Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The committee met at 0900 in committee room 2.

Getting Ontario Connected Act, 2022 Loi de 2022 pour un Ontario connecté

Consideration of the following bill:

Bill 93, An Act to amend the Building Broadband Faster Act, 2021 and the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012 / Projet de loi 93, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2021 sur la réalisation accélérée de projets d’Internet à haut débit et la Loi de 2012 sur un système d’information sur les infrastructures souterraines en Ontario.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Good morning, everyone. The Standing Committee on General Government will now come to order. We are here today to conduct clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 93, An Act to amend the Building Broadband Faster Act, 2021 and the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012.

Staff from Hansard—

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): MPP Sabawy, please go ahead.

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: I move that when the committee recesses at 10:15 a.m. this morning it stand in recess until 3:05 p.m.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Thank you. Let me finish the basic—

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Okay. You already moved the motion. Do you want any debate on the motion, please, members? Any debate? MPP French.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Thank you. The original timing was that we were to come back at 1. This is a change to push it back till 3:05, you said. Can I ask why?

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Can you explain, MPP Sabawy, why we are—

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: It’s conflicting with other committees.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): It’s conflicting with other committees.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Pardon? I can’t hear.

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Some of the members are part of different committees, so it’s conflicting with other committees.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Because of the quorum.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: All right. It was scheduled, though, by the government. The government can’t fill the committee? Okay.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Any further debate from the members? Debate? Seeing none, are we ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hand. Anyone opposed? Seeing none, motion carried. Thank you so much.

The Clerk has distributed the amendment package to all members and staff electronically.

Bill 93 is comprised of three sections and enacts two 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? Yes? Thank you.

We will move on to clause-by-clause. The Building Broadband Faster Act: There are no amendments to sections 1 through 9. Are there any questions in regard to schedule 1?

Interjections.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Just a question—I missed it. Are we on subsection 1(1) of schedule 2? No, we’re not there yet?

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): No, not there yet.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Okay.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): If you go to page 2, there are no amendments to sections 1 through 9. I propose we bundle them. There is agreement on this one? Thank you.

Interjections.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Is there any debate on sections 1 to 9 of schedule 1? I see none. Are the members prepared to vote? All those in favour of sections 1 to 9, please raise your hand. Anyone opposed? Sections 1 to 9 are carried.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Of schedule 1.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Yes, schedule 1.

Shall schedule 1 carry? Is there any debate? I see none. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Anyone opposed? It’s carried.

Now we are moving into schedule 2, Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012.

Schedule 2, section 1: There is government amendment 1. MPP Bailey?

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to move the following motion. I move that subsection 1(1) of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following definition to section 1 of the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012:

“‘transmission infrastructure’ means underground infrastructure constructed or operated for the purpose of transmitting energy, including underground infrastructure owned or operated by,

“(a) a transmitter as defined in the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, or

“(b) a gas transmitter as defined in the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998; (‘infrastructure de transport’)”

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Thank you. MPP Bob Bailey with the motion: Is there any debate on that motion? I see none. Are members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hand. Is anyone opposed? No? It’s carried. Thank you.

Shall section 1, as amended, carry? Is there any debate? No, I see none. Ready to vote? Please, all those in favour, raise your hand. Anyone opposed? Schedule 2, section 1, as amended, is carried.

There are no amendments to schedule 2, sections 2 to 4.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Schedules 2 to 4? We have an amendment.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Yes, schedule 2, sections 2 to 4.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Oh, sections 2 to 4, not schedules 2 to 4. Okay.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Schedule 2, sections 2 to 4: Is there agreement to bundle? Is there agreement, committee members? Yes.

0910

Section 2 to section 4: Is there any debate? Seeing none, ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hand. Anyone opposed? Seeing none, motion carried.

We are on schedule 2, section 5: government motion, amendment number 2. MPP Bailey?

Mr. Robert Bailey: I move that section 5 of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by striking out “making” in subsection 4(1) of the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012 and substituting “submitting”.

This is just a technical amendment to the bill. It doesn’t change the content of the bill; it’s just a technical amendment.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Is there any further debate? Seeing none, are members ready to vote on government amendment 2 to section 5 of schedule 2? All those in favour, please raise your hand. Anyone opposed? Section 5 of schedule 2: Amendment 2 is carried.

Now we’re going to do schedule 2, section 5, as amended. Is there any debate on that section? Seeing none, ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hand. Anyone opposed? Schedule 2, section 5, as amended, is carried.

