STANDING COMMITTEE ON
DE LA JUSTICE
Thursday 8 December 2016 Jeudi 8 décembre 2016
The committee met at 0900 in committee room 1.
Le Président (M. Shafiq Qaadri): Chers collègues, j’appelle à l’ordre cette séance du Comité permanent de la justice.
I’d also like to welcome Madame Nathalie Des Rosiers. As I understand, it is your first meeting of the justice policy committee. Welcome.
To begin with, as you know, we had a motion on the floor previously. Essentially, the dates of this have expired, so it’s basically entirely out of order.
The floor is now open for further motions, if any. Madame Vernile.
Ms. Daiene Vernile: I’d like to put forward a motion for the organization of Bill 39. I believe you all have a copy in front of you. I shall read it to you now.
(1) That the committee meet in Toronto on Thursday, February 23, 2017, and Thursday, March 2, 2017, for the purpose of holding public hearings.
(2) That the Clerk of the Committee post information regarding public hearings on Bill 39 on the Ontario parliamentary channel, the Legislative Assembly’s website and on Canada NewsWire.
(3) That the deadline for requests to appear be 12 noon on Friday, February 16, 2017, for public hearings on February 23, 2017.
(4) That the deadline for requests to appear be 12 noon on Friday, February 24, 2017, for public hearings on March 2, 2017.
(5) That, should the hearings be oversubscribed, the Clerk of the Committee provide a list of all interested presenters to the subcommittee following the deadline for requests.
(6) That each subcommittee member, or their delegate, provide their selections of witnesses based on the list of interested presenters received from the Clerk of the Committee by 3 p.m. on the day of a deadline for requests to appear.
(7) That all witnesses be offered 10 minutes for presentation and nine minutes (or three minutes per caucus) for questioning by committee members.
(8) That the deadline for written submissions on Bill 39 be 6 p.m. on Thursday, March 2, 2017.
(9) That amendments to Bill 39 be filed with the Clerk of the Committee by 12 noon on Monday, March 6, 2017.
(10) That the committee meet for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 39 on Thursday, March 9, 2017.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Thank you, Madame Vernile. The floor is open for comments and questions. Monsieur Bisson.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: Can you just give us a second here? I’d like to read—there are a few date changes that I wouldn’t mind having in there, and my colleague just got here. Can we have an adjournment for, let’s say, 10 minutes?
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Sure.
Just before we do that, I call your attention to—in point number 3, apparently “February 16” should be “February 17,” just to be clear. Please make that note. That’s typographical.
But fine, 10 minutes.
The committee recessed from 0903 to 0910.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Thank you, colleagues. As you know, a motion has just been read by Madame Vernile. Now the floor is open. I believe Monsieur Bisson has the floor. Go ahead.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’m going to do this in two parts because there are two different parts to it. The first one, on point 3, point 4 and point 8: The deadline for a request to appear is the Friday before. There is no reason we can’t accommodate people up until mid-week. I’m suggesting that we move that date that was improperly read into the record—16; it’s now 17—to the 21st.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Wednesday the 21st?
Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yes, Wednesday the 21st. That gives us lots of time to do what we’ve got to do. It gives you a full day.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Okay, so this is now an amendment being proposed to this motion.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yes.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Just so everyone is clear.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: On the fourth bullet point, I would suggest we move that from the 24th to the 28th.
And the last point is number 8, which is—
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): That’s not a Friday, obviously, so what is that? That’s also a Wednesday?
Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yes, exactly.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): All right.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: The idea is that you have until Wednesday at 5 to apply and then—
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Fair enough.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: So then on bullet point number 8—
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Wait, Mr. Bisson: 5 or 12 noon?
Mr. Gilles Bisson: The rest of it can stay the same.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Okay. The timing is 12 noon, as specified, right?
Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yes, I was fine with the timing. That’s not an issue.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Fine.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: The other thing is that on point 8, the deadline for written submissions for Bill 39 is 6 p.m. on the 2nd. It just seems to me to be kind of odd. The committee is meeting on the 3rd, so people are going to be presenting here until the end of the committee time on the 3rd. We should make those two things sync. It should be the 3rd, not the 2nd.
That’s the first part. If you want to deal with that as a motion, then I’ll deal with the other part.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): The committee is meeting on the 2nd.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: Oh, hang on. I must have looked at the calendar wrong. I totally apologize if that’s the case.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: Okay, my mistake. Strike everything I said about number 8. I was looking at the wrong month on my calendar.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Strike 8, yes.
So now on to 3 and 4. Those are date changes, so we can consider those. Any comments with reference to this as we’re considering those two amendments?
