role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

November 16, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Nov-16 (PDF)

L068 - Tue 16 Nov 2010 / Mar 16 nov 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 16 November 2010 Mardi 16 novembre 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

SMART METERS

HYDRO RATES

TAXATION

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

COURT BACKLOG

RENEWABLE ENERGY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

POVERTY

DIABETES

CONSUMER PROTECTION

AGENCY SPENDING

ROYAL AGRICULTURAL WINTER FAIR

AGENCY SPENDING

STEEL INDUSTRY

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

BROADER PUBLIC SECTOR

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR

LA RESPONSABILISATION

DU SECTEUR PARAPUBLIC

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ABORIGINAL LAND CLAIMS

UNEMPLOYMENT

ELITE MARTIAL ARTS

AND FITNESS CENTRE

GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP WEEK

BAXTROM’S YOUR INDEPENDENT GROCER

EID AL-ADHA

HAWKESBURY AND DISTRICT GENERAL HOSPITAL

NURSE-PRACTITIONER-LED CLINIC

CHILDREN’S ACTIVITY TAX CREDIT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TEMISKAMING AND CHATHAM-KENT-

LEAMINGTON ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010

CONCERNANT TEMISKAMING

ET CHATHAM-KENT-LEAMINGTON

WIRELESS PHONE, SMART PHONE

AND DATA SERVICE

TRANSPARENCY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE

DES SERVICES DE TÉLÉPHONE MOBILE,

DE TÉLÉPHONE INTELLIGENT

ET DE DONNÉES

PETITIONS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

GLENGARRY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

HYDRO RATES

BRITISH HOME CHILDREN

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

COMMUNITY SAFETY

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

CEMETERIES

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CHILDREN’S ACTIVITY

TAX CREDIT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT

POUR LES ACTIVITÉS DES ENFANTS

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord’s Prayer, followed by the aboriginal prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 172,

An Act to amend the Ticket Speculation Act, when Bill 172 is next called as a government order the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment and at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy; and

That the Standing Committee on Justice Policy be authorized to meet in Toronto on Thursday, November 25, 2010, during its regular meeting times for the purpose of public hearings and in Toronto on Wednesday, December 1, 2010, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and in Toronto on Thursday, December 2, 2010, from 9 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the clerk of the committee shall be 5 p.m. on Monday, November 29, 2010. At 9 a.m. on Thursday, December 2, 2010, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Thursday, December 2, 2010. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That, upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

That, when the order for third reading of the bill is called, one hour shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That the vote on third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill 172. As I’ve found, especially on this bill, but on a number of bills the government has introduced, at the end of the day, when all is said and done, there’s more said than done. Anyway, this bill will probably be the same.

I don’t know how long I’ve got; I want to make sure I don’t run out of time.

Yesterday, the member for Peterborough took great pleasure in naming a number of events that my wife and I could visit in Peterborough if we had the opportunity, so I wanted to reciprocate in kind. There are a number of events that any of the Liberal caucus members, but especially the member from Peterborough, could come to if they came down to Bayfest. One of the big events in Sarnia–Lambton is Bayfest, put on by Michele Stokley and her family.

Interjection: Yeah, but he’s going to scalp tickets to Bayfest.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Yeah, you might be scalping tickets there, the member for Peterborough, to help put that concert on.

But I wanted to mention some of the acts that have performed at Bayfest in the past. In 2010, there was Rush, Keith Urban, Weezer, Alan Jackson, the Black Eyed Peas; and some notable past performances, one from one of our caucus assistants to the House leader. He’s in a band called Astronaut, and that’s led by Dan Gordon, who supports our caucus and works with the House leader every day. A number of other bands that have performed there also are Aerosmith and Kiss. So if the member for Peterborough had the opportunity, I’d be glad to have him come down to Sarnia–Lambton. He’d be able to take advantage of our Sarnia–Lambton hospitality.

Interjection: Don’t let him go for free.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I didn’t say I was going to treat him; I didn’t go that far yet. It depends on how he treats me in the debate today. If he’s his usual, regular, gregarious self, I’m sure that we’ll be able to work out something.

Bill 172 is mislabelled. It should be called, in my opinion, the do-nothing bill. It’s a do-nothing, diversion bill. It was brought forward, if you remember, Madam Speaker, at a time when the auditor’s report was tabled to allow this government to avoid talking about what the auditor had drawn the public’s attention to. This government isn’t even serious about what they believe this legislation will do.

It was introduced in April of last year—that’s 18 months ago—and it has sat on some bureaucrat’s shelf since then and has been reintroduced this week, just recently, to try to fill in time in this Legislature, where we should be debating more substantive issues like, for example, the fall economic statement and the HST. The fall economic statement is late. If I was a teacher—not that I am—passing grades, when you say you’re going to bring an assignment in on the 15th and you’re not going to bring it in until the 18th, that, to me, would get a failing grade.

I heard a number of government members yesterday. When they were speaking in reply to this bill, they said, “We have to bring this bill in. It’s so important that we bring in this so-called scalping bill—Ticketmaster.” If it’s so important, how many people, in the last 18 months—while the bill has sat somewhere collecting dust in the netherworld of this Legislature, in some bureaucrat’s office—have paid exorbitant prices, so-called by the Liberal Party, the government? How many people have paid exorbitant scalpers’ fees in the last 18 months? Are we going to give them a rebate?

Does anyone take responsibility, on that side of the House, for delaying this bill? If it’s so urgent, if it’s so important, what about those people? I think rather this Legislature, this government, reminds me of the 1948 election by Harry Truman, when Harry Truman ran against the do-nothing Congress and got re-elected. That’s what this government is: It’s a do-nothing government. They bring these showcase bills forward to try to fill in time when we could be talking about more important subjects.

