Comptes rendus: Comité permanent des règlements et des projets de loi d'intérêt privé - 2008-mars-26 - Projet de loi PR4, 872440 Ontario Inc. Act, 2008

26-MAR-2008_T002.htm    HTML   |   PDF

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES RÈGLEMENTS ET DES PROJETS DE LOI D’INTÉRÊT PRIVÉ

Wednesday 26 March 2008 Mercredi 26 mars 2008

872440 ONTARIO INC. ACT, 2008

716056 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT, 2008

ST. ANDREW’S UNITED CHURCH
(TORONTO) ACT, 2008


     
   

The committee met at 1004 in committee room 1.

872440 ONTARIO INC. ACT, 2008

Consideration of Bill Pr4, An Act to revive 872440 Ontario Inc.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): The meeting of the standing committee on regulations and private bills is called to order.

The first bill is Bill Pr4, An Act to revive 872440 Ontario Inc. The sponsor, who is here today, is Ms. Laurie Scott, MPP, on behalf of Garfield Dunlop. Would the sponsor and the applicant please come forward. Would the applicant and others introduce themselves for the purposes of Hansard.

Ms. Rosemarie Bain: My name is Rosemarie Bain.

Mr. Owen Thompson: Ms. Bain is the applicant. I am Owen Thompson. I am counsel for Ms. Bain and for the corporation seeking to be revived.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): Thank you. Ms. Scott, do you have any comments?

Ms. Laurie Scott: I am here on behalf of Garfield Dunlop. Rosemarie is here with her solicitor. He’s just been introduced and he’s going to make a brief statement in respect to Bill Pr4, An Act to revive 872440 Ontario Inc.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Owen Thompson: This is just a bill to revive a corporation. The corporation was cancelled for failure to comply with the Business Corporations Act of Ontario.

As a result of changes of ownership in the corporation, a solicitor who was involved failed to file a notice of change. The board of directors had changed. The Ontario government business corporations branch was not advised of the change. As a result of the corporation having no directors registered, the corporation was cancelled.

Notices of impending cancellation were sent to an old mailing address and not brought to Ms. Bain’s attention as the new owner. As a result, Ms. Bain is now seeking to have the corporation revived, because at the time of cancellation it did own the property.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): Are there any interested parties to speak to this? Are there any other interested parties? Seeing none, parliamentary assistant, any words from the government?

Mr. Mario Sergio: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to compliment the member who has sponsored the bill. The Ministry of Finance has no problem with the bill. The Ministry of Government Services, the Ministry of Housing and the Public Guardian and Trustee as well have no problem. I don’t have a problem. I don’t see any members having a problem with the bill, so I’ll be happy if it goes through.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): Any questions or comments from members? Mr. Miller?

Mr. Paul Miller: Yes. I’d just like to know—I guess there was a communication breakdown between the corporation and the government. Are there any guidelines that we may recommend in the future so people could get proper notification and this unfortunate incident won’t happen again? Are there any possible recommendations that we could make?

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): You’re asking that question of whom—of the government?

Mr. Paul Miller: Yes.

Mr. Mario Sergio: It’s not up to the government to watch out if they file or they don’t file. It’s up to the corporations themselves to be always on file properly, accordingly. It’s not up to us.

Mr. Paul Miller: Yes, well, I realize it’s not up to the government, but the guidelines should be established so that either side is not responsible for the lack of communication so that in future we don’t have to put these people through this again.

Mr. Mario Sergio: It’s their own doing.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): Mr. Thompson, go ahead.

Mr. Owen Thompson: Coming into this matter after the fact and replacing the original corporate counsel, I do believe that the failure was on behalf of Ms. Bain’s former solicitor to file the necessary corporate return. The only comment that I may add to your suggestion is that when I sought to revive this corporation—there are two methods of reviving a corporation, depending on what the reason for cancellation was. One is a fairly simple matter of making sure that all corporate tax returns are up to date and then filing with what used to be the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations articles of revival. That was not available in this case.

