STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
COMITÉ PERMANENT DES ORGANISMES GOUVERNEMENTAUX
Tuesday 16 May 2017 Mardi 16 mai 2017
The committee met at 0902 in committee room 2.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Good morning, committee members. Before we begin our intended appointments review, our first order of business is to consider a subcommittee report that is dated Thursday, May 11, 2017. Would someone please move the adoption of the report? Mr. Pettapiece.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I move the adoption of the subcommittee report on intended appointments dated Thursday, May 11, 2017.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Is there any discussion, committee members? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.
Mr. Parminder Sandhu
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party and the third party: Parminder Sandhu, intended appointee as chair, Ontario Climate Change Solutions Deployment Corp.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): We are now going to move to the appointments review. We have two intended appointees to hear from today. We’re going to consider the concurrences following the interviews.
Our first intended appointee today is Parminder Sandhu, who is nominated to the Ontario Climate Change Solutions Deployment Corp. Could you please come forward, sir? Welcome to our committee. Thanks for being here today. I apologize; you are being nominated as chair to that committee.
You may begin with a brief statement, if you wish. Members of each party will then have 10 minutes to ask you some questions. Any time used for your statement will be deducted from the government’s time for questions, and the questioning will begin with the government side.
Please start by stating your name and your presentation.
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: Good morning, Chairperson and members of the standing committee. My name is Parminder Sandhu. I’d first like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before the standing committee. I recently applied and had been recommended as the chair of the Ontario Climate Change Solutions Deployment Corp.
According to the corporation’s enabling regulation, the specific object of the corporation is to stimulate the development of industry, trades and business undertakings in Ontario to further the deployment in Ontario of commercially available technology that reduces greenhouse gas emissions from buildings or from the production of goods.
My understanding is that the corporation will encourage the implementation of climate change solutions to transition Ontario into a low-carbon economy. The solutions will focus on existing building stock in the residential sector, new residential construction and the manufacturing sectors. The programs and initiatives that the corporation develops and implements will focus on the absolute reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
The corporation will also encourage fuel switching, energy storage, renewable energy and retrofitting existing buildings and facilities. In addition, the corporation will stimulate the scaling of green tech and the private-sector financing of green technology. The corporation also has a specific focus on low-income households and the adoption of low-energy technologies within that sector.
In light of this mandate for the corporation, I’d like to share with you an overview of my career. Academically, I was trained as an electrical engineer, graduating from the University of Victoria through the co-operative education program. Before my engineering degree, I completed a two-year diploma program as an electronics technician from Humber College in Rexdale, Ontario. I was fortunate to have two years of practical college-level education before completing my engineering degree.
During my co-op work terms, I had the opportunity to work at BC Hydro: Power smart. This is where I caught the bug on energy efficiency and conservation. Upon graduation, I joined Willis Energy Services in Vancouver. My role was to design, develop and implement ratepayer-funded programs based on total-resource cost-effectiveness tests. Programs that I was specifically involved in were targeting large-energy users at BC Hydro, Portland General Electric, Seattle City Light and Northern States Power. As an engineer, my role was to help their customers identify capital projects primarily within motor-driven systems.
This experience exposed me to the complex financial decision-making of enterprise-scale customers. Also, I learned about utility operations and regulatory environments of vertically integrated utilities and municipally owned distribution companies.
Subsequently, I worked for an investor-owned utility named Duke Energy out of Charlotte, North Carolina, within their non-regulated DukeSolutions entity that developed energy performance contracts across North America. My job was to develop electricity generation and co-generation projects powered by renewables, as well as fossil fuels. I also developed large multi-million-dollar performance contracts for multi-facility institutional clients.
From there, I returned back to BC Hydro and quickly progressed from a technical expert to account manager and then joined the senior management team responsible for all business programs. I was responsible for designing, developing and implementing programs with total funding in excess of $100 million. These programs included incentives and energy studies, as well as enabling initiatives, like energy managers, employee engagement and information and education campaigns. In addition, we had a very innovative program there to support the development and integration of inverted block pricing for transmission-connected customers to encourage energy savings through price signals, as opposed to capital incentives.
In 2007, I left BC Hydro to form a joint venture with Willis Energy Services and my company, VisTerra. My flagship clients included the California Public Utilities Commission, BC Hydro, Ontario Power Authority and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. My work at the CPUC was to review the regulatory DSM filings of all investor-owned utilities in California for both electric and gas. My focus was the review and approval of the agricultural and industrial programs, as well as the development of an innovative finance program in collaboration with the investor-owned utilities. The total three-year program funding was about $600 million in an overall portfolio of $3 billion.
In 2009, OPA retained Willis to design and subsequently implement the province-wide industrial programs. During this work, we developed all the financial models, measure selection, incentive designs, program rules and participant agreements. In 2012, Willis was sold to CLEAResult from Austin, Texas, and I stayed as the senior vice-president of Canadian operations until December 2012.
In light of this experience, I look forward to serving the Ontario Climate Change Solutions Deployment Corp., as I believe that I’ve got a great background in utility programs, as well as designing incentive programs to encourage energy reductions.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Thank you very much. Our first questions for you are from our government side. Ms. Kiwala.
Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Thank you very much, Mr. Sandhu. It’s a pleasure to hear your words this morning. Your excellent resumé is pretty impressive. I thank you for putting your name forward for this very important role as the chair.
I’m wondering if you can speak just a little bit more about what your hopes are to achieve through this position. In an ideal world, what would you hope to achieve in your time there?
