The committee met at 0904 in committee room 1.

Ice Hockey Resources Ltd. Act, 2023

Consideration of the following bill:

Bill Pr23, An Act to revive Ice Hockey Resources Ltd.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Good morning, everyone. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will now come to order.

As you know, first on the agenda today we have the consideration of Bill Pr23, An Act to revive Ice Hockey Resources Ltd. I’m going to ask the MPP sponsor today to introduce himself.

MPP Jamie West: Good morning, Chair. My name is MPP Jamie West. MPP Glover is on House duty; he asked me to sponsor this on his behalf.

Is the format, “I beg leave to introduce the bill,” or no?

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): No, it’s just fine for you to introduce yourself.

MPP Jamie West: Okay.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I will ask the applicant to introduce themselves.

Ms. Victoria Winter: My name is Victoria Winter. I’m the lawyer at Beard Winter, which is the law firm that has been working with Ice Hockey Resources.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): MPP West, if you have any comments specific to the bill—

MPP Jamie West: No, I don’t. I’ll leave that to the applicant.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I’ll return to the applicant, if she has any comments.

Ms. Victoria Winter: Just as background: Our firm acted for Ice Hockey Resources when it was incorporated in 2012. Its sole asset were shares in a start-up company in Brazil that was looking to expand its business into Canada. There was no activity in the company. For five years, it looked as if nothing was proceeding, so we obtained instructions from the counsel in Brazil to dissolve the company; we did so in 2017.

We were contacted last year and advised that there was now activity in the company in Brazil and they were looking to amend their articles of association. Under the laws in Brazil, all former shareholders were required to be active in order to permit them to amend their articles. As a result, we were requested to proceed with the revival of Ice Hockey Resources in Ontario.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Are there any other interested parties in attendance here today?

Ms. Victoria Winter: There are not.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I was just looking around the room as well, Ms. Winter, to make sure—

Ms. Victoria Winter: Oh, I’m sorry.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): No, it was a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B—making sure there was no one else online either.

Are there any comments from the government? Okay. I see none from MPP Rae.

I would call for questions or comments from committee members to the applicant at this time. Ms. Gallagher Murphy.

M^me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: This Brazil company—there was no activity for five years, but then you noted that last year, in 2022, they wanted to revive it. Is there a specific rationale why they want to revive now? Are they looking to reinsert themselves in this business in this province—they believe there’s business to be had now? What’s happening?

Ms. Victoria Winter: My understanding, from the information I’ve received from counsel in Brazil, is that they do want to now proceed to expand the business into Ontario.

M^me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: Specifically, what type of business is it? I know it’s Ice Hockey Resources, but can you describe a little bit about the business for us?

Ms. Victoria Winter: Certainly. The name “Ice Hockey Resources” is really dealing primarily with the fact that it’s located in Canada. The actual business of the company is the commercial representation of beverages, so it develops beverages both for itself and for third parties.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Are there any other questions or comments from the committee members for Ms. Winter? I don’t see any. In that case, are the members ready to vote? Okay.

Considering Bill Pr23, An Act to revive Ice Hockey Resources Ltd.: Are there any comments on section 1? Shall section 1 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.

Are there any comments on section 2 of the bill? Shall section 2 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.

Are there any comments on section 3 of the bill? Shall section 3 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.

Are there any comments on the preamble to the bill? Shall the preamble carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.

Are there any comments on the title? Shall the title carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.

0910

Are there any questions or comments on the bill as a whole? No? Therefore, shall the bill carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried.

Okay, thank you. And Ms. Winter, that bill has been carried and will be reported to the House.

Ms. Victoria Winter: Thank you very much for your consideration.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you.

Committee business

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): So, folks, having concluded that part of this morning, we’ll move on to committee business.

There are a few items for the committee to consider. You have seen the agenda and know that we have a couple of things and maybe some, hopefully, interesting and thoughtful discussion on a few points. I’ll defer to the committee: We’re fine to proceed in open session? Okay.

