The committee met at 0904 in room 151.

HEALTHY HOMES RENOVATION
TAX CREDIT ACT, 2012
LOI DE 2012 SUR LE CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT
POUR L’AMÉNAGEMENT DU LOGEMENT
AXÉ SUR LE BIEN-ÊTRE

Consideration of the following bill:

Bill 2, An Act to amend the Taxation Act, 2007 to implement a healthy homes renovation tax credit / Projet de loi 2, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2007 sur les impôts en vue de mettre en oeuvre le crédit d’impôt pour l’aménagement du logement axé sur le bien-être.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Good morning, everybody. The Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs will please come to order.

We are here to resume clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 2, An Act to amend the Taxation Act, 2007 to implement a healthy homes renovation tax credit.

We’re now on section 2 of the bill, amendment 1.1 from the government. Ms. Piruzza?

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: Thank you, Chair. With respect to government motion 1.1, I’m going to recommend withdrawal of that motion, given the proceedings that happened last week with respect to the amendments.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Okay. The government motion is withdrawn.

We are now on number 2 on your sheets. NDP motion, Mr. Prue.

Mr. Michael Prue: I move that section 103.1.1 of the Taxation Act, 2007, as enacted by section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

“Financial disclosure

“(18.1) The Minister of Finance shall ensure that the appropriate annual financial reports compare the anticipated cost of the credit for a year against the actual cost of the credit for the year.”

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Okay. Mr. Prue, any discussion?

Mr. Michael Prue: Yes. This is intended so that the government would have a line item showing the anticipated cost and then a line to show what was actually spent. We know, or we surmise, that the take-up may not be as high as the government says it’s going to be, but we want to carefully monitor this, as it is a new program. That’s all that this is designed to do. We can tell after a year or two whether it’s having the desired effect, and then whether amendments might be necessary.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Further discussion? Mr. O’Toole.

Mr. John O’Toole: If I may, Chair, through you, address the amendment by the NDP. I think it’s a very appropriate amendment. If you look at the preamble of the bill itself, it’s quite specific. This is where we really get into why this bill is an imperfect piece to put out there.

I’ll just read it for the record: “The tax credit for a taxation year is generally determined with reference to qualifying expenditures paid by or on behalf of an individual in a taxation year for listed improvements to a qualifying principal residence of the individual.”

If you look at the way it’s worded, it’s quite ambiguous, really. Just reread it to yourselves and you’ll see that I’m trying to make the point here that this is why it’s so important that the NDP have taken some time and have actually read the bill.

“For 2012, however, the tax credit is determined with reference to qualifying expenditures paid by or on behalf of an individual after September 30, 2011....” So I hope the people were notified of this, because after September, there was an election in October. There’s a lot of people that were surprised; most of all, I was surprised too, actually, if you think about it. “Listed improvements are those described in section”—so this whole thing here, for the ordinary senior who’s trying to get some relief, this is very, very cumbersome. This amendment here is really only saying it’s to have a comparative for what is the credit versus actual for the year.

Is there any idea from the government side, whoever has carriage of this, what’s the forecast cost to the government on this? Have they actually done any work on this, or is it just an election promise?

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Ms. Piruzza?

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: Let me just get the numbers out; in terms of the breakdown, I do have that. Certainly in terms of the breakdown, we have estimated costs that we’ve put forward, each of which have been brought out through the bill and through the finances as going forward. So it’s not new money that we have going into the program; it is money that’s within.

The estimates that we’ve put forward for the first year, if I’m not mistaken, are $60 million in the first year, $125 million for the second and $155 million for the third. Do I have those numbers right? Sorry, $135 million. So in the first year, the estimated expenditure is $60 million.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Any further discussion?

Mr. John O’Toole: Yes, this is fairly important. Throughout the day today, as we go through this as rigorously as we can, I will be pointing out that, first of all, the person has to spend—I think it’s $10,000?

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: That’s the maximum.

Mr. John O’Toole: And they get 15%? How much tax would you pay on that, like HST? I think you’d pay more tax than you’d—so actually, I think you’d get revenue from this. I think you’ll get an excess of revenue.

