Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The committee met at 0907 in committee room 1.

1428501 Ontario Limited Act, 2017

Consideration of the following bill:

Bill Pr71, An Act to Revive 1428501 Ontario Limited.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Members of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills, we’ll now come to order. There’s one private bill on the agenda for consideration and it is sponsored by MPP Rinaldi. MPP Rinaldi will approach the bench and introduce the applicant, please.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’m delighted to introduce Maryse Rivet for Bill Pr71, An Act to Revive 1428501 Ontario Limited. Welcome.

Ms. Maryse Rivet: Thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): You obviously have some comments for us. You can proceed with those, please.

Ms. Maryse Rivet: Hello. We have a corporation. I represent the lawyers who represent our client, which is 1428501 Ontario Limited. The corporation was voluntarily dissolved in 2015. At the time, there was a court case going on. They forgot about it, and they are now wanting to revive the company in order to continue with the court case.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Okay. Did you say there was a court case going on?

Ms. Maryse Rivet: Yes.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): And they forgot about it?

Ms. Maryse Rivet: It was dormant. They were being sued, and the plaintiffs were dormant, not talking or saying anything, and they forgot. The client is a fairly big real estate company, and different parts didn’t talk to each other, so—

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): That never happens around here, does it?

Ms. Maryse Rivet: So one department looked at the company and said, “We haven’t done anything with this company in years. The project is finished. Let’s close it and dissolve,” and forgot to make sure that there was no other involvement in the company.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Are there any other parties interested in making a comment on this? Okay.

Are there any comments from the government side? Ms. Vernile.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Good morning, Ms. Rivet. This was a real estate company, you say?

Ms. Maryse Rivet: Yes. It’s part of a real estate group of companies.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: And you say that they were being sued. Do you know the nature of that suit?

Ms. Maryse Rivet: I do not know the nature of the suit.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Okay. Once the company is revived, what comes after that? What is the company intending to do?

Ms. Maryse Rivet: It will solely exist to represent itself in court against the plaintiff. Once the court case is finished, then it will dissolve again.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Any other questions from the government side? Questions from other members, if any?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I think it’s been addressed, but I’m going to ask it just so that I’m clear: The purpose of this revival is so that it can be sued, and then the plan is that after that case that it will be dissolved again?

Ms. Maryse Rivet: Yes.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Okay. Any other questions? Are the members ready to vote? Yes? Okay.

Shall section 1 carry? Carried.

Shall section 2 carry? Carried.

Shall section 3 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Members, shall I report the bill to the House? Carried.

Okay. Thank you very much. Done.

Draft report on regulations

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Okay, we will now turn our attention, members, to the draft report on regulations made in the second half of 2016.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Chair, a point of order.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Yes?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d be remiss—I should have done this before. I have my grandson with me today. Nathan Rinaldi is here for “Take your son,” or your father, whatever—

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Are you the father?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: —I’m not the father; I’m the grandfather—“to work.” He’s going to set me straight when I’m done.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Welcome. You know, the name “Nathan” means “child of God.” Did you know that? Well, you do now. Welcome, Nathan. You keep your granddad in line here, okay?

Members of the committee will recall that several weeks ago, the committee asked me to send letters to the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services requesting additional information in connection with the draft report. The responses from the ministry have been handed out to all of you by the Clerk.

The memo on the composition of the board of Stewardship Ontario has been prepared by legislative research, and it has also been handed out. I got mine last night. Did everybody get theirs? Yes?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I don’t see a response from the minister; I see your letter.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): It’s further on.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: That’s 2016.

Interjections.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Okay, Ms. French?

The committee also requested that the Ministry of Finance appear before us to discuss O. Reg. 325/16. They have joined us here today. I would invite our legislative researcher to provide us with a brief refresher on the regulation in question, and then we will proceed to questions from the committee to the ministry officials.

Ms. Hauerstock.

Ms. Tamara Hauerstock: Thank you. Good morning.

The regulation that we’d like to first consider is O. Reg. 325/16 under the Assessment Act.

The issue that we discussed at our last meeting related to the incorporation by reference of some documents into this regulation. We inquired whether the documents incorporated by reference into the regulation were readily available to the public, as required by the Legislation Act, 2006.