In that case, what I had wanted to consider today, just so that you know where to put your thoughts, should you have some this morning: a debrief and discussion on our committee’s trip to the National Conference of State Legislatures; we received a memo from the director of broadcast and recording services; and I’m hoping to have a discussion on the committee’s further work in the study of the renovation and restoration of the legislative precinct.

I guess we’ll begin with the committee’s trip to the National Conference of State Legislatures in Indiana. Would anyone like to offer their thoughts on that trip? Mr. West.

MPP Jamie West: Yes, I wanted to say I really enjoyed the conference. Sometimes you go to a conference and it’s hard to find things, especially when you’re in another country, that relate to what you’re doing. I found there were a couple of plenary sessions where I was divided on where I wanted to go, which is always a good thing when there is more information than you’re able to take in and you don’t feel like you’re wasting time.

I thought the tour of the assembly was helpful, as well, for the work that we’re doing in understanding the different assemblies. I also got to see the assembly in Regina and just see the similarities and differences and challenges they’re having.

I think, as well, at a personal level, I think we’re all in agreement this is a pretty friendly committee to begin with. But it was nice to see my colleagues outside of committee chambers or in debate and stuff and get to know each other more on a personal level, which I think you can’t really put on paper, the value of it, when you have those open and frank conversations and know each other more personally than when you’re debating or having tough conversations. You know that it’s not personal; it’s more about the policy.

But overall, I thought it was a good event to be at. I’m looking forward to going to the next one, as well.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): MPP Oosterhoff.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I have to just start by saying that I really appreciated seeing MPP West represent Canada on the world stage, really, when it came to his ability to do push-ups in front of thousands of people. I was very impressed, so thank you, sir.

I think it was an excellent convention. There are some really big take-aways that a few of us had in the breakout sessions, especially in housing and some of the pieces that they’re doing there. They’re looking at doing some of the things that we are doing here in Ontario. It was fascinating to see some of the differences, as well, around things like energy policy. There they were talking about getting to phasing out coal and how they were going to get there and, I mean, that’s a decade in the past already here in Ontario. They were talking about small modular reactors, which is something that we’re obviously very proud of here in Ontario, working towards more clean, affordable nuclear.

It was fascinating to see some of the conversations around public transit that we’ve been having here over the past decade, but also really interesting to see the structure in their legislatures because it varies so drastically in terms of the separation of powers from the executive and the legislative branches, and then multiple legislative branches. I was in one on—I think it was called “know your legislature.” It was like a Q&A thing; I think Chris was there with me. And they’re like, “What’s the only unicameral legislature?” And I think it was Nebraska, if my memory is correct. I was sitting there and thinking, “Holy moly, it takes forever for them to get anything through in terms of legislation,” because it’s bicameral, and then there’s all these conflicting offices. We saw that even when we were going through the Statehouse, where it was like, “No, no, no. That’s the House of Representatives. We don’t do anything with that. This is the Senate side.” It was just very, very different—the approach and the evolution of their system.

It was also great to see people from all over the world. I spoke for a while with a fellow from Ghana. The German delegation was very outgoing. There were people from all sorts of different places that were representative of the interest that people have in parliamentary democracy and the different forms, but also the camaraderie that democracies around the world feel, and also a recognition that the US does have a unique space within the global sphere. And so when we all went there, whether it was from Alberta or the Quebec delegation, which—maybe we could get into why Quebec had their own actual participation. I’d love to hear some of the rationale behind why we could see—there were representatives from Quebec, not just representatives of Canada, like we were, so I’d be interested in that.

All in all, it was very, very valuable. I learned a lot and appreciated, as MPP West spoke about, the camaraderie between colleagues as well; there were some healthy debates while we were even just walking through the halls—so definitely worthwhile and some lessons. I know that I’ve been speaking with colleagues who didn’t go about some of the take-aways. So thank you for the opportunity to be there.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): MPP Harris.