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: Well, the $10,000 is the maximum expenditure that can be covered in terms of the credit.

Mr. John O’Toole: So if you spend $10,000, you’d get—

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: You’d get $1,500.

0910

Mr. John O’Toole: You get $1,500 back.

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: Correct.

Mr. John O’Toole: You’d pay $1,400 in tax, I guess?

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: Depending on the product and what they’re doing.

Mr. John O’Toole: Yeah. That’s sort of a very onerous framework there. But anyway, I’d be supporting the amendment, unless Bob has something he wanted to add in the intervening time that we’re wasting here.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Further debate? Ms. Forster?

Ms. Cindy Forster: I just wanted to reiterate what Mr. Prue actually had to say. I think the purpose of this amendment is actually to have a look at the end of the first year, perhaps the end of the second year, to see how much uptake there’s actually been, see whether or not we need to put some amendments forward to make it more inclusive of perhaps other things that will be beneficial to seniors.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Shall the amendment carry?

Mr. John O’Toole: We haven’t finished the discussion yet.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Oh, I’m sorry, Mr. O’Toole.

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: Sorry, I just did want to say, in terms of the amendment, essentially we’re looking at comparing the anticipated and actual costs of the program. That’s essentially what we’re doing.

Mr. Michael Prue: And then we will know whether or not the program is doing what it’s supposed to do.

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: Okay. In terms of that, we’re happy to support and to reaffirm this point in the act. This is an element that, of course, we do through expenditure estimates and public accounts, but we certainly support reaffirming this point in this act, as well.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Further discussion? Mr. O’Toole?

Mr. John O’Toole: Just on that, I guess that I’d be open, too, in terms of—what I hear from my constituents is not in any way in opposition. It’s very prescriptive, not being able to increase the value of the home because of the improvement.

And also, the other determinants for avoiding costs, like updating your home heating or something, which would be good for the environment, would be more efficient—is there no flexibility in this thing?

I think we could move forward quicker if we could get some of the things that we would like to see in there. There’s no regulatory section here to allow you to change this on an ongoing basis. Once you pass this, this is the framework. There’s no other option of saying, “These expenditures may qualify,” like getting an energy efficient natural gas furnace or something like that.

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: I would think as we go through the bill and go through the clause-by-clause, if there are amendments that you’d like to bring forward for consideration, these are the motions, and this is the bill that’s put before us right now.

Mr. John O’Toole: I have some motions but they’re not related to that so much. They’re related to another goal.

Mr. Mike Colle: Mr. Chair, I move approval of Mr. Prue’s motion.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Further discussion?

Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

On your sheets, number 3, PC amendment number 3: Mr. O’Toole?

Mr. John O’Toole: I don’t have it in front of me here.

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: Oh, good. Sorry about that. Bob is helping me here this morning.

I move that section 103.1.1 of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following section:

“Suspension of parliamentary assistants’ stipends

“(19.1). The stipend for parliamentary assistants for the government of Ontario shall be suspended for two years from the date the Healthy Homes Renovation Tax Credit Act, 2012 receives royal assent to allow for fiduciary adjustment to cover a portion of the healthy homes renovation tax credit.”

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Mr. O’Toole, when you read the amendment, you said, “by adding the following section.” Did you mean the word “subsection?”

Mr. John O’Toole: Yes, I meant subsection. Thank you, Bob; I appreciate that.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Thank you.

Mr. John O’Toole: Since I didn’t write it.

I’d like to speak to the motion.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): The Chair rules the amendment to be out of order because it would direct the allocation of public funds.

Standing order 57 states, “Any bill, resolution, motion or address, the passage of which would impose a tax or specifically direct the allocation of public funds, shall not be passed by the House unless recommended by a message from the Lieutenant Governor, and shall be proposed only by a minister of the crown.”

Mr. John O’Toole: Well, since there’s no minister of the crown here, with your indulgence, Chair, I’d like to speak. I’m not challenging your ruling. I want to make that very clear.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): But Mr. O’Toole, the amendment is out of order. You can’t speak to an amendment that is, itself, out of order.

