Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The committee met at 1330 in room 151.

Stronger, Fairer Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2017 Loi de 2017 pour un Ontario plus fort et plus juste (mesures budgétaires)

Consideration of the following bill:

Bill 177, An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes / Projet de loi 177, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter et à modifier diverses lois.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Good afternoon. We’re assembled here for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 177, An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes.

As per the order of the House dated November 29, 2017, committee members will know that at 4:30 p.m. today I’m required to interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of Bill 177 and any amendment thereto.

As per the order of the House, a 20-minute waiting period will be permitted at that time. From that point forward, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and I will take the vote on them consecutively.

Julia Hood from legislative counsel is here to assist us with our work, should we have any questions for her.

A copy of the numbered amendments filed with the Clerk is on your desk. The amendments have been numbered in the order in which the sections and schedules appear in the bill.

Are there any questions before we begin?

Seeing none, as you will notice, Bill 177 is comprised of three sections and 46 schedules. In order to deal with the bill in an orderly fashion, I suggest that we postpone the three sections in order to dispose of the schedules and the proposed amendments first.

Is there unanimous consent to stand down the sections and deal with the schedules first?

Before we begin schedule 1, I will allow each party to make some brief comments on the bill as a whole. Afterwards, debate should be limited to the section or amendment under consideration. Are there any comments? MPP Fedeli.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: The only comment I want to make is the one that I have repeated in the Legislature, where I had asked for unanimous consent of all parties to break this omnibus bill into the finance section and all the various other bills. I would just continue to repeat that concern that we have, and I thank you for your time.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Thank you. MPP Vanthof?

Mr. John Vanthof: My comments are going to be very short. We have been very consistent. That’s why we put forward a reasoned amendment. We wanted, and we still believe, that the pension portion of this bill should be pulled out and looked at separately.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Okay. Thank you. MPP Baker?

Mr. Yvan Baker: I want to make a few key points. First of all, I’m proud of this piece of legislation. It’s something that I know that Minister Sousa and his team, his staff and the staff at the Ministry of Finance have worked very hard on. But it’s not just the Ministry of Finance staff; it’s the staff from the various ministries who have contributed to this piece of legislation, and countless stakeholders and constituents who have contributed, who provided input to the creation of this bill. It’s a tremendous amount of work and I just want to acknowledge all the folks who have been involved in doing that.

The second thing I wanted to say was in response to the members opposite. I got elected to get things done for people. I think this bill does a lot of really important things that will impact people’s lives in a positive way. The breaking up of the bill, as the opposition has proposed, would ultimately mean that some of the components that are broken out would not get passed before the next election and that would delay or perhaps ensure that some of those schedules never pass. Unfortunately, what that would mean is that the people who would benefit from this legislation—whether it be the folks in Grassy Narrows, whether it be consumers, whether it be seniors or countless other people who would be impacted by this bill—would never benefit from the passage of that legislation.

Effectively, by proposing to break up the bill, the members opposite are recommending that we not pass components of this legislation, and I think that would be to the detriment of people across our province. I think it’s important that, given that these are positive initiatives, we move them forward.

I’m proud of this legislation. I want to thank everyone who’s been involved, and I look forward to the clause-by-clause, Chair.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Thank you. We’ll now move to the bill.

We will start with schedule 1, Broader Public Sector Executive Compensation Act, 2014. Is there a will to bundle these, since there are no amendments to schedule 1? Yes? Okay.

Schedule 1, section 1, to schedule 1, section 4: There are no amendments. Any discussion? Seeing no discussion, I’ll call the question. All those in favour of passing schedule 1, section 1, to schedule 1, section 4, inclusive? Carried.

Shall schedule 1 carry? Thank you.

Interjection.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Okay, so schedule 1 is carried.

We now move to schedule 2, Building Code Act, 1992. Again, there are no amendments for schedule 2, section 1, to schedule 2, section 26. Is everyone okay if we bundle them? Okay. Any discussion? No?

Schedule 2, section 1, to schedule 2, section 26, inclusive: All those in favour? Carried.

Shall schedule 2 carry? Thank you.

Interjection.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): That’s carried. I keep forgetting to say “Carried.”

We’re on schedule 3, Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014. On schedule 3, section 1, and schedule 3, section 2, there are no amendments. Are we okay to bundle it? Okay.

Schedule 3, section 1, and schedule 3, section 2: Any discussion? All those in favour? Carried.

Shall schedule 3 carry? Carried.

Schedule 4, the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017: There are no amendments to schedule 4, section 1, and schedule 4, section 2. Are we okay to do them both at once? Okay. Is there any discussion? I’ll call the question.

Schedule 4, section 1, and schedule 4, section 2: All those in favour? Carried.

Shall schedule 4 carry? Carried.

Schedule 5, City of Ottawa Act, 1999: There are no amendments to schedule 5, section 1, and schedule 5, section 2. Are we okay to bundle them? All right. Any discussion?

Seeing none, shall schedule 5, section 1, and schedule 5, section 2, carry? Carried.

Shall schedule 5 carry? Carried.

Schedule 6, City of Toronto Act, 2006: Again, on schedule 6, section 1, to schedule 6, section 4, there are no amendments. Are we okay to bundle it? All right. Any discussion?

Seeing none, shall schedule 6, section 1, to schedule 6, section 4, inclusive, carry? Carried.

Shall schedule 6 carry? Carried.

Schedule 7, Commodity Futures Act: Again, for schedule 7, section 1, to schedule 7, section 7, are we okay to bundle it? Okay. Any discussion? Shall schedule 7, section 1, to schedule 7, section 7, carry? Carried.

1340

Shall schedule 7 carry? Carried.

Schedule 8, Community Small Business Investment Funds Act, 1992: Schedule 8, section 1, and schedule 8, section 2, have no amendments. Shall we bundle them? All right. Any discussion? All those in favour of schedule 8, section 1, and schedule 8, section 2? Carried.

Shall schedule 8 carry? Carried.

Schedule 9: Schedule 9, section 1, to schedule 9, section 6, have no amendments. Are we okay to bundle them? All right. Any discussion? Seeing none, shall schedule 9, section 1, to schedule 9, section 6, inclusive, carry? Schedule 9, sections 1 to 6, carried.

Schedule 9, section 7: government amendment, schedule 9, section 7 (section 143 of the Co-operative Corporations Act). MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I move that schedule 7 of schedule 9 to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“7. Section 143 of the act is amended by,

“(a) adding ‘decide that a certificate of amendment will be issued and, if such a decision is made,’ at the end of the portion before clause (a);

“(b) adding ‘the Minister of Government and Consumer Services shall’ at the beginning of clause (a); and

“(c) adding ‘the Minister of Government and Consumer Services shall’ at the beginning of clause (b).”

