Thursday, May 7, 2026

The committee met at 0901 in committee room 2.

Official source

Consideration of the following bill:

Official source

Bill 98, An Act to enact the Fare Alignment and Seamless Transit Act, 2026 and to amend various Acts / Projet de loi 98, Loi édictant la Loi de 2026 sur l’harmonisation des tarifs et l’intégration des transports en commun et modifiant diverses lois.

Official source

The Second Vice-Chair (MPP Tyler Watt)

Good morning, everyone. The Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy will now come to order. We are here for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 98, An Act to enact the Fare Alignment and Seamless Transit Act, 2026 and to amend various Acts. We’re joined by Simone Bittman, legislative counsel, in the room, and various ministry staff joining us virtually to assist us with questions members may have. A copy of the amendments filed with the Clerk has been distributed electronically, and a hard copy has also been provided to you. As always, please wait until I recognize you before starting to speak, and, as always, all comments should go through the Chair. Are there any questions before we begin? We will now begin the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 98. Before we begin considering the specific sections and accompanying schedules, I will allow members to make comments to the bill as a whole. Afterwards, debate will be limited to the specific amendment, section or schedule under consideration. Committee members, pursuant to standing order 83, are there any comments or questions on the bill as a whole? Yes?

Official source

Mr. Tom Rakocevic

The NDP official opposition have a series of improvements to this bill. We ask that all of our amendments be recorded votes.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Good morning. After the “good morning,” I’m going to start off by saying there’s been a request that all of the New Democrat motions will be recorded votes. I think that’s where we were. Are there any further comments to the bill? No comments? Yes, MPP Rakocevic?

Official source

Mr. Tom Rakocevic

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you for hearing my request to make all of our amendments be done with recorded votes. I was very honoured and proud to be part of the hearings to hear what people had to say. In particular, my interest and my specialization here is with regard to transit. I think we heard quite a bit—in fact, pretty much from everyone who spoke about the transit parts of this bill—that there was simply a lack of consultation, that it was all expected to be done in the back end through regulations. There were a number of other concerns that opened up possible transit to having different rates per zone—all sorts of issues that were not really a step forward and left too much to regulations and too much to having to trust the government. We will be tabling a series of amendments to deal with those issues that have been raised at the hearings, and hopefully the government will support them, because you will have heard from everyone that talked about the transit portions that these would be the things that were needed to fix the bill. And so, if the members care deeply about transit, as I believe they do, they will support the amendments we will be tabling, and I look forward to working with them so that we can improve the bill and make it work for everybody. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you. Any further comments to the bill generally? If not: Bill 98 is comprised of three sections which enacts nine schedules. To deal with the bill in an orderly fashion, I suggest we postpone these three sections to dispose of the schedules first. Is there agreement? Okay, there is agreement to that. Section 1 has no amendments. Any discussion on schedule 1, section 1? No comments. Is the committee ready to vote? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried on schedule 1, section 1. Schedule 1, section 2: We have a Liberal amendment. MPP Watt.

Official source

MPP Tyler Watt

I move that section 2 of schedule 1 to the bill be amended by striking out subsection 35(4) of the Building Code Act, 1992 and substituting the following: “Environmental standards “(4) Municipal bylaws respecting the construction or demolition of buildings referred to in subsection (1) include municipal bylaws that prescribe construction standards for the protection or conservation of the environment unless the bylaw incorporates construction standards that are set out in provisions of the most recent edition of: “(a) the National Building Code of Canada; or “(b) the National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings.”

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

You’ve heard the motion. Discussion?

Official source

MPP Tyler Watt

Section 2 of schedule 1 of the bill is intended to squash all municipal power to pass bylaws for the protection and conservation of the environment. These are consequential and important bylaws in the fight against the climate crisis, and mandate building measures that protect Ontarians from worsening weather events, things that we have been seeing more and more severe and increasing lately. This amendment, rather than completely putting municipalities under the Building Code Act for environmental bylaws, would allow leeway for standards that are recognized all over Canada. Ontario’s building code system is already rooted in national model codes, which are developed through a rigorous pan-Canadian process involving provinces, industries and technical experts. Allowing municipalities to pass bylaws rooted in these codes is a fair and grounded way to allow them to respond to local need and protect local environments.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further discussion on that? Is the committee ready to vote? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is lost on the amendment. Any further discussion on section 2? If not, shall schedule 1, section 2 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. Schedule 1, section 3: MPP Saunderson.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