Again, to specify, in point 3, Friday, February the whatever is now being changed to Wednesday, February 21. And in point 4, that date is proposed to being changed to Wednesday, February 28.
Any comments or questions? Seeing none, I will then vote on that amendment. Those in favour? Those opposed? Fine, so 3 and 4 are as recorded.
Are there any further comments on the overall motion?
Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yes, there is another one. I didn’t want to deal with them together. I wanted to separate them.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Fair enough.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: I understand that there was a consultation where the ministry went out and travelled the idea to different people. There was work done by a committee in order to talk to people about the aggregate act—I’m not sure that they were talking to them about the Mining Act, but for sure about the aggregate act.
It just seems to me that it’s only right that this committee should have been given a couple of days to travel. I know I’ve had that discussion with the government House leader. There’s a House leaders’ meeting later on today.
I’m just saying that I don’t have a problem with having a day or two of hearings here in Toronto, but there should be an opportunity for the committee to travel during the March break week that we get, in order to be able to get some hearings from people on the aggregate act, specifically in the southwest and the southeast, who have issues. As far as the Mining Act, there should be a day, at least, in northern Ontario. Your thoughts?
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Thank you, Monsieur Bisson. Further comments? Mr. Smith?
Mr. Todd Smith: Yes, and I’d like a response, too, from the government, to Mr. Bisson’s question. These are questions that we’ve been posing during our last couple of meetings that we’ve had here. I know the government members have said that they did travel this bill extensively when they were at the general government committee stage and the review was being undertaken, but that was coming up with recommendations.
Now we do have a piece of legislation before us, as a result of all of that work, that doesn’t take into account a number of the recommendations that the committee made, so I think it’s imperative that we take the bill on the road.
I realize, as I think my colleague from the NDP realizes, that that’s not going to happen. But I would just like to know how the government members justify not taking this back to those who are stakeholders in northern Ontario. It wasn’t an outrageous request. We did have some good debate going a couple of weeks ago in the committee. There were no outrageous asks. I think we were asking for one day up north, and possibly a day in southern Ontario, to discuss this.
I know my colleague, who I believe is the northern development and mines critic, Mr. Mantha, was saying that it’s very important for us to have First Nations input on this bill as well. That would be much easier, particularly in the north, if we were allowed to take this committee and travel and hear from them directly.
I don’t know if any of the government members have an answer to that, but I will pass the microphone over.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Thank you, Mr. Smith. Are there any further comments, with reference—Mr. Potts?
Mr. Arthur Potts: I’d be happy to entertain a response on behalf of our side of the House. To get it into the north, as interesting an idea—I mean, it’s a good idea to do it, to get the response from the north. Where in the north you go becomes critical. There are aggregate pits all over Ontario—
Ms. Daiene Vernile: It’s 700.
Mr. Arthur Potts: It’s 700 and something. So it becomes more symbolic than substantive. I appreciate the symbolism of it, but with respect to the mining communities, almost all of the major mining head offices are in this downtown Toronto region. There will be plenty of opportunity for them to come here and have comment, to bring their reflections on the bill.
I am cognizant of the First Nations piece here. I think we need to encourage First Nations participation. I don’t think that going to one specific territory or region of the province to receive input from that First Nation suffices. I think we’ll probably be hearing from the Ontario federation, and they’re just as comfortable to be here at the House.
We’ll be voting against the motion to—well, there is no motion, actually, in front of us. But that’s essentially the rationale that was put forward to us in the subcommittee. We’ve got lots of work to do. From a time-allocation perspective—people want to see this bill, want to see it finished and move on it. So that additional delay—we’re not open to it at this time.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Monsieur Bisson.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: Hogwash. That’s my first response.
On the point that there are 700 aggregate pits, so if you go to one, it’s only symbolic: No, I don’t buy that argument whatsoever. The reality is that people live far away from Queen’s Park, in northern Ontario, southwest and southeast. It’s not all that uncommon, in the history of this place and in the precedents of this place, that a committee goes to a Windsor or goes to a London or goes to some central point where it’s a little bit easier for people to come in from those communities to be able to present. We’re not trying to be outrageous, as far as the demand.
It used to be that when committees like this would deal with such bills, there were probably anywhere from five to 10 days of hearings, which was a way of engaging the public and engaging stakeholders in the discussion of the legislation. We used to learn things and we used to actually amend legislation in order to take into account what it means for people on the ground, what it means for the aggregate industry, what it means for the environmental industry and what it means to First Nations, etc.
So it is not symbolic. Democracy is a thing where you should try to engage as much as humanly possible with the citizens that you represent—in our case, Ontario. I don’t see that as symbolic.