Mr. John O’Toole: But I can be outraged.

Mr. Mike Colle: Outrage duly noted.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Okay, so noted.

Shall section 2, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 3 and 4 carry? Carried.

Shall the title of the bill carry?

Mr. John O’Toole: Point of order.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Mr. O’Toole.

Mr. John O’Toole: I have a couple of—with your indulgence, I’d like to present to the Chair another amendment to the bill. I have copies here made, if I can get the clerk of the committee—I’ll take one myself, and as you’re distributing it, I’ll read it out. Thank you.

Mr. Mike Colle: Point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m in the midst of—right after I’m finished here.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Mr. O’Toole has the floor. Let’s let him finish.

Mr. John O’Toole: Yes, thank you very much.

Whereas the constituents of Thornhill—

Mr. Mike Colle: Who has the floor?

Mr. John O’Toole: I have the floor, Michael.

Mr. Mike Colle: I thought we were in the middle of a vote on the title of the bill.

Mr. John O’Toole: Yeah, well—Chair?

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Hold on for a minute.

Mr. John O’Toole: Thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Mr. O’Toole, the committee will be in recess for five minutes while your motion is considered.

The committee recessed from 0917 to 0925.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Ladies and gents, let’s come back to order. We are on the title of the bill. Shall the title of the bill carry? Mr. O’Toole?

Mr. John O’Toole: No, a point of order, please: I would like to table a—

Mr. Mike Colle: Aren’t we in the middle of a vote?

Mr. John O’Toole: No, no. The title of the bill is basically a symbolic statement, really.

I have another motion here I’d like the clerk to look at. I’d like to discuss this one here. So that the public is aware, our position on this is that this has two purposes, and I’ll discuss them once this has been handed around.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Mr. O’Toole, if you have a motion, I’d like you to make the motion so that the Chair can judge whether or not the motion is in order. If the motion is in order, you may discuss it.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’ll just read it and we’ll get to that.

Whereas the constituents of Thornhill make their budgetary decisions based on the posted cost of all products and services they choose to purchase; and

Whereas the idea of price is fundamentally necessary in all economic calculations both public and private; and

Whereas these principles are equally valid across the province of Ontario, its ridings, municipalities, families and individuals; and

Whereas members of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario have no way of knowing the benefits and impact of Bill 2, Healthy Homes Renovation Tax Credit Act, 2012, on members of different demographic, social, ethnic, economic, gender, linguistic and other groups;

The Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario recommends that, Bill 2, Healthy Homes Renovation Tax Credit Act, 2012, an independent auditor review the costs and benefits to members of different demographic, social, ethnic, economic, gender, linguistic and other groups.

And I move that the title of the bill reflect such activities.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Mr. O’Toole, the motion that you’ve moved is in fact out of order—

Mr. John O’Toole: We’re dealing with the title of the bill. I want it to reflect. This is really addressing this section for the bill.

We may need a recess to review this.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Mr. O’Toole, the sheets that you’ve handed out seem to be a little different from one another. I’d like you to clarify the last paragraph. Would you read for the record, one more time, just the last paragraph as you wish that paragraph to read?

Mr. John O’Toole: Yes. You may have to amend that.

The Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario recommends that, Bill 2, Healthy Homes Renovation Tax Credit Act, 2012, an independent auditor review the costs and benefits to members of different demographic, social, ethnic, economic, gender, linguistic and other groups; and that the title of the bill reflect such activities.

It’s got to be more inclusive, the title, you know? The title of the bill.

I would ask also for a 20-minute recess to caucus this significant amendment.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Mr. O’Toole, the amendment is still out of order. What is on the table now is in fact the title of the bill, and your amendment deals with the content of the bill. The Chair must rule it out of order.

Mr. John O’Toole: Well, we are moving—the last line is the most important part. The title of the bill should reflect the attributes that we’ve referred to. Demographic, social, ethnic, economic, gender, linguistic and other groups must be reflected in the title of the bill. Otherwise, it’s sort of an elitist kind of title.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): That still remains out of order as the standing orders state that the title of the bill can only be amended if, in the course of its consideration, the content of the bill has been significantly amended. That does not appear to be the case, so I will rule this motion out of order.