The ministry responded that all the documents were readily available and also indicated that in administering the Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program, the ministry refers to an updated 2014 version of a document, while the regulation refers to a 2002 version of that document. The possible recommendation that was included in the draft report was that the ministry amend the regulation to incorporate by reference the version of the document actually used by the ministry in administering the program. At that time, the committee requested that the Ministry of Finance appear to discuss this issue.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Okay. Does anybody need another copy of the draft report?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: If you’ve got one.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): One, okay.

Ms. Tamara Hauerstock: It’s O. Reg. 325/16.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Okay. We’ll go to the ministry now. Thank you for coming. Please introduce yourself and say whatever you want to say.

Mr. Mark Osbaldeston: Good morning, Mr. Chair. My name is Mark Osbaldeston. I’m a deputy director with the legal branch at the Ontario Ministry of Finance.

We’ve been working with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry because this reg is made by the Minister of Finance, but it creates a program that’s administered by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. What we are doing is working to have the references in the reg updated by the end of the year. We would prepare an amending reg that we could put before the Minister of Finance so it could be filed and in force by the end of the year.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Okay, thank you. Are there questions? Do you have the correspondence from the ministry? Ms. Vernile.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I’m just curious to know if you support the recommendations.

Mr. Mark Osbaldeston: Through you, Mr. Chair: Yes, ma’am, we do.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Thank you very much.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Okay. Mr. Walker.

Mr. Bill Walker: Just one clarification: You’re saying you’re going to have it finished by the end of the year and updated?

Mr. Mark Osbaldeston: Yes.

Mr. Bill Walker: Okay.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Any other questions?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I do.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Ms. French.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: In your reminder, you said that we’re talking specifically about a document that was referred to and it was 2002, but the one that’s actually available is 2014. The issue, though, is several documents. Is it sort of under that same umbrella, or am I confused? Because I’m seeing here that several documents are incorporated but—oh, yes, I am confused. Never mind. I’m looking at a different Ministry of Finance piece.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): So you’re okay, Ms. French?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m not sure. Is it just that one document that’s in question for this?

Ms. Tamara Hauerstock: There are several documents that are incorporated by reference into that regulation. There was only one that was of specific concern in the draft report, and that was the one where the reference in the regulation is to a 2002 version, but our understanding is that there is an updated version that is actually used on a day-to-day basis.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: So the regulations that are going to be updated, submitted, signed off and done by end-of-year are inclusive? The other documents would be factored in to that as well, or just that one?

Mr. Mark Osbaldeston: Ministry of Natural Resources staff are going through all the documents to make sure that when we amend the reg we can make sure that everything is up to date. But those were the two that were identified as being out of date.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Okay.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Are you satisfied, Ms. French?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Well, while we’ve got them here—as I’m looking at these other regulations, like 282/98 and some of the others, are those—I’m on page 7. Am I wrong?

Ms. Tamara Hauerstock: The parent regulation that we’re looking at is 282/98, but we were looking at that regulation in the context of the review of a 2016 regulation, which was 325/16, which amended the parent regulation 282/98. So it’s in fact one global regulation, if I could call it that.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: The possible recommendation that’s listed on page 8: Is that relevant, or am I on the wrong page? Is that what the government member was asking if they support in terms of recommendation? Because that’s a different—that’s why I’m confused, if that’s the parent regulation number. Is it all the same thing that we’re talking about?

0920

Ms. Tamara Hauerstock: It’s all the same thing. The amendment to update the documents incorporated by reference would be made to the parent regulation, which is 282/98.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Okay. So this recommendation that was originally made is what the member opposite was referring to, where the gentleman from the ministry has said yes? I will assume yes?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I’m asking about what we asked you to look into.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Right, but you said—sorry, my understanding was that you were just asking the ministry if they support the recommendation, so I was just confirming that the recommendation we’re referring to is this 282/98. That’s what you were referring to?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Yes, that’s what’s before us. That’s what we’re looking at.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Okay.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: What are you looking at?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: No, I’ve had it confirmed. I was just confirming it from you, and I caught you at an off moment. We’re confirmed.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Let me ask again: You’re okay, then, Ms. French?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Always.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Okay. Good. Thanks. That’s good to know.