Unfortunately, in doing the research on this process I did discover that this is a fairly common occurrence across Ontario and there appear to be a number of these matters coming forward every year. Perhaps a suggestion could be made to somehow take this revival process out of a special bill or a private bill, requiring a law of the province, and amend the Business Corporations Act to provide for a more efficient and reliable process.

Mr. Paul Miller: Thank you for your input. I think that might be a good suggestion, that the law society is made aware of this and that we can do something along those lines.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): Any other questions? Any other comments? Seeing none, are the members ready to vote? Okay. There are a number of procedural items here.

Shall section 1 carry? Carried.

Shall section 2 carry? Carried.

Shall section 3, the short title, 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.

That item is finished; on to the next one.

1010

716056 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT, 2008

Consideration of Bill Pr6, An Act to revive 716056 Ontario Limited.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): The next item is Bill Pr6, An Act to revive 716056 Ontario Limited. The sponsor is Norm Miller, MPP. Norm and the applicant, as well, please come forward. For the purposes of Hansard, would the applicant please introduce himself.

Mr. Wayne Wolfe: Wayne Wolfe.

Mr. Norm Miller: This bill is to revive a corporation that was inadvertently dissolved. It’s pretty straightforward. I’ll let Wayne add to that.

Mr. Wayne Wolfe: It was a voluntary dissolution, simply because they had forgotten that two units remained in their ownership. At the time, they had no value and they simply forgot about them.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): Are there any interested parties from the audience who wish to speak to this item? The parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Mario Sergio: It’s a very similar situation. I wish that there would be an easier way which would save time for the applicant and for ourselves, as well. The ministry doesn’t have any concerns with respect to the application, and we are supporting it.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue: Questions or comments from committee members?

Mr. Paul Miller: Obviously, this problem has been repeated, so all I can say is ditto, and hopefully we can rectify this situation with some memos to the proper authorities.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: Perhaps we can follow up on Mr. Miller’s suggestion.

There is a right of revivership under the corporations act, and unfortunately in many of these cases, that is not available. Why was it not available in your case?

Mr. Wayne Wolfe: Because it was a voluntary dissolution.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: Would the committee consider requesting counsel to prepare a report for us itemizing the matters that do not come under the act—the right of revivership, which is an administrative remedy—and perhaps we can then consider whether some of them should and make recommendations to the ministry? Is that a fair thing to do?

Mr. Mario Sergio: I have no problem.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): Can staff prepare that for the next meeting?

Ms. Susan Klein: Sure.

Mr. Mario Sergio: I’ll report to committee.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: We’ve had a number of reviverships coming before at great expense and time—I think time is unfortunate—and perhaps you could take a look at them to see why they would not fit under the administrative remedy rather than this remedy.

Ms. Susan Klein: Sure. If you want any policy background, I would ask for advice from the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services, which administers the corporate legislation.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: Fine.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I remember being in this committee about 20 years ago, and the same issues keep coming up. We’re going through the same process, and in the end, we end up here with the same situation. I want to refer you to one thing, and that is to study the recommendations of the cut-the-red-tape committee. Have a look at that and see what recommendations they came up with a few years ago.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): All good suggestions.

We’ll make sure that’s available for all members by the time of the next meeting.

Are the members ready to vote?

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.

Thank you very much. On to the next item.

Mr. Norm Miller: Thank you. A rare situation of unanimity around this place.

ST. ANDREW’S UNITED CHURCH
(TORONTO) ACT, 2008

Consideration of Bill Pr3, An Act respecting St. Andrew’s Congregation of the United Church of Canada at Toronto.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): Okay, we are now on to Bill Pr3, An Act Respecting St. Andrew’s Congregation of the United Church of Canada at Toronto, sponsor David Zimmer, MPP. Would Mr. Zimmer come forward, along with the applicant or applicants.

Mr. David Zimmer: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): Just while you’re getting settled here: For the purposes of Hansard, if the three gentlemen could introduce themselves?