Just to reiterate, my colleague the member for Halton clearly stated that this bill will not create one more seat at any venue, and this bill also will not save one thin dime for anyone buying a ticket to any event. We must keep in mind what this bill is all about. It was brought in after a Bruce Springsteen concert in New Jersey that saw ticket prices that were greatly inflated. But rather than spending the required time to look at the problem and find a solution to actually tackle it, this government’s reflex was to react to public opinion at that time with a piece of fluff legislation that is not well thought out and won’t accomplish those targeted goals.

I understand the consumers’ outrage. I support consumer protection, as all members of our side of the House do, and the members of the third party as well. I also support market fairness and consumer choice. But this bill will not improve customer protection. This legislation targets one group of ticket sellers and ignores others, such as brokers and scalpers. It will drive the market underground, where there is less consumer protection. This bill will not create fairness. In fact, the Ticket Speculation Act already prohibits the reselling of tickets above the ticket’s value, but the act is not being enforced, like a lot of laws in this province aren’t being enforced.

There’s a good

article in the National Post today which I read about a community not too far from here, where people are looking the other way and they’re not enforcing laws. But that’s a story for another day that someone else will speak to, unless I get back to it before I’m done.

So why should Ontarians believe that these new provisions will be enforced when, like I say, this government has done such a poor job—I didn’t want to put another word in there—of enforcing the laws that are already in place? I don’t believe that this government will enforce these amendments any more than they enforced the original bill and, in the end, consumers won’t get any cheaper tickets. In fact, when I think about the lack of enforcement of the current legislation, I am reminded of this government’s track record in regard to contraband tobacco, an issue that was again raised in my riding last week and in a number of ridings by convenience store owners, who are taking it in the neck.

Mr. Randy Hillier: And elsewhere.

Mr. Robert Bailey: And elsewhere.

To the viewers watching this morning—I know my mother is out there watching—and to others out there, this is a shame, that people in small business are being forced to jump through hoops by all these government rules and regulations. I go into these variety stores—I don’t buy cigarettes for myself anymore, but I unfortunately have to buy them for others.

Anyway, when you go in there and you’ve got all these panels in front of the cigarettes and you’ve got to memorize where they are, it’s such a bunch of—I won’t say what—when you can go just down the street and there’s no enforcement; there are people selling cigarettes out of the trunks of cars, out of RVs and out of so-called construction trailers, and nobody is enforcing those. No one knows what’s in those contraband cigarettes as far as quality and that. I’ve got a big problem with that.

This bill is simply being used as a do-nothing diversion tactic by this government. This bill was returned to this chamber in the midst of eHealth 2.0, the scandal, to divert attention away from Liberal waste and misspending. But this bill will not address consumer outrage.

This government is instead using this bill to waste this Legislature’s valuable time in this House and to avoid talking about the issues that have put Ontario into a have-not position in Confederation for the first time in over 100 years, issues that have rapidly increased our provincial debt to record heights and issues that have seniors and Ontario families struggling to pay their bills as this government continues to raise their taxes and user fees through a myriad of different issues.

In fact, I’d like to bring attention to a Windsor Star

article from Saturday entitled “Managing Money: Ranking the Premiers.” I’ll touch on that a little later. I have a copy of it here. I’m sure a number of people in this Legislature have read it, and I would recommend it to the viewers who are watching on CPaC, the Canadian parliamentary channel. It was in the Windsor Star, among a number of other articles, and it’s called “Managing Money: Ranking the Premiers.” The bottom line of that is that they rated all the provinces, and this province, this Premier and this government were rated as the poorest. They’re right at the foot of the bed. From the head to the foot, they’re at the foot of the bed, to use an old Lambton county axiom.

The

article reads, “The Fraser Institute released a study that ranked the 10 Premiers as money managers—each received an overall score out of 100 based on their record on spending, taxes and debt and deficits. And, perhaps not surprisingly, the lowest ranking—29.7 out of 100—went to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty” and the Dalton McGuinty government.

I would like to highlight the comments of Terence Corcoran of the National Post in regard to Bill 172,

An Act to amend the Ticket Speculation Act. Mr. Corcoran’s

article was entitled “Ontario Panders to Ticket Myths.” In this article, he states that this government is simply pandering to public perception. Well, surprise, surprise. Something that a number of people have accused this government of is pandering. They’re great at that: pandering to every interest group across this province, from time to time; they’re past masters at that stage.

He continued to write, “Attorney General Chris Bentley, answering the call of the blogosphere, last Wednesday introduced Bill 172,

An Act to amend the Ticket Speculation Act. The bill, aimed at Ticketmaster, is designed to fix a perceived problem that doesn’t exist based on an analysis that is flawed with a law that doesn’t do anything to fix the perception or respond to the flawed analysis. In government and politics, that’s called productive work.”

That’s not what we would call that back in my riding of Sarnia–Lambton, nor in, I’m sure, a lot of the members of the government’s ridings. I’m sure if we went to small-town Ontario, anywhere in Ontario, this is what we would see.

“The perception is that Ticketmaster, an agency hired by rock groups, sports teams and others to handle ticket sales, is taking preferential advantage of its position and transferring tickets to its secondary market subsidiary, TicketsNow, where they are marked up to sky-high prices.”

The fact is, there’s no evidence, according to Mr. Corcoran, “that Ticketmaster favours its TicketsNow subsidiary.” This is “more or less acknowledged right in the government’s Bill 172 press release. ‘The new provisions respond to public concern that companies may make tickets available for sale to the same events on the primary market and then on the secondary market, at a much higher price.’