Mr. Mike Harris: Just to echo the sentiments that Jamie brought up, it was really nice to be able to get to know him a little bit better. I think we already get along pretty well, but I think now we have an opportunity to know each other’s families and really learn a little bit more behind the person.

One of the things that I found interesting—we talk a lot here in Ontario about how it could be better, and there are always things that we can improve on. But like Sam said, we’re 10 years ahead on a lot of the stuff that they were still in deliberations about, which I thought was really neat. It really validates a lot of the hard work that parliamentarians of all stripes—it doesn’t have to be just government versus opposition—to really let the people of Ontario know that we are actually on the right track, we are solving a lot of the problems, not only here in Ontario, but that we see across North America and, quite frankly, around the world. So it was really neat to be able to be part of it.

I want to thank the Chair and the committee, who participated, and hopefully we’ll have an opportunity to do these as we move down the road.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I’m going to insert myself into the speakers’ list and thank the Clerk and the folks who organized not just our trip but also, while we were there, that secondary tour. I know we all enjoyed the tour that was the public one for legislators. That was a pretty neat overview. But the behind-the-scenes tour with the gentleman who handles operations of the place—and to actually be able to ask the questions that are reflective of what we’re seeing here and what they’re seeing there, because, of course, that building is of a similar age. So I appreciated that you pulled a couple of strings and made the arrangements while we were there.

I’m also going to ask the Clerk to address the question from Mr. Oosterhoff around the specific and recognized participation of Quebec versus—all of the other provinces were part of Canada as a whole. I know that Quebec does take a fairly involved role in that particular conference.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): Quebec, at one of the plenary sessions, did have their own nameplate whereas we were part of the rest of the Canada delegation or the international delegation. For the National Conference of State Legislatures—members of that are state Legislatures of the US or their overseas territories. We did take a quick look into the document governing how they operate, and while international delegations are not able to become members, they do have something similar to an associate member status that can be applied for and is at the discretion of the executive committee as to whether they should allow it or not. I haven’t looked into this fully. I would assume that Quebec has done something akin to that and that is why they were—

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Does it give them any additional privileges that we didn’t have?

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I’m going to jump in with something that I had observed. The first day, when we had the networking session with the other international visitors, the—oh, I forget his name. Anyway, the member who actually joined us at our table from Quebec got up and welcomed people; he’s on the executive board. I think they have a member status that is separate from what Ontario has chosen to pursue.

0920

I think that’s a broad summary—

Mr. Mike Harris: It’s Quebec. That’s why.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I was just curious about the mechanics.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Anyway, I think that that’s something that, as our committee continues to build a relationship with this particular conference, if we think it’s worthwhile or we find out that there are other ways that the committee can be involved, we can leave that to the Clerk to maybe filter back if we’re interested.

Any other comments about the trip to Indiana? Ms. Gallagher Murphy.

M^me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: Yes. First off, I’d like to thank the Clerk and staff for coordinating everything, and specifically to Clerk Tyrell for helping me with my lost luggage and going back to the airport and getting that. Thank you.

I also enjoyed both tours, especially the second one, to really get some in-depth conversation going with the superintendent—I can’t remember what his title was. But that was really informative, because it gave me a few things that we did not think about. It was interesting to see their Legislature in that way.

The conference overall, I really enjoyed. I was particularly interested in the AI cybersecurity. I though that technology—it’s affecting us all, so from an international state legislator’s standpoint, everyone is impacted. I love the fact that everyone is prioritizing governance and risk management. I thought that was great.

I also enjoyed going through the vendors, through the area where there were so many of them. I’ve never seen so many like that for a government one. But I met a lot of contacts and had some great conversations just one-on-one with different organizations. I found that was valuable as well. I look forward to next year’s conference.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you.