Mr. Martin Campbell: I’d be pleased to introduce our group. My name is Martin Campbell. I’m chair of the board of trustees of St. Andrew’s United Church. To my right is Reverend Dr. John Hartley. He was minister of the church for some 20 years and retired last year. Our counsel, J. Paul Mills, is also present.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): Good morning.

Mr. David Zimmer: I’m very pleased to sponsor this private bill. It deals with a sought exemption of some church lands owned by St. Andrew’s Church on Bloor Street. They’re seeking an exemption from the Religious Organizations’ Lands Act. I’m going to ask Mr. Campbell, chair of the board of trustees, and perhaps his counsel, to elaborate just what’s involved here.

Mr. Martin Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Zimmer. Mr. Chair, members, thank you very much for hearing us this morning. In addition to the members you see before you, I should also give the regrets of our current minister, who’s now on study leave and wishes he could be here this morning to see this through.

I should also just mention Dr. Richard Davidson, who’s been associated with St. Andrew’s for over 90 years. He’s looking forward to the next 100 years. He’s sitting just behind in the public gallery. So he has had a very deep interest in this bill.

In essence, this is an application for an exemption of St. Andrew’s commercial property from the 40-year lease limit set out in the Religious Organizations’ Lands Act. You have before you a sketch map of the site with photographs showing the property. You’ll see on the sketch map there are two parts to the church lands: the commercial part, which is the top half of the property, and the church part, which is the lower half of the property. We want to get exemption for the church part of the property for 100 years. Right now, the land is leased commercially. We derive significant rents from the land. We use a vast portion of those rents for charitable work in our community. You have a brochure before you which lists some of the recipients of those grants.

The Religious Organizations’ Lands Act applies to unincorporated associations. St. Andrew’s is unincorporated. The act prohibits organizations such as ours from leasing commercial land for anything over 40 years. As you can imagine, if you take a look at the building in the photographs, that’s a substantial building, which is really going to be there for well over 40 years.

When the church first entered into the ground lease some 25, 26 years ago, the then trustees of the church understood that the 40-year provision of the Religious Organizations’ Lands Act was applicable and provided for a change in the law that would enable the tenants and the landlord to continue the lease. So we are today appearing before you to ask for exemption from the Religious Organizations’ Lands Act so that we can continue our lease for approximately 100 years. If you have any questions about it I’m sure our team can do our best to respond.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): First of all, I have to ask: Are there any interested parties present who wish to make a deputation? Seeing none, parliamentary assistant?

Mr. Mario Sergio: Again, with this bill here, it’s minor considerations and specific exemptions. Both ministries, finance and the Attorney General, as well as municipal affairs and housing, have no problem with the bill and with their request for the exemption. Therefore, we will support it. I want to thank the member, David Zimmer, for bringing the bill forward.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): Questions from committee members?

1020

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I have a question for counsel. I’m not familiar with the act, in particular section 10, which deals with trustees of an organized religious group. But dealing with that act, I assume that in 1981, when Bramalea leased it, they obtained the necessary severance, so there’s no mention of that in any of the material here. I take it the church’s lands are adjacent to the commercial property.

Mr. Martin Campbell: That’s right. The church portion of the lands is the lower part of the sketch map.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: Yes. So I assume the severance was obtained, because the lease was for more than 21 years. However, this act deals with a 40-year limit, which I assume deals with mortmain, and perhaps you might tell us the public policy behind the statute.

Ms. Susan Klein: I’m not sure I could. In the materials, I think there’s a letter from the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee that sets out the policy behind section 10 of the Religious Organizations’ Lands Act, but this is not my area of expertise. This isn’t a policy that I’m familiar with. It’s toward the back of the compendium, a letter dated Tuesday, April 24, 2007.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I’m sorry. What is it dated? May 2?

Ms. Susan Klein: No, it’s Tuesday, April 24, 2007. I think it’s just behind that May 2 one.

Mr. Martin Campbell: Mr. Chair, our counsel may be able to help you with this. This is a somewhat esoteric area of law.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): If you can assist, we would appreciate that.