“Public concern about something is not a basis for legislation, especially when the legislation does nothing to alleviate the concern and may, in the end, make the local concert/sports event ticket-pricing situation worse. The new law also undermines competition in the ticket selling business. Why would the government want to do that?”

If we go back, and when you just think about it, if public concern about something is a basis for legislation, what about issues like contraband tobacco? What about Caledonia? There’s lots of public concern there, but we don’t see any legislation there. There are two examples, and there are a myriad of others out there that, if I thought about it long enough, I could probably come up with. There are some obvious opportunities for legislation that we would be prepared to support.

“The bill, in two pages”—two measly pages—“amends existing Ontario law that supposedly bans scalping in event tickets. Specifically, it would prohibit a primary seller (i.e., Ticketmaster) from dealing in the same tickets as a secondary seller (i.e., TicketsNow). The minister doesn’t explain what the effect is of this change in the law, except to claim that it will return ‘fairness’ to the ticket market and ‘protect consumers.’

“The government by now knows that the public perception is wrong. Or if it has doubts, it also knows that the federal Competition Bureau is investigating this public perception. The least Mr. Bentley”—the Attorney General—“could do is wait for the Competition Bureau to report.”

I was reminded of a number of events when I was researching some of this. Some of the government members have said that this is just a modest bill, that it’s not going to do very much. I thought, it’s a modest bill with much to be modest about. You might say that about this government: It’s a modest government with much to be modest about. It’s also like a bait-and-switch routine, because we’d like to be debating the fall economic statement today, but we’re not. Why? Because the fall economic statement isn’t here. They’re late on that assignment. Good thing we’re not grading them, right, member from Thornhill?

Are we going to give them time to speak?

Interjection.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Yeah, we’re just killing time.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Get rid of the speaking notes.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I don’t know what I’d say then. I’d better not; I might get myself in trouble.

This fall economic statement is delayed until Thursday. It’s three days late. We could be talking about smart meters, the HST, health care, the Green Energy Act—ad infinitum. There’s all kinds of issues out there. As a wag said one time—I think it was actually Ronald Reagan who said it—

Mr. Jeff Leal: Ronald Reagan?

Mr. Robert Bailey: Ronald Reagan. So you’re ready for this; the member from Peterborough is ready for this: “It’s not that this government knows so little, but rather that they know so much that isn’t true.” I think that was true then, when Reagan said it, and I’m sure it’s true today, when the member for Sarnia–Lambton says it. It looked like the member from Peterborough was enjoying that.

“The most famous example of alleged ticket manipulation is a Bruce Springsteen concert in New Jersey”—

Mr. Jeff Leal: You were there, weren’t you, Bob?

Mr. Robert Bailey: No, no, and I didn’t get to Woodstock either—Woodstock, New York. I think the member for Thornhill was there, though. He probably had the beads and the Volkswagen van. The member for Welland—I bet you the member for Welland was there. Peter will tell you, when he gets up. He’ll go into that in great detail.

“TicketsNow appeared to have tickets even before they were available at Ticketmaster. Not only is it the most famous example, it is the only example, and one which Ticketmaster says was due to a local computer malfunction. If Ticketmaster had prematurely sold Springsteen tickets via TicketsNow, it would have been in breach of its contract with the Springsteen promoters.

“It is now conventional wisdom in the blog world, on radio call-in shows and in the newsrooms of the Toronto Star”—that famous journalism—

Interjection.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I won’t quote the member for Thornhill—“and the CBC that Ticketmaster scalps its own products to TicketsNow. Ticketmaster’s legal counsel, Joe Freeman, calls it ‘an urban myth.’ Still, on CBC Radio’s As It Happens last week” the famous host “Carol Off belligerently went after Mr. Freeman for having the temerity to deny Ticketmaster’s complicity in the ticket-scalping market.”

The concert and sport event ticketing business is becoming increasingly complicated and sophisticated thanks to the Internet. Tickets for everything can be found with a simple Google search and a willingness to pay prices way above the official price. I’m sure that if they sold tickets for the show that goes on in here from time to time, there would probably be somebody out on the lawn at Queen’s Park trying to market those. I don’t know what the uptick would be on those tickets. Do you, member for Thornhill?

Mr. Peter Shurman: Twice as much.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Twice as much? Maybe. He said they’d be worth twice as much as what they’re paying now.

In Toronto, the primary sellers include Ticketmaster, the Toronto Blue Jays, the Mirvish theatre group and other secondary players including StubHub, TicketsNorth—you have to be careful saying this one early in the morning: Ticket Liquidator, Ticket Express, GoTickets and others. Ticket Liquidator reminds me of the guy who had the itchy Twitter finger.

Ticketmaster is the only primary seller that owns a secondary seller. The Ontario legislation effectively singles out Ticketmaster and would prevent it from operating in the secondary market, where it essentially acts as an Internet-based broker between buyers and sellers. The real money is made by the scalpers and traders. TicketsNow collects a fee on transactions but does not own or control any tickets.

The Attorney General, Mr. Bentley, “apparently doesn’t believe Ticketmaster. Otherwise, why would he bring in a law that effectively bars Ticketmaster from competing in the secondary market? No doubt the owners of StubHub and scores of other Internet-based scalping agencies are going to be happy.

“All of this is taking place under an existing law that makes scalping illegal. The amendment, in other words, will prevent Ticketmaster from engaging in an activity that the law already officially prohibits but does not stop. It’s tough to explain, but it’s what people want, the minister says.” Great. This is the minister speaking: “‘Ontarians have spoken out clearly, resoundingly and unequivocally against companies benefiting from the primary and secondary markets.’” So says the Attorney General.