I noticed that, at least according to my notes, for schedule 1, sections 3 through 9, there are no amendments. I’m wondering if we could bundle those.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

You’re getting ahead of me here.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

Oh, sorry. My apologies.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

There are no proposed amendments of section 3 to 9 of schedule 1, therefore I propose that we bundle these sections. Is there agreement? Agreed. Shall sections 3 to 9 of schedule 1—we’re not going to vote on that yet; we’re going to have debate on those sections. If there’s no further debate, shall sections 3 to 9 of schedule 1 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried. There are Liberal and NDP motion notices of schedule 1 to the bill. We will look at the Liberal and the NDP members for debate on schedule 1 as a whole. MPP Watt?

Official source

MPP Tyler Watt

Schedule 1 of the bill crushes municipal powers to pass environmental bylaws and green development standards. Green developments increase energy efficiency and protect and manage the environment. They are important steps towards reducing the climate impact of municipalities. The Toronto Green Standard would have led to greenhouse gas reductions of 30.6 megatonnes by 2050—the equivalent of 250,000 cars each year. Toronto’s housing starts have grown or stayed consistent nearly every year since the TGS was implemented. Torontonians should absolutely have the right to democratically implement standards to protect their environment and climate.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Any further debate? Any comments? Shall schedule 1 carry? Further debate? No further debate. Ready to vote? All those in favour? All those opposed? Schedule 1 is carried. It’s not amended. Schedule 2, section 1: Is there any debate on schedule 2, section 1? If there is no debate, all those in favour? All those opposed? Schedule 2, section 1, carries. Schedule 2, section 2: We have a New Democratic Party amendment. Jeff—MPP Burch?

Official source

Mr. Jeff Burch

You can call me Jeff if you want. I move that subsection 2(2) of schedule 2 to the bill be struck out.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further debate on the section? MPP Burch.

Official source

Mr. Jeff Burch

By way of explanation, this section allows the city of Toronto to ensure sustainable design, otherwise known as the Toronto Green Standard, in its site planning control process. The Toronto Green Standard future-proofs new development and ensures lower costs over the long term. It’s shortsighted to block such standards.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further discussion? If there is no further discussion—MPP Rakocevic.

Official source

Mr. Tom Rakocevic

I always enjoy hearing government members speak in the House and providing a rationale during debate when bills are tabled. I’m just missing the sound of their voices. I would love to hear a rationale as to how and why they are voting for what appears before us in the bill. I’m hoping that they’ll make my day better by blessing me with the sound of their voices to explain the rationale as to why they are voting the way that they do. I’m hoping to hear. Of course, the Chair is, in fact, a member of the government—

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

I would just point out that I do not believe it’s in any member’s job description to have to speak to every motion.

Official source

Mr. Tom Rakocevic

Well, I want to amend what I said. In fact, I am hearing one government member speaking and I’m appreciating that. Certainly, it is not in anyone’s job description to have to do things, but I would imagine that as we pore through these amendments, presumably, the government—I’m hoping—will start to support some of them, because, in fact, everything I’ve heard so far have been reasonable and good improvements to the bill. If the government, in fact, doesn’t vote for the proceeding ones—maybe for the first few, it’s going to be a little different—I just want to hear from them the rationale as to why they’re voting the way they’re voting. I’d appreciate that.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Any further discussion on that? MPP Saunderson.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

I think it’s self-evident in the nature of this legislation and the debates we’ve had on it, as well as what we’ve heard from the public, so to the member opposite: I think you might have to prepare yourself for a day of disappointment.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Any further discussion? A recorded vote has been requested.

Official source

Burch, Rakocevic, Watt.

Official source

Anand, Babikian, Grewal, Saunderson, Vickers.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

The motion is lost. We have a Liberal notice to section 2 of schedule 2. MPP Watt.

Official source

MPP Tyler Watt

Section 2 of schedule 2 removes references to sustainable design like mentioned in amendment 2 and removes the ability of the city to require electronic vehicle charging in off-street parking facilities. The Premier has claimed to champion EVs, but just when municipalities would want to support them and make them viable by ensuring there is charging, the government is removing their ability to pass those bylaws. This amendment shows how government is not serious about EVs.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further discussion? Shall schedule 2 of section 2 carry?

Official source

Mr. Tom Rakocevic

Recorded vote.