Mr. J. Paul Mills: I think the answer really is, Mr. Martiniuk, in the letter of the PGT. We had extensive discussions with that office in part of the process. Ultimately, they were satisfied to recommend approval of this exemption in the particular circumstances. The Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act which you refer to is long gone, fortunately. ROLA is a partial holdover from some of the provisions of that old act.

It’s hard for me to understand what the legislative intent of this old statute was. There are various explanations about why the 40-year limit. It seems to me it’s quite arbitrary. It could have been 50, it could have been 30, it could have been 100, but for some reason there was a 40-year limit put in it, and it only applies to unincorporated religious organizations.

So if I may, I think really what today is about and what this private act is about is fairness. Most of you, I’m sure, are familiar with Holy Trinity Church, which appears in the middle of the Eaton Centre in downtown Toronto. That’s an Anglican church. They had the ability to enter into what I believe is a 100-year or 99-year lease with respect to its property without going through the process we are because it happens to be part of a corporation—the Synod of Toronto, I think it’s called, or something like that—and that legislation specifically allowed leasing. St. Andrew’s United Church is not part of a corporation, and so it gets caught by this particular act. All we’re trying to do is what others have, and Holy Trinity is but one example; there are a number of other churches, Catholic and Anglican, that have been able to do what we’re seeking to do, simply because they happen to be part of a corporation.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: Okay. From what you’ve said, if I may paraphrase, a corporation would not have this problem, would not be subject to a 40-year lease—

Mr. J. Paul Mills: That’s correct.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: —due to the elimination of the mortmain act, and this act would seem to be somewhat of an anachronism—

Mr. J. Paul Mills: I agree.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: —in that it affects unincorporated charitable religious organizations; there are not that many that are unincorporated any more.

Mr. J. Paul Mills: Virtually every United Church congregation—I mean, there is a United Church of Canada Act. But that really only applies—it sets the ground rules for individual congregations. All of the property of the United Church is owned by the head office, but it’s held by trustees of each congregation, with the provision that the congregation has the right to use the land and the buildings as long as they’re part of the church, but if they ever fold up or decide to not be part of the United Church of Canada, the land reverts to the federal corporation.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I thank you for that explanation. I don’t have a problem with it. I do suggest, however, that the government do consider taking a look at this act, now that it seems to be highly prejudicial to certain religious organizations within Canada, whereas others do not have to abide by a 40-year-old rule. Perhaps we should be eliminating the total act rather than dealing with it piecemeal.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): Questions?

Mr. Paul Miller: I just want to wish you luck. A lot of congregations are struggling throughout Ontario, and you’re very fortunate to have a piece of property like that that can generate income for the church, because congregations are dwindling and things are a struggle. I just wanted to wish you all the best. You’ve got my support. It appears that you are doing a lot of good work and you’ve got a lot of supporters in the community that are happy with your financial aid. I wish you all the best and God bless.

Mr. Martin Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Miller. We’ll pass that on to our congregation.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): Mr. Ruprecht.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I find it absolutely amazing, looking at the outreach mission that St. Andrew’s has done in the past. I think it would be appropriate, Mr. Chair, that Reverend Hartley, who has been at this church now over 20 years, you say, and a former minister is here with us today—whose name, unfortunately, I didn’t catch.

Mr. J. Paul Mills: Davidson.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: Davidson, yes. The two of you and hopefully the present minister, who’s on leave right now, will continue with this great tradition.

Looking at the various aspects of the outreach mission, how does it actually work between the central United Church, which is on St. Clair Avenue, and St. Andrew’s? This commercial property must bring in a substantial amount of money for you to be able to do all these wonderful things. Can you tell this committee what the budget would be, roughly, to do all of this?

Mr. Martin Campbell: Perhaps I can speak to it, but Dr. Hartley can also add to this. In a given year, our ground rents are $370,000, but we have an escalation clause. Every seven, eight, or 10 years it will be increased to better reflect market rents. So in a given year, we would receive approximately $370,000. Of that money, depending on the budgets that we may have in any given year, we put some of that revenue towards the maintenance of our building. The church building itself is provided rent-free to quite a number of groups, from the Sunshine Centres for Seniors to Alcoholics Anonymous and others who meet without paying any rent to us. The location is superb for that. We’re on the criss-cross of the subway lines.