There are any number of companies that sell or resell tickets. The ones that are controversial are obviously the tickets that are sold above face value—I heard when the member for Timmins–James Bay talked about buying tickets under the market with his father to attend a hockey game a number of years ago in Toronto—while many tickets in Ontario are sold at reduced prices because the venues aren’t full. It’s supply and demand. But for tickets that sell for greatly inflated prices, they are already breaking the law as it now stands in Ontario. You can’t sell tickets above face value—it’s called scalping—and the laws in Ontario prevent scalping, or are supposed to, if it takes place.

If the government is actually serious about this problem, why don’t they just enforce some of the anti-scalping laws that already exist in this province, like a lot of other laws that should be enforced in this province, like I said, about contraband tobacco or legal occupations that are ongoing for four years-plus? Maybe it’s just because they don’t know how or they don’t have the political will, or maybe it’s just because there’s no will to do it at the end of the day.

Today, some statistics suggest that almost 50%—I think it’s higher than that—of the cigarettes sold in Ontario are sold without taxes. They are illegal cigarettes and yet this government can’t find these smoke shacks that they are sold from or don’t seem to be able to find the tractor-trailer trucks, RVs and trunks of cars where they are sold from on construction sites and other sites around this province. This government simply doesn’t enforce the current law in the same way that they don’t enforce the scalping laws in the province of Ontario.

I see my time coming to an end. I know there’s something else I wanted to say, but I don’t have it right here in front of me. At this point, I’m going to relinquish the rest of my time to the member for Thornhill.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate? The member for Welland.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Another time allocation motion from this government that has so little regard for process here in this Parliament—a government House leader who has an addiction to the guillotine motion; a government that stifles debate at every single opportunity, using every tool available to them and available to them only because of the brute force of their majority; a government that should be very respectful of its majority because it may well not be long-lasting.

The sartorial parliamentary assistant arrives, looking rather dapper. Relax. He’s here to work, not to model for Harry Rosen.

While this government has available to it the time allocation motion that it can force through because of its majority—as a matter of fact, this perhaps is the reason for this government’s zeal, its passion, its absolute enamourment with time allocation: because they know that you can only make them work when you have a majority, and the majority over here, on this government side, is rather short-lived.

When 76% of Ontarians say they would like to see another party in power, that’s pretty potent electoral stuff, isn’t it? When 86% of Ontarians say that it’s harder now to make ends meet than it was two years ago, there’s a whole lot of government backbenchers who should be focusing on preparing resumés rather than revelling in their short-lived majority.

This is remarkable. I’ve never seen these numbers before—ever. Even when Mr. Rae was tanking, the numbers weren’t this bad. And there are margins of error. Let’s assume for a moment that on the 76% of respondents who say they would like to see another party in power, there’s a four-point margin of error.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It could be 80%.

Mr. Peter Kormos: It could be 72%, or, yes, as the member from Trinity–Spadina said—because he’s a teacher, he understands these things and the mathematics of them—it could be 80%. At 80%, you folks will make the federal Tory of—who was that two-person team that was the Tory rump? The wonderful Elsie—

Interjection: Elsie Wayne.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Elsie Wayne—

Interjection: Jean Charest.

Mr. Peter Kormos: —and Jean Charest. Of course, that’s before he became a Liberal. But then again, one of the nice things about being a Liberal is that you don’t always have to be a Liberal. We see that frequently when it comes to policy and positioning on the part of this government.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: You can get a job with two parties.

Mr. Peter Kormos: That’s right. Jean Charest became a Liberal after being a Tory, including, remember, that he was a candidate for leadership. Tory, Liberal; Liberal, Tory—it’s the same old story.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The same old story.

Mr. Peter Kormos: He notes.

To those government members who are defeated in the upcoming election, I wish them well. This has nothing to do with arrogance. It has to do with being around here a few rounds and seeing governments get defeated. I’ve watched it at a very intimate level. I’ve smelled the fear permeating the caucus room. I’ve seen the anxiety. I’ve seen and heard the party leader, the Premier, who says, “There’s still a year; it’s a long time to go,” and who says, “Look, we’ve got to have a united, consistent voice. Folks, you can’t appear to be feuding with each other or to be divided. We can’t have anybody breaking rank.

We’ve got to stick to message, stick to message, stick to message. As a matter of fact, we’ve got the message written down for you. Here it is; it’s a three-parter. This is what you say about the Liberals, this is what you say about the Conservatives and this is what you say about the New Democrats.” Whether it’s true or not is irrelevant, because it’s called spin. You guys have got more spin cycles than a Maytag, and the problem is, you’re not particularly opaque about it.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Transparent?

Mr. Peter Kormos: Exactly.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Or opaque?

Mr. Peter Kormos: No, they’re not opaque; they’re transparent.

Interjection: Translucent.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I almost heard the heckle from the Liberal as “lucid.” Far from it, because lucidity takes a backseat to raw emotion when you’ve got 76% of Ontarians saying that they would like to see another party in power.

I’ve heard a government backbencher interject that it’s only 76%. Well, how much more would you like it to be? What kind of numbers are you aiming for? Are you going for 99.9%, like 99.9% pure Ivory Snow, the marketers’ sort of spin? Are you going for the full monty? Good grief. Surely there are a couple of members over there who will refuse to lemming themselves.

The problem is, when people learn about the use of these time allocation bills, it’s my suspicion—time will tell, but it’s my suspicion—that you entrench that 76% of people who say they would like to see another party in power, because the government displays itself to be arrogant and aloof and disdainful of process and to have no regard, for instance, for the opportunity of members of the public to participate in the process at committee hearings.

One of the sad things that I note about this assembly over the course of the last 22 or 23 years that I’ve been fortunate enough to be here is that the committee, an incredibly valuable tool for engaging the public—it is—has become less and less relevant.