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): MPP Baker, would you just reread the sentence that starts with “I move”?

Mr. Yvan Baker: I move that section 7 of schedule 9 to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Thank you. Any discussion? Yes, MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I recommend voting for this motion. The intent of the amendment is to ensure the proper transfer of responsibility of co-operative corporations to the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services. It will clarify that the Minister of Government and Consumer Services would be required to issue certificates of amendment for co-operatives when determining whether co-operatives are conducting their business on a co-operative basis.

We are transferring the responsibility of co-operative corporations as the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services’s mandate is better suited for co-operatives. The goal is to make it easier to do business in Ontario by moving the incorporation process for co-operatives to ServiceOntario through changes to the Co-operative Corporations Act. Co-operative corporations will be able to easily access services in one place, and it will simplify business interactions. This is also the process that is currently in place for other types of businesses in Ontario.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion? I’ll call the question. Shall schedule 9, section 7, as amended, carry?

Interjection.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Shall the government motion carry? Carried.

Shall schedule 9, section 7, as amended, carry? Carried.

Schedule 9, section 8: government amendment, schedule 9, section 8 (section 144 of the Co-operative Corporations Act). MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I move that schedule 8 of schedule 9 to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“8. Section 144(1) of the act is amended by,

“(a) adding ‘decide that a certificate of amendment will be issued and, if such a decision is made,’ at the end of the portion before clause (a);

“(b) adding ‘the Minister of Government and Consumer Services shall” at the beginning of clause (a); and

“(c) adding ‘the Minister of Government and Consumer Services shall’ at the beginning of clause (b).”

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): MPP Baker, would you read the sentence that starts with “I move” again, please?

Mr. Yvan Baker: I move that section 8 of schedule 9 to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Thank you. Any discussion? MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: Similarly to the previous motion, I recommend voting for the motion because it’ll implement the transfer of responsibility of co-operative corporations to the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services. It will also clarify that the Minister of Government and Consumer Services shall issue certificates of incorporation for co-operatives.

We are transferring the responsibility of co-operative corporations, as MGCS’s mandate is better suited for co-operatives, and this will allow co-operative corporations to easily access services in one place and to simplify interactions. ServiceOntario is building a new business information registration system that will replace the now-outdated system to allow businesses to access more services online. This will be in place by 2020.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Thank you. Any further discussion? I call the question. Shall government motion—schedule 9, section 8, carry? Carried.

Shall schedule 9, section 8, as amended, carry? Carried.

We move now to schedule 9, section 9. Government motion, schedule 9, section 9 (section 144.1 of the Co-operative Corporations Act). MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I move that section 9 of schedule 9 to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“9. Subsection 144.1(2) of the act is amended by,

“(a) adding ‘decide that a certificate of amendment will be issued and, if such a decision is made,’ at the end of the portion before clause (a);

“(b) adding ‘the Minister of Government and Consumer Services shall’ at the beginning of clause (a); and

“(c) adding ‘the Minister of Government and Consumer Services shall’ at the beginning of clause (b).”

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any discussion? MPP Baker?

Mr. Yvan Baker: Our rationale for this is similar to the rationale in the previous motions. This would implement the proper transfer of responsibility of co-operative corporations to the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services. It would also clarify that the Minister of Government and Consumer Services shall determine whether a co-operative has complied with its primary objective of providing employment for its members.

Again, we’re transferring the responsibility of co-operative corporations as the MGCS mandate is better suited for co-operatives, and the intention to transfer was announced in the 2017 budget and has been supported by co-operative stakeholders. Now this change is intended to consolidate the incorporation process for co-operatives with those currently in place for other types of Ontario businesses, and the amendments, as proposed, will further smooth transfer of services from FSCO to MGCS.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion? I’ll call the question on government motion number 3. All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 9, section 9, as amended, carry? Carried.

We move now to schedule 9, section 10, Co-operative Corporations Act. Is there any discussion? I call the question. Shall schedule 9, section, 10 carry? Carried.

The government has filed a notice on schedule 9, section 11. Is there any discussion? MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: Chair, as I mentioned earlier, we are transferring the responsibility of co-operative corporations as the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services mandate is better suited for co-operatives. The intention of the transfer was announced in the 2017 budget and is supported by co-operative stakeholders. Striking this proposed amendment will ensure consistency with the Cutting Unnecessary Red Tape Act, 2017, which received royal assent earlier this fall.

1350

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Is there further discussion? Seeing none, shall schedule 9, section 11, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Schedule 9, section 11, is lost.

We now move to schedule 9, section 12. There are no amendments for schedule 9, section 12, through to schedule 9, section 15. Are we okay to bundle them? Okay. Any discussion? I will call the question. Schedule 9, section 12, to schedule 9, section 15, inclusive: All those in favour? Carried.

Schedule 9, section 16: schedule 9. subsection 16(1) (subsection 158.1(1) of the Co-operative Corporations Act), government motion 4. MPP Martins.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I move that subsection 16(1) of schedule 9 to the bill be struck out.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any discussion? MPP Martins.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: This motion would strike out a proposed amendment to clause 151(1)(n) of the Co-operative Corporations Act, that would replace references to part III of the Corporations Act with references to the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010, on the date ONCA—which is the acronym for that—is proclaimed in force. It would also further the changes made to the Co-operative Corporations Act and the Cutting Unnecessary Red Tape Act, 2017.

I recommend voting for this motion because it will further the proper transfer of responsibility of co-operative corporations to the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services, as well as ensure that there is consistency with the Cutting Unnecessary Red Tape Act, 2017, which received royal assent earlier this year.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion? MPP Fedeli.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: The fact that the government is continuing to amend their own bill and recommended voting against an entire section goes back to my original point about the fact that this should have been broken up and discussed properly.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion? Seeing none, I’ll call the question on government motion 4. All those in favour of government motion 4? Carried.

Shall schedule 9, section 16, as amended, carry? Carried.

We’ll now move to schedule 9, section 17. There are no amendments for schedule 9, sections 17 to 25. Can we bundle them? Okay. Schedule 9, sections 17 to 25: Is there any discussion? Seeing none, I’ll call the question. Schedule 9, section 17, to schedule 9, section 25, inclusive: All those in favour? Opposed? That’s carried.

We’ll now move to schedule 9, section 26, government motion number 5. MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I move that section 26 of schedule 9 to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“Commencement

“26. This schedule comes into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor.”

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion? MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: Chair, I recommend voting for this. It relates to the proper transfer of responsibility of co-operative corporations to the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services. The current proposed commencement section specifies a different date for amendments that are being struck out by motions 1 to 4 and are no longer required.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion? Seeing none, shall government motion 5 carry? All those in favour?