Of the other $170,000, we give direct grants to a number of organizations in our community, and some of them are listed there. Those grants can vary enormously. One year we gave $25,000 to the Fresh Air Fund, but with another organization we might give $2,000 or $3,000 for a specific project—a refrigerator or some one-off donation to enhance a program.

We have a committee set up to examine the best way to use the money. They assess applicants and keep track of the money and so on. So it has been a long-standing policy of the church to use as much as possible of the rents for this larger community purpose.

Rev. John Hartley: As far as the United Church of Canada is concerned, through the Toronto south presbytery, of which we are a part, St. Andrew’s has the blessing of the United Church to go forward with the ministry we engage in.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: Well, please accept our thanks and congratulations for what you’re doing. I hope that in the future there may be some kind of a co-operative arrangement between the government and some of these outreach programs. It would be great. Maybe you want to consider that. Thank you very much.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): Any further questions?

Mr. Mario Sergio: I just have a quick question of clarification. I wasn’t so sure about what you said with respect to the 1940 special act. Is it because of that particular act that you are here today, that it’s working against the congregation?

1030

Mr. J. Paul Mills: The ROLA legislation?

Mr. Mario Sergio: The 1940 act, which the St. Paul’s congregation of the United Church of Canada, in Orillia, indicates that particular 1940—

Mr. J. Paul Mills: I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

Mr. Mario Sergio: It is in the material here, which indicates that the charity was exempted from mortmain. That is, from obtaining a mortmain licence to hold land, but not from the requirement that it must use or occupy the land for its charitable purposes.

Mr. J. Paul Mills: And which property is that referring to?

Mr. Mario Sergio: Orillia.

Mr. J. Paul Mills: Orillia?

Mr. Mario Sergio: Yes, which is part of the special act, the St. Paul’s congregation of the United Church of Canada. I wonder if you fell within the same terms of that particular special law.

Mr. J. Paul Mills: I’m drawing a blank on that, I’m afraid.

Mr. Mario Sergio: It doesn’t enter your application here.

Mr. J. Paul Mills: No.

Mr. Mario Sergio: It’s in your material here.

Mr. J. Paul Mills: I think that was a specific situation in Orillia.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): I believe there’s a further comment on that.

Mr. Martin Campbell: That may be a special act that may refer to that specific congregation, but I’m guessing at this point. If it’s a matter of some interest, perhaps we could get back to you with a letter or something that expands it further.

Mr. Mario Sergio: Not necessary, thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): Any other questions? Seeing none, are we ready to vote?

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I know it’s later on. I’d like to be the one who moves that the committee recommends that the fees be withdrawn.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): Okay, when we get to that. There is a motion I think all members have before them that has been circulated—I’ll read it for the record, if someone wishes to move it—“That the committee recommend that the fees, and the actual cost of printing at all stages be remitted on Bill Pr3, An Act respecting St. Andrew’s Congregation of The United Church of Canada at Toronto.” So if there is a mover, when we get to that, I will recognize you, Mr. Ruprecht.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: Thank you very much.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): Shall section 1 carry? Carried.

Shall section 2 carry? Carried.

Shall section 3 carry? Carried.

Shall section 4 carry? Carried.

Shall the preamble carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Mr. Ruprecht, you wish to make a motion.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I move that the committee recommend that the fees, and the actual cost of printing at all stages be remitted on Bill Pr3, An Act respecting St. Andrew’s Congregation of The United Church of Canada at Toronto.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): I’ve just been advised that this has to take place after the bill is carried. So we’ll hold down debate on that, if any, and go on.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall the bill carry? Carried.

Mr. Ruprecht has made a motion. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Mario Sergio: Recommend the bill.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): Okay, I guess you’re right. This is the first time I’ve done this. Shall I report the bill to the House, as amended?

Mr. Mario Sergio: Yes, you may.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): Okay.

Then the motion by Mr. Ruprecht to waive the fees: Is there any discussion?