Thank you, sir, for appearing before us today and answering our questions. I appreciate it.

Mr. Mark Osbaldeston: Thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Now we’re going to look back to Ms. Hauerstock to guide the committee through the rest of the report.

Ms. Tamara Hauerstock: When we looked at the draft report last time, the committee requested information on two regulations that were included in the draft report.

One of them was O. Reg. 306/16, under the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002. The committee asked the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services for an update on when the regulation will be remade. The ministry responded that the plan is to remake the regulation at the same time as a second regulation respecting discipline and appeals committees. They are expecting this process to be completed in winter 2018. I believe you have a copy of that correspondence in front of you.

The committee also requested an update respecting O. Reg. 444/16, under the Registry Act. The committee asked the ministry when the regulation would be amended to remove references to repealed clauses of the Registry Act. The ministry responded that they expect that regulation to be filed by January 1, 2018.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Any questions?

Ms. Tamara Hauerstock: Should I continue?

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Please.

Ms. Tamara Hauerstock: The committee also requested further information from the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services on how amendments to the Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act address the recommendations made by the committee in a previous report. This was with respect to O. Reg. 309/14.

The ministry responded and noted that the two recommendations that the committee had made were (1) to amend the act to authorize regulations requiring collectors to keep records and (2) to amend the act, the regulation or both of these to establish one set of requirements with respect to trust accounts. The ministry noted that the amendments made to the act have the effect of eliminating the registration requirement for collectors under the act. As a result, the requirement for collectors to maintain records becomes unnecessary. That’s in response to committee recommendation number 1.

With respect to the second issue, the amendments to the act have repealed the trust account requirements from the act. That leaves only one set of requirements relating to trust accounts.

The committee further asked why the amendments to the act have not been proclaimed. The ministry replied that the amendments are expected to be proclaimed when corresponding regulatory amendments that are required to support the changes made to the act are made, and these amendments are still being developed.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Ms. French?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: So the timeline of when corresponding regulatory amendments are brought into force or created—on whose plate does that fall? Like, which ministry, or who is doing the corresponding regulatory amendments that those are waiting for?

Ms. Tamara Hauerstock: I believe it’s the same ministry, the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: So they can’t bring it into force until these corresponding regulatory amendments are made. Are those on the agenda or is that waiting for something else? Because I know that right now in the Legislature, we’re talking about government and consumer services. Is that what they’re waiting for, or we don’t know?

Ms. Tamara Hauerstock: The only information I have with respect to this is what’s in the letter dated October 18, 2017. There’s no specific date noted in terms of a timeline, but what they’ve indicated is that they’re—

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Waiting for somebody else to do something else.

Ms. Tamara Hauerstock: —working on regulatory developments to bring them into force together.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Any other questions? Anything more?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I just have one more.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): One more? Okay.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Just so that I’m clear, there were two recommendations. One of them is essentially obsolete. It isn’t relevant anymore because the tracking or whatever no longer happens, so one recommendation—I understand that. It doesn’t make sense for it to be a question.

The other one that we’ve asked about: Is it a timeline issue that we’ve asked? We’ve asked when those regulations will come into force, and they’ve said, “When other corresponding regulatory amendments are created.” How do we have regulations that are dependent upon regulations that don’t exist, that they can’t—

Ms. Tamara Hauerstock: What has happened here is that the committee made recommendations with respect to a regulation under the act. That act has now been amended, and through those amendments to the act, the two concerns raised by the committee have both been addressed by way of amendment to the act.

Those amendments are not yet in force, according to the letter, because of their regulatory development process, but once the amendments are in force, they will address those two recommendations made by the committee.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Is it fairly normal for a regulation to be created but it can’t be in force until such time as another piece is created? Is that fairly typical?

Ms. Tamara Hauerstock: The amendments in this case that the ministry is talking about are amendments to a statute. I hesitate to say what’s typical and what’s not, but you certainly do see acts coming into force together with the regulations that support them, because together they create an entire regulatory scheme.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: But we’ve been assured that what they’re waiting for actually is unfolding, that there is work unfolding that will then—

Ms. Tamara Hauerstock: That’s what the letter, I believe, indicates.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Okay.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Ms. Vernile.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Actually, Mr. Walker had his hand up before me.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Mr. Walker.