We’ll start with schedule 2, section 6. Government amendment 3 on subsection 6(1): MPP Bailey, please go ahead.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I move that subsection 6(1) of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by striking out subsection 6(3) of the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012 and substituting the following:

“Time limit for response, standard locate request

“(3) A member who receives a standard locate request shall, subject to subsection (4), do the things required by subsection (1) within five business days after the day the member receives notification about the locate request.

“Same, emergency locate request

“(3.1) A member who receives an emergency locate request shall ensure that, within two hours of receiving notification about the locate request,

“(a) a person able to do the things required by subsection (1) on behalf of the member is at the site for which the locate request has been made; or

“(b) the information referred to in paragraph 2 of subsection (1) is provided.”

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Mr. Bailey has moved government amendment number 3. Is there any debate? MPP John Vanthof?

Mr. John Vanthof: Thank you, Chair. It’s not actually debate but more a commentary. In my part of the world, we often can’t get service people within two hours. It’s physically impossible. So I’m just saying that perhaps that might not be physically possible, in some cases, in parts of Ontario.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi) MPP Chris Glover, please.

Mr. Chris Glover: I don’t know whether to address this question to the Clerk or who to address it to. Well, I’ll throw out the question and if there’s someone who can answer, maybe, from the government side. If this is passed—and John is the person with the experience, but I live in Geraldton for a while, and the nearest McDonald’s is in Hearst, which is a four-hour drive away. So if you even want to get to McDonald’s, you have to drive four hours. It’s just not possible to get somewhere within two hours. So if this legislation is passed and they’re not able to get a service person to the location within two hours, what does that mean? Does that mean that the company is liable? Are they liable for potential lawsuits, or could they be fined? What happens when the government passes a piece of legislation that’s physically not possible to implement or to abide by?

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): MPP Bailey.

Mr. Robert Bailey: This recommendation came because of the infrastructure owners and operators that came to committee and that we had talked with a number of times. They were concerned about completing the emergency locates within two hours, as proposed under the bill. The emergency locate requests are often implicated by investigations led by third parties such as the Ministry of Labour, maybe the fire marshal. In some scenarios such as remote locations, we understand it may take longer for an underground infrastructure owner/operator to arrive on-site. The change would require the underground infrastructure owner/operators, within two hours of being notified of an emergency, to have a representative on-site as soon as possible, whether that person would do the actual locate. But it’s just to respond to the emergency locate, because that was the way the legislation was written: They would be penalized if they didn’t. So this is a way of having someone on the site. With the dedicated locators, too, I think this would take care of some of that, because a lot of these operators would have their own qualified locator that would be able to be there.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): MPP Chris Glover.

Mr. Chris Glover: I don’t want to belabour this point, but what you just said is not what’s actually in writing here.

Mr. Robert Bailey: That’s my take on it.

Mr. Chris Glover: Right, yes. I worry about—any time we pass legislation or the government passes legislation—that it’s just not logically possible to fulfill. What you said was that the locator will be at the site as soon as possible. What it says is that within two hours the locator will be at the site for which the locate request has been made.

Anyway, I’ll leave it there, but I’m glad you actually said that, because there will be some questions around this.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): MPP Bailey.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Just to further clarify, the reason we recommend voting for this motion is because emergency locate requests are typically required as a result of a loss of service like gas, telephone, maybe natural gas in the case of a pipeline. This change would provide the underground infrastructure owners and the operators sufficient time to arrive on-site to respond to emergency locate requests and then start the repairs, whatever is necessary. So it’s an ability to respond to an emergency. We know in the case of the north that it could be different, but certainly in southwestern Ontario we have trouble getting locators too because of shortage of people power.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): MPP French.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Further to that comment from the government member, we did hear a lot at committee about challenges with the people power. So to have something that says—it doesn’t use the words “thou shalt,” but it does say, “will be at the site,” not “to the best of their ability, they’re sure going to try to be there soon.” Perhaps in regulation you can ensure there is—whether it’s an exception or a consideration for remote areas. Certainly, the government heard loudly and clearly that there’s a need to address that labour shortage. So I wish you luck with that.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Please go ahead, MPP Bailey.

Mr. Robert Bailey: This is an administrative authority I’ve got a lot of interest in, because it was my private member’s bill a long time ago—me and MPP Miller—so I certainly keep an eye on this ministry all the time, and on Ontario One Call. I work with them all the time, trying to get them people for locates, and I won’t stop that objective going forward. But thank you to all of the committee for pointing out those issues.

0920

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Thank you for that clarification. Thank you to both sides.

Any further debate? MPP Sabawy.

