Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The committee met at 0902 in committee room 1.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Eric Rennie): Good morning, honourable members. In the absence of the Chair and Vice-Chair this morning, it is my duty to call upon you to elect an Acting Chair. Are there any nominations for Acting Chair? Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Toby Barrett: Thank you, Acting Chair. No, you’re not the Acting Chair; you’re the Clerk, who is acting as a Chair.

I wish to nominate MPP Robin Martin to serve as Acting Chair.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Eric Rennie): Thank you. Mrs. Martin, do you accept the nomination?

Mrs. Robin Martin: Yes, I do.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Eric Rennie): Thank you. Are there any further nominations for Acting Chair? There being no further nominations, I declare the nominations closed and Mrs. Martin elected Acting Chair of the committee. Would you please come to assume the chair?

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): The Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills will now come to order. There are two private bills on the agenda today, which we will consider before proceeding to other business related to Bill 123.

Olympic Floor Cleaning Inc. Act, 2019

Consideration of the following bill:

Bill Pr22, An Act to revive Olympic Floor Cleaning Inc.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): The MPP sponsor for the first bill, Bill Pr22, An Act to revive Olympic Floor Cleaning Inc., is Vijay Thanigasalam. Is Vijay here? Would another member like to introduce?

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’ll fill in for him.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): And is the applicant, John Nikitas, here? Perhaps you could introduce yourself as well.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m Gila Martow, MPP for Thornhill. So if you could just state your name and you can explain what it’s all about.

Ms. Kaliopi Nikitas: I’m Kaliopi Nikitas, speaking for my father, John Nikitas.

My father dissolved his company in 2017 because it hadn’t been operating for a while. He was under stress, thinking that, “It hasn’t been operating in a while. I might as well just shut it down.” But he didn’t consult with his accountant, and it turned out that there was some money left, some cash in bank still, that needed to be posted for the following year. When he went to pay the taxes, there was no incorporation to post that to, and so he has been asking for a revival so that last piece of business can be completed.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): Okay. I guess the MPP doesn’t have any comments about this particular bill.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’ll just say what I usually say, which is that most the private bills that come to our committee are corporations that were dissolved prematurely, there was property or some kind of assets or legal things that had to be completed, and so they needed to revive the corporation. That’s what this committee does, of course, as Paul knows. So I would recommend that we allow the corporation to be revived.

I don’t know if anybody has any questions to the applicant.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): All right. Are there any other interested parties in attendance here today on the private Bill 22, Olympic Floor Cleaning Inc.?

I see that MPP Thanigasalam is here. Did you want to say anything about your private bill? We’ve already heard from the applicant.

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: You’ve already heard from them?

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): Yes.

Interjections.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): Is there anything you want to add?

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: No, Chair. I just came here to do an official introduction and be supportive, but thank you for the opportunity.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): Are there any comments from the government? Any questions or comments from anyone else? MPP Miller.

Mr. Paul Miller: Yes. Sir, I hope the stress is gone. Enjoy your retirement.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): Very nice. Anyone else? Are the members ready to vote, then? 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.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Carried.

Ms. Kaliopi Nikitas: Thanks so much.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): Thank you so much for coming, and happy holidays.

Mr. Paul Miller: Merry Christmas. Happy holidays.

Special Ability Riding Institute Act (Tax Relief), 2019

Consideration of the following bill:

Bill Pr14, An Act respecting the Special Ability Riding Institute.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): All right. We’re now moving on to Private Bill 14, An Act respecting the Special Ability Riding Institute. The sponsor is MPP Pettapiece. Would MPP Pettapiece like to come to the table?

The applicants are Janine Langley and executive director Diane Blackall.

Perhaps the MPP sponsor could introduce himself and—

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Well, yes, I’d like to. I have found a couple of new friends this morning. Diane Blackall is over here, and Janine Langley is here. We’re ready to proceed.

Interjection.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Pardon me?

Mr. Paul Miller: So you’ve got three friends now.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Yes. That’s at least one more than you-know-who.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): And can the applicant please introduce herself as well?