The other thing in regard to—well, that’s the first part. I don’t buy that argument. There was another point, Mr. Potts, that you made. The second point was—
Mr. Arthur Potts: Mining head offices.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: Oh, mining head offices—that was the other one. Yes, indeed. Wow. I’m going to run that one in northern Ontario.
Listen, it’s part of the culture, and I don’t think any less of you for saying that. But I’d just caution members: There is this real strong alienation in places like you represent and places that I represent, where it’s like, “Oh, well, Toronto is the centre of the universe, so everything should happen here.” Well, you know, there’s a whole bunch of other parts and places in Ontario, as we well know, that are just as important, and sometimes more important, than what we do here.
I’ll speak just to mining. Mining, by and large, is done in northern Ontario. Every jackleg, every driller, every mucking machine, every mine manager, every engineer and every mill is somewhere in northern Ontario. To say, “Let’s just talk to the executives down here at the head offices in Toronto”—they know the business side of mining; they’re not the practical side of mining. The practical side of mining are the geologists, the engineers, the miners, the labourers and the mill operators. Those are the people who are on-site and actually do that work. Anyways, it’s a fight that we will continue at the House leaders’ meetings, because I really do think it’s important that this committee go and speak directly to people out there.
The other thing is, part of the downside when we only do hearings here in Toronto is there are a lot of people who just don’t come. If I’m Madame—
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Des Rosiers.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: —Des Rosiers’s constituent, I may not want to drive to Toronto for a five-minute presentation on an aggregate bill that I feel something about.
I’m not picking on you. It’s just the reality. You know as a member: You’ve either got to get on the train, you’ve got to get in your car or you’ve got to jump on a plane to get here, and (a) it’s expensive, (b) it takes time. Can I take a day or two off work to go and do that? Because that’s what it means for many people who live in the further regions of the province.
On that point—I’ve got another point I want to make after, but I just wanted to respond to Mr. Potts—I just think it’s unfortunate that the government members take that particular position.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Madame Vernile.
Ms. Daiene Vernile: Respectfully, to Monsieur Bisson: To suggest that we’re somehow circumventing the democratic process by not travelling is truly incorrect. All stakeholders—anyone who wishes to appear before any committee here at Queen’s Park—have the opportunity to call in or to offer written submissions.
In fact, just last week while sitting on a committee, while we were discussing and debating one of your colleagues’ private members’ bills on grandparents’ rights, we had an individual who called in from Sudbury. He was on the phone with us for a good half hour, and we heard all of his concerns, his complaints and his suggestions. It was a very thorough and comprehensive conversation.
Anyone who wishes to speak to anything within Bill 39, of course, has the opportunity to call or to offer written submissions.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Monsieur Bisson.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: There’s a whole bunch of people out there who don’t like to have a presentation done by phone or by video conference. I’ve been around this place long enough to see the results of that. It comes back to a question of are you part of Ontario and are you part of the legislative process or not?
This place, for probably 150 years in Ontario—this Legislature for at least 125 or 135 years—did a lot of travelling. It does a couple of things: One thing that it does is members get to know each other better so that you’re better able to work together and walk across party lines in order to deal with legislation. More importantly, it gives the public a sense that this is their Legislature; they’re connected.
I just think it’s unfortunate. It’s not something that you started, particularly, as a government, but it’s something certainly that you’ve accelerated. I just hearken back: The more that we can keep citizens—that we can press flesh as committees and be in people’s communities and listen to what they have to say and try to amend our legislation accordingly, the better it is I think overall. But we’ll have a difference of opinion, and I’ll just leave it at that.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Just before we move forward, with reference to the amendments that were just passed, as you know, in points 3 and 4 the dates agreed upon were Wednesday, February 21 and Wednesday, February 28. But, after extensive research, we’ve discovered that those are actually Tuesdays.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: Ah. Could we make it for the Wednesdays? That’s what I was trying to do.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): All right. It’s the will of the committee. It’d be Wednesday. Can we do that?
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Again, Tuesday, February 21. Correct?
Mr. Gilles Bisson: Chair, do it on the Wednesday.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): So you wanted the Wednesday?
Mr. Arthur Potts: There’s a committee meeting the very next day.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: Oh, yeah. So do it Tuesday then. I think that’s where I got confused. I looked at the schedule and the schedule had it on—
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Okay. I’m going to have to turn this one over to the Clerk. I’m not adequately caffeinated to juggle this week. Tell me what it is and I will—
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): So Tuesday, February 21.