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: Sure. I think what I’d like to focus on is to set some achievable goals in the short term, mid-term and long term for this agency to get some quick wins, to gradually integrate with all of the existing programs that we’ve got in Ontario and then transition to that low-carbon economy that Ontario needs to become a leader in.
Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Okay. Do you have some—I’m not sure how long we have.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): You have about three minutes left.
Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Okay. Do you have some ideas about how you might engage and extend some outreach into the rest of the province to really be on top of the game?
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: Yes, absolutely. I think stakeholder engagement, getting broad support across the province and making sure programs that the corporation implements are accessible to everyone in the province is a very important element in the programs. Especially in the light that the funding is coming from all Ontarians, I think all Ontarians should have access to whatever initiatives are offered by the corporation.
On the stakeholder engagement side, I think we’d like to reach out to every region in the province as well as many of the existing program implementers like the gas utilities and the local distribution companies, and see how best we can integrate with their offers and offer some new, innovative things such as financing. None of the existing programs offer finance types of programs, so I think those are different things that the corporation can work on.
Ms. Sophie Kiwala: You mentioned a couple of things in your testimony this morning that suggest to me that you’ve got a primary focus on fiscal responsibility, which is certainly something that appeals to me as a former business owner, and you talked about ratepayer-funded programs. I can see that sentiment echoing in what you will bring forward to this role, and I’m very appreciative of that.
I’m also delighted that you’re an alumnus of Humber College. I am as well. When did you graduate?
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: Good question—1991, but don’t hold me to that. I’d have to go back and check.
Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Anyway, that was a sidebar comment.
You’ve gone back to your roots. They’re important to you. You are from the community, your CV is impressive, and I think that the province will certainly benefit from your vast experience in the field.
I don’t know if my colleagues have anything else to add. I don’t have anything else.
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Our next questions for you are from our PC side. We have Mr. Pettapiece.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Good morning, sir. I’m going to ask you a number of questions here. I hope I can get through them all.
I can’t seem to find what you’re being paid here. Do you know what your wages are, or how you’re being paid?
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: I believe the Chair’s role is $500 per diem.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Per diem? Okay. Have you personally benefited, directly or indirectly, from Ontario Green Energy Act contracts or other public subsidies?
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: The firm that I was a shareholder in was implementing the Industrial Accelerator Program on behalf of the OPA and now the IESO. I sold all of my interest in that business in 2012 and was engaged in an employment contract to continue with that work until December 2015.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: What company was that?
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: We sold Willis Energy Services Ontario Ltd. and the acquire was CLEAResult consulting.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Are you the CEO of two companies? I’m talking about Vistera Capital Group and Astera Capital Partners.
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: Yes.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Can you explain the involvement of these companies in green energy?
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: At this point, absolutely none.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: None?
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: None.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Okay. That gets rid of another question. Do you foresee any situation where you might benefit commercially from public money paid out by this so-called green bank? If so, how will you guard yourself against conflict of interest?
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: At this point, I have no financial interest in any entities that could benefit from the green bank. If that were to arise, I think we will have a code of conduct, and I will be subject to that code of conduct and conflict-of-interest rules, and I would abide by those.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Okay. The 2015 Auditor General’s report estimated that consumers have paid $9.2 billion more for renewables under the government’s disastrous long-term energy contracts.
I quote from the Financial Post: “For all the costs of going green ... none of the alleged economic and social benefits have materialized....
“The promise of maybe hundreds of thousands of renewable energy jobs was also a fantasy....”
With this failure, how do you feel about investing millions, maybe billions more dollars of public money into the so-called green bank, and why would we do that?
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: I think it’s very important for Ontario to invest in a green future and being a low-carbon economy. I think that’s the future of all economies.
Policy efficacy is not an area that I’m an expert in. But when it comes to prudently and cost-effectively implementing programs, as I’ve described, in my career, I think I’ve got a great resumé that I can put forward, to make sure it is done cost-effectively and prudently.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Well, you may have a good record there, sir, and I certainly do appreciate that, but you can see that the figures I have just quoted you are terrible: $9.2 billion more for renewables under the government’s long-term energy contracts. That’s money that is gone; it’s wasted. You can understand my caution when we talk about this type of thing. We need to be aware of the past and what has happened in the past, so it doesn’t happen in the future.
As the minister said yesterday—I believe it was in question period—is your work just going to be informing people to buy high-efficiency furnaces and geothermal systems? I’m having a little difficulty here, because of past practices, understanding how you’re going to control costs. That’s what I’m getting at.
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: I think that with my experience in the private sector, I will endeavour to make sure that the money is spent prudently—
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: But it’s the government’s penchant for spending money—I don’t know how you’re going to control that. That’s what I’m getting at.
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: I will focus on making sure that the decisions made within the board of this agency have a lens that we do look through that includes cost-effectiveness and making sure that the measures that are selected in the short term are prudent expenditures.
As we further develop the corporation, there is no doubt that we will have to look at higher-cost measures, but that is, I think, program designs that are effective, and we’ll do them effectively.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: If you see it going sideways—
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: What do you mean by that?
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: If you see the money being spent like this $9.2 billion, where we got nothing out of it—if you see things going sideways because of some political business, how are you going to address the Minister of the Environment, or whatever minister you have to deal with, and caution them or get them to stop these things?
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: I think building a very good relationship with the minister responsible is key. The point that I’ve gotten to in my career hasn’t been because I’ve shied away from letting my bosses know that these are the actual facts on the ground and we need to adjust accordingly. I will endeavour to make sure that I communicate the situations as transparently as possible and let key decisions be made thereafter.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I know it’s very difficult if your advice is not taken, and I’m certain that it would be very difficult for you to do much more than what you’ve said. But we have a situation here where the energy file, and certainly this falls under—I know this is environment, but you’re going to be handling certain parts of energy consumption in Ontario. The Green Energy Act falls under that.
