The committee met at 0900 in committee room 1.

Committee business

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): Good morning, everyone. Thank you for being here today. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will now come to order.

There are a number of items for consideration for today, and some of them are housekeeping, some are action items, and some are updates on things we previously tasked our Clerk with undertaking.

The first item on the list to do is the letter from the Speaker. On May 8, the committee agreed that a letter would have been sent to the Speaker asking whether the Board of Internal Economy would like the committee to continue the work related to the Sir John A. Macdonald statue that was requested in the previous Parliament. As a reminder, the original letter from the Speaker on behalf of the board had asked the committee to consider and recommend to the board on ways in which Indigenous representation and viewpoints can be reflected at the Sir John A. Macdonald statue installation.

Yesterday, I received a letter from the Speaker in response to our letter that our committee had me send her with regards to the Board of Internal Economy request. I have provided a copy of the letter, if you would all take a moment to read it. After you read it, I will ask if there’s any discussion.

MPP Hsu?

Mr. Ted Hsu: Are we ready for discussion? I just want to make sure everyone had the chance to—

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): Has everyone read the letter? Okay. We’re ready for discussion. Yes, MPP Hsu.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Does this affect this meeting that we were trying to arrange with the Mississauga—I forget the exact name.

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): Mississaugas of the Credit, yes. The Clerk can answer.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): The original invitation that was sent in the previous Parliament was more specific to this issue. In the second letter that I sent that the committee had taken a look at before we sent off, I switched the language a little bit to be a little bit more general, just because that item wasn’t tasked directly to us anymore.

So, the short answer is the meeting can be whatever the committee would like it to be. You can frame it however you want to frame it. There was always the idea of, even in the previous Parliament, having a meeting to discuss this and then having, ideally, a second meeting to discuss wider potential changes to the Legislature—the renovation-restoration piece that the committee was also studying. All of that is up for grabs at the meeting.

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): MPP Allsopp.

Mr. Tyler Allsopp: Just to provide some clarity, I think the intention is still to move forward with that meeting about Indigenous representation, not only in this building but also outside of the statue as well. I think it’s prudent to proceed with that and see if we can get some time with the Mississaugas of the Credit still.

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): Any further discussion? Okay. Perfect.

The next item was for the Clerk to give an update about the recommendation about reaching out to the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. Do you want to give an update on that, Chris?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): I was able to reconnect with them again on Friday. I spoke with the assistant to Chief Sault, who’s the chief of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. I’m hoping to hear back today, actually. She had kind of preliminarily said that they had a preference for—much like we were going to do in January—the committee to attend a Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation council meeting. Their council tends to be on Tuesdays, so if we were to have a meeting like that, it would likely be on a Tuesday.

I’m still working on a date. At this point it’s the end of May, so June would be the earliest. I know the committee had identified late May into June as a potential date. So I’m hoping when I hear back from them today, or shortly, that I will be able to arrange something.

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): Any discussion on that? No.

Along those same lines, we should be discussing leave to meet and travel this summer. Our committee does not currently have leave to meet over the summer. Is there an interest in writing the House leaders to ask that a motion be passed in the House authorizing the committee to meet during the summer adjournment of the House?

MPP Rae.

Mr. Matthew Rae: Yes.

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): Perfect. I think that there may be something that comes up, so it’s good to ask leave. I will work with the subcommittee to set any meeting dates during the adjournment.

The next item for discussion is the National Conference of State Legislatures Legislative Summit. I’m going to ask the Clerk, Christopher, to explain it and discuss any details.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): Yes, the National Conference of State Legislatures is NCSL for short. They have a legislative summit once a year. This year, it’s being held in Boston, Massachusetts through August 4 to 6. There’s usually an international pre-conference, about a half-day event the day prior, so that would start on August 3, around noon, I believe. It’s a great opportunity to attend a conference that includes legislators from all 50 states and several US territories as well as other international jurisdictions. Last year, there was Brazil and Ghana—the two that I remember.

There’s an extremely wide range of business sessions to build from, with the ability to build your own schedule and go to seminars that are of interest to you. They have things on energy policy, health care. I attended one last year on small nuclear reactors, I believe. There’s a whole wide range of topics.

The first question is whether there is interest in attending this. The committee—its predecessors have been attending it for quite some time now. If there is interest, a budget would need to be approved. I have some options ready for the budget, if there is interest in pursuing this.

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): Any discussion? Any comments?

Mr. Tyler Allsopp: I mean, we’re certainly open to it. I don’t think that those dates work for me personally. If there are members interested in going, we have a number of packages available here. I suppose it’s a matter of counting hands and seeing who wants to go.

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): If we’re all in agreement then, no motion is required—oh, sorry. Jeff, did you put your hand up? I didn’t see that.

Mr. Jeff Burch: Yes. I have been to two of them. They’re really good. They’re worthwhile.

I’m wondering, with the tariff situation and all of that, is there any concern? Is it a really positive thing that we’re going there? Is there any intention of what we can do there in light of what’s going on? Is it a positive thing or a negative thing? Any discussions around that?

