T014 - Wed 3 May 2017 / Mer 3 mai 2017



Wednesday 3 May 2017 Mercredi 3 mai 2017

Braiseryy Chicken Ltd. Act, 2017

Roy Wilson Real Estate Inc. Act, 2017

East York Foundation Act, 2017


The committee met at 0904 in committee room 1.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Good morning. I’d like to call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills. We’ll now all come to order. There are three private bills on the agenda for our consideration today.

Braiseryy Chicken Ltd. Act, 2017

Consideration of the following bill:

Bill Pr61, An Act to revive Braiseryy Chicken Ltd.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Our first bill is Bill Pr61. The sponsor is Peter Milczyn, and the applicant is Emad Masoud. Please come forward. Welcome.

Mr. Crack, the floor is yours.

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Good morning, members of the committee. It’s my pleasure to be here representing Mr. Masoud, who has made application to revive Braiseryy Chicken Ltd. At this time, I would ask, through you, Chair, that maybe Mr. Masoud could introduce what the application is being revived for.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Sure. Go ahead, Mr. Masoud.

Mr. Emad Masoud: Yes. I received a letter from the CRA mentioning my corporation and its revival for cause, because there is no director. Already, I submit every year. I’m the one who is the director.

When I went to the Ministry of Consumer Services, they told me, “We didn’t receive any renewal from you. That’s why we dissolved your corporation.”

I applied today to revive my corporation because I’m still operating. My bank account, even with my taxes, with everything—I can’t do anything because there is no active corporation.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Are there any other interested parties who wanted to speak on this particular private bill? Seeing none, any comments from the government? I don’t see any.

Ms. French?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Thank you for coming to join us at Queen’s Park today. Just so that I’m clear, because you are certainly intending to continue doing business: What was it exactly that you didn’t maintain or didn’t send in, in terms of your renewal paperwork?

Mr. Emad Masoud: Each corporation has a president and a director. Every year, I go to the ministry and submit that I’m still the director; I’m still the president of the company. The ministry told me, “We didn’t receive this application. That’s why we dissolved your”—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Mr. Masoud, can you speak closer to the microphone over there?

Mr. Emad Masoud: Oh, sorry.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Thank you.

Mr. Emad Masoud: Every year, I submit an application saying that I’m still the director of the corporation. But this time, I received—not from the ministry, through the CRA—a letter from them telling me my corporation is dissolved, and now I need to do a revival.

When I contacted the ministry on University Avenue, they told me, “We didn’t receive any application.” When I showed them the proof of the day I was there, she said, “Well, there’s no application.” For them, by law, it’s like the corporation is dissolved.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Okay, just so I’m clear, you did as you’ve been doing for however many years you’ve been in business—

Mr. Emad Masoud: Since 2012.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Since 2012, you followed the process as you have in the past. With what you showed them, in terms of the application, you said, “Well, hold on. Here’s what I’ve got.” Had they received that, would that have been sufficient?

Mr. Emad Masoud: The answer from them was, “We didn’t receive anything,” because there’s no proof, right? But that day, I showed them the only proof, because I requested reports from my two corporations. I said, “That day, I was here,” because I have another corporation. I renewed it on the same day.

They said, “Well, we don’t have any proof”—and me too, I don’t have any proof, because when you go there, you just put the application in a small tray—that’s it.


Ms. Jennifer K. French: So it’s a process thing. There was certainly no intent on your part, that there was no—that’s unfortunate. Maybe the government can take that back and pass it along to—if it’s going to be clerical errors that wind up with folks being in here and having their corporations dissolved, that’s unfortunate. This has been a significant cost to you as well, I would imagine?

Mr. Emad Masoud: Of course. Because there’s no corporation, basically, now. My bank account has already now been put on hold. I have to open another one—just because I have a restaurant, right? I’m still operating. I can’t file my taxes. The CRA keeps calling me. They said, “What happened?” I said, “Well, I’m still waiting to do a revival.” Even my vendor—because when I opened this company, I built my credit with them. Now there’s no company, so they told me, “How can we still sell to someone?”—they have nothing.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Well, I am sorry that you find yourself in this situation, it would seem, through no fault of your own. Hopefully we can find a quick resolution for you today.

Mr. Emad Masoud: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Any further questions? Mr. MacLaren.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: So I gather this happened last November—or when? Did this stop your business or are you still in business?