We’ve seen some disastrous things happen with our hydro file—our electricity file; I shouldn’t just say “hydro”—in Ontario with different aspects of it. I’m sure that people who have been involved in committees such as this have given advice to ministers to not do maybe what they propose doing, but yet, it’s very difficult to find out if that has happened. That’s what I’m getting at.
With your background and with what you want to accomplish here, I think there has to be some effort—if things are not going as you thought they should go, there should be some kind of dedication to let people know about it. That’s what I’m getting at. Too many things have come to light after the disaster has happened, and I don’t want to see them happening anymore. That’s why I’m asking you these questions.
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: I appreciate your comments there. At this point, in what I understand the mandate of the new corporation to be, we will focus on that and make sure that those expenditures are done as prudently as they possibly can. I think that’s important to serve Ontarians; that we do it as cost-effectively as possible, given the regulation that has been put in place. We’ll continue to work that way.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: All right. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): You’ve got about a minute and a half left.
Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Perfect; that’s exactly what I need. The corporation, to achieve their objectives—one of the ways it is to do that is to provide incentives and engage in financing activities, including providing incentives to individuals. What would that look like, providing incentives to individuals, and when would you be providing the incentives?
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: My understanding is that there are program designs that are being developed right now, primarily targeted to residential energy consumers, as well as low-income households, and then that will be broadened for the rest of the mandate of the corporation. I think the intention is to select measures that are cost-effective and provide savings for those consumers and to then get the financial paybacks, as that’s one of the biggest barriers with low-carbon technologies—get those financial paybacks in line to—
Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I want to get another one in real quick.
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: Sure.
Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: It says that one of the other ways to achieve their objective is by engaging in marketing. Is this going to be another millions of taxpayers’ dollars going towards advertising the government’s programs, just like we’ve seen with their hydro plan?
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: In terms of the actual marketing and consumer engagement that will happen within the entity, I think that will—
The Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): And that’s time. I’m sorry. We go to our third party now, to Mr. Gates.
Mr. Wayne Gates: Thanks very much. Just a question to start off. I do this quite regularly, so don’t be offended by it. Have you ever donated to the Liberal Party?
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: No.
Mr. Wayne Gates: Have you ever worked for the Liberal Party?
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: No.
Mr. Wayne Gates: In your bio, before we really get into some of my questions, I found something that says, “My experience includes public- and private-owned utilities.” What’s better?
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: I think both shareholder structures are effective in various regions. My experience across North America is more of a publicly owned environment, whereas the US is definitely more investor-owned utilities. They have different drivers and I think they’re both equally important in implementing electricity service to their citizens.
Mr. Wayne Gates: You said that most of your experience was in public. Is that accurate?
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: Yes.
Mr. Wayne Gates: In a public-run system—and I know you have lots of expertise in it; I don’t run them, but I have bargained as a union rep with hydro companies. Publicly run are there for one reason, right? They’re publicly owned, publicly delivered. If it’s a private company, are they there to make money?
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: My understanding is that all the utilities that I’ve worked in, whether they’re publicly owned or investor-owned, all made a reasonable rate of return based on regulatory frameworks. So I think they all make money. Now, the rates of return differ in both types of ownership structures, but I think they all make money.
Mr. Wayne Gates: I actually like that response, because in Ontario, last year, when we owned it before it was sold, we made almost a billion dollars. But do you know where that money went? Do you know where that money went when we made that billion dollars? I’ll help you out. I’m sure you know, but I’ll help you out on it: It went back into infrastructure, health care and education.
When you’re a private company, the profit of a billion dollars wouldn’t go back into health care, it wouldn’t go back into infrastructure and it certainly wouldn’t go back to education. Where it would go is to the shareholder. Is that fair? Am I being reasonable by saying that a publicly owned company would put money back into the residents, and that’s why we want to own it, and that a private company is there for one reason, to make money and to make money for their shareholders? Is that kind of a fair analogy of how that would work in those two situations? You have expertise in it; I certainly don’t.
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: Well, definitely dividends that get paid to publicly owned entities can be used for how you’ve described and characterized the uses of your funds. In an investor-owned scenario, yes, definitely, the shareholders do get a rate of return, and that’s the way it works.
Mr. Wayne Gates: Okay, I’ll narrow it down so that it’s easier. If it’s owned privately, the whole idea is to make money. Is that fair? For the shareholders, they’re not getting in to own it and to lose money to make the rates lower; they’re usually getting into it to own it and make money. In your long history in this sector, is that a fair and reasonable response?
I believe we should have publicly owned hydro. That’s me. I’m not an expert; you are. So if I’m going to own it, as a resident—because I do, by the way, up until they start to sell it; I own part of it—I would rather see it stay in public hands and utilize that profit, because they do make money, and put it back into my community in the forms that I said. Now, once you sell it and it’s privately owned, is it fair to say that they want to make money and they want to make sure that their shareholders who have invested in that particular company now will make money? Is that fair? With your expertise, of course.
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: Well, perhaps I can answer that question this way: What I want to do is leverage my skills to the benefit of Ontarians to make sure that the funds that are within the Ontario Climate Change Solutions Deployment Corp. are going back into the community in a cost-effective and appropriate manner. Let’s select measures that are important to help Ontarians reduce energy costs and to mitigate climate change as well as move us to a low-carbon economy. I think that’s the part that I’m excited about implementing.