Ms. Janine Langley: My name is Janine Langley. I’m the acting executive director of SARI Therapeutic Riding, or the Special Ability Riding Institute.

Ms. Diane Blackall: And I’m Diane Blackall. I’ll just clarify: She’s more than the acting executive director; she is the executive director. I’m the former executive director, who began the bill—and with special acknowledgement to Jennifer Gold for her help in crafting it.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): All right. Does the MPP sponsor have any comments, or should we just go to the applicant’s comments?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: No, I think we’re ready to proceed.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): All right. Would the applicant tell us a bit about what we’re doing here?

0910

Ms. Janine Langley: Sure. The Special Ability Riding Institute—or SARI, as we like to call it—was founded in 1978. It’s located in Arva, in Middlesex Centre, in Ontario. We provide therapeutic equestrian programming to people with disabilities in our community, and have been doing so for 41 years. We are still sort of on the original property from 1978; the original property was five acres, I think, and in 1988 we were granted a tax exemption on that parcel of land. In 2017, we acquired an additional 8.2 acres, which has brought us here today. We’ve applied for a tax exemption on the new parcel of land.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): Okay. And are there any other interested parties here in attendance?

Does the government have any comments?

Mrs. Gila Martow: I have a quick question.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): MPP Martow.

Mrs. Gila Martow: So do we have any documentation from the municipality that would be collecting the property taxes that they support this?

Ms. Janine Langley: Yes.

Mrs. Gila Martow: And they’re supportive?

Ms. Janine Langley: Yes, they’re supportive. The local school boards are both supportive. I should mention, too, that we’re also a registered charity.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): Any other questions or comments? MPP Miller.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d like to compliment you on the work you do. It’s wonderful. I’m happy that you will have the exemption. I only have one question. If, for whatever reason, the operation does not continue, does it revert back to the tax base if it’s used for something else? This isn’t a lifelong exemption; it’s only as long as you’re there, right? Is there anything in the provisions with the municipality that that land would go back to the tax base?

Ms. Diane Blackall: I believe the original deed was written up that way, and I know that when we bought the new property, that was questioned by the new lawyer, so I don’t think it was changed. So I believe that is the way it’s set up, that it will revert back to the municipality.

Mr. Paul Miller: So I can take that to the bank then, can I? Do you know for sure?

Ms. Diane Blackall: I don’t know for sure. I don’t know 100%.

Mr. Paul Miller: I would just ask that that be given to us in some kind of shape or form, that that would happen. Because obviously, the exemption is very important and it’s very constructive, what you’re doing with the land. But certainly, as you know, a lot of municipalities are struggling for their tax base, so if that land does become available or they sell it or whatever, it should go back on the land register.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): As this is a legal point, perhaps legislative counsel can enlighten us.

Ms. Jennifer Gold: Yes, I just wanted to point out that section 2 is a qualification on the bylaw that they have to be the registered owner and it has be used for their purposes in order for that exemption to apply.

Mr. Paul Miller: That’s good, then. Okay. Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): Okay, thank you.

So are the members ready to vote? Shall section 1 carry? Carried.

Shall section 2 carry? Carried.

Shall section 3 carry? Carried.

Shall section 4 carry? Carried.

Shall section 5 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Yes.

Reserved Parking for Electric Vehicle Charging Act, 2019 Loi de 2019 sur le stationnement réservé à la recharge des véhicules électriques

Consideration of the following bill:

Bill 123, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act respecting electric vehicle charging stations / Projet de loi 123, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui concerne les stations de recharge pour véhicules électriques.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): We will now move to the next item. The next item on the agenda is Bill 123, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act respecting electric vehicle charging stations. My understanding is that Mr. Steimle is on his way. He’s an applicant?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Eric Rennie): He is our presenter.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): He is our presenter for the bill, and he is five to 10 minutes late, so we’re proposing maybe a five-to-10-minute recess until he arrives, and then we can resume when he arrives. Is everybody in agreement? Okay, so we’ll have a recess.

The committee recessed from 0915 to 0921.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): We will now move to the next item on the agenda, which is Bill 123, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act respecting electric vehicle charging stations.