Take a look at what your bill does. Take a look at what your time allocation motion does. You restrict committee hearings to Thursday, November 25, and Wednesday, December 1, and then you return on December 2 for clause-by-clause. So you’ve got a few hours on Thursday and you’ve got a few hours on Wednesday, December 1, and then it’s over. You slam the door in the face of members of the public who want to participate in this discussion.

Now, I’ve got a feeling, because it seems to me just from reflecting on the debate that’s taken place here, that there’s at least one member here who is a Ticketmaster-TicketsNow spokesperson, and I’m drawing inferences based on what that member has said.

As I told you folks last time I was speaking to this bill during second reading, I got calls from at least one lobbyist on this matter, and I declined to answer those calls because I do not want to be in the back pocket of any particular lobbyist or interest, although I find myself as critical of this legislation as any of the other critics of the legislation here in the chamber, because it very much appears there’s only one player that this bill is directed at, and that’s Ticketmaster and their—it’s not a partner—owned operation, TicketsNow.

This bill will not end scalping. This bill will not end reselling by sophisticated computer-driven resellers. This bill will not end the outrageous prices being charged for tickets by resalers; even those prices at the onset are incredibly high. You heard me note that, because I had a chance to, I actually went to Ticketmaster’s website; I think it was Ticketmaster, yes. It’s amazing what people are paying for tickets to these events. For U2 at the Rogers Centre, they’re paying up to $265, and that’s face value. That’s not face value plus commission; it’s not scalping price.

The Toronto Raptors versus the Golden State Warriors at the Air Canada Centre, courtside: $1,120. That’s the face value; it’s not the scalped value.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: How much, again?

Mr. Peter Kormos: It’s $1,120, and it’s per ticket, per seat. Mind you, there are cheaper seats. As a matter of fact, I’ve not been to the Air Canada Centre, but there’s what they call the gondola seating. That’s $38. Just the image of a gondola: You’re up somewhere way, way high up in the rafters, swinging off some beams with wires. I don’t know how they—they use a cherry-picker to get you up there. It’s pretty hard to see that basketball from the gondola seating.

Well, Lady Gaga—I thought my colleague from Trinity–Spadina would be interested.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I’ve seen her, yeah.

Mr. Peter Kormos: He has.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I mean, you know, pictures and stuff.

Mr. Peter Kormos: They’re $191, and that’s face value.

And Justin Bieber trails the pack at $71. But I’ll tell you, if you’ve got three teenage daughters and you’ve got to cough up $71 apiece plus all of the other stuff, it’s a heck of a night.

So there you go. It’s remarkable how much people are prepared to pay, because those are the face values. As I told you before, I haven’t been to one of these. The last big concert I went to, I told you, was Bob Dylan and Jerry Garcia down at Rich Stadium. It was a Sunday afternoon. I remember very little of it except I know it was a great concert. I was much younger then, but that’s the last time I went to a large concert like that. I’ve been to Massey Hall from time to time.

Gosh, I remember when the Royal York Hotel had its Imperial Room and people like Ella Fitzgerald would go there: a very small venue, very traditional night club venue—great stuff. But nobody ever paid prices like this. What it seems is that this is what the market will bear. If you want to put scalpers out of business, I say to consumers, don’t buy their tickets. Don’t pay for them.

There’s a debate coming up, I think at Roy Thomson Hall, between Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair on the existence of God or the role of faith or religion. Hitchens, of course, is the strongly opinionated atheist and Blair is a new convert to Catholicism. The face value of those tickets, I’m told, was up around $80, but they’re being scalped now for up to $300—to listen to two old men argue about whether or not God exists.

Interjection.

Mr. Peter Kormos: As my friend from Trinity–Spadina says, you can go down to Cafe Diplomatico on College Street and listen to two old men argue that any day of the week, for free.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Have a good coffee cheap—

Mr. Peter Kormos: For the price of an espresso. If you want to hear two old men argue about the existence of God, go down to Little Italy on College Street and drop in at any of the coffee houses, or for that matter, go to Dooney’s new place.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Yes. My brother is no longer there—Annex Live.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Yes, Annex Live, and you can hear two old men argue about whether or not God exists.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Actually more professor types.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Perhaps more professor types.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: You’re not turning on the Liberals; they’re not listening, Peter. What’s going on?

Mr. Peter Kormos: It’s your job to turn them on. I’m going to cede the floor to you in relatively short order.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I don’t get it. Look at that; they’re talking.

Mr. Peter Kormos: They’re lifeless this morning. I would be too. They seem depressed.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Flaccid.

Interjection.

Mr. Peter Kormos: But he’s perpetually happy. He’s never had a grumpy day in his life. I’ve been here to witness it.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: He’s got a little bowtie. It’s the bowtie that makes him happy, I think.

Mr. Peter Kormos: When 76% of Ontarians say they want somebody else in power, that’s depressing stuff. It could lead to all sorts of bizarre behaviours.

Hope I got this story right. It’s the story about the newly elected Premier, and when he goes into the Premier’s office, he finds three envelopes on the desk.

Hon. John Milloy: Oh, please, Peter. We’ve heard that one so many times.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Do you know that one?

Mr. Peter Kormos: It’s a good story. Stick around. There are people listening who haven’t.

The predecessor says, “Pick envelope 1, 2 and 3. As your first crisis comes about, open envelope number 1, and then envelope number 2 and then envelope number 3.” So the first crisis came about and envelope number 1 said, “Blame the previous government.” The second crisis came about, and what did it say?

Interjection.

Mr. Peter Kormos: “Blame Ottawa”; that’s right. And then the third crisis came about, and you open the envelope and the little message says, “Prepare three envelopes for your successor”—you see.