Official source

Anand, Babikian, Grewal, Saunderson, Vickers.

Official source

Burch, Rakocevic, Watt.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Schedule 2, section 2 carries. There are no proposed amendments to sections 3 and 4 of schedule 2; therefore, we propose to bundle these sections. Is there agreement? Agreed. Shall sections 3 and 4 of schedule 2 carry? Any discussion? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried. We have NDP notice to schedule 2 of the bill. We’ll look to the members for debate.

Official source

Mr. Jeff Burch

Didn’t we just pass this?

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

I don’t know why this is there. Interjections.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Okay, I think we’re through with that one. Shall schedule 2 carry? Further discussion? If not, all those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. Schedule 3, section 1: There is no proposed—

Official source

Mr. Jeff Burch

Chair?

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

MPP Burch.

Official source

Mr. Jeff Burch

I would like one second to confer with the Clerk, if that’s okay.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Yes, okay. Interjections.

Official source

Mr. Jeff Burch

Thank you, Chair.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. There are no proposed amendments to sections 1 to 3 of schedule 3. Therefore, I propose that we bundle these sections. Is there agreement? Thank you. Is there any debate? If there is no debate, shall sections 1 to 3 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried. Shall schedule 3 carry? Discussion? If not, all those in favour? Opposed? Carried. Schedule 4, section 1: We have an NDP amendment. MPP Rakocevic.

Official source

Mr. Tom Rakocevic

I move that section 1 of schedule 4 to the bill be amended by adding the following clause: “(a.1) increase transit ridership;”

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further debate?

Official source

Mr. Tom Rakocevic

What this does is just adding increasing transit ridership to the purpose of the Fare Alignment and Seamless Transit Act. What is the purpose of fare and service integration if not to increase ridership? So much of the bill is being left to regulations, leaving people to guess where the government is going with this. I believe this strengthens it. It tells those that have attended the hearing that there is an understanding that we want to increase transit ridership. When you bring in fare integration, it’s great for the rider, but municipalities, obviously, were set up originally to have a double fare. Where they offset, the cost is that you get more and more people getting on transit. They are then paying fare into the system, so it becomes larger and larger numbers of people coming on board and that’s helpful to the municipality. Of course, I think we all want more people to use the transit system. This is a very simple tweak, but I think it will be very effective in framing where this needs to go for the future. I know that this is very supportable, and I know that those that have come to depute would agree. In fact, we heard from the executive director of TTCriders, Andrew Pulsifer, saying, “Fares in Toronto have consistently risen above the rate of inflation, and the TTC has long relied heavily on the fare box to keep the system running. “The TTC’s own data shows that every time fares” increase, “people take transit less. Even a 10-cent fare increase results in 500,000 fewer rides taken.” So what we’re trying to do is enshrine in this legislation words to show that we want to increase transit. It will make fare integration work better. It is a sensible amendment, and I’m sure government members will be supporting this one. If not, I’d love to hear from them as to why.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further debate? Committee ready to vote? Recorded vote.

Official source

Burch, Rakocevic, Watt.

Official source

Anand, Babikian, Grewal, Saunderson, Vickers.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

The motion is lost. The next one is number 4: schedule 4, NDP. MPP Rakocevic.

Official source

Mr. Tom Rakocevic

I’m quite surprised by the result of the previous amendment, but thank you very much. I would like to read this new amendment. I move that section 1 of schedule 4 to the bill be amended by adding the following clause: “(a.2) make transit more affordable for transit riders;”

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further debate?

Official source

Mr. Tom Rakocevic

It’s self-explanatory, but it adds affordability to the purposes of the act. A poorly designed fare integration scheme could drive up fares for some riders, forcing to them to subsidize the fares of other riders. This amendment would ensure that any fare and service integration scheme would make fares more affordable, not less. Again, with a bill like this, with a schedule pertaining to transit that could have huge impacts, certainly on transit systems themselves and the costs that they require, we want to ensure that this actually improves the experience for transit riders. We’ve already heard that we want to increase transit ridership. Apparently, the government does not want to increase transit ridership; otherwise, they would have supported the amendment. Now we want to make transit more affordable. Here we are, putting this in words so when it gets to the regulatory stage, should this bill pass, there is a clear direction to make transit more affordable for riders. I want to hope that five members just accidentally voted the wrong way last time. Surely, affordable transit, affordable fares, are something that should be a priority to each and every member here in this government, and transit riders are counting on them to support this amendment to improve this legislation. I just want to leave you again with the executive director of TTCriders, who stated, “This bill is presented as something that will benefit riders, but we are very concerned that it could lead to fare hikes, the elimination of discounted fares like the Fair Pass and seniors’ fare, and an end to the two-hour transfer window.” I don’t want to believe that the members here in this room would want to see something like this happen. Let’s frame this legislation in a way to send the signal out there that we want to reduce fares. We understand how important this is, and that is why we’ve tabled this amendment. This time, I’m hoping we can count on the support of government members to help improve this legislation, and I’m looking forward to that vote.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Any further debate? MPP Saunderson.

