's not necessary to define "school board."
Mr Hardeman: I would seek unanimous consent to deal with the amendment in section 2 prior to the amendment in section 1.
Interjection: Section 4?
Mr Hardeman: Section 4, yes.
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed. We will stand down section 1 and we will go to section 4. Are there any amendments to section 4?
Mr Ruprecht: I have an amendment here. I move that subsections 4(1) and (2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"School board resolution
"4(1) If a tax cancellation bylaw is in effect under section 2, a school board entitled to share in the assessment of the land for school purposes may by resolution direct the city to cancel the taxes payable on the land for the purposes of the board.
"Notice
"(2) A school board that passes a resolution under subsection (1) shall forward a copy of it to the city and to any other school board entitled to share in the assessment."
The Chair: I'm not sure which should go first. I would ask for any discussion on this amendment.
Mr Hardeman: I'm not sure whether it's discussion or a question on process. My personal knowledge is that we've been having considerable discussions in the Who Does What process as it relates to education funding and whether that will remain a local property tax or become a provincially funded formula.
The discussion presently on the table is to have a portion of education funded by property tax that will be set on a provincial mill rate that the local municipalities would collect, forward to the school board and then the province would pay for the remaining portions of education. If that proposal were to proceed, I'm not sure at that point in time one could identify the portion of the property tax that was going for education that would be in the realm of the school boards to forgive, because they would be forgiving a provincial tax. As soon as they forgave it, the province would have to pick up the difference between what they were going to get and what they end up getting, so it would not be a local tax. I'm not sure it would be appropriate to give them the authority to do that in the bill.
Having said that, I recognize that private bills are bills that deal with policies that are in place at the time the bill is put forward. I would have no objection to that being put in as it applies now, recognizing that a public bill that deals with funding of education in the province would override this bill as soon as that was implemented. At that point in time I'm not sure the new school boards would have the authority to forgive what in essence would be a provincial tax collected on their behalf.
I point that out as a concern I would have, as this section would only apply after the change had been made. I'm concerned that it would not be appropriate after the change was made. It's kind of between a proverbial rock and a hard place in timing as to how that could be done. If it becomes a locally collected education tax that was collected on behalf of the province, I'm not sure that local school boards would have the ability to pass a resolution and have that tax not collected.
Mr Kwinter: If I can be helpful, there are no provisions in this Bill Pr74 that are prospective, that is, anticipating changes that may take place, with the exception of something that has already taken place, and that's Bill 104. The whole purpose for these amendments is really to remove the reference to Metro Toronto school boards and just leave it as "school boards," to reflect the fact that we are in this transition period.
I don't think anyone contemplates that anything is going to be included in this bill that will exempt this organization from anything that happens in the future. We've already discussed that when we talk about grants in lieu of taxes. If there are going to be changes in the way school taxes are apportioned and they apply to everybody, then of course they will apply to this as well.
The Chair: Any further discussion on this amendment to section 4?
Shall this amendment to section 4 carry? Carried.
Shall section 4, as amended, carry? Carried.
At this point we will return to section 1. Is there any further discussion on the amendment proposed to section 1?
Shall this amendment carry? Carried.
Shall section 1, as amended, carry? Carried.
Continuing on, shall section 2 carry? Carried.
Shall section 3 carry? Carried.
We will now pass over section 4. That business is completed.
In keeping with a bit of a tradition in this committee, for the purpose of voting we will collapse sections 5 through 11. Shall sections 5 to 11 carry? Carried.
Is there an amendment to the preamble? No, not required. Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the schedule carry? Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall I report this bill, as amended, to the House? Agreed.
I wish to thank the applicants. I now declare this order of business closed.
1050
750 SPADINA AVENUE ASSOCIATION ACT, 1997
Consideration of Bill Pr75, An Act respecting 750 Spadina Avenue Association.