Shall schedule 9, section 26, as amended, carry? Carried.

Interjection.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): So government motion 5 carried.

Shall schedule 9, as amended, carry? Carried.

Schedule 10, Corporations Act: Seeing that there are no amendments to schedule 10, section 1, through schedule 10, section 5, are we okay to bundle them? All right. Any discussion on schedule 10, section 1, through schedule 10, section 5? Seeing none, I’ll call the question. Shall schedule 10, section 1, to schedule 10, section 5, inclusive, carry? Carried.

Shall schedule 10 carry? Schedule 10 carries.

Schedule 11, Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993: There are no amendments to schedule 11, section 1, and schedule 11, section 2. Can we bundle them? Okay. Any discussion? All those in favour of schedule 11, section 1, and schedule 11, section 2? Any opposing? No? Seeing none, schedule 11, sections 1 and 2, carry.

Shall schedule 11 carry? Carried.

Schedule 12, Education Act: Schedule 12, section 1, through schedule 12, section 15, has no amendments. Are we free to bundle them? Okay. So schedule 12, section 1, through schedule 12, section 15—any discussion, first of all? Yes, MPP Vanthof.

Mr. John Vanthof: I would just like to make a point that one of our members, and our party, tried to put forward amendments, but because of the very tight schedule and especially because some of the people who presented here were French-speaking, by the time you got the translation and everything, it was physically impossible to bring amendments forward—amendments that I think we all would have supported.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion? I’ll call the question on schedule 12, section 1, through schedule 12, section 15, inclusive. All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare schedule 12, section 1 to schedule 12, section 15, carried.

Shall schedule 12 carry? Schedule 12 carries.

Schedule 13, Election Finances Act: Schedule 13, section 1, and schedule 13, section 2, have no amendments. Can we do them both at once? All right. Is there any discussion? I’ll call the question. Schedule 13, section 1, and schedule 13, section 2: All those in favour? Anyone opposing? No? Schedule 13, section 1, and schedule 13, section 2, are carried.

Shall schedule 13 carry? Schedule 13 carries.

1400

Schedule 14, English and Wabigoon Rivers Remediation Funding Act, 2017: Since there are no amendments to schedule 14, section 1, through schedule 14, section 21, are we okay to bundle them? Okay. Any discussion? MPP Vanthof.

Mr. John Vanthof: It is our strong belief that this is a good example of something that should have been in an independent bill. These people have been tortured for long enough by the lack of action from governments of all stripes, and this should have been an independent bill.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion? MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I would just say, as I said at the beginning, at the outset, in my opening remarks, Chair, that by breaking a bill apart, it has to be debated and go through the legislative process separately, which means that it may not pass in time for the next election. It certainly wouldn’t pass as quickly. So to get folks the results that we’re looking for here, it’s important to have it as part of this bill.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion? MPP Vanthof.

Mr. John Vanthof: I think a bill like this could have—and the government has it within their power and certainly would have gotten the co-operation, I believe—certainly from our party. This bill could have passed very quickly through the Legislature by itself and been given the due course that this issue demands.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion? Okay.

We’re doing schedule 14, section 1, to schedule 14, section 21, inclusive. All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare the sections carried.

Shall schedule 14 carry? Schedule 14 is carried.

Schedule 15 is the Family Law Act. Schedule 15, section 1: NDP motion, schedule 15 to the bill, section 1 (clause 31(1)(c) of the Family Law Act), motion number 6. MPP Vanthof.

Mr. John Vanthof: I move that clause 31(1)(c) of the Family Law Act, as set out in section 1 of schedule 15 to the bill, be amended by striking out “illness or disability” and substituting “illness, disability or other cause”.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Discussion? MPP Vanthof.

Mr. John Vanthof: This change makes this section of the bill more inclusive to all families. We had two very good presentations here regarding this issue, and that all families should be included under their responsibilities to children, and I think it is incumbent on us to proceed with this change.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Further discussion? No further discussion? I will call the question on NDP motion number 6. All those in favour? Carried.

Shall schedule 15, section 1, as amended, carry? Carried.

Schedule 15, section 2: Is there any discussion? Seeing none, shall schedule 15, section 2, carry? Carried.

Shall schedule 15, as amended, carry? Carried.

Schedule 16 is the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario Act, 2016. Schedule 16, section 1: Any discussion? Seeing no discussion, I call the question. Shall schedule 16, section 1, carry? Carried.

Schedule 16, section 2: Schedule 16 to the bill, section 2 (clause 3(1)(g) of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario Act, 2016), PC motion number 7. MPP Fedeli.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I move that clause 3(1)(g) of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario Act, 2016, as set out in section 2 of schedule 16 to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

“(g) to deter deceptive or fraudulent conduct, practices and activities in the regulated sectors; and”

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Discussion? Any further discussion? MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: PC motion number 7 would change the words “by the regulated sectors” to “in the regulated sectors.” This would mean that persons who do not form the actual entities that constitute a regulated sector could become subject to FSRA’s jurisdiction. In addition, it could subject other people and entities to regulation by FSRA even though such regulation is not required by the relevant sector statute. In turn, this could lead to costs and administrative and enforcement difficulties. Now, the FSRA act and related sector statutes already set out what people and activities are subject to the regulator’s jurisdiction and various regulatory requirements and measures. As a result, I’m going to recommend that we vote against the motion.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): MPP Fedeli.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: As was outlined by IBC in their presentation, they felt, when they asked for this change during the hearings, that the section may not be as comprehensive or as inclusionary as it was intended to be, which is why the word change from “by” to “in” was made. They felt that this ensures that the provision applies to all persons who perpetrate fraud in a regulated sector, including, for example, insurers, employees, brokers, accident benefits claimants, the insured, fake accident witnesses and the suppliers of providers such as health care providers, tow truck operators, body shops etc.—that it applies to all those persons. That’s why we’re supporting this motion.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Further discussion? Seeing none, I call the question on PC amendment number 7. All those in favour? Opposed? I declare it lost.

Shall schedule 16, section 2, carry? I need to hear it from people; okay?

We’ll do this again. Shall schedule 16, section 2, carry?

Interjection: Carried.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Thank you. Carried.

Schedule 16, section 3, through to schedule 16, section 10: There are no amendments. Are we good to bundle them? Okay. Is there any discussion on schedule 16, section 3, to schedule 16, section 10? Seeing no discussion, I’ll call the question. All those in favour of schedule 16, section 3, to schedule 16, section 10, inclusive? I declare it carried.

Schedule 16, Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario Act, 2016, PC motion: schedule 16 to the bill, section 11 (subsection 21(1) of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario Act, 2016). MPP Barrett.