We have Mr. Wilf Steimle—Steimle?

Mr. Wilf Steimle: Steimle.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): Steimle—from the Electric Vehicle Society here to present to the committee today. I’d ask you to come up to the table.

The witness will have up to five minutes to make his presentation, followed by two minutes for the opposition members to ask questions, two minutes for the government members to ask questions and one minute for our independent member, MPP Hunter.

Mr. Steimle, perhaps you could start with your presentation now and state your name for the record.

Mr. Wilf Steimle: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good morning. I’d like to thank the Chair and the committee for giving me the opportunity to comment on this bill this morning.

My name is Wilf Steimle. I’m the president of the Electric Vehicle Society. EV Society is a not-for-profit association comprised of electric vehicle owners from across Canada. We draw on the expertise of our members to deliver education and advocate for electric transportation.

As many of you are aware, we are in the midst of a momentous transition towards electrification of transportation. Over 3% of passenger vehicle sales in Ontario last year were electric. We currently have over 45,000 electric vehicles on the road in Ontario. Within a decade, 50% of Canadian vehicle sales are projected to be electric. In Ontario, we already have over 3,000 charging connectors installed to help support this electrification, and access to these charging connectors is critical in order to support the transition.

I would like to sincerely thank this government for its vision in bringing this bill forward. I’d also like to thank the many members of Parliament who supported the bill and recognized its importance. Mr. Coe, who sponsored the bill, summarized the challenge perfectly when he said, “vehicle owners have found it” increasingly “frustrating to arrive at a ... charging station only to discover a vehicle parked in that charging space.” This bill will help ensure that charging resources are available to drivers who rely on them.

We’d like to propose three small but important amendments in order to uphold the intent of this bill. It has been brought to my attention that similar amendments are being proposed this morning. With only minor adjustments, we support the amended text that is being proposed.

Firstly, the bill in second reading would have resulted in a violation if an owner parked their car in their own driveway without charging. Private or commercial charging station owners should have the option to opt in or out of enforcement by simply posting signage. Many existing charging stations already display signage that would reasonably be interpreted to meet the intent of this bill. In order to minimize unnecessary burden on station owners who already display such signage, we recommend that the committee consider providing a briefing to the minister to guide the definition required in the revised section of 30.2—which reads, “a sign that satisfies the prescribed requirements”—so as to accommodate existing signage that would reasonably be interpreted to mean that a parking location is intended for the purpose of charging electric vehicles.

Secondly, we’ve noted that section 30.2 identifies the “person,” which we read to mean the driver. This would be very difficult to enforce, unless the driver is actually observed in the act of parking. So we recommend amending this section to read, “No vehicle shall be parked in a parking sport designated for electric vehicle charging,” to replace the current wording, which says, “No person shall park a vehicle in an electric vehicle charging station.” This shifts the violation to the owner of the vehicle rather than the operator, and is consistent with wording found in other parking infraction legislation.

Lastly and perhaps least importantly, but worthy of note: In order to facilitate the ease of future amendments, the committee may find it desirable to include a provision allowing the minister to prescribe the fine in regulation. Section 30.3 could be amended to read, “The person who is the registered owner of a vehicle that contravenes section 30.2 is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of $125 or a fine as prescribed by the minister through regulation.” This provides flexibility for a future amendment and provides further clarification that the fine is to apply to the registered vehicle owner rather than the driver.

I thank you again for this important initiative and for the opportunity to present to you today. I’ll be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Steimle. Steimle?

Mr. Wilf Steimle: Steimle. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): Now we have two minutes for questions from the opposition. MPP Miller.

Mr. Paul Miller: Good morning. Thanks for your presentation. I think it’s a great way we’re heading in for the environment and things like that. I have no problem.

I just have one question. It’s like anything else—enforcement. How much dedicated time and resources would the local police departments or bylaw officers have to be able to enforce this on a regular basis? And what’s that going to cost the municipality in the way of wages, overtime and things like that? No one took that into consideration, I don’t think, when they wrote up this bill, because everything—just like the Ministry of the Environment, they don’t have enough inspectors; and you don’t have people patrolling on a regular basis or enforcing the dedicated spaces that you want. Nobody has given me any clearance on that. Have you got any answers to that?