The Chair: We have a second bill, similar but distinct. Our next order of business is Bill Pr75, An Act respecting 750 Spadina Avenue Association. Again, our sponsor, Marcel Beaubien, MPP, is standing in for Isabel Bassett MPP. I would ask sponsor Beaubien for any comments that you may have.
Mr Beaubien: Bill Pr75 is very similar to Bill Pr74. Bill Pr75 is An Act respecting 750 Spadina Avenue Association. The preamble is very similar to the previous bill, namely Pr74, where the Jewish Community Centre is looking to establish a tax-exempt property located at 750 Spadina.
The Chair: Our sponsors have introduced themselves. Just to clarify, we have a new applicant.
Mr Harvey Kotler: My name is Harvey Kotler. I'm the vice-president of the Bloor JCC. I was previously introduced.
The Chair: I would now ask the applicants for any remarks.
Mr Ross: Mr Chairman, I trust I could say that whatever I have said before goes for this one as well.
The Chair: Well spoken. Are there any interested parties to this bill? I see no interested parties. I now again ask the parliamentary assistant for municipal affairs, Mr Hardeman, for any comments from the provincial government.
Mr Hardeman: As the applicant said, I think this bill is identical, except for the address, to the previous bill as it relates to the issues. I would just put forward that the government also registers no objection to this bill.
The Chair: I would now call for questions from committee members to either the applicants or the parliamentary assistant.
Mr Shea: Obviously this is subject, as the parliamentary assistant has said, to the future of the municipal finances restructuring, so what we're doing now, as Mr Kwinter rightfully pointed out in the last bill before us, is dealing with what is in place at this moment. It's appropriate to do so.
I have a question that flows out of the documentation before us. On the letterhead of the executive committee of the city of Toronto at its meeting dated September 16, 1996, it notes a communication from Councillor Leckie dated August 12, 1996, but that communication is not attached. Can the deputant provide any information about that inquiry made by the councillor?
Mr Ross: I'm sorry, we cannot.
Mr Shea: I have no other questions.
The Chair: Any further questions from the committee? I understand amendments have been circulated. Are the members of the committee ready to vote?
Mr Shea: Yes.
Mr Ruprecht: Should we be doing amendments, Mr Chair?
The Chair: Just a moment. Just to clarify, we are voting on Bill Pr75, An Act respecting 750 Spadina Avenue Association, sponsored by Mr Beaubien.
Mr Ruprecht: I have an amendment. I move that the definition of "Metro school board" in section 1 be struck out.
The Chair: Any discussion?
Shall this amendment to section 1 carry? Carried.
Shall section 1, as amended, carry? Carried.
The Chair: We'll go on to section 2.
Shall section 2 carry? Carried.
Shall section 3 carry? Carried.
Section 4, Mr Ruprecht.
Mr Ruprecht: I move that subsections 4(1) and (2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"School board resolution" -- do you want me to read this? It's the same amendment as to Bill Pr74.
The Chair: I think we should read it into the record.
Mr Ruprecht: All right.
"School board resolution
"4(1) If a tax cancellation bylaw is in effect under section 2, a school board entitled to share in the assessment of the land for school purposes may by resolution direct the city to cancel the taxes payable on the land for the purposes of the board.
"Notice
"(2) A school board that passes a resolution under subsection (1) shall forward a copy of it to the city and to any other school board entitled to share in the assessment."
The Chair: Any discussion of this amendment to section 4?
Mr Hardeman: Just to reiterate that the comments I made on the previous amendment to Bill Pr74 would hold true in this case too, that we will not be objecting to the amendment and will vote in support of it.
The Chair: Any further discussion?
Shall this amendment to section 4 carry? Carried.
Shall section 4, as amended, carry? Carried.
In keeping with tradition, shall sections 5 to 11 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the schedule carry? Carried.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Agreed.
I wish to thank all parties involved. I now declare this order of business closed and I now declare this standing committee meeting adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1059.