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): We passed a motion that specifically said Wednesday the 21st and Wednesday the 28th, so if someone wants to move an amendment just to clarify—
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): All those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? Passed. Thank you.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: I had one last thing. You would have got, Chair, along with other members of the committee, the letter from Six Nations. I’m not going to read the whole thing into the record because I take it that most of you have seen it, but essentially the first part of it is—this letter is in response to the notice originally of the hearings on this particular bill, and what they’re saying is, there has been engagement with indigenous communities, including a separate meeting here in Six Nations on aggregates in particular, and they’re acknowledging that there was some work done on that. But part of what they’re saying is that there’s a duty to consult. I think we have to be extra careful when dealing with First Nations on that because there is a keen awareness on the part of all First Nations—and I don’t care where it is, if it’s in my part of the world or it’s in the southwest or the southeast—where they want to affirm their rights under section 35 of the Constitution, that there is a duty on the part of Legislatures like ours to consult with First Nations. I think we should pay particular attention to making sure that whatever we do in reaching out to people to present on this committee—maybe the Clerk should look at it. Is there a way of communicating directly with the Chiefs of Ontario, with the tribal councils, with whatever type of publications that they may have that are circulated within First Nations, so that there is at least some communication directly with First Nations, and that they be aware that this committee is going to be meeting on those dates? I don’t know how you put that into a motion—“I move that the Clerk of the Committee—”
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): We’ll need it in writing, Mr. Bisson.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’ll do it right now.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): In either official language.
Mme Nathalie Des Rosiers: In (2), it says that the committee “post information regarding public hearings on” the following—maybe you just add “and reach to the Chiefs of Ontario.”
Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yes—“the Chiefs of Ontario and other appropriate bodies that are applicable.”
Mr. Arthur Potts: Maybe just to circumvent, I don’t think—
Le Président (M. Shafiq Qaadri): Oui, mon ami, s’il vous plaît.
Mr. Arthur Potts: If you’re going to craft up and spend the time writing—I don’t think we’ll support that.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: Why?
Mr. Arthur Potts: I’ll tell you why: because I don’t think it’s the responsibility of our Clerk to be informing all the interested parties. We put out the general notice, and it’s the responsibility of us, as members of this Legislature, to reach out to the stakeholders that we’re concerned about, as I know the ministry will, as I know you will. I know the member, Mr. Smith, will. I think we leave the Clerk, as we typically do, with the general notifications, and we take it upon ourselves, as legislators, to make sure the people who have an interest—and then that’s part of our job.
I think our side would be voting against that motion, so save your time.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Monsieur Bisson?
Mr. Gilles Bisson: Just because you’re voting against it, it doesn’t mean to say I can’t raise it.
Mr. Arthur Potts: No, I’m not saying you can’t raise—
Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’m just saying, “No, don’t waste your time” is the last part of the comment I’m referring to.
What I’m trying to signal here is—I look at the First Nations that I represent, and they’re not on Canada NewsWire. They don’t watch the Legislative Assembly website. They won’t know about this. Even the chiefs won’t know about it. For example, the government did a good initiative under—I can’t remember the bill number—I think it’s Bill 45, where we’re looking at creating two aboriginal seats in northern Ontario. I was at the Chiefs of Ontario meeting two weeks ago, and none of the chiefs from the communities that are affected knew anything about it. None of the grand chiefs of the tribal councils knew anything about it. There was no outreach to the First Nations on a bill that was actually going to directly affect them.
What I’m trying to signal here is that we need to find a way—because First Nations are asserting their rights under the charter to be consulted. There must be some newspapers that reach out into First Nations communities. For example, where I come from, there’s Wawatay News. So maybe one of the people that we could add to the list is Wawatay News, because at least they cover Treaty 3 and Treaty 9. There may be other types of news outlets or magazines or publications that advertise across those areas. All I was suggesting is that we try to find them so that we include them in the mix. That’s all I’m asking.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Thank you, Mr. Bisson. Madame Vernile.
Ms. Daiene Vernile: Respectfully, Mr. Bisson, I would ask, what is it exactly you’re asking for? Is it that we reach out to all indigenous media? Because I think that’s certainly a valid suggestion.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yes, that’s what I’m suggesting. Why I was saying the Chiefs of Ontario was they’ll know what those media are. I don’t. I know the ones in northern Ontario. I don’t know which ones they are at Six Nations.
Ms. Daiene Vernile: That’s a valid suggestion. Thank you.
Mr. Mike Colle: Chair?
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Yes, Mr. Colle—but we will require it in writing, please. Thank you.