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): But Mr. O’Toole, having been ruled out of order—

Mr. John O’Toole: We’re so close to being finished here—

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Yes, we are. We’re very close to being finished.

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s a shame that I wasn’t substituted on this bill earlier.

Interjections.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): I need you to direct your comments to the title of the bill.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like people to know, though, that we felt, right from the beginning—if you look up the Hansard in this debate, this bill—I think many seniors have been misled on this, because it’s so—

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Stop.

Mr. John O’Toole: An opportunity to—I’m generalizing—

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): I need you to confine your remarks to those that are parliamentary. The amendment that you’ve raised is out of order. The matter before the committee is the title of the bill.

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s in that vein, respectfully to the Chair and in parliamentary parlance, that the bill—our leader, Tim Hudak, has made it very clear: If you really are serious about wanting to help seniors, what we’re hearing in our constituency—and this is not reflected in this title, the Healthy Homes Renovation Tax Credit Act. In fact, the person has to spend $10,000. On top of that, they’re going to pay $1,400—or up to, whatever—up to $1,400 in HST to get back $1,500. What a rip-off. The fact is, they’re going to lose the interest on the $10,000, which would’ve probably been a couple hundred dollars, so they’re actually going to lose money. Not only that, the expenditure itself will not allow them to improve the value of the home. How can you spend 15 grand and not improve the value of something? It’s flawed.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): I need you to redirect your comments back to the title of the bill

Mr. John O’Toole: This bill should be withdrawn. The amendments that have been made in good faith—it should be cancelled. If you take this back to the House, we’re going to be in much trouble there when we get it back to the Legislature.

With all due respect to the members over there, we moved a reasonable motion. The reasonable motion was to eliminate the parliamentary assistants’ pay. Do you realize that all of the Liberal members—

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Mr. O’Toole, I’m going to have to cut you off on that because you’re discussing—

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Mr. O’Toole, you’re out of order.

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): You’re out of order. Further discussion on the title of the bill?

Mr. Mike Colle: I move a vote on the title.

Mr. John O’Toole: I call for a recess, a 10-minute recess.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Mr. O’Toole has asked for a 10-minute recess. Mr. O’Toole has moved a 10-minute recess before the vote on the title of the bill. The committee is in recess until 9:41.

The committee recessed from 0933 to 0941.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Ladies and gentlemen, let’s bring the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs back to order.

Prior to the vote on the title of the bill, Mr. O’Toole requested a recess. The recess having been granted, shall the title of the bill carry?

Interjections: Carried.

Mr. John O’Toole: No, no, no.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Mr. O’Toole, we actually are at the—

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: No, no. Don’t try to play games.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Mr. O’Toole, at this point—

Mr. John O’Toole: I have an amendment and I’d like to table the amendment, which I’ll read as follows—

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Mr. O’Toole, at the moment, you’re out of order. If you wish to discuss, you can do so after this particular vote. We granted a recess prior to the vote on the title of the bill. Where we are right now is the title of the bill.

Shall the title—

Mr. John O’Toole: And I’m moving an amendment to the title of the bill.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Mr. O’Toole, your amendment is out of order. We are—

Mr. John O’Toole: You haven’t heard it.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Mr. O’Toole, we’re at the point now where we are voting on the title of the bill.

Mr. John O’Toole: Chair, point of order. I have an amendment. Let me read the amendment and then you can rule. You don’t know the amendment I’m moving, and it reads as follows—

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Mr. O’Toole, if you wished to move an amendment, you had to have moved the amendment prior to asking for the recess before the vote. We have granted the recess. We will now vote on the title of the bill.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m asking for a 20-minute recess—

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): You can ask for a recess after this vote.

Shall the title of the bill carry? Carried.

Shall Bill 2 carry?

Mr. John O’Toole: I am asking for a 20-minute recess.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Mr. O’Toole—

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m asking for a 20-minute recess, Chair.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Mr. O’Toole has requested a 20-minute recess. We are in recess until—

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Prior to our recess, was there any discussion on—

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Ms. Piruzza?