Mr. Wilf Steimle: As to the cost of enforcement?

Mr. Paul Miller: Well, the cost to the municipality to enforce the reserved parking spots.

Mr. Wilf Steimle: I obviously can’t speak to the cost. I have no way of predicting that. But I can speak to the importance of having this act in place to provide an important resource to electric vehicle drivers.

Blocking and parking at an electric charging station is akin to parking your car at a gas station and walking away and having lunch, and just not making that gas pump available. So having some facility when somebody violates this bill, or parks in a spot that’s reserved for electrical vehicle charging, and prevents the electric vehicle owner from accessing that important resource to complete their trip—having a bill such as this to allow for enforcement, if necessary, is quite important to supporting the transition to electrification.

Mr. Paul Miller: How are they going to enforce—you mentioned private property. If I have a charging station on my farm or wherever I want, and somebody decides to go in there and charge up, how am I going to enforce that? By the time the police get there and everything, it could be a rather messy situation.

Also, we have charging stations now in my city that are on the bank parking lot—

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): Thank you. I’m sorry, MPP Miller. Your time is up.

Mr. Paul Miller: I know. It should have been 10 minutes, not two minutes. Anyway, they did that, but that’s okay.

In closing, thank you for your presentation, but I have some concerns about that.

Mr. Wilf Steimle: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): MPP Hunter, did you have any questions?

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank you for your presentation. I believe that Ontario needs to have a robust strategy when it comes to electric vehicles and other types of technology that reduce the impact on our environment.

I notice that the fine is $125. Do you think that’s a strong enough amount to deter, from a parking standpoint? And do you have any comment on the availability of stations as a signal to give confidence to people that they won’t lose a charge between distances? You can comment on highway and also intercity charging.

Mr. Wilf Steimle: Thank you for your question. I think there were two or three questions there—

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I only have a minute.

Mr. Wilf Steimle: You may have to guide me through them.

0930

With regard to whether the fine is sufficient, I think it is significantly more than one might typically pay for paid parking, even in the city. If you had your choice of $20 paid parking or a $125 violation, I would certainly opt for the paid option—

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): I’m sorry to interrupt, but unfortunately, the time is over and now I have to move to the government.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: That’s a minute, including the—

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): It was more than a minute. I was being generous.

Interjections.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): MPP Martow.

Mrs. Gila Martow: Very simply, thank you very much for coming in, Mr. Steimle. I just want to ask how much you think it would encourage people buying not just electric vehicles but the plug-in hybrid electric vehicles if we have more charging stations that people can see on their apps as to if they’re being used or not used. How many more vehicles do you think we would see on our roads?

Mr. Wilf Steimle: Thank you for your question. I can’t answer that with a specific number. That’s very difficult to predict. But I would say that providing a robust charging infrastructure for future buyers of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and battery electric vehicles is a critical strategy. We currently have over 3,000 charging points in Ontario, and growing. Most of those are funded privately right now. There has been some government support for some of them. The infrastructure does need to continue to build out as we ramp up our transition, but I can say with confidence that it is moving quickly and that industry is stepping in to provide charging in public charging spots, and it would be wonderful to see the government support that by providing charging at its own facilities.

Mrs. Gila Martow: So it’s about consumer confidence that there are the charging stations and that they’re available when people need them.

Mr. Wilf Steimle: And that they’re available. That is an important part that this bill serves.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): Are there any other questions from the government side? Okay.

The committee’s motion that carried on December 4, 2019, states that the committee may move immediately to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill following the public hearings. Please note that the deadline to submit written comments on the bill is 10 a.m. today.

The Clerk has distributed two amendments that have been proposed. Are there any other amendments that people want to table?

Mrs. Gila Martow: There are some motions, no?

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): I already mentioned those two. Are there any other ones that haven’t been distributed yet? Seeing none, would the committee like to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration now? Okay.