Mr. Toby Barrett: I move that subsection 21(1) of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario Act, 2016, as set out in section 11 of schedule 16 to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

“Rules re regulated sector

“(1) Without limiting the objects set out in section 3, the authority may make rules in respect of any matter that relates to clause 3(1)(g), and in respect of any matter over which any other act gives the authority rule-making authority.”

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Discussion? MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: PC motion number 8 is inconsistent or in conflict with proposed amendments that would already provide FSRA with rule-making power over an extensive list of areas. For example, proposed amendments to the Insurance Act would already allow FSRA to make rules regarding unfair or deceptive acts and practices.

1410

Further, motion 8, on its face, could be interpreted to mean that FSRA could have rule-making authority regarding one of its statutory objects, which is subsection 3(1)(g), despite the fact that FSRA’s objects are statutorily provided for and not subject to rule-making.

I’m going to recommend that we vote against the motion.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion? MPP Fedeli.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: When we had the deputations from the presenters last week, the Insurance Bureau of Canada had asked for this particular amendment with the wording change. Their logic behind it was, “We want to be certain that FRSA has authority to make rules that will enable it to combat insurance fraud effectively. One way to accomplish this would be to specify in the act rule-making authority along the following lines”—and that was read into the record by MPP Barrett. That’s why we are, indeed, supporting this one.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion? Seeing none, I will call the question. All those in favour of PC amendment number 8? All those opposed? I declare the motion lost.

Shall schedule 16, section 11, carry? Carried.

Schedule 16, section 12: Any discussion? I’ll call the question. Shall schedule 16, section 12, carry? Carried.

Shall schedule 16 carry? Carried.

Schedule 17, Financial Services Tribunal Act, 2017: There are no amendments for schedule 17, sections 1 through 29. Are we okay to bundle them? All right. Any discussion? I’m calling the question on schedule 17, section 1, through section 29, inclusive. All those in favour? Carried.

Shall schedule 17 carry? Carried.

Schedule 18, Green Energy Act, 2009: For schedule 18, sections 1 through 4, there are no amendments. Will we bundle them? All right. Any discussion on this section? All those in favour of schedule 18, sections 1 through 4, inclusive? Carried.

Interjection.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Oh, I’m sorry.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: That’s okay. It’s rare.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): It is.

I’m going to do it again. Schedule 18, sections 1 through 4: All those in favour? All those opposed? I declare the motion carried.

Shall schedule 18 carry? Carried.

Schedule 19: There are no amendments to schedule 19, sections 1 through 26. Are we okay to bundle it? All right. Any discussion of—

Mr. Mike Colle: No.

Mr. John Vanthof: Somebody sounds grumpy.

Laughter.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): You’re getting ahead of us here. He must have been at the soccer game, I guess. He’s tired.

Schedule 19, sections 1 through 26: All those in favour? Carried.

Shall schedule 19 carry? Carried.

Schedule 20, Indigenous Institutes Act, 2017: There are no amendments in schedule 20, section 1 through section 11. Any discussion? No discussion, so I’ll call the question. All those who are in favour of schedule 20, section 1, through schedule 20, section 11? Opposed? No opposition? I declare that carried.

Shall schedule 20 carry? Carried.

We are on schedule 21, the Insurance Act. Government motion number 9, schedule 21 to the bill, section 1 (section 1 of the Insurance Act). MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I move that section 1 of schedule 21 to the bill be amended by adding the following definition:

“‘Chief executive officer’ means the chief executive officer appointed under subsection 10(2) of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario Act, 2016; (‘directeur général’)”

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion? MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: FSRA is an adaptive, modern financial services and pensions regulator that protects consumers, investors and pension plan beneficiaries. Providing a definition for the CEO of FSRA facilitates the transition of the organization from FSCO to FSRA.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion? I’ll call the question. Shall government motion 9 carry? Any opposed? Government motion 9 carries.

Shall schedule 21, section 1, as amended, carry? Carried.

Schedule 21, section 2 through section 8: There are no amendments. Can we bundle them? Okay. Any discussion of schedule 21, section 2, through schedule 21, section 8, inclusive? Seeing no discussion, I’ll call the question. Schedule 21, section 2, through schedule 21, section 8: All those in favour? No opposition? I declare it carried.

Schedule 21, section 9: schedule 21 to the bill, subsection 9(6) (subsections 121(2), (2.0.1) and (2.0.2) of the Insurance Act), government motion 10. MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I move that subsection 9(6) of schedule 21 to the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“(6) Subsection 121(2) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

“‘Regulations re transfer of commission, superintendent powers, duties and functions

“‘(2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

“‘(a) providing for the transfer of powers conferred on, duties assigned to and functions of the superintendent under this act to the authority or to the chief executive officer;

“‘(b) providing for the transfer of powers conferred on, duties assigned to and functions of the commission under this act to the authority or to the chief executive officer;

“‘(c) deeming references in this act or the regulations to the superintendent or the commission to be references to the authority or the chief executive officer;

“‘(d) governing transitional matters that may arise due to the transfers described in clauses (a) and (b) or the deeming of references described in clause (c).

“‘Same

“‘(2.0.1) A regulation made under subsection (2) is subject to such conditions, limitations and restrictions as may be prescribed.

“‘Conflicts

“‘(2.0.2) If there is a conflict between a regulation made under subsection (2) and any act or any other regulation, the regulation made under subsection (2) prevails, unless the act or other regulation specifies that it prevails.’”

1420

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any discussion? MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I recommend voting for this motion. The proposed amendment in the motion would add a new section to the act to allow the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations that would facilitate the operation of FSRA under the act, including transferring powers, duties and functions of the Superintendent of Financial Services under the act to the FSRA or its CEO; deeming references in the act or regulations to the superintendent, to the FSRA or its CEO; and governing transitional matters arising due to the above transfers or deemed references.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion? Seeing none, I’ll call the question. All those in favour of government motion number 10? All those opposed? I declare it carried.

Shall schedule 21, section 9, as amended, carry? Carried.

Schedule 21, section 10, through schedule 21, section 54, have no amendments. Are we okay to bundle them? Okay.

Any discussion on schedule 21, sections 10 to 54? Seeing none, I call the question. All those in favour of schedule 21, section 10, to schedule 21, section 54, inclusive? All those in favour? Carried. Opposed?

I guess I should say “opposed” before “carried.”

Interjection.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Okay. Carried.

Shall schedule 21, as amended, carry? Carried.

We’re now on to schedule 22. Schedule 22, sections 1 to 7, have no amendments. Can we bundle them? Okay.

Any discussion of schedule 22, sections 1 to 7? It’s the Interim Appropriation for 2018-2019 Act, 2017. All those in favour of schedule 22, section 1, through schedule 22, section 7, inclusive? Carried.