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: Thank you, Chair. On that, we’re just continuing with more in terms of trying to drag this on longer. We need to get this done. I think there are stakeholders here who have taken time out to be here today in support. I’ve spoken with them and they’re all saying, “Get this done.”

With us today—if I may, to read into the record, because they have taken the time to be here today—we have Norm Shulman, from the Ontario Gerontology Association; Adina Lebo, from the Canadian Association of Retired Persons—

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): I’m sorry. At this point, I’m going to rule that out of order as well.

Mr. O’Toole has requested a 20-minute recess. When we return, our vote will be on whether Bill 2 shall carry. Prior to that, you can have a discussion on whether or not I should report the bill to the House.

We are in recess until three minutes after 10.

The committee recessed from 0945 to 1004.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): The Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs will now come back to order.

Our 20-minute recess being completed, we are now at the point of asking shall Bill 2, as amended, carry? Carried.

Mr. Ouellette.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I want to make a couple of comments and continue to reflect on what’s taking place in regards to the next motion that should come forward, which I would expect would be reporting of the bill to the House.

Some of the things that I think individuals need to realize is that when the gods make war, peasants fall, and some of us need to remind ourselves of that on a regular basis. The question, Mr. Chair, would be, then, the actions that have taken place within this committee, are they not within the complete guidelines found within the Legislature?

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): I would like to think that as Chair and as members, we’ve governed ourselves to the limit of our abilities within the standing orders.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: Yes. So essentially, what has taken place is nothing outside the rules or the guidelines that have been determined by the Legislature through precedent over decades of time.

Quite frankly, we’ve seen, when reporting bills to the House, where government members sat—and I think Mr. Colle should quite remember that a particular member of their party, at a time when another party was in power, spoke for two years in committee, two entire years, and stopped the committee’s process and disallowed the bill from being reported to the House, to the point where the bill was completely lost. For two years, one individual from the current government members spoke at committee to stop that legislation from going forward.

Not only that, but I recall just recently in the Legislature where the member from St. Catharines—I brought to his attention that when he was in opposition once upon a time, not that long ago, he actually sat there for an entire week. The bells rang non-stop. Not only that, we also had a member of the current government party who spoke in the Legislature on one single topic for an entire month. So the individuals who are present here today understand that so long as there is compliance and following of the rules, those rules eventually change to give everybody fair opportunity to move forward.

However, when we fall into opposition positions, those aspects that we have that we’re allowed to use to move forward—and, yes, the bill will eventually move forward to a position whereby it’s allowed. But so long as you comply with the rules, then all should be allowed to proceed in a normal fashion. I think that’s what’s taking place. The bill has passed two specific clauses now since I’ve been in here this morning, and I believe there is one more to take place, of which the process by which is granted to those of us who have the ability to do something with shall be used to our extent.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Mr. O’Toole?

Mr. John O’Toole: Yes, again, for the benefit of the public, and Jerry gave us quite a background on how things happen here by the standing orders, we fully recognize that Premier McGuinty and his colleagues are in government. As such, this bill will move its course through procedures.

Out of respect for you here this morning, specifically Adina Lebo as well as another fellow I spoke to, Norm Shulman, I spoke with Tim Hudak as well as Jim Wilson, our House leader, a few moments ago in the recess. We’re not going to be obstructionist because of your time and your frustration. So it’s in that vein that we’re not going to delay it any further.

From this point on, the bill will proceed and be called for third reading, at some point, in its amended form. Third reading, if it doesn’t happen next week, then we’re off the following week. Then there’s the whole drafting of the regulations for implementation. The bill, if you read it, it’s when it receives royal assent, which could be a year from now. But I think it’s important that you, if you wish this to pass—and I appreciate the fact that you’re here to lobby all of us, whether it’s NDP or Conservative or the Liberal members, to make sure it gets implemented. You’re right: This is about seniors aging in their home.

Look, I’m closer to it than most of you in the room. Mike Colle and I—

Mr. Mike Colle: Speak for yourself.

Mr. John O’Toole: Not ever. So I could have a conflict, some people would say.