Mr. Bill Walker: Mr. Chair, I’m just wondering if we should be noting this somewhere along the process so that this doesn’t fall through the cracks, and so we can review it and make sure that it does get done. One of the things I’ve certainly found with this committee is that a lot of stuff just seems to be circulating and circulating. I think that’s why we wrote those original letters, to say, “What’s the timeline? Is it being done?”

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): You’re right; we write, yes, and we rewrite.

Mr. Bill Walker: Yes. But I think we should be noting that we want to follow up to make sure it does keep moving.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Okay. Would you note that, Mr. Clerk, please?

Ms. Vernile.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: We just heard from a bureaucrat who sat before us and said that he would carry out his work. I think that we should let them do their work.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Okay.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Was I hampering their work?

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): I think that’s just a comment. Was that a comment or a question?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: In the interest of moving this forward.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Yes. Okay. Is there anything else?

Ms. Tamara Hauerstock: I have one more item.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): One more.

0930

Ms. Tamara Hauerstock: The final item that the committee requested further information on at their last meeting was a request for information on the composition of the board of Stewardship Ontario. This relates to O. Reg. 388/16 made under the Waste Diversion Transition Act, 2016. A memo on this was circulated, and I believe you have it in front of you.

Just briefly, the website of Stewardship Ontario indicates that an election was held on March 23, 2017, and the board is currently composed of one appointed director and nine elected directors.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Any questions? Okay. Anything else?

Ms. Tamara Hauerstock: That’s it for me today.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): A fine job.

There are no amendments, so we’ve made our way through the report. I’m wondering if the members are ready to vote on the report.

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): The Clerk has referenced possible recommendations in the report—and whether we want to adhere to them or remove them or simply move on. Any comments?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I can’t hear you.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Sorry. The Clerk has said that there are a number of recommendations that we can either embrace or remove as we progress through this report. What’s the will of the committee?

Ms. Vernile?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Can you let us know what the choices are for those recommendations?

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): The Clerk can do that.

Mr. Clerk?

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Sorry, I didn’t hear that.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: The way I remember it—and correct me if I’m wrong—is that we had already discussed the different regulations all the way through, with the exception of the Ministry of Finance, which is why we had invited him, so that he could then have the information for—were there others or was it just that one section?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): There are on pages 7, 8—

Ms. Jennifer K. French: So it was basically the correspondence that we have here that informs those—

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): There are two possible recommendations that are on pages 7 and 8 of the report. It’s really for the committee to decide whether to leave them in, just as a recommendation, whether to remove them, or whether to amend them in some way.

We can start with the recommendation on page 7. Does everyone want to leave that in, remove it, edit it? It’s for the committee to decide.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): The members are reviewing that at this moment.

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

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Mr. Walker?

Mr. Bill Walker: Can I just ask for clarification of the intent of the recommendation? Why would we remove references to the election of the board of directors?

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Presumably because we had an answer to the question.

Mr. Bill Walker: But I think it would be pretty standard to have a reference to the composition, so why would we remove it?

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): You’re suggesting we leave it.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’m just trying to figure out why we would have a recommendation to remove it. What would be the value of removing reference to it?

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Nobody’s rallying to see it removed, so by deduction, it would mean that we keep it. Are we okay with that?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I support the recommendations.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): All in favour? Okay.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): I guess we can move to the recommendation on page 8, which was in respect to O. Reg. 282/98. Does the committee want to leave that in the report, remove it, change it? It’s up to the committee.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: We accept the recommendation.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Is everybody okay with that? That’s it.

Are members ready to vote on the report?

Interjections.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Shall the draft report on regulations made in the second half of 2016 carry? Carried.

Shall the Chair sign off on the final copy of the draft? Okay.

Shall the report be translated? Carried.

Shall the report be printed? Carried.