Official source

Mr. Brian Saunderson

As I indicated earlier to my friend opposite, it might be a bit disappointing for you, but this is the government that brought in the One Fare program that saves an average rider about $1,600 a year. We’ve heard from the witnesses even on the transportation front that they were in support of that, and the intent of this legislation is to make that system more available across the board. To go to my friend’s comments about the purposes of section 1, it’s actually set out right in the section. It’s to: “(a) improve the transportation system to strengthen Ontario’s economy; “(b) enhance rider experience through greater transit fare and service integration, including for persons with disabilities and others who rely on public transportation; “(c) enable people to use transit to travel across municipalities and access employment, education and essential services; and “(d) improve the convenience, consistency and accessibility of municipal transit services by establishing provincial requirements.” The proposed amendment is redundant. It doesn’t add to the substance of what’s set out in section 1, so we will not be supporting the amendment.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further debate? MPP Rakocevic.

Official source

Mr. Tom Rakocevic

I appreciate the explanation. I didn’t hear “affordability” in there. I also heard that the CEO of the TTC came in and said we need to limit the scope pertaining to this schedule. We heard every single person come in and share very similar concerns about consultation and their concerns. Yes, we heard those saying that One Fare worked, but now what we are doing is making changes. We are actually debating changes to what everyone who came to speak about the transit portion of this bill said they were satisfied with. Now changes are being made. They’ve said to us that these are the ways in which we are concerned. We want to see more ridership, we want to see more affordable transit, and what we are seeing are changes to a system they said was working for them and a bill that is going to be specific down the road in the regulatory portion of it, leaving many to absolutely wonder what is going to happen. That’s why what we are trying to do: not to create redundancy; it’s to try to create clear language to set a direction for this government, as they unfortunately create the details on the back end, to say, “This is what we want: to increase transit ridership and more affordable fares.” They are making changes that will affect the fare boxes, they will ultimately affect these transit organizations. We want to set clear goals of what is being achieved here. We are trying to improve this legislation in a way that every single person that came to speak to the hearings would agree with, and I do not believe that this is in any way, shape or form redundant. It is surprising, and I don’t understand why we simply wouldn’t include language like this.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further debate? If not, is the committee ready to vote on the amendment? Recorded vote.

Official source

Burch, Rakocevic, Watt.

Official source

Anand, Babikian, Grewal, Saunderson, Vickers.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

The motion is lost. No more amendments on schedule 4, section 1. Are you ready to vote on it? All those in favour? All those opposed? Schedule 4, section 1, carries. There are no proposed amendments to sections 2 and 3 of schedule 4, therefore I propose that we bundle these sections. Is there agreement? All those in favour? We have agreement. Further debate? No debate. Shall sections 2 and 3 of schedule 4 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried. Schedule 4: We have amendment number 5. MPP Watt.

Official source

MPP Tyler Watt

I’m honoured to put this amendment forward on behalf of MPP Hazell, a true champion of Scarborough and transit. I move that section 3.1 be added to schedule 4 to the bill: “Net losses “Requirements imposing a net loss “3.1(1) This section applies if a requirement imposed under this act results in, “(a) a net reduction in fare revenue of a prescribed transit system; or “(b) a net increase in operating or capital costs of a prescribed transit system. “Publication “(2) Before the minister imposes a requirement under this act that is described in subsection (1), the minister must make available to the public a document describing, “(a) the expected net reduction in fare revenue for every prescribed transit system that is affected by the requirement or the expected net increase in the operating or capital costs of those transit systems, as applicable; and “(b) a description of how the minister intends to assist the affected prescribed transit system with the impacts described in clause (a).”

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further debate? MPP Watt.