Mr. Mike Colle: I think that discussion that Mr. Bisson entered into is one for this committee to consider. How do we communicate to a wider audience when we’re trying to let them know that a bill is before the committee? I think it’s a valid exercise, especially when it comes to remote areas and to indigenous communities throughout Ontario. If we could find the appropriate avenues of communication that are out there that we may not know about that are changing—especially in this age of the digital world, things are changing, a lot of online blogs etc. Perhaps we could ask that the Clerk and research engage in directing us to where else we should disseminate this information.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Sure. Perhaps, to follow that, I’m going to offer the floor to the Clerk, who will specify for the committee if that process is suitable, in terms of communicating with First Nations. Go ahead.
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Christopher Tyrell): In terms of communicating, I’ve heard what members have said. It really comes down to how the committee would like to instruct me to proceed. If you want to be very specific and say, “We want you to reach out to the following news outlets or the following First Nations,” I’d be happy to do that. If you wanted to leave it more open-ended, I would be happy to look into how best to do that. But it comes down to what the committee decides that I take my direction from.
Mr. Mike Colle: If I could just continue—
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Mr. Colle.
Mr. Mike Colle: I think rather than giving you specific instructions—because certainly, at this moment in time, we can’t give you that specific instruction. So take a look and survey what would be the best, most appropriate way of communicating with the indigenous First Nations and people in remote communities. I think it could be a wider range—that’s my feel of it—rather than pigeonholing you and saying, “Just do this,” and then we miss so many.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: I agree. I have a suggestion. It would be something like this: At the end of bullet 2, we would just say, “And that the Clerk of the Committee identify the various media outlets or other vehicles of communication that would inform First Nations in Ontario about these hearings.” That gives you the freedom to say, “Okay, maybe I’ve got to call somebody and find out what they are,” right?
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Fine. Highly eloquent, but we still need it in writing.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yes, I have it here.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): There are some budget issues as well, just to be aware.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): This will need to be grammatically finished, copied, distributed, deliberated upon, questioned, debated, commented on and then voted on. A 7.5-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 0934 to 0939.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): All right, colleagues, we have an amendment to a motion, point 2, which has been elegantly written. Does someone want to read that?
Mr. Gilles Bisson: Google, how do you say “multi-tasking” in French?
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Monsieur Bisson, perhaps you could read it again into the record.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: We’re going to find out in a minute. It doesn’t want to tell me.
Where’s my little piece of paper? There it is. Sorry. So at the end of “Canada NewsWire” we would say, “and that the Clerk of the Committee identify the various media outlets or other vehicles of communication that would inform First Nations of the hearings.”
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): All right. And we assume that “vehicles” is plural, which it’s not as written, but in any case—
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Fair enough.
Any comments on this particular amendment to the motion, point 2, before we vote? Seeing none, those in favour of this particular amendment, as read? Those opposed? That passes.
Any further comments on the overall motion before we vote?
Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’m not going to drag this on, but for the record, I think it’s an error not to travel committees, not only this one, but other ones. I think it’s important that we engage with the citizens of this province. That this committee is not travelling to those places affected by both aspects of this bill I think is unfortunate.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Thank you, Monsieur Bisson.
We’ll then proceed to the consideration of the overall motion, as amended. Those in favour of the motion for the organization of Bill 39?
Mr. Gilles Bisson: Recorded vote
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Recorded vote.
Colle, Des Rosiers, Potts, Vernile.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): The motion passes.
Mr. Gilles Bisson: I have a point of information that most members of this committee would be interested in: multi-tasking is “multitâche.”
Ms. Daiene Vernile: Multitâche? It sounds—
Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yes, I know, but that’s what it came up with.
Le Président (M. Shafiq Qaadri): Pour moi, c’est plus comme le franglais—une traduction directe.
M. Gilles Bisson: Des fois, ce sont des mots francophones qui sont dits en anglais—like transportation.
The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Thank you colleagues, we are now adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 0942.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE POLICY
Chair / Président
Mr. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North / Etobicoke-Nord L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest / Scarborough-Sud-Ouest L)
Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti (Scarborough Southwest / Scarborough-Sud-Ouest L)
Mr. Mike Colle (Eglinton–Lawrence L)
Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga–Streetsville L)
Mr. Randy Hillier (Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington PC)
Mr. Michael Mantha (Algoma–Manitoulin ND)
Mr. Arthur Potts (Beaches–East York L)
Mr. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North / Etobicoke-Nord L)
Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock PC)
Ms. Daiene Vernile (Kitchener Centre / Kitchener-Centre L)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins–James Bay / Timmins–Baie James ND)
Mme Nathalie Des Rosiers (Ottawa–Vanier L)
Mr. Todd Smith (Prince Edward–Hastings PC)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr. Christopher Tyrell
Staff / Personnel
Mr. Andrew McNaught, research officer,