We’ll turn to the first amendment—and thank you, Mr. Steimle; you can take your seat now.

We are now considering section 1 of Bill 123, with respect to the Highway Traffic Act. An amendment has been proposed to section 30.2 of the Highway Traffic Act. Would someone like to move the amendment? MPP Barrett.

Mr. Toby Barrett: I would like to formally move the motion that’s before us.

I move that section 1 of the bill be amended by striking out section 30.2 of the Highway Traffic Act and substituting:

“Improper use

“30.2 No person shall park a vehicle in an electric vehicle charging station that is identified by a sign that satisfies the prescribed requirements unless the vehicle is an electric vehicle and the vehicle is attached to the station’s charging equipment.”

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): Is there any debate? MPP Miller.

Mr. Paul Miller: On that sign, is it posted, the amount of the fine?

Mr. Toby Barrett: You know, the sign—

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): MPP Barrett, I’m just recognizing MPP Schreiner.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Thank you, Chair. I think I can explain it. I’ve been working with electric vehicle—

Mr. Paul Miller: Wait a minute here. I was in the middle of my question. You can’t just—

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I’m going to answer your question. I will—I’m happy to.

Mr. Paul Miller: Oh, I didn’t know that.

Mr. Toby Barrett: I would actually prefer that Mr. Schreiner answer the question. In fact, I was talking to him previously. If I don’t have the answers, I’d like to defer to him or someone else that knows something about this.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): MPP Schreiner.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: First of all, I should say that I want to thank the committee for allowing me to participate in the conversation today. So thank you, Chair, and thanks to the members of the committee.

I’ve been working with people in the electric vehicle associations, with the EV charging society, as well as Tesla and others, to draft a couple of amendments that address the concerns that Mr. Steimle brought forward and in the two letters that you’ve received at committee.

First of all, this amendment would be under the Highway Traffic Act, which addresses the concern about whether you’re charging the driver or the vehicle owner. Since it’s under the Highway Traffic Act, according to the drafters, it would be applicable to the vehicle owner. Then this establishes the fact that a sign would have to be posted to make it enforceable. That addresses two important concerns that have been raised. One is the concern that if you have a charging station in your personal driveway but you want a guest to be able to park there, or maybe you have a non-electric vehicle that you want to park there, a non-electric vehicle can be parked there if you don’t have a sign saying it can’t be parked there.

It also addresses the concern that both ChargePoint and Tesla raised, that there are some parking lots that want to have 40 charging stations but maybe they only want to have two or three that are designated as EV only, and that’s where they would post the sign and that’s what would be enforceable. In those spaces where they don’t have a sign posted, this law would not be enforceable.

And then there will be a subsequent amendment that just says that the sign will be prescribed by regulation, which answers MPP Miller’s really important question of what would be contained on the sign. That would be prescribed in regulation, and that’s what the second amendment will address. This amendment essentially, I think, addresses the concerns that were raised by Mr. Steimle and by the people who submitted written submissions.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): Is there any other debate on this amendment? MPP Miller.

Mr. Paul Miller: Yes, to Mr. Schreiner, I guess—now that you’re involved, Mike—I think my initial question was: Is the amount of the fine going to be on the sign?

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): MPP Schreiner addressed that, I believe, in the second amendment, which we’re not debating right now.

Mr. Paul Miller: No, he said it was in regulation. But the regulations do not necessarily mean that it’s going to post the amount of the fine. Why I’m saying this and why I’m making a stickler point about this is that the fine would be very useful. If it’s 10 bucks, someone might pay it—who cares?—and they go into a store and do what they want to do. But $125, that hurts. So I think it’s very important that the amount of the fine is on the sign. It’s a deterrent.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): MPP Schreiner.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I think Mr. Miller makes a good point. The reason, and this will be in the next amendment—they’re linked, so we might as well have the conversation. The reason it’s difficult to prescribe the details of the sign in legislation is that things like that change over time, so to have to change what the wording of the sign is in the legislation—it becomes very difficult to make changes over time.