Official source

MPP Tyler Watt

This amendment is important and a reasonable addition to the bill. The Fare Alignment and Seamless Transit Act gives the minister massive powers over our transit systems. Those powers include power over fees, discounts and frequency. These requirements can have a huge impact on transit system budgets, and it is vital that the impact of these requirements is not only predicted but shared with the public. The public deserves to know if extra costs are being imposed by the minister and what the minister plans to do about it. I’d ask government members to say exactly what their objection with this amendment is. Do they not want the extra costs on our transit systems predicted, or do they not want the predictions shared with the public?

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

MPP Burch?

Official source

Mr. Jeff Burch

We agree that if a requirement under the act reduces fare revenue or increases net transit cost, the minister should publish the expected impacts and describe how the minister intends to assist the affected transit system prior to imposing the requirement. So we think this is a good amendment, and we’ll be supporting it.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman)

Further discussion? MPP Rakocevic.

Official source

Mr. Tom Rakocevic

I just want to thank the member for introducing the amendment. One of the biggest concerns we heard at the hearings was that, obviously, fare integration is something that’s important—I think everyone is in agreement to want to see that move forward—but there are obviously going to be associated costs. Essentially, everyone heard about this without the consultation necessary and required. One of the big concerns, of course, is that it will possibly result in funding gaps. We had 50% operational funding in the late 1990s for transit, and it was a Conservative government at the time that removed that. We never saw it returned. And so what we need to do is ensure, when big changes are being made or being asked of these transit agencies, that commensurate funding and support from the provincial government is going to happen. This is not being specified whatsoever, and it must be very stressful for these associations and their riders and their workers to wonder what is going to happen if and when this bill passes and comes into effect. I think this is supportable, and I will be supporting it.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman)

Further discussion? MPP Watt.

Official source

MPP Tyler Watt

I’m not sure if this is the right time to ask, but I’d like a recorded vote on this.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman)

Are we ready to vote? A recorded vote has been requested.

Official source

Burch, Rakocevic, Watt.

Official source

Anand, Babikian, Grewal, Saunderson, Vickers.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman)

The motion is lost. Schedule 4, section 4: We have some amendments, starting with NDP amendment number 6. MPP Rakocevic.

Official source

Mr. Tom Rakocevic

I move that section 4 of schedule 4 to the bill be amended by striking out the portion before clause (a) and substituting the following: “Fare structure “4. The minister may make regulations establishing fare structures for routes that cross the boundaries of the areas served by two or more prescribed transit systems, including,”.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Mr. Ernie Hardeman)

You’ve heard the amendment. Discussion? MPP Rakocevic.

Official source

Mr. Tom Rakocevic

The minister may only establish a fare structure for routes that cross transit area boundaries and not for routes that don’t cross boundaries. This change was requested by the TTC ATU 113 and TTCriders. Ultimately, if it is to deal with fare integration, we should be speaking about cross-boundary trips, cross-boundary routes. So why not specify that? If there’s no intent to tinker all the way down to what the routes are going to be within jurisdictions, within regions, within transit systems, let’s make it clear. This is something that is supported and has been spoken to by pretty much everyone that came and spoke with regard to the transit portions of this bill in the hearings. I’m hoping the government will support this. After all, this is what we heard during the hearings. If you want to talk about fare integration, talk about routes that cross boundaries—but why? Just start focusing—why, basically, bring in the power to start tinkering with smaller local routes that don’t cross boundaries? That is way beyond the scope of what they explained this legislation is for. This is very supportable. I hope that they support this amendment, which will improve this legislation immensely and, I think, will provide some relief to those that are concerned that this is just an overreach and is not within the scope of this bill or what they seem to be setting out for themselves.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further debate? MPP Watt.

Official source

MPP Tyler Watt

Thank you to my colleague for putting forward this amendment. I think it’s extremely fair. I am deeply concerned about the amount of centralization of power to the ministers that has been going on, not in just this bill, but many bills. I was here late last night debating one of them. I have a lot of people from my riding who have been reaching out who are very concerned about the amount of power that is being given to ministers at Queen’s Park. This amendment would restrict the minister’s regulatory power to set fares and discounts only to routes that overlap. So this isn’t a radical amendment; this is something that would pull that back a little bit and actually reflect what the members were hearing during public consultations.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further debate? MPP Rakocevic.