In terms of ownership structures of utilities, I’ve worked in all of those ownership structures and regulatory environments, and they all have a place in certain jurisdictions. I cannot specifically suggest what’s better one way or the other for Ontario, but I will say that the corporation here, myself and the board, will focus on making sure that we put this money back in the communities.
Mr. Wayne Gates: I appreciate your answer. I wholeheartedly disagree with how you answered it. I think it’s pretty straightforward that if it’s going back to Ontario in the form of health care, education and infrastructure, it’s a much better model than giving it to a corporation. But that’s only me; you’re the expert.
A follow-up on that is that you said that during your career you’ve made suggestions to the boss. One thing that I’ve found in my entire career is that the boss is the boss. I can make all the suggestions I want, but they would normally do whatever they wanted at the end of the day, and your boss will be the Ontario government. I wanted to get that out.
I’m going to ask you a couple of questions. How much time have I got left?
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): You’ve got about three and a half minutes left.
Mr. Wayne Gates: I’ve got lots of time for me. Are you kidding?
I understand the Ontario Climate Change Solutions Deployment Corp. is a new agency that I think was made just recently—this year, I believe. Could the witness discuss, in your own words, what you believe the purpose of the organization is, including its primary goals?
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: I think the primary objective, as I stated in my opening remarks, is to focus on implementing initiatives that reduce our carbon footprint in the province and move us to a low-carbon economy.
Mr. Wayne Gates: That was a quick answer. I had the opportunity to listen to David Suzuki on Friday night. He’s an incredible speaker. Do you believe that’s important, to protect our air and our water?
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: Absolutely. I think our air and water are important natural resources that we have to protect.
Mr. Wayne Gates: That was his whole message for his hour speech: If we don’t have water and we don’t have air, we’re not here. I think that’s fair, with your knowledge. I just thought of that. It doesn’t really mean much for the committee, but it’s important that we have air and water, and we should protect them. That’s important, if you’re going to be working around the environment.
The language that outlines the approach of the board speaks about the collective experience that is expected from board members in nine areas, including finance; Ontario energy services; working with low-income communities—I’ll get back to that one; designing energy-efficient buildings, which is always a good idea; using commercially available technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; corporate law or regulatory law; corporate governance; risk management; and consumer marketing, which is also an interesting one that my colleague from the PCs brought up. I’m sure we’ll see commercials on TV about it.
Could the witness discuss how his background or expertise fits into one of these areas?
Mr. Parminder Sandhu: Absolutely. With my previous work with the Ontario Power Authority and then the Independent Electricity System Operator, I got a very deep understanding of the Ontario energy system and the market structure that we operate in with investor-owned gas utilities and municipally owned LDCs, so I’ve got a pretty good understanding.
I’ve spent the vast majority of my career helping to engineer and design buildings to become more energy-efficient, so I think I can leverage my skills in that area.
Being a business owner for a number of years, understanding corporate law and governance and risk management are skills that I can bring.
Mr. Wayne Gates: I’m running out of time, so I’m going to say—
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Twenty seconds.
Mr. Wayne Gates: Twenty seconds? It might be enough. P3s in this province cost us $9 billion more than if it was done with public funds. I just wanted to get that on the record. Really, it doesn’t mean much to you, but I see that you’ll be—
Mr. Wayne Gates: You had your chance to speak, sir. The P3s are—
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): And that is everyone’s chance to speak. Thank you. That’s time.
Mr. Wayne Gates: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Mr. Sandhu, thank you very much for coming and appearing before this committee. You may step down. We will be voting on your appointment in about half an hour.
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos
Review of intended appointment, selected by official opposition party and third party: Gabriella Kalapos, intended appointee as vice-chair, Ontario Climate Change Solutions Deployment Corp.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Our next intended appointee today is Gabriella Kalapos, nominated as vice-chair, Ontario Climate Change Solutions Deployment Corp.
Please come forward and take a seat at the table. Welcome to Queen’s Park. We’re very happy to have you here. You may begin with a brief statement, and then members of each party will have 10 minutes to ask you some questions. Any time used from your statement will be deducted from the government’s time for questions. The questioning will start with the Conservative members.
Please begin by stating your name for the record, and give us your presentation.
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Hi, there. I’m Gabriella Kalapos. I just wanted to say thank you for the opportunity and your interest in the possibility of my position on the board of the Ontario Climate Change Solutions Deployment Corp. I’m going to call it the green bank organization, just to make everyone’s life easier from now on, if that’s okay.
For the last 20 years, I have been trying to do my part to advance support for climate change actions, and I’m very much looking forward to being of help and support in moving Ontario’s climate action forward, through my work on the board.
Many years back, through my work at the Toronto Environmental Alliance, I managed and delivered a toxics-free campaign where, as a group of 15 Environmental Youth Corps staff, we undertook a canvass across Toronto to sign up participants to eliminate the use of toxics within their house and a reduction in the use and elimination of the use of pesticides on their yard.
I bring that up because one of the most valuable lessons I gained from that experience—and one that has served me well in every job I’ve taken since then—was the importance of listening to people and working with them to identify solutions to their issues and concerns. No one person has all the answers we need to deal with the challenges that lay ahead of us. That thought has always been a very humbling and reassuring thought for me. It means that we all need to look and listen for the common ground and goals that we share and ensure that issues that are likely to derail our common ground are recognized and addressed.
That experience and belief has played a large role in the work that I did with ICLEI’s, Local Governments for Sustainability’s Cities for Climate Protection campaign. I worked with the initial cohort of 12 cities across North American and Europe as they worked through understanding where their greenhouse gas emissions come from and the opportunities to improve the liveability and competitiveness of their communities while reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. It taught me the value of and need for sustained and diverse stakeholder engagement. It also brought home the value of a consistent methodology and the importance of monitoring and reporting on progress.