You laughed the first time you heard it. That’s before you had 76% of Ontarians saying they wanted another party to govern the province. You enjoyed—if there is such a thing as enjoying as compared to enduring your suffering—hubris, because you can only enjoy hubris for a short while, then you suffer it.

The bill is not going to end scalping. It will jam up Ticketmaster and—

Mr. Rosario Marchese: StubHub, TicketsNow.

Mr. Peter Kormos: —TicketsNow. It’ll jam them up.

I’m interested in seeing them in committee. For the life of me, I don’t know why their lobbyists haven’t been working harder or more successfully with the government. It’s clear that whoever the operators of Ticketmaster are—I don’t even know if that’s a publicly traded company or a closely held company, I don’t know whether it’s family owned, but we’ll see what they’ve done to have earned the ire of Mr. McGuinty’s office, because this stuff doesn’t happen without Mr. McGuinty’s office approving it. So I hope there’s time for them to appear at committee.

As a matter of fact, they’ll be the only person that will have to be there, because it’s all about them. Scalpers are not scared by this bill one iota.

We were told by the capable parliamentary assistant that it’s the system of buying tickets on computers that allows resellers to buy huge blocks. I suspect more so that it’s like in the travel industry, where travel packagers buy blocks of hotel rooms and buy blocks of airline seats. The airline is more than happy to sell them to them, because at least they’ve got the cash up front, I presume, and they’re guaranteed of having those seats sold.

Hoteliers are more than pleased to deal with these people because they know that those hotel rooms are going to be paid for, have been paid for, and they could care less what the reseller sells them for—other than the fact that they might learn that they’ve been undercharging.

By the way, we’re going to vote against this time allocation motion. I’ve never supported one in this Legislature ever, ever, ever. My colleague from Trinity–Spadina will be using the rest of the time when it comes time for him to speak to this.

It’s not just a modest bill; there’s modest and then there’s pathetic. This falls more under the “Ps” for pathetic.

Nobody purposely misled, do you understand that, Speaker? Because if I were to say that anybody misled, that would be unparliamentary and I would have to withdraw it. If I say the public has been misled, I withdraw that, but there’s certainly been a misimpression created that this is going to end high-end, sophisticated ticket scalping, like what happens on computer websites all over Ontario, Canada and North America, and it simply won’t. It deals only with when there is a direct relationship between a reseller and a primary seller.

We’re told that there’s only one company—there could be more; we could learn about this—that has that type of relationship between themselves as a primary seller and a reseller, and that’s Ticketmaster.

So there we go. The bill may not even get proclaimed, because in any event, it’s just a little bit of spin. It has been around over a year and a half. It hasn’t had much traction, as I say, in that time. It’s not even worthy of a time allocation motion, so this government’s obviously got time on its hands.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. Peter Shurman: It looks to me like the Liberals don’t want to debate their own time allocation motion, but that’s fine.

I want to begin today by thanking the government House leader for introducing the time allocation motion because, unlike my esteemed friend from Welland, I think it’s high time that we put this bill out of its misery. This is a bill that has been debated for the last couple of days, but has been around for the last many, many months. For what reason? No one in this House seems to know.

Even more curious is the fact that it doesn’t seem to be large in the public interest, in the minds of people out there. I get a lot of mail and email, interventions of one sort or another, in my constituency office in Thornhill, as do every one of you seated in this House, and I haven’t had any intervention whatsoever on the part of the people who sent me here to this place to represent them about this particular bill. I came to Queen’s Park to debate real issues.

As everyone knows in this House, there already is a Ticket Speculation Act in existence, and that act prohibits the reselling of tickets above the ticket’s value. The act is not being enforced and these new provisions will not be enforced either, and that’s what’s so ridiculous about debating this bill.

What does this tell us? It tells us that we’re in the waning weeks of the period leading up to the holiday break and that the government of the day is devoid of legislation that has any real meaning so it’s falling back on spending literally millions of dollars keeping this palace open so that we can talk about something that doesn’t really benefit anyone. It reminds me of other kinds of legislation that we’ve debated here.

Let’s suppose that when—because it is a “when”—this legislation passes, we actually want to protect people from the illicit sale of tickets at a greater price than what their market value is. You have to enforce that. That’s the problem with legislation so often brought by this Liberal government of Premier McGuinty: You pass legislation which purports to protect me.

I want to start by saying that my caucus has nothing to say in negative terms about protecting consumers. Consumer protection is a great idea. But in this particular case, what are you protecting me from with this bill, (

a) if you are not going to enforce it, and (

b) if it’s an entirely voluntary act on my part?

I remember when Barbra Streisand was going to perform at the Air Canada Centre. There was a question in my family, as my wife is a big Barbra Streisand fan—me, not so much—and she seemed to really want to go. At that point, the tickets were sold out. The issue was, “Do you really want to go to Barbra Streisand? Because if you do, we’ll go down there to the Air Canada Centre and there will be some guy in a leather jacket out in front of the Air Canada Centre and he’ll be saying ‘Got tickets? You got tickets?’”

Mr. Rosario Marchese: A thousand bucks.

Mr. Peter Shurman: A thousand bucks. And if I really wanted her to go to Barbra Streisand, I would have taken 10 $100 bills out of my pocket—given that I actually had 10 $100 bills in my pocket—and I would have bought her the ticket. Let the buyer beware. If I want to pay $1,000 for Barbra Streisand, okay, and if I don’t want to go, I don’t go. That’s my consumer protection.

Interjections.