If there aren’t any further comments to the conference, we can move on to the next section. It was distributed to all members. The committee received a memo from the director of broadcast and recording services. It was a follow-up to the May 24 memo the committee received regarding audio on the online live-stream feeds.

There is now an option on all broadcast feeds on the Legislative Assembly’s website for floor sound. What that means is that audio, as it is being spoken—without interpretation into French or English—is now available. This applies to the media studio, the House and to committee feeds.

The Clerk is going to provide the committee with an update—oh, no, that’s after. Sorry. I think he’s distributing the memo. Okay. Folks have had a chance to take a look at this when it was distributed. Does anyone have any thoughts they would like to share on this?

Mr. Mike Harris: Madam Chair?

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Mr. Harris.

Mr. Mike Harris: Could we maybe send a note or make a point—I don’t mind doing it, or if you’d like to let Madame Collard know that this indeed is something that’s been done, because I know she’d asked for it through the committee, and also, I think, a few of us just sort of anecdotally as well.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Thank you. Is there further discussion on this and adding on to Mr. Harris? Then we can actually come up with a plan for how we distribute. Mr. West?

MPP Jamie West: I was just going to say we used the floor sound yesterday. I had a question that was in French; the response was in English—

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Can you lean closer?

MPP Jamie West: Sorry.

We used the floor sound yesterday. I had a question that was in French. The response was partly French and English. It really helps, because if you speak French for part of it, the other sound—you get the translation over it, and then the translation also cuts out what you said before or after, depending when it starts or finishes. I think it’s helpful for people who are bilingual to understand both, but also if you’re trying to share something without cutting off what you’re saying. I’m just sharing it because it demonstrates that it works, which I think she was trying to achieve.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Okay. I will add that I know that members in our caucus, and I’m sure various caucuses, have been asking for this a very long time—or something to be able to share the language that they’re speaking without the translation.

The fact that this has been, I’ll say, fixed, or made available, begs a next step, I’d say, for what Mr. Harris has suggested. Initially we had heard from Madame Collard, but I know that Madame Gélinas and Monsieur Bourgouin and Monsieur Sarrazin and a number of other French speakers—

Mr. Mike Harris: Can we send a communication out to all members, then? Would that be something—

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I think maybe we don’t just send it to those that identify as francophone but send it to everyone. I think people would be quite interested.

In that case, Clerk, does that come from the committee?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): It can. I’m happy to forward the correspondence from Mike Donofrio to all members, if that’s what the committee is directing me to do.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Could I ask that you include a little bit of an intro that sort of summarizes that there has been a change to what is available in language and translation, so that people know what’s attached? We do get a lot of emails and we just want to make sure that folks know. Thank you.

If there’s nothing else where that’s concerned? Okay, then I’d like to ask our Clerk to provide the committee with an update on the legislative precinct study, please and thank you.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): Over the summer, we received some requests to appear and some written submissions. The written submissions should have been distributed to all of you electronically on Friday of last week.

In terms of the outreach to Indigenous groups, which the committee had asked for, I know there have been four groups that have been identified. We’ve reached out to the four. As of right now, we have one that is actually scheduled to come on a tour on the afternoon of October 5.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): We had already met with them.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): Pardon?

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): We had already met with them, on Zoom.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): Yes, yes. We had connected the Chair with them. She had explained what the committee was doing. They have taken us up on her offer.

Mr. Mike Harris: Which group was this?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): The Métis Nation of Ontario. They will be here on October 5. We will get them a tour and then it will be up to the committee to decide when the committee would like to meet with them.

The Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation: We just heard back from them after a while yesterday. I just circled back to them. The person I was dealing with has forwarded it on to the leadership there and I’m hoping for a response at some point soon.

Mr. Mike Harris: Just out of curiosity, when did we reach out?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): This was April, May?