The Cities for Climate Protection methodology follows a five-milestone framework:
(1) Undertake a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and forecast what it would be if you did nothing.
(2) Adopt an emissions reduction target.
(3) Develop a plan to achieve that reduction target.
(4) Implement that plan.
(5) Monitor and report on results of the plan’s progress and make improvements to that plan.
Helping cities move through this process, monitoring and reporting on their progress, successes and lessons learned, and ensuring that these stories and lessons learned are shared across all of the cities moving us through this process pretty much describes the work I’ve been doing for the last two decades.
My work at the Clean Air Partnership has enabled me to go through that journey with municipalities across Ontario. It has provided me with a wealth of experience on developing priority actions and seeing them through the research, engagement, program development and implementation stages. It has also reinforced how important it is to learn from others and to share your lessons learned with others. It is one of the main modi operandi of a key project of the Clean Air Partnership that I work on called the Clean Air Council.
The Clean Air Council is a network of 30 GTHA as well as southwestern Ontario municipalities working together to advance clean air and climate change actions. It is based on the very simple premise that as each participant in the network undertakes a clean air and climate change action, we get them to share what actions they’ve done and what they learned with others, and then we ask the question, “If one of you can do it, what would stop all of you from doing it?” From there, we collectively identify issues and challenges from moving from the pilot project stage to the business-as-usual stage, and we work together to address them.
No one level of government has all the answers for how to, nor the ability to, achieve the challenging GHG reductions required from us to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic climate change and devastating feedback loops. While my experience has been with local governments, the partnership between provincial and local governments in this challenge and opportunity is absolutely critical. The majority of greenhouse gas emissions in Ontario come from the communities we live in. Land use, energy use, transportation, buildings and waste are all areas where provincial and local governments need to work together.
Part of my goal in applying to be on this board was to do my part to help support the program development in a way that tries to find and capture the synergies that will enable us to develop solutions for our environmental, social and economic goals. I hope to do this in as many cases as possible.
The world is moving towards a low-carbon future, and while we know that we are not moving as quickly as we need to, we are making progress. Each success leads to more progress.
It is also being increasingly recognized that advancing our communities and our economy towards low-carbon solutions will not only achieve our environmental goals, but it will also enable us to be more likely to be participants in the rapidly emerging low-carbon economy rather than simply consumers of other countries’ low-carbon technologies. I want Ontario to be a key player in that economy, and I think future generations of Ontarians will thank us for that.
On a more practical level, I did want to provide you with a bit of background on the skills that I think I can bring to the board. I have been leading a small ENGO for the last five years, and one of the bonuses of being in a small ENGO is that you have to do a lot of positions on your own. From that, I’ve gained a lot of varied skill sets that I think are very transferable and will be a benefit to the board. I believe my financial and administrative experience managing the Clean Air Partnership board, the organization and the finances will be a valuable contribution.
I also think the experience in strategic and program development and seeing programs through the various stages of implementation will be of value to the agency as it undertakes the challenging but necessary mandate to bring partners and stakeholders together to help Ontarians reduce their energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, all while playing a role in advancing Ontario’s low-carbon economic transformation. I am very much looking forward to playing a part in that transformation.
Thank you for your time and your attention. I’d be happy to answer any questions you have.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Thank you very much. Our first questions for you are from the PC caucus: Mr. Oosterhoff.
Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Thank you very much for coming in this morning, Gabriella. I just have a couple of questions. Are any of the organizations you represent currently getting funding from the Ontario government?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Not at present.
Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Not at present. Have they in the past?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Yes.
Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: What would you say the total amount is roughly that the organizations you’re involved with have received in public money over the past five years?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Public money from the province of Ontario is what you’re thinking of?
Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Right.
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: I would say in the range of about $100,000.
Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: I’m just curious. Do you believe that heading an organization like the Clean Air Partnership, which gets funding from the Ontario government or has in the past, could possibly create a conflict of interest when serving as a board member on this new agency?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: The government is a big agency, so we actually haven’t gotten funds from the entity, since it doesn’t exist at present. Having said that, if there was any conflict of interest associated with the Clean Air Partnership seeking funds from the entity or the green bank, there would be very clear lines of communication and conflict-of-interest policies that I promise I would adhere to.
Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: The regulation creating the so-called green bank allows the minister to give direction to board members. How do you think this is going to impact the independence of board members on this board?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: I think the fact of the matter is that all of the people who are likely to be participating on this board have a reputation independent of the government that they would like to protect and secure, and that they would do what they think is in the mandate of the organization above what they think of the mandate of the minister.
Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: So if the mandate gave them direction, told them what to do, you believe the board would be strong enough to say, “Look, we serve a higher purpose and we’re going to follow that purpose”?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: I think the mandate of the organization should be the guiding principle that they adhere to.
Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Okay. So you believe very strongly that there would be a differentiation between what the minister would tell you what to do and when you would stand up—
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Yes. I believe the legislation clearly lays out the mandate of the organization. I think those will be the guiding principles for the board.
Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: What are your views on capitalizing the green bank with tax revenues from cap-and-trade? Shouldn’t these revenues instead be returned to taxpayers? Shouldn’t it be revenue-neutral?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: I think there are different ways of thinking about this. I don’t think there is a right and wrong way of going about doing this. I think at our current carbon price, it’s probably not going to be leading us in the transformation that we need and not putting Ontario in a position where it’s going to be a main competitor in that low-carbon economy.