Mr. Peter Shurman: My Liberal friends, although you can’t hear it on the microphone, people watching at home, are taunting me because they think I’m a cheapskate for not having come up with $1,000 for my wife. The bottom line is, that’s the silliness of the debate that we’re in: that we’re actually looking at passing legislation that’s going to protect nobody, because those people in front of the Air Canada Centre, which is where the real movement of tickets goes on, are not going anywhere. They’re not controlled now, they never have been and they never will be.

This reminds me of a number of other things that have gone through this House over the last little while. I began by saying that people in Thornhill had sent me here to debate their business and that nobody had made any representation to me whatsoever on the issue of whether or not they supported or didn’t support this bill.

I look at the time allocation motion that was read in the House this morning by the government House leader, “That the Standing Committee on Justice Policy be authorized to meet in Toronto on Thursday, November 25, 2010, during its regular meeting times for the purpose of public hearings and in Toronto on Wednesday, December 1, 2010, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and in Toronto on Thursday, December 2, 2010, from 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.”—public hearings on a bill that really isn’t of very much interest to anybody, with the exception, perhaps, of Ticketmaster.

I recall, not so many months ago in this chamber, how much noise we had to make to get a modicum of public hearings on a subject like the HST, a subject on which every single member in this House had plenty of interventions in their office. So what interests this government and what doesn’t?

Later this week, I’m speaking to a group that has a great interest in contraband tobacco: the Ontario Convenience Stores Association. These are people—and I’m not digressing from the bill, because there’s a great parallel here. This is exactly like the contraband tobacco issue. This government has gone to great lengths to continually modify and add to the Smoke-Free Ontario Act over a period of time, something with which, in principle, we don’t disagree, but it doesn’t enforce very much of it, with the exception of that small unit of legal tobacco sales.

So the tobacco enforcement group, the officers who enforce the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, constantly visit convenience stores to enforce the Smoke-Free Ontario Act there, but they have orders—and we know they have orders.

We’ve seen articles in the paper even lately that say, “You don’t go into the smoke shacks; you don’t go on to the native reserves.” You don’t even apparently go into the parking lots across from high schools, where there’s some guy who’s just as sleazy as those people selling tickets outside of the Air Canada Centre selling tobacco out of his trunk to kids who would otherwise be carded by the convenience store associations.

What’s the parallel here? That you’ve got strong legislation that protects people from illicit tobacco use and protects our children? Nonsense. We don’t have that. We don’t have that because we don’t have enforcement in the precise areas where we need it, and the result is 50%—maybe even more by now—of tobacco sales in the province of Ontario are illegal tobacco sales, way larger than any other province in Canada.

So now we’re going to have legislation that protects us from the unscrupulous people who want to sell us tickets to events at elevated prices when you have no enforcement whatsoever. What’s the difference? There’s no requirement for that at all.

It’s amazing when I think of—I’ve been here just a little over three years now.

Mr. John O’Toole: It seems longer.

Mr. Peter Shurman: It seems longer, my friend from Durham says. You’re right: It does some days, and today is one of them.

Another issue that’s surfacing right now that illustrates what this government has done in terms of enacting legislation that, at the end of the day, is really of no force and effect, other than perhaps negative—and this is starting to scare me. Not many months ago, we dealt with a change that resulted in the denial of a particular mode of payment to pharmacists all across Ontario for the sale of generic drugs. The generic drug manufacturers paid pharmacists 20%. Some people called it a kickback, a pejorative word; other people called it a commission. It didn’t matter; it seemed to work for the industry.

But the government denied that opportunity and said, “That can’t happen anymore,” because it looked like, and the government sold it as, a benefit to the people of Ontario.

Guess what’s happening now? There are a number of molecules, drug formulations, that are not available, period. They’re not available in any pharmacy because generic drug manufacturers, on the non-profitable items, have stopped manufacturing them. What are people discovering? Are drugs cheaper? No. They’re getting the brand name prescribed by the doctor and the drug insurers are reimbursing at the value of the generic. In many cases, people aren’t getting the drugs they need at all.

That’s how this government legislates. It legislates first and it looks at the results afterwards, and the results are negative. If you think that’s negative on the drug issue, I’ve been told by people who are much more in the know than me—I’m talking about medical people—that over the course of the coming winter—and it’s just around the corner; let’s face it—when people’s resistance is down, these strains of bacteria that are highly drug-resistant will elevate in the population by a dramatic amount because of the fact that the correct antibiotics or any antibiotics will not be effective against these things.

So we’ll be hurting, indeed, we may be killing, more Ontarians because of legislation that purported to protect them.

I am trying to illustrate that this legislation, the legislation pertaining to drugs, the legislation pertaining to tobacco, always is brought forward in this House with a view by this Liberal government that says, “We are here to protect you,” and, at the end of the day, results in no protection of any sort. In fact, it could result in harm—it will in the drug community, and already is; it will and is in the area of tobacco; and in this particular case, thank goodness we’re only talking about tickets, because with tickets, if you don’t get them or if you have to pay too much for them, you have a choice and you won’t be injured. You won’t have life and limb threatened.

The problem is that this bill will do nothing to improve customer protection for my constituents in Thornhill, who did send me here to represent them, who did send me here to do their business, and who did send me here with no idea that this legislation would be there and no concern that it is. This legislation targets but one group of ticket sellers, and ignores others, like brokers and like the scalpers I talked about out in front of the Air Canada Centre. It will drive the market underground, where there is less consumer protection, and that’s the concern.