Shall schedule 22 carry? Carried.

Schedule 23, the Land Transfer Tax Act: There are no amendments for schedule 23, section 1, through schedule 23, section 4, inclusive. Shall we bundle them? All right.

Any discussion of schedule 23, section 1, through schedule 23, section 4? Seeing no discussion, I call the question. All those in favour of schedule 23, section 1, through schedule 23, section 4? Carried.

Shall schedule 23 carry? Carried.

Schedule 24 is the Liquor Control Act. Schedule 24, section 1, through schedule 24, section 4: There are no amendments. Can we bundle them? All right. Is there any discussion of schedule 24, section 1, through schedule 24, section 4? Seeing none, I call the question.

All those in favour of schedule 24, section 1, through schedule 24, section 4? Can I see some hands or hear some voices, please?

Interjection: Carried.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Thank you. Carried.

Shall schedule 24 carry? Carried.

Schedule 25 is the Mining Tax Act. Schedule 25, section 1, and schedule 25, section 2, have no amendments. Any discussion? Seeing none, I’ll call the question. Schedule 25, section 1, and schedule 25, section 2: All those in favour? Carried.

Shall schedule 25 carry? Carried.

Schedule 26 is the Ministry of Revenue Act. Schedule 26, section 1, through schedule 26, section 4: There are no amendments. Can we bundle them? All right, let’s bundle them. So schedule 26, section 1, through schedule 26, section 4: All those in favour? Carried.

Shall schedule 26 carry? Carried.

Schedule 27 is the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006. Schedule 27, section 1, through schedule 27, section 4: There are no amendments. Can we bundle them? All right. Is there any discussion on schedule 27, section 1, through schedule 27, section 4? Yes, MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: Motion 11—

Interjection.

Mr. Yvan Baker: We’re not there?

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): We’re not there yet.

Interjections.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Just for the committee’s sake, we are dealing with sections 1 to 4 first and then the government motion adds another section. So we’ll do it after.

I am going to call the question on schedule 27, section 1, through schedule 27, section 4, inclusive: All those in favour? Carried.

Now we go to a government motion: schedule 27 to the bill, section 4.1 (section 55.1 of the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006). Government motion number 11: Discussion? MPP Baker. Oh, sorry. You have to read it in first.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I move that schedule 27 to the bill be amended by adding the following section:

“4.1 The act is amended by adding the following section:

“‘Regulations re transfer superintendent powers, duties and functions

“‘55.1(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

“‘(a) providing for the transfer of powers conferred on, duties assigned to and functions of the superintendent under this act to the authority or to the chief executive officer;

“‘(b) deeming references in this act or the regulations to the superintendent to be references to the authority or the chief executive officer;

“‘(c) governing transitional matters that may arise due to the transfers described in clause (a) or the deeming of references described in clause (b).

“‘Same

“‘(2) A regulation made under subsection (1) is subject to such conditions, limitations and restrictions as may be prescribed.

“‘Conflicts

“‘(3) If there is a conflict between a regulation made under subsection (1) and any act or any other regulation, the regulation made under subsection (1) prevails, unless the act or other regulation specifies that it prevails.’”

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Discussion? MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I recommend voting for this motion, Chair. What the motion would do is add a definition for the chief executive officer of FSRA. It would allow the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations that would facilitate the operation of FSRA under the act, including transferring powers, duties and functions of the Superintendent of Financial Services under the act to FSRA or the CEO; deeming references in the act or regulations to the superintendent to be references to FSRA or the CEO; and governing transitional matters arising due to the above transfers or deemed references. This amendment basically brings FSRA one step closer to being fully operational.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion? Seeing none, I’ll call the question on government motion 11. All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.

We now move to schedule 27, section 5. Shall schedule 27, section 5, carry? Carried.

Shall schedule 27, as amended, carry? Carried.

We move on to schedule 28, the Municipal Act, 2001. Schedule 28, section 1, through schedule 28, section 3: There are no amendments. Can we bundle them? Okay. Is there any discussion on schedule 28, section 1, through schedule 28, section 3? Seeing none, I call the question. All those in favour of schedule 28, section 1, through schedule 28, section 3? Carried.

1430

Shall schedule 28 carry? Carried.

Schedule 29, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Act, 1997: Schedule 29, section 1, through schedule 29, section 5, have no amendments. Can we bundle them? Okay. Any discussion on schedule 29, section 1, through schedule 29, section 5? Seeing none, I call the question. All those in favour of schedule 29, section 1, through schedule 29, section 5? Carried.

Shall schedule 29 carry? All those in favour? Carried.

Schedule 30, Occupational Health and Safety Act, section 1: The NDP and the government both filed notices. Is there any discussion? MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: Chair, I just wanted people to understand that we remain committed to realizing Justice Bélanger’s recommendation. However, after hearing from stakeholders and having internal discussions, we have determined that the best manner to proceed is to effect these standards through revisions to the policy and procedure manual.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Further discussion? MPP Vanthof.

Mr. John Vanthof: Having spoken to stakeholders, it is their opinion and ours that changing the deputy minister’s responsibilities doesn’t actually add to the safety of what we’re proposing and, in actuality, could hamper the job of inspectors. So that’s why we are—

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion? Seeing none, shall schedule 30, section 1, carry? All those in favour?

Interjections.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Okay, we’re going to do it the proper way, All those in favour of schedule 30, section 1? All those opposed? Schedule 30, section 1, is lost.

We move to schedule 30, section 2. Again, the NDP and the government have served notice. Is there discussion? MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I’m just going to repeat what I said earlier so it’s clear for the record. We remain committed to realizing Justice Bélanger’s recommendation. However, after hearing from stakeholders and having internal discussions, we have determined that the best manner to proceed is to effect these standards through revisions to the policy and procedure manual.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Thank you. MPP Vanthof?

Mr. John Vanthof: We also believe in Justice Bélanger’s recommendations and that this actually doesn’t further those recommendations. That’s why our support is removed.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion? I’ll call the question. Shall schedule 30, section 2, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? It is lost.

We’ll move to schedule 30, section 3. Again, we have NDP and government notices. Any discussion? MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: Again, just for the record, we remain committed to realizing Justice Bélanger’s recommendation. But after hearing from stakeholders and having discussions internally, we have determined that the best manner to proceed is to effect these standards through revisions to the policy and procedure manual.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Further discussion? I’ll call the question. Shall schedule 30, section 3, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? It is lost.

We now move to schedule 30, section 4, through schedule 30, section 9. There are no amendments. Can we bundle them? Okay. Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion, I’ll call the question on schedule 30, section 4, through schedule 30, section 9. All those in favour? Carried.

Shall schedule 30, as amended, carry? Carried.