I think at this stage it’s important to finance that transformation and provide resources that are not off the general tax base, that are much more clear and accountable and allocated to how much greenhouse gas reductions you’re achieving per dollar. Then it would be from the general tax base to finance that transformation, and I do believe that transformation is very, very important and in Ontario’s best interests.
Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: So you would push for a higher price on carbon?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: No, I didn’t say that. I said the present price that we have on carbon price right now isn’t necessarily going to be changing and moving us in the direction that I believe we need to go in. As a result, I think it’s important for us to refinance those revenues into leading us in that transformation, which is the direction we want to go, which will ultimately reduce people’s vulnerability to a carbon price.
Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: So when I have a senior couple on a fixed income come into my constituency office, in tears because they feel that cap-and-trade is hurting their ability to drive to the grocery store and they feel their food prices are more expensive—how do you respond to people like that, when you say, “This isn’t revenue-neutral, but look, we’re giving the business down the road new lights”?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: I think one of the most important things about this is that what we want to use these funds for is to reduce people’s vulnerability to that carbon price. If they are feeling the pinch associated with it, the goal would be to help them in terms of doing energy efficiency opportunities on their homes so they’re paying less for the energy that they use, yet still getting the same services in return. If we didn’t reinvest those funds, we wouldn’t have solutions to deal with the problems that they’re facing.
Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: How much time is there?
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Do you want to continue? You’ve got about five minutes.
Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Okay. I have one more question, then. You mentioned working with a small NGO. I’m just curious: Roughly how many people were working there?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Nine people.
Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: Nine people, right, so it’s kind of like a board-sized NGO.
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: It is.
Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: How do you find conflict resolution? You’re going to be on a board where—climate change is a very sensitive subject, and it’s one people feel very strongly about. I can tell that you’re very passionate about this issue. What happens if you have a very different approach and a very different belief about the best course of action compared to your board members?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Well, I think that’s the role of the board, to provide diverse opinions on things. If we didn’t have that diversity in perspectives, we wouldn’t be making good decisions. So I welcome that opportunity to hear a diversity of perspectives, and I also recognize that I may not get my solution in the end. That’s just the reality of things. We have to weigh pros and cons in every decision we make.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Mr. Pettapiece.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Just going back to Mr. Oosterhoff’s one question about the people on fixed income having difficulties with higher costs because of cap-and-trade and whatever else: I can tell you many stories of companies, small businesses in my riding, that went through the whole process of retrofitting their businesses with LED lights and whatever else, and their hydro costs went up. That’s what’s going on in the industry right now. The direction is not there, and it’s very difficult for people to buy into some of the things that are going on.
Anyway, you say you’ve worked across the province in your previous work. Where have you concentrated your time?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Largely in southern Ontario, for the most part, but we’ve also worked with a lot of northern Ontario municipalities. But when we work with northern Ontario municipalities, we work more on resilience and adaptation than on mitigation.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Municipalities: Does that mean cities?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Yes.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: So you wouldn’t go into rural Ontario?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: No, we worked with northern Ontario municipalities.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: No, rural Ontario.
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Rural?
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: That’s what I’m talking about. You say you concentrate in cities, so you don’t go into rural Ontario?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Well, I think for the most part you kind of have to work with where the resources are to be able to undertake interventions. Smaller, rural municipalities have less opportunities, so the goal, the way we work with that, is that we work with building networks. We may not have the resources to work with all municipalities in Ontario, but then we’ll work with key municipalities, and their role is to share the work and the lessons they’ve undertaken with other municipalities in their area.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: What are the resources? What do you mean by resources? Money?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Money to undertake projects with them, to build capacity and to help them to build. Mostly in the northern municipalities it’s climate change adaptation plans.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Okay. It’s money again? It gets back to money?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Well, we don’t provide money to municipalities.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: No, no; I mean they don’t have the money.
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Most municipalities don’t have the money to undertake these efforts.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Okay. And is that things like planting trees, or going into factories to help them cut their emissions down? What does that entail?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: We focus largely on climate change initiatives. Let’s say, for example, in more northern municipalities, it would be corporate energy initiatives. We have developed building a network of corporate energy managers who are working across the province and sharing experiences.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Okay. So you would go into London, Ontario, let’s say—I don’t know whether you’ve been there or not, but say you went to London, Ontario—and you would go into a factory there or a business to help them reduce their carbon footprint? Am I going down the right road here?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: No, because we work with municipalities. However, there are lots of organizations that do work with companies and businesses.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Okay. Let me understand what you tell a municipality to do, then.
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Mainly how they can identify for themselves and with their stakeholders what are the key priority actions that they will undertake that will help them achieve their environmental goals, whether it be greening initiatives, whether it be climate change initiatives, whether it be protection and rehabilitation of wetlands. There are different areas. They identify for themselves what their priorities are. Then we try and hook them up with other municipalities that can help them share experiences.
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Well, if you’re talking about wetlands and that type of thing, planting trees—I know that cities do plant a considerable amount of trees—then I would suggest that some of your work should take more time in rural Ontario.
I guess where I’m going here is that rural Ontario seems to be left out of a lot of things—unless somebody wants to plant a wind turbine out somewhere. That’s the only time anybody pays attention to rural Ontario—
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): And that’s time for this set of questions. Our next questions for you are from the NDP from Mr. Gates.
Mr. Wayne Gates: Good morning.
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Good morning.
Mr. Wayne Gates: Welcome. How are you?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: I’m doing well, thank you.
Mr. Wayne Gates: You made an interesting comment when you said, “We’re going to call this the green bank committee.” I can tell you that the banks are seeing a lot of green these days in the province of Ontario on interest charges. I just thought that I’d throw that out there with hydro.