Mr. Tyler Allsopp: Certainly, the Premier’s office has taken a look at it and weighs all those decisions very carefully in terms of what public reception might be and how people might feel about the trip. From our standpoint, there are no concerns about doing it. It’s something we have done for a long period of time. Being a legislative conference, it’s a professional development opportunity for everyone, so we’re not anticipating any issues with that.

Mr. Jeff Burch: Thank you.

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): All in agreement then—that’s great. Two budget options are there. I’ll let the Clerk speak to those two budget options.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): There should actually be four budget options—

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): Has everyone got four copies?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): There should be four options provided to all of you. One option is if all committee members want to attend. The other one has a smaller version if just the subcommittee, so the Chair and one from each caucus, were to attend. The subset of those two options are travel from the 3rd to the 6th, so that you are able to attend the international pre-conference portion—sorry, the 3rd to the 6th, so coming back on the last day of the events, or the 3rd to the 7th, because the final event usually goes into the evening, so it may be wise to come back the following day. All four of those options include two staff members attending, myself—the Committee Clerk—and a research officer, which is standard with a conference of this nature.

I think the main thing to take from the four options—they all look very similar—is that this budget is setting a maximum envelope. We do not expect to need to spend all of this money in any of the four situations, but this budget would allow for approval to spend up to that amount. This money would come from the committee’s existing budget. We do not need to ask for more money in order to attend this. We would still need to let the Board of Internal Economy know that the committee has approved this budget, that it comes from within the allotted funds already, but the board still has to sign off on the committee doing this because it’s an expense outside of the normal recurring committee expenses.

There are the four options. The one that provides the largest amount of flexibility is option four. I believe it’s highlighted. The final total is highlighted—$63,447.41—but is up to you as to which option you’d like to go with, if you want to go at all.

Mr. Matthew Rae: Thank you, Chair. I don’t think I can go because I’m not a permanent member at this time, unfortunately. But I would suggest to my colleagues—and I’m looking at the Clerk, because I know last year we provided a week or two weeks for the members to look at their schedules. Last year, not all of the members could go, but I think we approved the budget where all members could go if they wanted to. But then, as the Clerk mentioned, they didn’t use the max budget because other members—just giving the members an opportunity to look at their schedules, I think, would be ideal, and letting Chris know if they can attend or not.

0910

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): Any other discussion? MPP Burch.

Mr. Jeff Burch: Exactly the same comment: I’d appreciate a week or two to see if I can go.

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): So do we task you with sending a letter to the Board of Internal Economy and asking them, or—

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

Just so we are clear in this, if I understand the discussion, the committee is seeking to approve a budget in the amount of $63,447.41—

Mr. Tyler Allsopp: Do you need a motion?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): That’s what I’m trying to—yes.

Laughter.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): So, that amount, and that you are tasking the committee Clerk with writing to the Board of Internal Economy and notifying them of the committee’s decision, and that the money is coming from within existing allocated funding. And I suppose we should also write to the House leaders to get approval from the House for the committee to travel to the conference.

Does that encapsulate your motion?

Mr. Tyler Allsopp: I so move. Absolutely. I think it was even better than what I had in mind.

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): Is the motion carried? Carried.

MPP Hsu?

Mr. Ted Hsu: Can I just ask a question in terms of helping me decide whether I can go or not? Is this something where I can bring a spouse and pay back the cost? Because that makes a big difference in how easy it is to go.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): I don’t believe there is an official partners program. There’s nothing stopping you from bringing your spouse and paying for their flight. The hotel room will obviously be covered by the committee.

So yes, there’s nothing stopping you from bringing a partner or spouse. It’s happened in the past. It’s fairly common.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Okay, great. Is it possible for us to pay our own extra registration for my spouse to attend? Is that possible?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): Yes. That’s no problem at all.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Oh, okay. Good.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): I can direct you to where on the website you can register your spouse, and you can handle that directly.

Mr. Ted Hsu: Okay. Thank you very much. That helps me decide.

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): Another item is the housekeeping item: committee seating arrangements. Inspired by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, during the last Parliament, this committee moved to party-agnostic seating as a symbol of the non-partisan nature of this committee. The Clerk placed members in alphabetical order from the right side, nearest the head of the committee table, down and then back up the left side. Substitute members were placed in the spots occupied by the permanent member for whom they were substituting.

As always, committee members are free to move their nameplates to any spot they prefer. I just want to ask if there’s any interest in returning to that seating arrangement in the previous Parliament. I will open the floor for discussion. Yes, MPP Allsopp?

Mr. Tyler Allsopp: I think we’re happy to keep the seating the way it is now.

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): You’re good?

Mr. Ted Hsu: Keep it the way it is now.

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): All right. If you change your mind, you can always just pick up your name tag and switch it over.

One other item that we flagged was the private bills application fee. Two weeks ago, I received an email from a private bill applicant expressing their concern about the increase in private bill fees from $150 to $1,500. They expressed their opinion that there should be a grandparenting provision included for those who have already started the private bill process applications prior to the establishment of the new fee.

Our Clerk can provide more information on the situation, so I’m going to turn it over to the Clerk for some details.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): So we did receive an email from an applicant expressing his concern with the increase. He feels it should be a grandparenting provision included for those who had started the application prior to the establishment of the new fee.