Schedule 31, the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998: schedule 31, section 1, through schedule 31, section 3. There are no amendments. Can we bundle them? Okay. Any discussion on schedule 31, section 1, through schedule 31, section 3?

Seeing no discussion, I will call the question on schedule 31, section 1, through schedule 31, section 3. All those in favour? Carried.

Shall schedule 31 carry? Carried.

Schedule 32, Ontario Labour Mobility Act, 2009: Schedule 32, section 1, through schedule 32, section 4, has no amendments. Can we bundle them? Okay. Is there any discussion on schedule 32, section 1, through schedule 32, section 4? Seeing no discussion, I will call the question.

Schedule 32, section 1, through schedule 32, section 4: All those in favour? Carried.

Shall schedule 32 carry? Carried.

Schedule 33, Pension Benefits Act: schedule 33 to the bill, subsection 1(1) (subsection 1(1) of the Pension Benefits Act), government motion number 12. MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I move that subsection 1(1) of schedule 33 to the bill be amended by adding the following definition:

“‘Chief executive officer’ means the chief executive officer appointed under subsection 10(2) of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario Act, 2016; (‘directeur général’)”

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Further discussion? MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: The proposed amendments are necessary in order for the Financial Services Regulatory Authority or the CEO to be able to carry out the functions being carried out by the superintendent and FSCO under the Pension Benefits Act. Without the proposed amendments, the transfer of powers, duties and functions under the Pension Benefits Act from the superintendent and FSCO to FSRA or the CEO would be delayed.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion? Seeing none, I will call the question on government motion number 12. All those in favour of government motion 12? All those opposed? I declare it carried.

Shall schedule 33, section 1, as amended, carry? Carried.

Schedule 33, section 2, through schedule 33, section 41, have no amendments. Can we bundle them? Thank you. Is there any discussion on schedule 33, section 2, to schedule 33, section 41? MPP Vanthof.

Mr. John Vanthof: We are strongly opposed to this section of the bill, mainly because it shouldn’t be part of this bill. Pensions are such a big issue in the province and the country right now. We’ve just gone through the issue with Sears. We don’t feel that this schedule within this omnibus bill addresses that issue and serves the pensioners and soon-to-be pensioners in this province adequately. Therefore, we are very opposed to this section.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion? MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I want to make two points.

The first one is that in this schedule are a number of provisions that benefit retirees. For example, we’re increasing the monthly guarantee provided by the PBGF, the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund, by 50%, from $1,000 a month to $1,500 a month. This is the only fund of its kind in Canada. We’re the only province that has this kind of fund. The PBGF provides critical assistance to pensioners and plan members when their plans are wound up without sufficient funds to cover the promised benefits. This legislation will ensure benefit security up to $1,500 in the event that a pension plan is not fully funded and that the employer is bankrupt. We are also requiring employers to fund a reserve within the plan called a provision for adverse deviation, or PfAD, which will help manage future risk.

Voting against the proposed amendments to the Pension Benefits Act means voting against these changes that ensure that we’re protecting retirees with regard to their pensions. The changes to the framework include stronger protections for worker retirement benefits, while enabling businesses to grow and be more competitive.

These are some of the changes that are proposed in the schedule that would have a positive benefit for retirees. That’s why it’s there and that’s why it is important that it be supported. I urge all members to support it.

1440

The second thing I would say is that a member opposite again alluded to the fact that he would have liked to have seen this schedule broken out as a separate piece of legislation. I know he’s argued for the breaking out of other schedules as well. Again, I’m going to reiterate that, notwithstanding his statement that the opposition would be supportive in the previous case—and perhaps supportive in this case; I don’t know—but the concern I have is that by breaking out schedules, each one has to go through the legislative process separately and independently. Because there are only so many bills that can be passed through the Legislature in a given period of time, that would certainly delay the passage of the legislation and therefore the benefits that would be derived from that, and certain bills in this legislative session could simply not get passed.

I think that that would mean that the benefits from some of these pieces of legislation would not be derived to the people that they’re designed to benefit. That’s why we’re supporting this schedule, and that’s why it’s within this piece of legislation.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Is there further discussion?

Mr. John Vanthof: A response to the member: Why we are opposing this schedule is because the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund hasn’t been changed for, I believe, 30 years, so saying it’s going up by 50%—if you take in inflation, it should be going up much higher, if you’re actually going to talk about protecting people’s pensions.

Furthermore, with the solvency, we don’t know how much the solvency of the pension fund is dropping, because that’s not in the act. We should have a much more fulsome discussion on the future of retirees in this province other than just this hiding it in a schedule.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion? MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I would simply add that there was the opportunity to debate this legislation during the debate in the Legislature, and there was an opportunity to debate these components then.

I would also say that the 50% increase that Mr. Vanthof has indicated—I gather it is inadequate from his perspective. If we vote down the schedule, as the NDP is proposing, then the PBGF would revert back to $1,000 a month instead of $1,500 a month. By voting down the schedule, effectively what the NDP is saying is that they would like to return the cap back to $1,000 a month from the $1,500 that we’re proposing in the legislation.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): MPP Vanthof.

Mr. John Vanthof: First of all, the last I recall, this bill was time-allocated, so it’s not that we had the opportunity to have a fulsome discussion on anything, when you pack 46 schedules in one bill and rush things.

We had the last deputation, as we talked about, with Centre Jules-Léger, at 6 p.m. and had to have amendments in by 10 a.m. That wasn’t even enough time to get translation done, so to tell us that we’ve had a fulsome discussion—and furthermore, with the PBGF, this section of the bill is also allowing—we don’t know the exact number—the solvency of pension funds to be lowered. That drastically changes how much people may need the PBGF. You’re taking from one, but not replacing on the other side.

Again, we still are vehemently opposed to this section of the bill.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): MPP Fedeli.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I too want to weigh in. The first time, the Liberals mentioned, “If you break it up, you’re not going to be able to pass Grassy Narrows.” The second time they mentioned it, and then the third and the fourth. Finally, there’s a breaking point with what I would consider to be a bit of a nonsensical discussion.

We asked for this omnibus bill to be broken out so that we could have a fulsome discussion on various topics. Instead, what we got was a bill that was jammed through—first of all, jam-packed, and then jammed through. They time-allocated this bill, which means that most MPPs in the Legislature, certainly on the opposition side, did not get an opportunity to speak to this bill.

We’ve seen this time and time again, and then we hear the same story, that if you don’t rush this through, something is not going to happen. That’s just not a fair argument when the government is in control of the agenda, and if they learned to manage their time properly, this could work rather well.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion? Seeing none, I will call the question on schedule 33, section 2 right through to schedule 33, section 41, inclusive. All those in favour? All those opposed? Those sections are carried.