I would strongly encourage the minister to follow Mr. Miller’s recommendation that the fine be posted on the sign and that, when the regulations prescribe what should be on the sign, that be on there. But I think it’s very challenging to have that in the legislation itself because it makes it very difficult to make changes over time to reflect current realities.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): MPP Martow.

Mrs. Gila Martow: Two things. One thing is, I see this as an accessibility parking similarity. The fines are not posted on the signs. People know that there are significant fines for that, and the fines can change, and we’re not going to go print new signs every time the fines possibly change.

But I do appreciate what MPP Miller is saying, that we need to have some kind of public awareness so that people are aware that it’s expensive. Maybe the sign should say “a significant fine” or something like that. But I’d be leery of actually putting a dollar amount on the sign because if in a few years we want to change the amount of the fine, then we’re printing new signs, which I’m sure MPP Schreiner would not like at all.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): MPP Miller.

Mr. Paul Miller: Yes, I appreciate what Mrs. Martow and Mr. Schreiner said, but let’s face it: The government has proven that they like using stickers, so if there’s a change in the fine, you can put a new sticker on there so you don’t have to produce a new sign, with all due respect.

0940

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): MPP Barrett.

Mr. Toby Barrett: I know that in the actual legislation it states a fine of $125. If that changes, my question is, does that mean this committee has to reconvene to up it to $150?

Mr. Paul Miller: Cabinet can do it, just like that, in regs. They don’t need us.

Mr. Toby Barrett: It’s not a regulation; it’s legislation. I just question the $125.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): MPP Hunter.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I would also agree with the comment that this is very similar, from my perspective, to accessibility, where people know that there is a significant consequence. There’s a lot of awareness that goes behind that.

I’m wondering if we can address the amount of the fine by saying, “No less than”—if that’s a consideration—“$125,” to give some latitude to strengthen this deterrent for people parking in e-vehicle parking spaces. I believe that we need to reinforce that we have these charging facilities and there’s a network of charging facilities that people are aware of, and that if someone is parked there, they are reasonably using the charge.

My hope is that we see this as a more prevalent part of our system in Ontario so that we can hit our GHG targets and help to reduce GHGs and help our environment, because we are in a climate crisis.

Whatever we can do to deter people from taking those spots when there is not a need, I think we should be doing that. Making public awareness a part of what happens in the rollout of this legislation, I think, would also help, so people know that this is not optional, that it’s actually part of the law—and making them as available as possible on highways and within communities.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): I’d just like to remind all members that we are debating the first amendment, which is to strike out section 30.2 of the Highway Traffic Act and substitute:

“Improper use

“30.2”—as the first amendment has proposed.

MPP West.

Mr. Jamie West: This might be a point of order. I’m reading through the bill, and in section 30.4(a), halfway down the page, it talks about the Lieutenant Governor in Council making regulations requiring the erection of signs and the placing of markings to identify electric vehicle charging stations, and prescribing—this is the part that stands out to me—the types, content and location of the signs and markings. So all this debate about what should be on the signs—the amounts and stuff—I think that we don’t have to get into the weeds about it. I think that allows the new authority to do that. Am I correct? Am I wrong?

Mr. Paul Miller: I don’t think so.

Mr. Jamie West: It says “types, content and location of the signs and markings,” so I feel like they could put whatever they want on the signs.

Mr. Paul Miller: Point of order, Madam Chair.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): MPP Miller.

Mr. Paul Miller: I think we can solve this issue by—I believe Ms. Hunter made a good point—“a minimum of $125.” That way, it goes up from there and they can change it whenever they want. I don’t think it says “a minimum of $125.” It says “$125,” but it doesn’t say “a minimum.” I think if you add the words “a minimum”—

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): MPP Miller, that is not a point of order; it’s debate.

Mr. Paul Miller: If you’d like me to make an amendment, I will.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): It’s up to you, but we are debating this amendment currently.

Mr. Paul Miller: Well, this is part of the amendment.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): Are you suggesting that you want to amend the amendment?