Have you ever donated to the Liberal Party?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: I have not.
Mr. Wayne Gates: Have you ever worked for the Liberal Party?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: I have not.
Mr. Wayne Gates: And don’t feel special in that question; I ask everyone who comes here that.
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: No, that’s okay. No worries.
Mr. Wayne Gates: I can ask you whether you donated to whatever party, but they’re in power, so I ask that question.
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Fair enough.
Mr. Wayne Gates: Something that’s interesting to me, because in listening to your passion, which I really like, quite frankly—you’re getting on to something that I think you really believe in. I picked that up in some of your responses, particularly to the PC Party.
On Friday night I had the privilege to listen to David Suzuki, which you heard earlier. He talked about the importance of protecting our air and our water. But what he also talked about is that, as a country, we have to decide on whether our air and water and our environment are more important than putting corporation profits first around development. What do you think of that?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: There’s no doubt about it. Clean air, clean water: If we don’t have that, our economy is not going to flourish. I do also think that we need to find opportunities where the economics and the environment can support each other, because the fact of the matter is that we do need make sure that our economy is robust. Our robust economy will actually lead us to be able to protect and rehabilitate and enhance our environmental opportunities as well.
I don’t want to get into the game of either/or. I really believe there are ample opportunities out there for us to achieve both goals at the same time, and I’d like to focus in on those ones.
Mr. Wayne Gates: So the green economy, in your eyes, could work if it’s done correctly.
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: I think it’s going to work. The question is whether Ontario is going to be a participant in that or a consumer of someone else’s economy.
Mr. Wayne Gates: Okay, that’s a fair response. Thank you.
Climate change has been a huge topic of political discussion for many years now throughout the world. Could you discuss, in your opinion, some of the major challenges that Ontario faces when it comes to combatting climate change?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Good question.
Mr. Wayne Gates: I was up all night preparing it. Thank you.
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: I think one of the challenging opportunities that we have is—identifying our transportation emissions is one of the key ones, I think. It’s a daunting challenge. There are many opportunities that we need to do, but it’s not going to be an easy decision-making process for that. I’d say that transportation is one of the biggest challenges that we face.
I also think, despite the fact there’s a solid and very robust business case associated with energy efficiency of existing buildings, it’s still a very hard market to tap into, and the opportunities that exist haven’t been captured yet. I think that, again, is one of the areas—plus, I also think it’s an economic booster in the sense that you can’t outsource energy efficiency retrofits. That’s something that has to stay local. I think that’s a very important component.
I also think, in terms of the transformation of our economy and identifying opportunities for those win-wins, not pitting environment and economy against each other is probably one of the key areas that we need to move forward. I think it will serve us well into the future.
Mr. Wayne Gates: I agree with what you’re saying around a win-win. I guess my question earlier around not having a win-win for our environment and only a win for one sector or the corporation—to your point, I think you’re right on the money. We have to find that balance, and retrofit quite frankly is one that kind of hits it right on the nail. You’re protecting the environment and you’re creating, in my humble opinion, good-paying jobs in the economy. That’s what we’re talking about when we get to a win-win, so I think you’re right there.
On the transportation file, obviously, that is so important. Most of us—maybe not some of my buddies in the north—drive that highway, and it’s just a disaster. We have to improve how our goods and services get going. I want my colleagues from the Liberal side to hear this. If you want to heckle me after, you can. You agree that GO Transit to Niagara Falls should come quicker than 2023, correct?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: That’s very specific.
Mr. Wayne Gates: It’s transportation. I thought I’d put it out there. I want to make sure—
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: I don’t think the organization is going to be making that decision.
Mr. Wayne Gates: That’s fine. You know what? This is in Hansard. I want to get a plug in for Niagara while I’m here.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Okay. Order.
Mr. Wayne Gates: Having said that, it’s true, because not only is it going to go to Niagara Falls, but it’s also going to go to Grimsby and it’s going to go to St. Catharines. On the transportation part of it, it gets a lot of cars off the highways, which is good for our air, obviously. I kind of made a little fun about it, but in reality, that’s what we have to do. We’ve got to get cars off the highways.
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Well, I think that part of our transportation congestion challenges we face are going to have to be associated with trying to provide more opportunities for mobility for people.
Mr. Wayne Gates: And it’s good. Quite frankly, it gets seniors being able to move as well. As you get older, it’s tougher to drive the highways. I’ve heard my grandparents and my wife’s grandparents say, “I don’t like driving on the highway,” when they get to a certain age, but they can certainly take GO and get around. It’s another way of getting cars off, and as you get older, being able to move and not be stuck in the house or in one community.
This is a very similar question that I asked your colleague, who is trying to be the chair. Out of the nine areas of collective expertise, which area or areas do you feel your background fits into?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: I think stakeholder engagement and program development would be two of the main skills that I would bring to the table.
Mr. Wayne Gates: Okay. That was a short answer.
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Did you want me to go into more details?
Mr. Wayne Gates: No, that’s fine.
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: The program development is one of the main aspects of the organization and what it’s hoping to achieve, so I think it’s a very important contribution. Again, the importance of stakeholder engagement is bringing all the puzzle pieces together. I think bringing that collective of different players together and identifying each role that they play and how we can improve the synergies between the programs and services that they offer is one of the key areas that I’d like to focus in on as well.
Mr. Wayne Gates: Okay. After reviewing your background, it’s quite clear that you have spent significant time pushing government to take action on climate change and the advancement of sustainable communities. I can only imagine that with this new position, you will be eager to engage in advocacy and protecting the environment. However, could you discuss with us, in your opinion, the perceived autonomy from government direction the deployment corporation will have when it comes to addressing climate change? In other words, what autonomy will you have, do you feel, away from the government telling you what to do?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Are you asking in terms of the mandate of the organization versus if there’s a differentiation between the direction from the government and the mandate of the organization?