Mr. Mike Harris: So quite some time.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): Quite some time.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): But it’s been ongoing. It was not a one-time thing. The Clerk has been working to connect and working with the ministry to find best contact points.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): The Tungasuvvingat Inuit: We have not received a response as of yet.

The Chiefs of Ontario: We have not received a response as of yet, but we do plan to reach back out to them. Our protocol team here has pre-existing relationships with them, so I’m hoping to go through that and hopefully get a response.

I know that the committee had had a bit of a discussion about what they would like a potential tour to look like for the groups that we’ve invited. I would be happy if you could provide some more direction on that, as we are currently putting together what the tour should look like for those groups.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I’ll jump in. One of the things that I had discussed with the Clerk about the tour that is different from the public tour is a bit of a public tour, but also we have a lot of folks on staff who know their art history and who know the building’s architectural history, and to make them available if they wanted to weigh in on important elements to highlight on a tour.

It’s not the tour that we have done, up-in-the-attic and in-the-walls kind of thing, but I think being able to experience this building, look at the art, recognize some of the stories that it tells and having the time to actually see, whether it’s the art pieces on the wall or even just experiencing the space in a way that, perhaps, I wouldn’t know to.

The tour would be with the folks at the protocol office who give the tours. Maybe giving them a little bit of licence to design a tour I thought would be appropriate, and if they have an understanding of who would be coming. And I wouldn’t say it’s a half-hour tour; I would see if we could make it what it needs to be.

Mr. Oosterhoff.

0930

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Not directly related to that, but just for broader context: Are we also extending invitations to the Sir. John A. Macdonald Historical Society or family members?

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): That’s a separate part of the study, I guess—or it’s separate from the study and yet all interconnected. This, if you’ll recall, was more of the building and the renovation-restoration. However, what we had done over this summer was open up that—I’m calling it a “portal,” for lack of a better word—where we allowed people who did reach out over the summer to have a place to put their thoughts and comments at this stage.

It will be up to the committee to figure out—as we have been tasked by the Board of Internal Economy—to look at the plans for the Sir John A. Macdonald statue, so it’s up to this committee to figure out when we do that work, what that work looks like.

I’m going to keep those two things separate at this point, but all interconnected we recognize that.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): Just for the committee’s information, we have received a couple of written submissions that do pertain to grounds and monuments—that’s the topic that the Sir John A. Macdonald statue falls under—and we do have some requests to appear on that same topic.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Yes, sorry. I had the two mixed up.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Well, no, it requires attention, so it’s up to the committee to figure out what that looks like and when and whatnot. In terms of the legislative precinct study, those were the updates. Was there anything further?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): No, that’s it.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I know that there had been some talk before the summer recess about either visiting other institutions if there was a reason to do that or an interest to do that.

Side note: I had the opportunity to attend a conference in Quebec and got a brief walk around their Legislature. It is new in parts and restored in others and it was quite impressive, and I don’t know if the members have other thoughts in mind in terms of what we would like the committee to do.

We have put out our initial report. Is the committee looking towards inviting people to appear before the committee? What are our thoughts? Mr. Harris.

Mr. Mike Harris: I know from my end—and I don’t want to presume to speak for other members. I think a little time to digest what has been put out—I don’t want to say “slow things down,” because obviously we want to keep the momentum going and we’ve done a lot of great work. But I think at this point it would be good to take one little half-step back, get a good sense of where we’re at, get through the report, maybe highlight a few things that we think we want to still explore a little bit, some that we think we can kind of put to bed and say, “Okay, I think we’ve gotten to where we need to be on this.” Maybe we open it up and see if that’s kind of where everybody wants to go. That’s my thoughts.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Mr. West?