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: As it states in the syntax of the bill now, “For an emergency locate request, within two hours after the member”—so it’s a time limit to respond to a locate request, not saying “be on-site within.”

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Thank you, MPP Sabawy, for that clarification.

MPP Jennifer French.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Since we’re doing this back-and-forth, in “same, emergency locate” in (3.1)(a), “a person able to do the things required by subsection (1) on behalf of the member is at the site for which the locate request has been made.” So whatever that interpretation was, I’m going to redirect the member to what is written in this amendment, which we are belabouring. I appreciate MPP Bailey saying that he has taken note.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Is there any further debate? Seeing none, are we ready to vote on government amendment number 3, put forward by MPP Bailey? Are we ready to vote? Okay. Please raise your hands: All those in favour? Anyone opposed? Amendment number 3 is carried.

Interjections.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Quiet, please. You have to pay attention. Thank you.

Amendment number 3 is carried.

We’re moving to government subsection amendment—to government amendment number 4. I’ll make it easier. Government amendment number 4: MPP Bailey.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I move that subsection 6(1) of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by striking out subsection 6(4) of the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012 and substituting the following:

“Different time limit

“(4) The time limits set out in subsections (3) and (3.1) do not apply and a different time limit shall apply if,

“(a) the member and the excavator agree in writing to a different time limit; or

“(b) the regulations set out a different time limit applicable to the circumstances.”

To explain to the committee—

Interjections.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Yes, I know. I’m not a lawyer. I didn’t write it—not to discourage lawyers.

But anyway, this motion would allow, similar to standard locate requests, for an underground infrastructure owner/operator and an excavator to agree upon a different timeline in writing as it relates to emergency locates. We just recently talked about those requests. The minister would also have regulation-making power to set out a different timeline applicable to the circumstances.

If anybody has got any questions on it, I could read on, but if not—

Interjections.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Thank you. Please be quiet. Let the member make his statement. I can’t hear. There is too much side talk going on. Please.

Is there any further debate? I see none. Government amendment number 4: Are members ready to vote on the amendment? All those in favour, please raise your hand. Anyone opposed? The amendment is carried.

We are moving on to government amendment 4.1. MPP Bailey, please go ahead.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I move that the French version of subsection 6(1) of schedule 2 to the bill be amended—oh, God—by striking out—pardon my translation here—“tous les membres de la Société concernés par l’avis” in subsection 7(6) of the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012 and substituting “tous les membres concernés de la Société”.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Your French is good, sir.

Mr. Robert Bailey: The analysis for this: It’s a technical amendment to the drafting of the French version of the bill and does not change the content of the bill. I recommend, on behalf of the government, voting for the motion.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Mr. Bailey, please read the whole amendment for the record.

Mr. Robert Bailey: The whole amendment?

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Yes, please.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I did read it. Read it again?

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): You have to read it.

Ms. Donna Skelly: It’s just for our joy.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: We want you to practise your French, Bob.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Okay, here we go. Do you think I speak French here? Okay, I’ll do it again.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Please go ahead.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I move that the French version of subsection 6(1) of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by striking out “tous les membres de la Société concernés par l’avis” in subsection 7(6) of the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012 and substituting “tous les membres concernés de la Société”.

I wish my granddaughter was here. She could—

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Any further debate from the members? Seeing none, we’re ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hand. Anyone opposed? Amendment 4.1 is carried.

We are moving on to government amendment 5. Any further debate from members? Someone will have to move it. MPP Bailey, please.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I move that subsection 6(1) of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by striking out “who will respond to all locate requests by the project owner” in clause 7(7)(a) of the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012 and substituting “who will respond to all locate requests, other than in respect of transmission infrastructure, by the project owner”.

The background on this, Chair and committee members: This is an amendment to support the motion to exclude, as we heard at committee, transmission infrastructure from being located by a dedicated locator for projects. Under the dedicated locator regime, transmission infrastructure members would receive a notification from Ontario One Call for locate requests submitted by the project owner as it relates to their underground infrastructure. The member would be required to treat this request as a standard locate request.

As we heard in committee, Enbridge and others talked about the special training that their own people had for their infrastructure, like high-pressure transmission lines. It’s the same with Hydro One. That’s the background on that, sir.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Is there any further debate? Seeing none, government amendment 5: Ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hand. Anyone opposed? Amendment carried.

We are moving on to government amendment 6. MPP Bailey.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I move that subsection 6(1) of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding “Subject to subsection (11.2),” at the beginning of subsection 7(10) of the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Is there any further debate? Seeing none, all those in favour, raise your hand. Anyone opposed? Amendment 6 is carried. Thank you.