Is there any further advice, Mr. Clerk, on the final motion?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): Yes. Essentially, based on the fact that there are recommendations that remain in this report, we have the option of either presenting the report to the House and moving its adoption or presenting the report to the House and moving that the recommendations contained in the report be adopted. I don’t know if the committee has a preference, but it’s two slightly different ways of doing it.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Okay, so report and—

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): Specific to the House adopting the recommendations or that the report just in general be adopted without any real emphasis on the regulations found in the report.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Ms. Vernile.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I’m going to recommend that we report and adopt.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Okay. Ms. French.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: So if we report it to the House and ask that the report be adopted versus ask that the recommendations be adopted—like, here’s the report and please adopt the recommendations—does the first option, then, not—aren’t the recommendations contained within the report?

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Let’s ask Ms. Vernile what the nature of her motion was.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I recommend that we report this to the House and that the House adopt it, just to see this move along.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: You had given us essentially two options: adopt the report or adopt the report with recommendations. I’m looking at the draft report and we just said we, as a committee, want to report this to the House. Now we’re figuring out the wording. Is this not the report that will go to them with the recommendations contained within?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): Yes. There are a total of four options when you’re sending anything to the House. There is just to present the report to the House, which is typically done when it’s not a substantive report. There is to present the report to the House and move its adoption; when the House calls it for adoption, the House just adopts the report in general, which is what Ms. Vernile has suggested. There is present the report to the House and move that the recommendations contained in the report be adopted; it’s just more of an emphasis on the recommendations found in the report. And then there is to present the report to the House and move that the report be considered by the House, which is if you want the House to have further debate on the contents of the report.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I hear you on the adoption part, but just so that I’m clear, with the two options of adopt the report or adopt the report and adopt its recommendations, are they getting the same physical paper report, with recommendations in it regardless of our wording?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): Yes. The report remains the same. It’s just a matter of what we’re asking the House to do.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I was just making sure that you weren’t leaving out the recommendations in one of those options.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): No. The report, as it is, has been adopted, so that is what will go to the House. It’s really a matter of what we’re asking the House to do with it, whether we want them to adopt the report that we’ve submitted to them or whether we want them to adopt specifically the recommendations contained in the report.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Mr. Walker.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’m struggling—and I think you were, Ms. French—as to why would we go through the process of agreeing to recommendations that presumably would improve our legislation and then not ask them to adopt them. I don’t understand why we would just table it and say, “Here it is.” I would definitely go with number 3, that they adopt and implement the recommendations.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Yes.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): Table it as it is would be the first option, which is just present the report to the House and not ask—

Ms. Jennifer K. French: So we’re talking 2 and 3, then, of your four.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): Yes. So 2 was present the report to the House and move its adoption, and 3 is present the report to the House and move that the recommendations contained in the report be adopted.

Mr. Bill Walker: Yes, and I believe Ms. Vernile said number 2.

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

Mr. Bill Walker: I am suggesting it should be number 3, because I want those recommendations, or why do we go through this whole process?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Exactly.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Okay, so you agree with that?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Well, I want to underscore what both my colleagues have said, that we are trying to comprehend the principal differences between the choices that you’re giving us. But we went through this process, so we want the recommendations and the report to be adopted.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Let me ask: So you will modify your motion to reflect that?

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Our intention as a caucus is to see this move forward to be adopted with the recommendations.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): Okay, so be it. All those—

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Yes, I don’t want to just present it.

The Chair (Mr. Ted McMeekin): So shall I present the report to the House and move that the recommendations contained therein be adopted? Carried.

Okay, members, there’s no other business. This standing committee doesn’t stand anymore; it’s adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 0941.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Chair / Président

Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland–Quinte West L)

Mr. Granville Anderson (Durham L)

Mr. James J. Bradley (St. Catharines L)

Mr. Grant Crack (Glengarry–Prescott–Russell L)

Ms. Jennifer K. French (Oshawa ND)

Mr. Jack MacLaren (Carleton–Mississippi Mills IND)

Mr. Ted McMeekin (Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale L)

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland–Quinte West L)

Mr. Mario Sergio (York West / York-Ouest L)

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

Mr. Bill Walker (Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound PC)

Mr. Jeff Yurek (Elgin–Middlesex–London PC)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr. Christopher Tyrell

Staff / Personnel

Ms. Jennifer Gold, legislative counsel

Ms. Tamara Hauerstock, research officer,
Research Services