MPP Jamie West: Last time we met, or maybe the time before that, more or less we had just authorized the secretariat to be formed and all that part. I like working from a plan on something like this, and I don’t know if we need specifically like a Gantt chart spelling things out. But we’re sort of taking things as they come in, and I don’t know, sometimes, if we’re putting the cart before the horse in what we’re doing. Maybe it would make sense to meet with the secretariat to talk about the vision that they have in terms of the progress going forward or what sort of timelines we’re trying to meet so we can build a plan, just because I think we’ve been more successful if people were reaching out to us and we say, “Yes, we’re going to be in that stage but right now we’re in an earlier stage. We’ve received your feedback but when we get to the next one, we’ll contact you.” It’s just because I’m concerned that we’re doing the best we can but not really following a chart or a path.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Okay. Mr. Harris?

Mr. Mike Harris: Putting the secretariat hat on here for a second, I think that’s something we could certainly do. I know we’ve been talking about it for a while. There are some sensitivities around some parts of it when we’re talking about where we might be going with RFPs, security concerns, some different things like that. It might be a discussion that we might have to do in camera, as long as everyone is okay with that, just because there are some pieces that we can’t really broadly discuss. But if you would like, I can certainly speak with the minister and see if that’s something that we can put together maybe for after Thanksgiving or something along those lines, after that constituency week, if that’s agreeable.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I’m seeing some head nods.

I would also say that, perhaps because it was something that has been talked about for a while—and since the creation of the secretariat, I know that we had wanted to connect with them once they had gotten their feet under them a little bit—

Mr. Mike Harris: I’d say we’re getting pretty close to that point.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Yes, and that’s fine—so if the committee officially reaches out and says we would look forward to having a meeting, and maybe allowing them to flip back to us what they would like to be on that agenda. We can also add some things, because if there are some sensitive bits that we need to have in camera or broadly have an understanding of what would be helpful work for this committee to be conducting alongside—I know that that’s what I’ve heard from members, about whether it’s a plan or just a bit of direction. Are there other thoughts on that piece?

Are you fine to reach out or connect with Mr. Harris about what that communication to the secretariat would look like?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): Sure. If the committee is fine with that, that’s no problem.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Okay.

Something else that we have in front of us is a book called the Artists who Created the Art at Queen’s Park, from former-Speaker David Warner, who has shown a keen interest in the work of the committee. I know all members have received the letters that he has shared with us, his thoughts, specifically—to Mr. Oosterhoff’s earlier point, there is much interest in the plans for the Sir John A. Macdonald statue. He had written to us on that, as well as some other ideas and comments on the Legislature. So is there any discussion right now about his letters, or will we put that with the Sir John A. Macdonald discussion, which I would encourage the committee members to give some thought to so that we can figure out our thoughtful plan and approach?

Mr. Oosterhoff.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Yes. Are we—

Interjection.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Oh, sorry.

Mr. Matthew Rae: No. Go ahead.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: You had your hand up.

He had his hand up.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I thought Mr. Rae was just waving at me, but I’m not—

Mr. Matthew Rae: Go ahead, Sam.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Okay. Gentlemen, who’s first?

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: No. Age before beauty.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Keep it collegial, gentlemen.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Okay. So, are we going to have a specific—I don’t know how the organization for this in the subcommittee is going on, so I’m curious—

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Subcommittee?

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Is there not a subcommittee for this one, because we just do everything?

Interjection.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Well, that would be why.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Oh, sorry. Yes, the subcommittee is Mr. West and Mr. Harris.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Okay. So there is a subcommittee; I’m not completely losing it.

Mr. Mike Harris: Don’t forget we’re live.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I get that.

My question is just, are we going to be setting up a specific committee meeting to deal with that issue and have everyone come in and have recommendations and discussions around that? Because it feels like it just keeps coming up here and there: “Oh, you know, it’s been six months since we’ve talked about it.” It comes up. “Oh, we got some messages back.” I get that we’re coming to a point where we’re going to hear from everybody, have a discussion, have stakeholders, but it’s been vague and nebulous up until know, and I’m hoping we can have a—

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): And I think that’s a fair comment, that having that plan would be important. So I think the subcommittee has heard you, if they want to have a meeting, to put that together.