Mr. Emad Masoud: I’m still in business. I’m operating. I knew my corporation had dissolved just from the CRA, because the CRA sent me a letter mentioning, “Your corporation is dissolved,” and they sent me a form. If I close, I need to sign it and send it back to them. If it was a mistake, I need to contact the ministry. So when I saw this letter, I took it and went to the ministry on University Avenue. When I showed them, she said, “Oh, yes.” I said, “How is that possible? Since 2012, every year, I’m doing the same thing. Why, this time, did it happen?” The supervisor there had no answer. She said, “I’m sorry.”

Mr. Jack MacLaren: I would hope, and I’m sure you hope, this doesn’t happen again. You know what do to now so that will never happen again?

Mr. Emad Masoud: Well, I’m doing, every year, the same thing. I go there, put in the renewal, the application, and that’s it.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: Well, that’s too bad. It sounds like what you’re suffering from is too much red tape, which is one of the problems we have here in the province of Ontario. You and I should get together and we’ll fix that.

Mr. Emad Masoud: Yes, because I asked them, “You should have some proof”—

Mr. Grant Crack: I think it’s federal. CRA is federal.

Mr. Emad Masoud: Yes.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Emad Masoud: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Any further comments? 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? Yes.

Thank you. You’re all done.

Roy Wilson Real Estate Inc. Act, 2017

Consideration of the following bill:

Bill Pr62, An Act to revive Roy Wilson Real Estate Inc.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): At this time, I would like to introduce Mr. Randy Hillier, the sponsor of Bill Pr62. Mr. Hillier, if you could make some comments.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Good morning, Chair and committee members. It’s a pleasure to be here today. With me is Greg Fournier. He’s a constituent in my riding. He has been a long-time constituent and long-time solicitor in the area.

We have Bill Pr62, An Act to revive Roy Wilson Real Estate Inc. Roy Wilson was a long-time realtor in the Smiths Falls and Perth area. The company was voluntarily dissolved back in 2010. Since then, Mr. Wilson has passed away. There are some elements of the company that were not completed when it was dissolved, and Mr. Greg Fournier—and the estate—is trying to wrap up and clean up those loose ends. That is the purpose of reviving Roy Wilson Real Estate. I will turn it over to Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Greg Fournier: Thank you, Mr. Hillier. I appreciate the introduction.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, most of the information which has been given to you easily summarizes the purpose of me attending today. What transpired is that the voluntary dissolution took place prior to there being completed discharges of mortgages, which the company was a mortgagee of, on some registered titles.

Two in particular came to our attention—well, to my attention; I was doing a sale transaction on one of the properties. It was a Smiths Falls property, a multi-unit property. The daughter of the owner of Roy Wilson Real Estate Inc. was the mortgagor under that mortgage, and she was selling that property.

As you are no doubt aware, the mortgage would be required to be discharged from the property. It had been paid out some time ago, and we were unable to discharge the mortgage because there has to be proper corporate standing or status in order to satisfy the land titles system for the purposes of registration of the paid-out mortgage.

It came to my attention somewhat later that there was a second property in the Portland area in the same kind of circumstance. There were no monies owing under the mortgage, but the mortgage had never been discharged from the title.

I constantly tell my clients that it’s a two-step process when you’re dealing with paying out a mortgage. The hard part is actually paying it out; the easier part is getting a piece of paper that says it’s discharged and registering it on the title. It’s not unusual in private mortgage situations that the discharge is not obtained, nor is it sometimes registered, and it usually comes to light sometime later when the property is being dealt with, usually pursuant to a sale or possibly a remortgaging.

So that’s the situation. I did not represent the company from 1990 through until the decease of the primary director, shareholder and officer, who was Roy Wilson. I was a tenant, actually, of the company from 1983 to 1990; I had an office in a building owned by the company, so I did know the owner at that time. His spouse—who is his sole surviving beneficiary under the terms of his will, he having died in 2014, four years after the voluntary dissolution—came to me to ask if I would assist with the handling of the estate.

It was another Smiths Falls law firm that handled his affairs and the corporation’s affairs from 1990 through until his decease in 2014. That other law firm did the voluntary dissolution, I am assuming, thinking that all matters had been dealt with. With it being a company that held a lot of real estate that often would be a mortgagee and would hold mortgages in relation to facilitating real estate transactions, I’m not sure I would have suggested to Mr. Wilson that he dissolve his company. In particular, there were so many private mortgages and land transactions that it would be hard to know if indeed everything had been tidied up.