In that vein, Chair, respectfully, I think all members are—we serve our constituents. That’s about as much as I want to say. Bob Bailey, from Sarnia, is in the same boat, and I’m sure he feels roughly the same, and same as the NDP, really.

The bill, I’d like to see it be much more flexible. I’d have a regulatory section at the discretion of the minister—with some controls, obviously—to allow, for instance, two-storey homes to be renovated on the main floor. If you did that, by putting a washroom down there or whatever, that’s a major thing for staying in your own home if you have an old house with the washrooms upstairs. So more flexibility would have been a far more realistic way of setting the bill in order. But we did not move those amendments. It’s up to the government to draft the bill correctly.

Thank you for the chance to say hello.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Given the exercise that we’ve all enjoyed over the span of the last three meetings, the Chair asks, with a little bit of trepidation: Are there any final comments?

Mr. Michael Prue: Don’t we have to vote first?

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Mr. Prue, any final comments?

Mr. Michael Prue: I’m glad it’s over.

Ms. Cindy Forster: One down and one to go.

Mr. Michael Prue: Well, yes. I’m glad it’s over. I do recognize what my colleague Mr. Ouellette had to say. I mean, for the people who are here, it is the government’s job to govern, and it’s the opposition’s job to oppose, especially where the opposition feels that something is wrong. We have no problems with this bill now that it is amended. We have none. So we intend to support it. But every opposition party has to make the determination of what they want to do and where they want to go with it.

The rules of the Legislature have been scrupulously followed. I thank the Chair because it was difficult, especially on the first day. It’s over.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Ms. Piruzza?

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: Thank you, Chair. Just for the record, as I was indicating, we have some stakeholders with us. If I could?

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Please.

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: I’d like to put them in. Prior to the break, I had put forward the names from the Ontario Gerontology Association and CARP. We also have Vanessa Foran here from Parkinson Societies in Ontario, Kevin McLean from the Royal Canadian Legion and Gail Simpson from the Ontario Society of Occupational Therapists.

Gail also provided me with a letter of support which I’d like to be put into the record and distributed as well.

Again, thank you for taking time to come out this morning.

I’d like to call the question, if I may.

The Chair (Mr. Bob Delaney): Thank you.

As members have observed, members of provincial Parliament do have privileges and this Chair hopefully has respected and will continue to respect those privileges while we all collectively pursue the business of the Ontario Legislature and, presumably, that of the people of Ontario.

One hopes, if members choose to speak as they have in the past, as Mr. Ouellette has pointed out, for weeks or months, that hopefully at the time it may have been either entertaining or edifying, but through the grace of God and the good judgment of some of the members here, we don’t face that today.

So with a certain measure of relief, shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Carried.

Our business here is concluded, and we are adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1011.

CONTENTS

Thursday 3 May 2012

Healthy Homes Renovation Tax Credit Act, 2012, Bill 2, Mr. Duncan / Loi de 2012 sur le crédit d’impôt pour l’aménagement du logement axé sur le bien-être, projet de loi 2, M. Duncan F-41

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Chair / Président

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga–Streetsville L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente

Ms. Teresa Piruzza (Windsor West / Windsor-Ouest L)

Mr. Bob Delaney (Mississauga–Streetsville L)

Mr. Victor Fedeli (Nipissing PC)

Ms. Cindy Forster (Welland ND)

Mr. Monte McNaughton (Lambton–Kent–Middlesex PC)

Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Ottawa Centre / Ottawa-Centre L)

Ms. Teresa Piruzza (Windsor West / Windsor-Ouest L)

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches–East York ND)

Mr. Peter Shurman (Thornhill PC)

Ms. Soo Wong (Scarborough–Agincourt L)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mr. Robert Bailey (Sarnia–Lambton PC)

Mr. Mike Colle (Eglinton–Lawrence L)

Ms. Tracy MacCharles (Pickering–Scarborough East / Pickering–Scarborough-Est L)

Mr. John O’Toole (Durham PC)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)

Clerk / Greffière

Ms. Valerie Quioc Lim

Staff / Personnel

Mr. Bradley Warden, legislative counsel