Mr. Mario Sergio: Just a question of staff. I have no problem with the motion. How would the committee be dealing with further or similar circumstances if we were to face the same situation in the future? Would this cause difficulties for us?

Ms. Susan Klein: This is a procedural question.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): We’ll have you an answer shortly here, I’m sure.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: On a number of occasions, while I’ve served on this committee, on an ad hoc basis, we decide whether it’s fair in those particular circumstances.

Mr. Mario Sergio: On a one-to-one basis. Yes, I was coming to that. That was my question.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): If I can just explain for the members of the committee and those present, it’s my understanding that this is done on a case-by-case basis. It has been recommended in this case because it is a charitable organization.

Mr. Mario Sergio: That was my point. Thank you.

Mr. Mike Colle: How much money are we talking about?

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): I’ve been advised by the clerk that it’s several hundred dollars. I don’t have the exact figure, but I’m sure it’s not going to bankrupt the government.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: Shall I make the motion again?

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): No, I think the motion has been made.

Interjection: It’s in our budget.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): It’s in the budget; okay.

Mr. Mike Colle: Are legal counsel waiving their fees too?

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): I’m not going to ask that question.

All right. All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.

I think that pretty much concludes the—

Mr. Martin Campbell: If I may, I just wanted to thank Ms. Klein for presenting such a clean and concise draft. I’m also very, very grateful to Mr. Zimmer for his support and guidance through this and to his assistant, Ms. Lauren Consky. They made what could have been a very esoteric exercise very clear, and I’m very grateful to them. Thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): Thank you to all.

Mr. Kim Craitor: I’d like to move that we have a collection on behalf of St. Andrew’s while we’re here.

Mr. J. Paul Miller: I have to go to a banking machine.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): It is on the record that you’ve made a motion and I guess I have to deal with it. Is this a real motion or is this tongue-in-cheek?

Mr. Kim Craitor: In my heart, it’s a motion.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): Okay, so it’s tongue-in-cheek. It is not a real motion for the committee to deal with.

All right, then. That being the conclusion of business, the only thing—are we meeting next week? Has that been set yet? No? Okay. Then we are done with this—

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: Before you wrap up, I’d like to add just one item. If we would pass Mr. Craitor’s motion, this would be an historic motion. Never before has a member walked out of this committee room with money in their hands.

The Chair (Mr. Michael Prue): I think that’s why we’re not going to deal with it today.

At the time of the next meeting—I’m not sure whether it will be next Wednesday or at some subsequent date—I wonder if we might also have a subcommittee meeting of representatives from each of the parties to discuss the private members’ bills that have been forwarded to our committee, and whether we’re going to deal with them.

There being no other item of business before the committee, we stand adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1037.

CONTENTS

Wednesday 26 March 2008

872440 Ontario Inc. Act, 2008, Bill Pr4, Mr. Dunlop T-3
Ms. Laurie Scott, MPP
Ms. Rosemarie Bain
Mr. Owen Thompson
716056 Ontario Limited Act, 2008,
Bill Pr6, Mr. Norm Miller T-4
Mr. Norm Miller, MPP
Mr. Wayne Wolfe

St. Andrew’s United Church (Toronto) Act, 2008, Bill Pr3, Mr. Zimmer T-4
Mr. David Zimmer, MPP
Mr. Martin Campbell
Mr. J. Paul Mills
Rev. John Hartley

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Chair / Président

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches–East York ND)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

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

Mr. Bas Balkissoon (Scarborough–Rouge River L)

Mr. Mike Colle (Eglinton–Lawrence L)

Mr. Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls L)

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge PC)

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

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

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches–East York ND)

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport L)

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

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound–Muskoka PC)

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock PC)

Mr. David Zimmer (Willowdale L)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms. Sylwia Przezdziecki

Staff / Personnel

Ms. Susan Klein, legislative counsel

Comptes rendus
Communiquer avec un député
Participation aux comités
Regarder l'Assemblée législative à l'œuvre
Utilisation des jardins
Pétitions