The purpose of this bill is so that we can proceed to do discharges of the two mortgages I referred to. There could be other discharges required to be handled; I do not know, and again it’s because I didn’t represent the company. Unfortunately the law firm that represented the company in the town of Smiths Falls is now defunct, I guess I would say; one member has retired, and the other one has deceased, and the files of that firm are held by another firm in the town of Smiths Falls.

Basically that is why I’m here. There are no assets in the corporation. At the time of dissolution, of course, the assets would have had to have been dealt with. What was done with them, I do not know for sure. I have spoken with the surviving spouse, Elva Wilson, and from what I can tell, any of the assets were removed from the corporation, of course, at the time of dissolution, as would be required. To the best of my knowledge, there were no outstanding liabilities, or I assume the dissolution would not have been granted.

I’m certainly open to questions, of course.


The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Thank you, Mr. Fournier. Are there any other interested parties in attendance who would—members, you have a submission from an interested party with your package. There’s a submission from Janet Moore and a memo from legislative counsel that explains. I hope you had the opportunity to review it.

At this stage, if there are any questions or comments from the members—yes, Ms. Des Rosiers?

Mme Nathalie Des Rosiers: I just wanted to know how long you’re planning to revive the corporation and then discharge the two mortgages. Then, what are you going to do after that?

Mr. Greg Fournier: The two mortgages that are presently on registered title we will do immediately, as soon as the paperwork is completed for the discharges. I’ll be frank with you; I’m not exactly sure what to do as regards any other outstanding mortgages. I don’t have any instructions from my client, of course, who is the surviving spouse. My advice to her would be that we retain the corporation without assets for a year or two or something of that sort. Otherwise, I’m going to be visiting you people again. It’s a bit of a conundrum, to tell you the truth.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Any further questions?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’d like a minute or two to read this.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Okay.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I don’t know how to ask for that in official terms, but this seems—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): We can do a recess, if you like.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m sorry that I wasn’t aware of this. You say that there is something submitted from legislative counsel as well?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Yes. There’s a memorandum.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Okay. I’m not sure. Perhaps you can address this. What we have here is a letter of objection from someone who seems to be historically entangled in this somehow, looking for—not restitution, but a lot of financial history. I can read this for myself, but I wondered: If this happens, what happens to the—there’s no money tied up in this, so the assets involved in this can’t—this is an objection, but I don’t see how it aligns with what the ask is.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): If I may, Ms. French, if I understand it correctly, I think the memorandum from legislative counsel basically says that although this has been filed, it’s not relevant to what we’re trying to achieve today, if I stand correct.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: That’s where I was getting to myself, in terms of—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Legislative counsel can confirm that, or—

Ms. Catherine Oh: Yes, that is correct.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Just so I’m clear, that is because there are no assets in the name of this corporation.

Ms. Catherine Oh: Regardless of whether there were assets, merely reviving the corporation doesn’t affect the situation between the parties. That would be for them to—

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Decide after the fact.

Ms. Catherine Oh: —deal with outside, in a court of law.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Okay. I understand. Then I don’t need a recess.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Mr. Yurek, did you put your hand up? No?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: No, I was just waving to a staffer.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Any further questions? Are we prepared to call for the 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? Done.

Thank you, sir.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): The third item we have is Bill Pr63. I would ask—

Mr. Grant Crack: Chair?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Yes?

Mr. Grant Crack: I was wondering if we could have a 10-minute recess. This is a little complicated, this particular one, and I need some clarification before we move forward.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): A member has asked for a 10-minute recess. Can we get unanimous consent?

Mr. Grant Crack: Ten minutes would be fine, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): How much? Sorry.

Mr. Grant Crack: Ten minutes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Ten minutes will be fine.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: We don’t need unanimous consent for that. Can’t you just—

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Well, we have to ask for unanimous consent. We might have to put it to a vote if everybody is not fine with it. Is everybody okay with a 10-minute recess? Okay, you’ve got it.

We’ll reconvene in 10 minutes, at about 22 minutes to.

The committee recessed from 0925 to 0930.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Are members ready? We’ll call this meeting back to order.

East York Foundation Act, 2017

Consideration of the following bill:

Bill Pr63, An Act respecting The East York Foundation.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): I would like to call up MPP Tabuns and Gordon Piercey, applicant. Mr. Tabuns, welcome.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Thank you very much, Chair. Good morning, everyone. I’m very pleased to be here with representatives from the East York Foundation: Mr. Raymond White and Mr. Gordon Piercey.