Official source

Mr. Tom Rakocevic

We’ve seen government members now vote against prescriptive language that says, “We want to see an increase in ridership in transit systems. We want to see that it’s more affordable.” We’ve seen government members vote against committed funding, essentially, even just simply words to say that the government will help; that if there are any funding discrepancies or any issues that pertain to this legislation, that they’re going to come in and do this. Now, we are setting clear language to say, “You want a bill about fare integration? Just talk about cross-boundary routes, not local routes.” Don’t overreach. This is not what people want. Leave the transit associations and the transit systems themselves to make the expert decisions on how to manage those routes. This is just a common-sense amendment that will improve the bill. We’re counting on government members to support this, and it’s not just us; all the people that attended the hearings, all the transit riders out there, the workers and the transit systems, I know, would appreciate this language. I’m looking forward to the vote. They voted, surprisingly, the wrong way in all the other amendments; maybe this time, we’ll get it right and we’re hoping they will do that. We appreciate that, Chair. Thank you so much.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further debate? Are you ready to vote?

Official source

Burch, Rakocevic, Watt.

Official source

Anand, Babikian, Grewal, Saunderson, Vickers.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

The motion is lost. We have another amendment from the NDP.

Official source

Mr. Tom Rakocevic

I move that section 4, schedule 4, to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection: “Agreement re fare structure “(2) The minister shall not make a regulation under subsection (1) unless the minister has entered into negotiations with all municipalities or municipal agencies that have established or that operate or maintain an affected prescribed transit system, and negotiated in good faith to reach an agreement on a fare structure for the routes described in that subsection.”

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

You’ve heard the motion. Discussion? MPP Rakocevic.

Official source

Mr. Tom Rakocevic

In plain language, the minister, if this amendment should pass, cannot unilaterally impose a fare structure on local transit agencies, but must negotiate an agreement in good faith. Now, I can’t imagine, in a Legislature of 124 members, when presented with an opportunity to support even something as small as an amendment to an existing bill that talks about good faith, and would ensure that negotiations happen in good faith—I can’t imagine a situation where they would vote against something like that. We’ve already discussed how much of an overreach this is starting to appear to be, because the government voted against the amendment that would limit their tinkering such that they cannot discuss local transit routes, leaving expertise, leaving the judgment, to the transit systems themselves. Surely members of this government will support this crucial NDP amendment that will enshrine good faith in all agreements and will stop the overreach of this government with regards to the transit schedule of this bill. I’m hoping, finally, today that they will support an amendment to improve this legislation, an amendment that is what we have heard from everyone that spoke about the transit portions of this bill at hearings. I look forward to the vote. I hope they will be supporting this.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further debate? No further debate. Are we ready to vote?

Official source

Burch, Rakocevic, Watt.

Official source

Anand, Babikian, Grewal, Saunderson, Vickers.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

The motion is lost. We have another amendment from the New Democrats. MPP Rakocevic.

Official source

Mr. Tom Rakocevic

I’m not sure—I’m quite surprised—about what’s going on here in committee today, but we’re going to continue. We’re going to continue moving on. I move that section 4 of schedule 4 to the bill be amended by adding the following subsection: “Fare within local transit system “(3) A regulation made under subsection (1) does not prevent a municipality or municipal agency from establishing a fare structure for a route operated by a prescribed transit system that is entirely within the boundaries of the primary service area served by the prescribed transit system.”

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

We’ve heard the motion. Discussion? MPP Rakocevic.

Official source

Mr. Tom Rakocevic

In a simple way, it clarifies that a transit agency can continue to set fare policies for routes that are entirely within their local transit area. This is ensuring autonomy. This is ensuring that self-direction continues to exist—the ability that transit agencies have control over their own routes and that they themselves are able to set fare policies. So much of this bill has been left to the regulations on the back end—a bill that was created, not asked for by anybody and done without any consultation. What we’ve been trying to do is add amendments to give direction to this government and bind them to principles I think we could all agree upon. This is important. This is a sign of respect, a clear flag to all of the local transit agencies that you respect their ability to make decisions, that they can direct their own policies and be able to do what’s necessary internally—not overreach, not take them over, not impose their will upon them. This is something that has been asked for. This is an amendment that will improve this legislation. We’re hoping the government will support it.

Official source

The Acting Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further discussion? If not, are we ready to vote? Recorded vote.

Official source

Burch, Rakocevic, Watt.

Official source