Mr. Wayne Gates: Yes.
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: I would have to say I’d adhere to the mandate of the organization.
Mr. Wayne Gates: Good for you. So you won’t listen to the boss. Where’s that other guy? The boss never listened to you. Do you hear that? Good for you. I like that.
Thank you very much. I appreciate your time and I appreciate your honesty too.
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Our final questions for you are from the government side. You have three minutes. Ms. Mangat.
Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Thank you, Ms. Kalapos, for putting your name forward, given your experience and advocacy for sustainable communities through your work at the Toronto Environmental Alliance.
I know one of the goals of the corporation is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Can you share your views with the committee members on how the corporation would best be able to achieve that goal?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: One of the areas that I see as a key mandate of the organization is to identify all of the different players and the role that they play, and then bringing them together to identify a one-stop shop in terms of the one place, because it is a very confusing field. There are different areas and different entities doing different things. I think one of the key mandates of the organization is to make it easier and to think about things from a client perspective: How do you get people to know about these resources and to take up these resources, initiatives and actions that you want them to do? And then bring all of the players together so that they’re not working in isolation.
Mrs. Amrit Mangat: And in your presentation you also spoke about a low-carbon economy, right? To adopt a low-carbon economy, progress has been very slow. What are the challenges, in your opinion? Can you share with us?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Oh, that’s a tough question. I would have to say that there’s an unequal playing field between our past economy and what we calculate as a cost and a benefit, and our new economy that we’re moving into, which I think will hopefully try to be a little bit more balanced and take externalities and prices that we haven’t accounted for, and bring them into the decision-making process.
So I see that the main challenge that we face in much of this transformation to a low-carbon economy is the fact that we haven’t put a price on pollution. We haven’t accounted for those externality costs, or the impacts associated with climate change, and brought that in to our decision-making process.
Mrs. Amrit Mangat: So do you mean that cap-and-trade, the program our government has brought in, is a great program to do that?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Well, I think it’s very important to put a price on carbon.
Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Thank you. I appreciate it.
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: No problem.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Thank you very much. That concludes the time for this interview. I would ask Ms. Kalapos—am I pronouncing it correctly?
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Yes, you are. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): I would ask you just to step down. We are now going to vote on these appointments.
Ms. Gabriella Kalapos: Perfect. Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Committee, we now have the concurrence for Parminder Sandhu, nominated as chair of the Ontario Climate Change Solutions—
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Chair?
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Yes?
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Can I have a recorded vote, please?
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Yes—nominated as Chair for the Ontario Climate Change Solutions Deployment Corp.
Would someone please move the concurrence? Mr. Qaadri is going to do that as soon as he gets the paperwork.
Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Thank you, Chair. I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Parminder Sandhu, nominated as chair, Ontario Climate Change Solutions Deployment Corp.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Is there any discussion?
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Recorded vote, please.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Yes, we heard that before, Mr. Pettapiece. All those in favour?
Bradley, Gates, Kiwala, Mangat, Qaadri.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): The motion is carried.
We’re now going to consider the concurrence for Gabriella Kalapos, nominated as vice-chair of the Ontario Climate Change Solutions Deployment Corp. Would someone please move the concurrence? Mr. Qaadri.
Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Thank you, Madam Chair. I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Gabriella Kalapos, nominated as vice-chair, Ontario Climate Change Solutions Deployment Corp.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): All those in favour?
Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Recorded vote, please.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): Yes. Any discussion, first of all, members?
Mrs. Amrit Mangat: No.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): All those in favour?
Bradley, Gates, Kiwala, Mangat, Qaadri.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): The motion is carried. Congratulations.
Members, we now have some other business before us, and that is deadline extensions. Here is our situation: We have one more time that we are meeting before the House rises, and that will be on May 30. We have six certificates that require extension.
So, the next two people that we are going to be hearing from are Elizabeth McDonald and John Gorman on the 30th of May. However, their certificates expire on May 28. So, are we in agreement that we will extend their certificates? Those in favour? Opposed? That is carried, and they are going to be extended until May the—
The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Sylwia Przezdziecki): The 30th.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Daiene Vernile): —30th, when we see them.
We have four more names, and these people we’re going to have to see when we come back. I’m going to suggest that we extend their certificates until September 12. Do we have any discussion on this? All those in favour of the extension? Opposed? That is passed.
That is our business for today, members. Thank you very much. We’ll see you in two weeks.
The committee adjourned at 1005.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Présidente
Mrs. Cristina Martins (Davenport L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente
Ms. Daiene Vernile (Kitchener Centre / Kitchener-Centre L)
Mr. Granville Anderson (Durham L)
Mr. James J. Bradley (St. Catharines L)
Mr. Wayne Gates (Niagara Falls ND)
Mrs. Amrit Mangat (Mississauga–Brampton South / Mississauga–Brampton-Sud L)
Mrs. Cristina Martins (Davenport L)
Mr. Sam Oosterhoff (Niagara West–Glanbrook / Niagara-Ouest–Glanbrook PC)
Mr. Randy Pettapiece (Perth–Wellington PC)
Mr. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North / Etobicoke-Nord L)
Ms. Daiene Vernile (Kitchener Centre / Kitchener-Centre L)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Ms. Sophie Kiwala (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et les Îles L)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms. Sylwia Przezdziecki
Staff / Personnel
Mr. Andrew McNaught, research officer,