The bill that the foundation operates under was originally passed in 1965, and I believe, amended in 1973. Times change, East York has changed, and requests have been put forward to deal with some of those changes. Hopefully you will be able to do that today.

The East York Foundation is a substantial institution in my riding, in Beaches–East York and in Don Valley West. They look after the cultural heritage of East York and carry on the spirit of the community since amalgamation.

With that, I’ll let the representatives speak to the bill that’s requested.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Please identify yourself for Hansard.

Mr. Raymond White: Yes, Chair. My name is Ray White. I’m the chairman of the board of the East York Foundation. Our thanks to the honourable Peter Tabuns for giving a brief introduction about what the foundation does. As he said, it’s an iconic organization within the former municipality of the borough of East York, and it still operates to this day. I’ll just add to what the honourable member has said.

One of our most recent projects was the undertaking of a capital campaign in the area to build a second ice pad at Leaside Memorial Community Gardens. The foundation raised over $3.6 million for that endeavour to help the city defray the costs of that $12.5-million project. This was a community fundraising endeavour undertaken by the foundation on behalf of the citizens of the municipality.

Some of the other significant things the foundation does hold are Group of Seven paintings that are on display at the Walter Stewart library in East York. We’ve participated in halls of fame, memorial tributes and things like that that help build the culture and the history of the area.

With respect to the changes we’re looking for in the act—this will be the second time we’ve asked for an amendment to the act. The first act came into effect in 1965. In 1973, after amalgamation in Toronto of the borough of East York and Leaside, we needed to have some amendments at that time as well. So it’s not that we come here very often.

The board of directors wish to amend the composition of the nominating committee and repeal the annual audit requirement. I want to be emphatic: We’re not trying to avoid an audit; we’re just trying to repeal the requirements we have and be replaced with another requirement.

In the case of the composition of the nominating committee, we wish to bring a more rigorous standard consistent with current governance practices. We’re suggesting that the nominating committee be comprised of the mayor of Toronto or a designate, the chair of the board of the foundation and one other director appointed by the board of directors of the foundation.

The current nominating committee has become onerous and I think has outlived its usefulness in modern-day society. It included the head of council or designate or successor, so the mayor of Toronto. It also includes the principals of the two high schools that were in the boundaries of East York and Leaside. The high school principals have, over time, not become people who necessarily live in the riding or live in the area, and are not in tune with the make-up of the appropriate people that should be appointed to this board. They’ve indicated to us their reluctance to even participate in the process. So we need to get some people nominated who have some relevance to the community, and the principals of both those high schools feel that it would be better left to the committee composition that we propose.

The annual audit requirement needs to be repealed in order to become consistent with the requirements of the Ontario Corporations Act and the Ontario Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, when it’s proclaimed. We will rely on the Ontario Corporations Act until such time as the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act is proclaimed, once we repeal this section.

The audit requirements are very onerous, and we want to come into compliance with what every other corporation in Ontario is expected to do. They are prohibitive in terms of cost. It requires the foundation to publish the annual report in the newspaper of highest circulation within Toronto, which is a significant cost. The last time we did it, it was $10,000 to publish in the Toronto Star. We’re a charity and a foundation; we can use this money for a better purpose.

We will post our financial statements on websites, make them available to the public, and continue to have an audit where required. It’s not that we try to hide behind anything. We’re all about full transparency, but at the same time we want to be consistent with all other corporations in Ontario.

These amendments have the full support of the board of directors of the East York Foundation. They have been duly discussed over many meetings and approved at the most recent meeting, which was on March 8, 2016. We also have the support of our honourable member, whose riding comprises a significant portion of the former municipality.

I thank the committee today for the opportunity to address the proposals. I’ll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Are there any other interested parties? I don’t see anybody else here, so probably not. I’ll go to members, if there are any questions. Ms. Des Rosiers?

Mme Nathalie Des Rosiers: Yes, I have a couple of questions. Number one is: Currently, how many members do you have on the board?

Mr. Raymond White: I think we have one vacancy now, so we have nine.

Mme Nathalie Des Rosiers: Nine. So the purpose of the amendment that you’re seeking is to eliminate the two principals of the local high schools, basically.

Mr. Raymond White: Yes.

Mme Nathalie Des Rosiers: And maintain the same number?

Mr. Raymond White: Yes.

Mme Nathalie Des Rosiers: Okay. My second question is about eliminating the annual audit requirements. Currently, what the legislation provides is that you have to do an annual audit and you have to publish it in a newspaper. Anything else?

Mr. Raymond White: It’s quite a significant section of the act.