Moving on to government amendment 7, MPP Bailey.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I move that subsection 6(1) of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsections to section 7 of the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012:

“Special rules re transmission infrastructure

“(11.1) For the purposes of subsections (6), (7) and (8), the reference to ‘affected members’ includes a member that owns or operates transmission infrastructure only if the member also owns or operates other underground infrastructure.

“Same

“(11.2) If a project owner submits a locate request that may affect transmission infrastructure owned or operated by a member, subsection (10) does not apply with respect to the transmission infrastructure and instead the member that receives a notification from the corporation about the locate request shall do the things required by subsection 6(1) and the locate request shall, for the purposes of this act other than subsection 12(1), be treated as a standard locate request.”

0930

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Is there any debate? Seeing none, are the members ready to vote on government amendment 6? All those in favour, please raise your hand. Anyone opposed? Seeing none, government amendment 6 is carried.

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Seven—sorry. My apologies. Government amendment 7 is carried.

We are moving to government amendment 8. MPP Bailey, please go ahead.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I move that subsection 6(1) of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection to section 8 of the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012:

“Markings no longer visible

“(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), if the markings on the ground that were provided under paragraph 1 of subsection 6(1) or paragraph 1 of subsection 7(10) are no longer visible, the validity period in respect of the locate is deemed to have expired.”

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Is there any debate?

Mr. Robert Bailey: If there’s no debate, I was going to explain that, but maybe everybody is—

Interjection.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Yes, it’s relevant. I know MPP John Vanthof, for sure and others, especially in the north and other places—if construction drags on too long, you have a lot of snow or a lot of activity, the ground markings, which are usually paint or flags, could be disturbed. They could be removed. So it’s to protect the infrastructure and to make sure that the locates are done again and remarking them. That essentially is it.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Are the members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hand. Anyone opposed? Seeing none, government amendment number 8 is carried. Thank you, MPP Bailey.

We are moving to amendment number 9. Please move that amendment, MPP Bailey.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I move that subsection 6(1) of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by striking out subparagraph 1 ii of subsection 10(1) of the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012 and substituting the following:

“ii. Each member that owns or operates underground infrastructure that may be affected by an excavation or dig has done the things required by subsection 6(1) or, if section 7 applies in respect of the excavation or dig, the dedicated locator has done the things required by subsection 7(10) and, if applicable, each member who owns or operates transmission infrastructure has complied with subsection 7(11.2).”

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Is there any debate from the members? Seeing none, are the members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hand. Anyone opposed? Government amendment number 9 is carried.

Moving on to government amendment number 10: Please put the motion, MPP Bailey.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I move that subsection 6(1) of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following section to the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012:

“Member recourse

“15.1(1) An excavator shall compensate a member for a loss or expense incurred because the excavator,

“(a) contravened subsection 12(1) in relation to the member’s underground infrastructure; or

“(b) contravened section 13, resulting in damages or otherwise interfering with the member’s underground infrastructure.

“Loss or expense incurred

“(2) A loss or expense referred to in subsection (1) is,

“(a) any economic or financial loss or expense that is caused by the excavator; or

“(b) any other type of loss or expense prescribed by the minister.

“Agreement as to compensation

“(3) The excavator and the member may agree upon the compensation in writing.

“If no agreement

“(4) If no agreement is reached, a claim for compensation under subsection (1) shall be determined by the tribunal on application by the member.”

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Thank you. Is there any debate? Are the members ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hand. Anyone opposed? Government amendment number 10 is carried.

Moving on to government amendment number 11, MPP Bailey.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I move that subsection 6(1) of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by striking out clause 20(e) of the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012 and substituting the following:

“(e) governing the application of section 7, including,

“(i) establishing requirements that apply to project owners, dedicated locators or affected members in addition to those set out in the section, and

“(ii) prescribing modifications to the application of the section to certain persons or things, including establishing other requirements that apply in respect of certain types of underground infrastructure;

“(f) governing”—

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: You missed 11.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Sorry?

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): You missed 11.

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: You missed 11. This is amendment 12.

Ms. Donna Skelly: You’re on the wrong one.

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: You’re reading amendment 12.

Mr. Robert Bailey: No, I think I’m right.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): It’s 11.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’ll start over again. It’s these bifocals. I’ll start right at (e). Is that all right? Or do you want me to go right back?

Mr. Sheref Sabawy: Number 11, not number 12.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’m doing 11.

Interjection.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Well, they’re numbered wrong here, then. I’m on 11.