The current standing orders allow for applications that were finalized in the previous Parliament to carry over—or, finalized and either not introduced or finalized, introduced and not further considered to carry over to the new Parliament.

There were, I believe, three or four that have already done that with the introduction of new private bills of applications from the previous Parliament. So there is a bit of a grandparenting provision already built-in in that respect. But standing order 85(a) sets out that a completed application requires a copy of the draft bill; the application fee, which is usually paid via cheque, and we usually hold on to the cheque until the full application is done before we cash it, just to avoid having to do a bunch of refunds; and the statutory declaration proving that the notices that are required, the notice in the Gazette and in the other local newspaper—so the stat dec proves that those notices have actually been run on the dates that are provided in the document.

Once all three of those things have been submitted, that is considered a complete application. If I look at my records, I believe there were seven or eight of those from the previous Parliament. So those could be considered completed applications. The cheques have already been cashed. It was completed or started in the previous Parliament, so the original fee applies.

For everyone else—and there are currently, on my tracking, about 47 that are at some stage in the process. There may be more because some people started without actually letting us know, and there may be less because some people get started and then very quickly abandon the process because they decide they don’t want to do that, so they decide to start a new corporation or whatever the case may be.

Yes, so again, there are the seven or eight that are kind of already grandfathered in, or grandparented in. There are the 47 that are at some stage of the application. But that is currently where we are at. This individual, his particular case, he was one of the ones that was grandparented in and he was very happy about that. But he expressed a general concern and emailed myself and the Chair. That is kind of why it has been brought to the committee’s attention today.

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): I’m going to go open for the discussion. MPP Allsopp.

Mr. Tyler Allsopp: Yes, thank you very much. I think that certainly for those ones where the application had already been done, had already been paid, cheques have cleared, that sort of thing—clearly, we’re going to honour those ones. But if you look at the 47 that are in the hopper, the idea here was to get to cost recovery. So if we start allowing some of those to be at the old fee, then I think we’re setting a precedent where we’re going to have to do that for multiple other people as well.

So I think that, provided the application has not been completed and the cheque hasn’t been cashed, it should be under the new fee structure which we agreed upon at committee.

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): Further discussion? I see none, so we’ll leave it as is.

The next item is the legislative building tour. As a reminder, our Clerk has organized a tour of the legislative building with the precinct properties branch to help bring members up to speed on some of the reasons that a decant and renovation of the building is necessary.

The tour will begin at 3 p.m. today, departing from the first floor at the bottom of the grand staircase. Are there any other members, outside of those who have already RSVP’d, who wish to participate?

For those who are—yes?

Ms. Laura Smith: Sorry, am I on the list?

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): I believe—yes, because you were really enthusiastic that—

Ms. Laura Smith: I am. Thank you.

Mr. Matthew Rae: She’s always enthusiastic.

Ms. Laura Smith: I love a tour.

MPP Paul Vickers: I believe—am I on the list?

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): Yes.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): We can just take a quick poll here. I can just put all the names down of anyone who’s interested in attending today.

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): Okay. So, MPP Vickers, MPP Smith, MPP Denault. Anyone else? No? Okay, so the three.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): I have three members on the list, so it’s probably those three. So we’re good.

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): Okay. So that’s concluded there. At that point—yes, MPP Vickers?

MPP Paul Vickers: Could I ask a bit of a dumb question? Is it clean? Like, should you have your suit on? Should you try and put street clothes on? Like, is there dust everywhere?

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): Should you wear a hazmat?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): Not a hazmat suit. You will be moving into parts of the building that are not often frequented. Part of the tour is in the basement. Part, if I remember correctly, is likely to go up into the attic space. So just be aware of that.

MPP Paul Vickers: I don’t want to get my suit dirty.

Interjections.

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): Yes, MPP Rae.

Mr. Matthew Rae: Having done the tour, if MPP Vickers wants, I would recommend potentially changing into jeans and not wearing a jacket. I think that’s the most—because some of the spaces are pretty claustrophobic also, FYI, because they’re pretty close together. They don’t clean these areas often, for obvious reasons.

The Chair (Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong): Okay. That concludes the business items I had on the list for today’s meeting.

Is there any other item or business that you want to bring forward at this time? I see none. This meeting is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 0920.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

Chair / Présidente

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong (London–Fanshawe ND)

First Vice-Chair / Première Vice-Présidente

Ms. Laura Smith (Thornhill PC)

Second Vice-Chair / Deuxième Vice-Président

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

Mr. Tyler Allsopp (Bay of Quinte / Baie de Quinte PC)

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong (London–Fanshawe ND)

Mr. Jeff Burch (Niagara Centre / Niagara-Centre ND)

MPP Billy Denault (Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke PC)

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

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

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

Ms. Laura Smith (Thornhill PC)

MPP Paul Vickers (Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr. John Jordan (Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston PC)

Mr. Matthew Rae (Perth–Wellington PC)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr. Christopher Tyrell

Staff / Personnel

Mr. Michael Vidoni, research officer,
Research Services