Mme Nathalie Des Rosiers: I understand, and I’m sympathetic to the dated nature of asking for it to be published in the newspaper as opposed to being on the Web and so on. I just want to make sure that all the other requirements that were envisaged in 1965 and 1973 are complied with—or that at least we know what we’re giving up by repealing the entire section.

My last question is: You say that the members of the board support this. Have you also consulted the city of Toronto on this, since you want them to be part of your new board? It’s neither here nor there; I just wanted to know what other consultations you had done.

Mr. Raymond White: With respect to the city of Toronto, we’re really not changing that requirement, because Mayor Tory—when it’s time to do a striking committee, he nominates one of the local councillors to be on our board, which he has done in the past. All the mayors since amalgamation have done that for us, so there’s really no change there.

I’ll let Gord Piercey, our treasurer, answer your questions on the financial aspects.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Mr. Piercey, can you identify yourself?

Mr. Gordon Piercey: Yes. I’m Gordon Piercey, a resident of East York and treasurer of the East York Foundation.

To your question about the conditions that are being repealed, the conditions in there are really more descriptive of the type of the disclosures that have to be made to comply with the requirement. Those disclosures are typical of any audit; there’s nothing unusual about them. They talk about the disclosure of assets, liabilities, capital and that sort of thing. They were just trying to be a little more clear as to what to actually publish in the paper. But that’s available in the financial statements, which, as Raymond had said, are readily available and are on the website. Also, we will provide full copies if some are requested.

Mme Nathalie Des Rosiers: Just as a follow up: You’re going to comply with the Ontario Corporations Act?

Mr. Gordon Piercey: Correct.

Mme Nathalie Des Rosiers: But it doesn’t say that in your—

Mr. Gordon Piercey: Correct. When we went through the legislative changes, the first draft did say that, but the guidance from the legislative assistant was that it’s a redundant statement because you automatically have to be subject to that if you repeal this. Then we will go to the not-for-profit, but we understand that there’s no set date to put that through.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Ms. French.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Some of my questions have been asked by the member opposite, so that’s helpful. But I still wanted to be clear. As you said, the current audit requirements are onerous. To the member’s question: Certainly, the newspaper of highest circulation, I would guess, would be the Toronto Star at this point.

Mr. Gordon Piercey: Yes.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m sure if they knew about this, they’d be an interested party only because that’s a significant amount of money to miss out on.

I had the same question. If it’s a significant section of requirements that is being repealed, what are our assurances that what they’ll be replaced with—while I certainly wouldn’t want them to be onerous—are fair?

Mr. Gordon Piercey: I’m a CPA. The only thing that I would see changing—the reason why the rules are onerous and the act is onerous is because it requires an audit every year, regardless of the level of activity. We’ve had several years where our revenues have actually been totally wiped out by the cost of conducting an audit, as those audit costs have gone up over the years because of liability issues. We’re just trying to have a situation where—there’s not a lot of new activity in the foundation because, at some periods of time, the foundation hasn’t been that busy, so we don’t necessarily require that.

In years where it has been busy, as in the case of the arena fund that we were part of, a full audit was definitely required. We had no problem with that whatsoever, and we’ll have no problem with that going forward. We were just trying to get into a situation where we were being treated consistently with any other organization of our type and nature because, right now, we are actually treated at a standard far higher by having to do an audit regardless of activity levels every year. I don’t know if that answers your question.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: The actual requirements, then, that you’re going to put in for yourself are consistent with peer organizations.

Mr. Gordon Piercey: Totally. Absolutely totally. And with accounting practice for not-for-profit organizations.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Lou Rinaldi): Any further questions? Are we ready to put the question? Yes.

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? Carried.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Tabuns.

One last little bit of business: Chair McMeekin sent a request through a letter, I believe, from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. We do have one reply to one of the issues. The other one is forthcoming. Just for your notice.

If there is no other business, then this committee stands adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 0944.


Chair / Président

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

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland–Quinte West L)

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest / Scarborough-Sud-Ouest L)

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

Ms. Jennifer K. French (Oshawa ND)

Mr. Jack MacLaren (Carleton–Mississippi Mills PC)

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

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland–Quinte West L)

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

Ms. Soo Wong (Scarborough–Agincourt L)

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

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mme Nathalie Des Rosiers (Ottawa–Vanier L)

Ms. Ann Hoggarth (Barrie L)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr. Christopher Tyrell

Staff / Personnel

Ms. Catherine Oh, legislative counsel