Mr. Paul Miller: I’m amending the amendment; correct.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): How would you suggest—

Mr. Paul Miller: I’m just following Ms. Hunter’s lead.

You go ahead and word it, if you’d like, Mitzie.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): MPP Hunter.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I would suggest an amendment to section 30.3 that states the number, just to say no less than a fine of $125 or a minimum of $125, just to avoid the need to come back for those types of changes, and to give more latitude to strengthen the amount of the fine to have its intent, which is as a deterrent to parking in those spots.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): All right, thank you. We’re discussing, first of all, the amendment to 30.2. Can we call a vote on that? Because if you are going to amend 30.3, that would be after this amendment, which is proposed to 30.2. So can we call a vote then? Is everybody ready to vote on the amendment to 30.2? All those in favour of the amendment? Carried.

Now we’re going to recess for a few minutes—we’ll say three—so legislative counsel can draft the proposed amendment to 30.3. All right, three minutes?

The committee recessed from 0946 to 0954.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): All right. We’ll now move on to discuss a second proposed amendment, which we’re calling amendment 1.1, which is an amendment to section 1 of the Highway Traffic Act, section 30.3. Would someone move the motion? MPP Hunter?

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: Madam Chair, I move the motion. Shall I read it in?

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): Please.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I move that section 1 of the bill be amended by striking out “a fine of $125” at the end of section 30.3 of the Highway Traffic Act and substituting “a minimum fine of $125.”

Mr. Paul Miller: I second it.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): Is there any debate? All right. I think we can call a vote, then.

Shall motion 1.1, the amendment to section 1, section 30.3 of the Highway Traffic Act, carry? Carried.

Mr. Toby Barrett: Recorded vote.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): Oh, recorded vote. All right.

Ayes

Hunter, Paul Miller, West.

Nays

Bailey, Barrett, Martow, Pang, Sabawy.

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): The amendment is lost.

All right. We’ll move on to the next amendment, which is the amendment to section 1, clause 30.4(a) of the Highway Traffic Act. Will someone move the motion? MPP Barrett.

Mr. Toby Barrett: I move that section 1 of the bill be amended by striking out clause 30.4(a) of the Highway Traffic Act and substituting:

“(a) prescribing requirements for a sign for the purposes of section 30.2;”

The Acting Chair (Mrs. Robin Martin): Thank you, MPP Barrett. Is there any debate? Shall we have a vote, then?

Shall the amendment to section 1, clause 30.4(a) of the Highway Traffic Act, carry? Carried.

Shall section 1, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall section 2 carry? Carried.

Shall section 3 carry? Carried.

Shall the title of the bill carry? Carried.

Shall Bill 123, as amended, carry? Carried.

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

Thank you, everyone. We are now adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 0958.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Chair / Président

Mr. Deepak Anand (Mississauga–Malton PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr. Will Bouma (Brantford–Brant PC)

Mr. Deepak Anand (Mississauga–Malton PC)

Mr. Toby Barrett (Haldimand–Norfolk PC)

Mr. Will Bouma (Brantford–Brant PC)

Mr. Stephen Crawford (Oakville PC)

Ms. Mitzie Hunter (Scarborough–Guildwood L)

Ms. Laura Mae Lindo (Kitchener Centre / Kitchener-Centre ND)

Mrs. Gila Martow (Thornhill PC)

Mr. Paul Miller (Hamilton East–Stoney Creek / Hamilton-Est–Stoney Creek ND)

Mr. Billy Pang (Markham–Unionville PC)

Mr. Dave Smith (Peterborough–Kawartha PC)

Mr. Jamie West (Sudbury ND)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr. Robert Bailey (Sarnia–Lambton PC)

Mrs. Robin Martin (Eglinton–Lawrence PC)

Mr. Sheref Sabawy (Mississauga–Erin Mills PC)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Mr. Mike Schreiner (Guelph G)

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam (Scarborough–Rouge Park PC)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr. Eric Rennie

Staff / Personnel

Ms. Monica Cop, research officer,
Research Services

Ms. Jennifer Gold, legislative counsel

Mr. Navdeep Purewal, legislative counsel