Interjections.

Mr. Robert Bailey: All right. Okay.

Ms. Donna Skelly: His numbers are different.

Mr. Robert Bailey: My numbers are different here. Are you sure this is 11? Okay.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Please go ahead.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Sorry. Okay.

I move that subsection 6(1) of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by adding the following clause to section 20 of the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012:

“(a.1) further defining or clarifying the definition of ‘transmission infrastructure’ in section 1;”

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Thank you. Is there any debate? Are the members ready to vote? Please raise your hand: All those in favour? Anyone opposed? Government amendment number 11 is carried.

Moving on to government—

Ms. Donna Skelly: Here’s 12.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Yes, I think these are out of order here. Sorry, Chair.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): MPP Bailey, please go ahead with amendment 12.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I move that subsection 6(1) of schedule 2 to the bill be amended by striking out clause 20(e) of the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012 and substituting the following:

“(e) governing the application of section 7, including,

“(i) establishing requirements that apply to project owners, dedicated locators or affected members in addition to those set out in the section, and

“(ii) prescribing modifications to the application of the section to certain persons or things, including establishing other requirements that apply in respect of certain types of underground infrastructure;

“(f) governing the non-application of section 7, or any part of it, to any person or thing or to any class of them, including the conditions of such application.”

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Could you repeat the last one, please? Would you repeat the last two words?

Mr. Robert Bailey: “(f) governing the non-application of section 7, or any part of it, to any person or thing or to any class of them, including the conditions of such non-application.”

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Thank you. Is there any debate? Seeing none, all those in favour, please raise your hand. Anyone opposed? Government amendment number 12 is carried.

Is there any further debate on schedule 2, section 6, as amended? Seeing none, ready to vote? All those in favour, please raise your hand. Anyone opposed? Schedule 2, section 6, as amended, is carried.

Bundling schedule 2, sections 7 to 9: It’s agreed? Agreed. Ready to vote? Any debate? Any debate with regard to that section? None. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Anyone opposed? It’s carried. Sections 7 to 9 are carried.

Shall schedule 2, as amended, carry? All those in favour, please raise—any debate, sorry, before you vote? No debate. All those in favour, please raise your hand. Anyone opposed? Schedule 2, as amended, is carried.

Now we return to sections 1 to 3. Shall section 1 carry? Is there any debate? All those in favour? Anyone opposed? It’s carried.

Section 2: Is there any debate? All those in favour, please raise your hand. Anyone opposed? Section 2 is carried.

Section 3: Is there any debate? All those in favour, please raise your hand. Anyone opposed? Section 3, as amended, is carried—

Interjections.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): There’s no “as amended.”

We are now going to: Shall the title of the bill carry?

MPP French?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: No, I’m just following along. I heard the “as amended” and I didn’t recognize that we had amended anything, so I was seeking clarification.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): There were no amendments.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Okay, good.

The Chair (Mr. Logan Kanapathi): Shall the title of the bill carry? All those in favour, please raise your hand. Anyone opposed? Seeing none, it’s carried.

Shall Bill 93, as amended, carry? All those in favour, raise your hand. Anyone opposed? Seeing none, it’s carried.

Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? All those in favour, raise your hand. Anyone opposed? It’s carried.

There is no further business. This committee now stands adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 0944.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Chair / Président

Mr. Logan Kanapathi (Markham–Thornhill PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr. Mike Schreiner (Guelph G)

Ms. Jill Andrew (Toronto–St. Paul’s ND)

Mr. Robert Bailey (Sarnia–Lambton PC)

Mr. Will Bouma (Brantford–Brant PC)

Mr. Guy Bourgouin (Mushkegowuk–James Bay / Mushkegowuk–Baie James ND)

Mr. Chris Glover (Spadina–Fort York ND)

Mr. Mike Harris (Kitchener–Conestoga PC)

Mr. Logan Kanapathi (Markham–Thornhill PC)

Mr. Sheref Sabawy (Mississauga–Erin Mills PC)

Mr. Amarjot Sandhu (Brampton West / Brampton-Ouest PC)

Mr. Mike Schreiner (Guelph G)

Mrs. Daisy Wai (Richmond Hill PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Ms. Jennifer K. French (Oshawa ND)

Mr. Billy Pang (Markham–Unionville PC)

Ms. Donna Skelly (Flamborough–Glanbrook PC)

Mr. John Vanthof (Timiskaming–Cochrane ND)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr. Isaiah Thorning

Staff / Personnel

Mr. Ralph Armstrong, legislative counsel