Now we will move to schedule 33, section 42: a government motion on schedule 33 to the bill, section 42 (subsections 115(1.2), (1.3) and (1.4) of the Pension Benefits Act). MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: Chair, we’re looking at motion 14?

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): We’re on motion 13.

Mr. Yvan Baker: Motion 13; I’m sorry. Yes, thank you. My apologies.

I move that section 42 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

“(2) Section 115 of the act is amended by adding the following subsections:

“‘Regulations re transfer of commission, superintendent powers, duties and functions

“‘(1.2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

“‘(a) providing for the transfer of powers conferred on, duties assigned to and functions of the superintendent under this act to the authority or to the chief executive officer;

“‘(b) providing for the transfer of powers conferred on, duties assigned to and functions of the commission under this act to the authority or to the chief executive officer;

“‘(c) deeming references in this act or the regulations to the superintendent or the commission to be references to the authority or the chief executive officer;

“‘(d) governing transitional matters that may arise due to the transfers described in clauses (a) and (b) or the deeming of references described in clause (c).

“‘Same

“‘(1.3) A regulation made under subsection (1.2) is subject to such conditions, limitations and restrictions as may be prescribed.

“‘Conflicts

“‘(1.4) if there is a conflict between a regulation made under subsection (1.2) and any act or any other regulation, the regulation made under subsection (1.2) prevails, unless the act or other regulation specifies that it prevails.’”

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Further discussion? Seeing none—

Mr. Yvan Baker: Chair?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: Chair, I recommend voting for this motion. The proposed amendments are necessary in order for the Financial Services Regulatory Authority or the CEO to be able to carry out the functions being carried out by the superintendent and FSCO under the Pension Benefits Act. Without the proposed amendments, the transfer of powers, duties and functions under the Pension Benefits Act from the superintendent and FSCO to the Financial Services Regulatory Authority or the CEO would be delayed.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Thank you. Further discussion? Seeing none, I’ll call the question on government amendment number 13.

All those in favour? All those opposed? It is carried.

Shall schedule 33, section 42, as amended, carry? Carried.

Schedule 33, section 43, to schedule 33, section 45, have no amendments. Are we okay to bundle them? Okay.

Any discussion on schedule 33, section 43, to schedule 33, section 45? Seeing none, I’ll call the question. All those in favour of schedule 33, section 43, to schedule 33, section 45, inclusive? Opposed? Carried.

The NDP have given a notice on schedule 33. MPP Vanthof.

Mr. John Vanthof: Many of our issues have already been discussed, but for the record, the main issue with this is that provisions of this section allow the solvency of pension plans to be dropped. Again, there’s nothing in the bill that says exactly what numbers they are, because that was only in the statement; it’s not in the bill. Furthermore, that puts pensioners more at risk, and we believe that what was proposed to protect pensioners from allowing that solvency to drop is vastly inadequate. Therefore, we believe that this section of the bill should be voted down.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion? MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I’m just going to repeat for the record, in response, what I said during our prior discussion on this schedule, which is that voting against schedule 33 would result in amendments to the Pension Benefits Act being removed from this bill, Bill 177.

1450

There are a number of amendments which I’ve spoken to earlier, but one in particular would be that we are proposing to increase the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund by 50%, from $1,000 a month to $1,500 a month. Voting against schedule 33 would result in the removal of that benefit and a few others that would protect retirees, and that’s why I recommend voting in favour of the schedule.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion?

Mr. Mike Colle: Recorded vote.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Recorded vote.

Ayes

Baker, Colle, Malhi, Martins, Vernile.

Nays

Vanthof.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): I declare the motion carried.

We move to schedule 34, the Professional Engineers Act. There are no amendments for schedule 34, section 1, through schedule 34, section 14. Can we bundle? All right. Is there any discussion on schedule 34, section 1, though schedule 34, section 14, inclusive? Seeing no discussion, I will call the question. All those in favour of schedule 34, section 1, to schedule 34, section 14, inclusive—MPP Baker?

Mr. Yvan Baker: Sorry, are you calling the vote?

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): I thought I asked for discussion, but it’s all right.

Mr. Yvan Baker: Okay.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): All right, we’re going to move to vote here.

Schedule 34, section 1, through schedule 34, section 14: All those in favour? Carried.

Shall schedule 34 carry? All those in favour? Carried.

Schedule 35, the Provincial Offences Act: Schedule 35, section 1, and schedule 35, section 2, have no amendments. Can we do them both at once? All right. Any discussion on schedule 35, section 1, and schedule 35, section 2? Seeing none, I call the question. All those in favour of schedule 35, sections 1 and 2? Carried.

We move to schedule 35, section 3: Government motion, schedule 35 to the bill, section 3 (subsection 5.1(6) of the Provincial Offences Act). MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I move that subsection 5.1(6) of the Provincial Offences Act, as set out in section 3 of schedule 35 to the bill, be amended by striking out “a written request” and substituting “one written request”.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Further discussion? MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I recommend voting for this motion, Chair, because the current Provincial Offences Act entitles a defendant to deliver to the clerk of the court “one written request” to reschedule the time for meeting with a prosecutor to discuss potential early resolution of a charge. This bill, as introduced, inadvertently changed this language to “a written request.” Stakeholders have raised concerns that this change would require municipal court clerks to reschedule such meetings an indefinite number of times, which could lead to delay in the system.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Any further discussion? Seeing none, I’ll call the question on government amendment 14. All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

We move now to government amendment number 15, schedule 35 to the bill, section 3 (subsections 5.3(1) and (2) of the Provincial Offences Act). MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I move that subsections 5.3(1) and (2) of the Provincial Offences Act, as set out in section 3 of schedule 35 to the bill, be amended by striking out “two days” wherever it appears and substituting in each case “three days”.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): MPP Baker.

Mr. Yvan Baker: I recommend voting for the motion because stakeholders have raised concerns that a two-day time period for filing is too short and does not allow sufficient flexibility for situations where the prosecution office may not be able to file a document with the clerk of the court immediately.

A time period longer than three days is not recommended, as it could lead to situations where the defendant, having reached a plea agreement with the prosecutor, attempts to pay the fine but the court clerk is unable to accept the payment because the court clerk has not yet received the prescribed plea agreement form from the prosecutor.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Further discussion? Seeing none, I call the question on government amendment number 15. All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 35, section 3, as amended, carry? Carried.

Schedule 35, section 4, through schedule 35, section 30, have no amendments. Can we bundle? All right. Any discussion on schedule 35, section 4, through schedule 35, section 30? Seeing none, I’ll call the question. All those in favour of schedule 35, section 4, through schedule 35, section 30, inclusive? Opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 35, as amended, carry? Carried.