I know that it would be worthwhile for the committee to not just review what has been submitted but without a call for submissions, right? That has just been what people are interested in, and I think putting forward a thoughtful plan and strategy has to happen. That hasn’t happened just yet because we had said before the summer recess it would be a task waiting for us when we came back to give it our full attention. So I will look at the subcommittee pointedly, and we can figure that out.

Hello, Mr. Rae.

Mr. Matthew Rae: Hello, Chair.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): You’re not just waving. I recognize you.

Mr. Matthew Rae: Yes, thank you, and I thank MPP Oosterhoff for his comments.

Yes, I would agree that we should put it—to Sam’s point, it’s kind of haphazard, to use that language right now—whether it’s the subcommittee or whether it’s the larger committee, into a larger plan, whether that’s encompassing also the restoration in the over-arching, forward-looking prospect and so including that in more of a robust discussion. To your point, Chair, the call for submissions—I know we released that link but, who really knows where? They can’t even find the committee itself, let alone a link to submit comments. So having that more fulsome plan, I would agree with.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Okay. I will add, as well, that I know that there are agencies and organizations and institutions who have done very thoughtful work on some of these challenging topics. It might be worth the committee also reaching out to some of them to figure out how they either structured it, how they resolved, how they framed that work as we approach it, because none of us want it to be haphazard; we want it to be thoughtful and give it the attention it deserves. But reaching out to some of the others—maybe I can ask the Clerk and researcher to work with me on a bit of an initial list to present to the subcommittee and we can take it from there. Okay. And if members have any suggestions where that’s concerned, filter that to the subcommittee and then we will move forward.

Is there anything else that we would add to the renovation-restoration study? Any thoughts have come up that we can—okay.

So if there isn’t any further business, I’m just going to test—this Thursday or next Thursday, we have a longer time open to us. But this Thursday, I don’t know that we’ll have enough time for turnaround of reaching out to the secretariat and having some information back. Would Thursday next week be something that members—if we were to schedule a more thoughtful time, we’ve got a bit more time. Would that be fine at this point?

Mr. Mike Harris: Sorry, just for clarification: to try and have a bit of an answer back from the secretariat; is that your idea?

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I was just thinking that we could incorporate that if there’s an answer back, but maybe, by then, there will have been a subcommittee meeting and we could have a bigger group discussion about some of these things. But I want to give members as much time as possible to hold this spot in their calendar.

Mr. Mike Harris: I think it is going to be challenging—this Thursday and next Thursday—for a couple of members.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): Okay. Then I’ll work with the subcommittee and we can look at dates.

Mr. Mike Harris: Sure. Okay.

The Chair (Ms. Jennifer K. French): I just thought, while I had you, I would test the waters. You can’t blame a girl for trying.

Okay, in that case, if there is no further business, then this committee is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 0943.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

Chair / Présidente

Ms. Jennifer K. French (Oshawa ND)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr. Matthew Rae (Perth–Wellington PC)

Ms. Jessica Bell (University–Rosedale ND)

Ms. Jennifer K. French (Oshawa ND)

M^me Dawn Gallagher Murphy (Newmarket–Aurora PC)

Mr. Mike Harris (Kitchener–Conestoga PC)

Ms. Christine Hogarth (Etobicoke–Lakeshore PC)

Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et les Îles L)

Mr. Graham McGregor (Brampton North / Brampton-Nord PC)

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff (Niagara West / Niagara-Ouest PC)

Mr. Matthew Rae (Perth–Wellington PC)

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

Mr. Stéphane Sarrazin (Glengarry–Prescott–Russell PC)

MPP Jamie West (Sudbury ND)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Ms. Natalie Pierre (Burlington PC)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr. Christopher Tyrell

Staff / Personnel

Mr. Ralph Armstrong, legislative counsel

Mr. Nick Ruderman, research officer,
Research Services