Schedule 36, the Registered Insurance Brokers Act: Schedule 36, section 1, through schedule 36, section 6, have no amendments. Can we bundle them? All right. Any discussion on schedule 36, section 1, through schedule 36, section 6? Seeing none, I’ll call the question on schedule 36, section 1, through schedule 36, section 6, inclusive. All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 36 carry? Carried.

Schedule 37, the Securities Act: Schedule 37, section 1, through schedule 37, section 13, have no amendments. Can we bundle? All right. Any discussion on schedule 37, section 1, through schedule 37, section 13? Seeing none, I’ll call the question. All those in favour of schedule 37, section 1, through schedule 37, section 13?

Interjections.

Mr. Yvan Baker: You’re looking for a hand, Chair?

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): I’m looking for hands. Okay. Opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 37 carry? Carried.

Schedule 38, Services and Supports to Promote the Social Inclusion of Persons with Developmental Disabilities Act, 2008: Schedule 38, section 1, through schedule 38, section 4, have no amendments. Can we bundle them? All right. Any discussion? All those in favour of schedule 38, section 1, through schedule 38, section 4, inclusive? Carried.

Shall schedule 38 carry? Carried.

Schedule 39, Supplementary Interim Appropriation for 2017-2018 Act, 2017: Schedule 39, section 1, through schedule 39, section 8, have no amendments. Can we bundle them? All right. Schedule 39, section 1, through schedule 39, section 8: All those in favour? Carried.

Shall schedule 39 carry? Carried.

Schedule 40, the Taxation Act, 2007: Schedule 40, section 1, through schedule 40, section 12, have no amendments. Can we bundle them? All right. Any discussion on schedule 40, section 1, through schedule 40, section 12? Seeing none, I’ll call the question. Schedule 40, section 1, through schedule 40, section 12, inclusive: All those in favour? Carried.

Oh, are you opposed?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: No, I’m fine.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Sorry. Do you want me to do it again? You’re sure?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Yes.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Okay. Sorry about that. I get on a roll and that’s it.

All right. Shall schedule 40 carry? Carried.

1500

Schedule 41, the Taxpayer Protection Act, 1999: Schedule 41, section 1 and section 2, have no amendments. Can we do them both at once? All right. Any discussion on schedule 41, section 1, and schedule 41, section 2? Seeing none, I will call the question. All those in favour of schedule 41, section 1, and schedule 41, section 2? Opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 41 carry? Carried.

Schedule 42, the Tobacco Tax Act: Schedule 42, section 1, through schedule 42, section 8, have no amendments. Can we bundle them? All right. Schedule 42, section 1, through schedule 42, section 8, inclusive: All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

Shall schedule 42 carry? Carried.

Schedule 43, Université de l’Ontario français Act, 2017: Schedule 43, section 1, through schedule 43, section 40, have no amendments. Can we bundle? All right. Schedule 43, section 1, through schedule 43, section 40, inclusive: All those in favour?

Interjection.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Oh, I’m sorry. MPP Vanthof.

Mr. John Vanthof: I just had a comment for the record. Again, because this, for whatever reason, perhaps bad schedule management—this bill was time-allocated, and there were deputants on one day, by 6 o’clock, and we had to have amendments in by 10 o’clock the next morning. That didn’t even allow for translation and for something as important—and we fully support the French university. But, again, by rushing this through—you could have made better legislation by actually taking the time to do it right.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Further discussion? Seeing none, I’ll call the question on schedule 43, section 1, through schedule 43, section 40, inclusive. All those in favour? Carried.

Shall schedule 43 carry? Carried.

We’re on to schedule 44, Wine Content and Labelling Act, 2000. Schedule 44, section 1, and schedule 44, section 2—can we do them together? Okay. Schedule 44, section 1, and schedule 44, section 2: All those in favour? Carried.

Shall schedule 44 carry? Carried.

Schedule 45, Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997: Schedule 45, section 1, through schedule 45, section 6, have no amendments. Can we bundle them? Okay. Schedule 45, section 1, through schedule 45, section 6: Any discussion? Seeing none, I’ll call the question. Schedule 45, section 1, through schedule 45, section 6: All those in favour? Carried.

Shall schedule 45 carry? Carried.

Schedule 46, Various Statutes—Annual Reports by Provincial Agencies: Schedule 46, section 1, through schedule 46, section 56, have no amendments. Can we bundle them? Okay. Any discussion? Seeing none, schedule 46, section 1, to schedule 46, section 56: All those in favour? Carried.

Shall schedule 46 carry? Carried.

Well done.

We’re going to return now to sections 1, 2 and 3 that we postponed at the beginning.

Are there any comments, questions or amendments to any section of the bill, and if so, to which section?

Interjection.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): All right. Section 1: Shall section 1 carry? All those in favour? Carried.

Shall section 2, commencement, carry? Carried.

Interjection.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Okay, I’m starting with section 2 again.

Section 2, commencement: Shall section 2 carry? All those opposed? Carried.

Section 3, short title: Shall section 3 carry? Carried.

Section 1 carried, section 2 carried and section 3 carried.

Now, shall the title of the bill—

Mr. Yvan Baker: Chair?

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Sorry. MPP Baker?

Mr. Yvan Baker: I just wasn’t sure if you were moving to the next vote. I’m skipping ahead, so I apologize in advance, but can we get a recorded vote on the vote on the entire bill?

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Certainly. Anyone else have any requests? Okay. All right, shall the title of the bill carry? Carried.

Shall Bill 177, as amended, carry? Recorded vote.

Ayes

Baker, Colle, Malhi, Martins, Vernile.

Nays

Barrett, Fedeli, Vanthof.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): Okay. Bill 177, as amended, carries.

Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Carried.

Mr. Mike Colle: I move adjournment.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): You don’t need to move adjournment. We are adjourning until Thursday at 9—

Mr. Mike Colle: Oh, I can move adjournment.

The Chair (Ms. Ann Hoggarth): You can, but we’re already going to do it—9 a.m. on Thursday.

Thank you, everyone, for your co-operation.

The committee adjourned at 1507.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Chair / Présidente

Ms. Ann Hoggarth (Barrie L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr. Han Dong (Trinity–Spadina L)

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

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand–Norfolk PC)

Mr. Mike Colle (Eglinton–Lawrence L)

Mr. Han Dong (Trinity–Spadina L)

Mr. Victor Fedeli (Nipissing PC)

Ms. Ann Hoggarth (Barrie L)

Ms. Harinder Malhi (Brampton–Springdale L)

Mrs. Cristina Martins (Davenport L)

Mr. John Vanthof (Timiskaming–Cochrane ND)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

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

Clerk / Greffier

Mr. Eric Rennie

Staff / Personnel

Ms. Julia Hood, legislative counsel