So why are we debating this bill now? Well, because according to the legislative calendar we have about three weeks before this House breaks for the holidays, and then we’re not here for the duration of December; for about three, three and a half or four weeks in December we won’t be here; we won’t be here all of January, and if the government maintains the

schedule that is published, won’t be here until February 22. That’s the period of time that we’ll be gone. Somehow or other, this government is looking to fill three weeks with debate on one thing or another. So we’re talking about this bill; we’ll be discussing Bill 99, the activities tax credit, this afternoon; we’ll be finishing up on the Water Opportunities Act; and I don’t know of any other legislation that exists. So quite frankly, to the government House leader, I don’t know how you’re going to get past this week. You’d better come up with some new legislation to protect me from me very soon, because that’s what it is you excel at.

I have another example that I’d like to raise, that goes back to the early days for me, three years ago, that opened the door to what it is they’re trying to do. That was the pesticides bill. I’ve cited this as an example many times during debate in this House as something that opened my eyes to how this government works. The government brought in the pesticides bill, originally, under the guise of protecting Ontarians from the scourge of pesticides: “We’re going to ban 100% of pesticide use in the province of Ontario.” When I asked a question of the then environment minister, Mr.

Gerretsen, in this House, on why he was doing that, he said, “It’s to protect the children. We have to protect the children.” Hard-hearted me, I don’t want to protect any children? Well, of course I want to protect children. If that was really what that legislation was going to effect, then I would have supported it. But if you read between the lines—which is why we get sent to this place.

We have to read between the lines; we have to interpret the legislation; we have to do what 160,000 people in Thornhill don’t have the time to do, which is interpret for them in 10 seconds what it is that we’re voting for or voting against. Why would I hurt their children by not voting for the pesticides bill? I’ll tell you. Because the pesticides bill started out by saying, “We’re going to ban the use of pesticides in the province of Ontario.” And oh, by the way, if you read between the lines, “We’re going to exempt 98.5% of those pesticides from the ban.”

Mr. Toby Barrett: What about the farm children?

Mr. Peter Shurman: My friend from Haldimand–Norfolk says, “What about the farm children? Don’t we protect them, too?” And that’s exactly right. Because what we did is we saw exemptions in that bill from the use of pesticides in agriculture, on golf courses, in forestry, in hydro rights of way, along railway rights of way—all of that—so actually, in the name of banning 100% of pesticides, we banned 1.5% of the use of pesticides. And do you know what those pesticides were?

Basically it was 2,4-D, which is the primary active ingredient that was used by the Weed Man and GreenLawn to make my lawn green but, more importantly, to keep me from suffering an asthma attack or an allergy attack, which I’ve been suffering for the past couple of years after not having suffered from it for 30—and that goes for an awful lot of other people as well—to protect the children. So again, an example just like this of legislating for legislating’s sake. That is not why we’re here.

What we are here to do is to take a look at what best serves the people of Ontario. In this time, in this place, using a very expensive medium, which is the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, we should be talking about the people’s business. My colleague from Sarnia–Lambton not too many moments ago in debate mentioned the fact that the fall economic statement was due no later than the beginning of this week and now we’ve been told that it couldn’t be prepared on time; we’re going to get it on Thursday.

It will be an interesting statement to look at because the people’s business that we should be talking about here, that we should be talking about now, isn’t whether or not a ticket is too expensive. Most people, at the regular prices of tickets at the box office, are having problems buying them. Why? Because this government, to address its own unbridled spending habits, has spent most of the time, the real time, in this Legislature enacting tax after tax and sometimes slipping it in, like the eco taxes, under the radar when they were hitting us doubly hard with HST.

I talked about the concerns of the people of Thornhill not too long ago. When I asked for interest in whether or not this is a good, bad or indifferent bill, I got nothing. When I asked for interest on whether or not the HST was a good, bad or indifferent idea, I got several hundred people at a meeting. I got a Liberal member from Ottawa Centre out in Thornhill talking to people who are in condominiums to try to sell them on the fact that it was great, and he got booed.

When we asked for public hearings on this side on the HST, what did we get? We got this, only you have to choose the one you like best. That’s what we got. I know I’m skirting the line, Speaker. The point I’m trying to make is that the real business of this House is to deal, on the part of people who represent 13 million others and who have the privilege of sitting in this chamber, with real issues of the day.

The real issue of today, the real issue that we have to address right now, is not whether a ticket costs more or whether this bill is going to protect us from that ticket costing more than it should. We’ve already established that it’s not. I don’t think we’ve even got any disagreement from the Liberal ranks.

What we have to deal with here and now is the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people in Ontario who have not gone back to work so they’re not buying a ticket to anything. What we have to deal with now is an economy that is not in any kind of shape compared to sister provinces in Canada. What we have to deal with now is a province that has become a have-not province from a have province notwithstanding the fact that in land mass and in population, we are the ranking province in the country. This is the sad fact.

But what are we doing in the Legislature? We’re talking about whether or not somebody has to pay too much for a Barbra Streisand ticket because an unscrupulous person has gotten a hold of it. This bill doesn’t even address that; it addresses Ticketmaster and a sister company or eBay and a sister company. That’s not what this place is about.

As I began, I will end: Thank you to the government House leader for introducing this time allocation motion. Let’s put this bill out of its misery.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I take a different point of view from my two friends from Sarnia–Lambton and Thornhill because I actually think this is an important bill to debate. The problem is, as the member from Welland said, we’re not debating this bill, not just because we’re cutting it short today, as an issue, but also because we’re not going to allow much debate or discussion because we have curtailed the number of people that could come to speak to the bill.

The motion clearly gives the public two days to come and give their presentation, and in those two days they only have a couple of hours. This suggests to me the government wants to get this out of the way as quickly as possible. But in my view, this is an important bill to talk about. It is about speculation. Someone is speculating out there. Someone is making a whole lot of pecunia out of these kinds of events. We should be dealing with it.

My Conservative friends are right that this bill will not get to the bottom of it, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be debating the bill. We should be talking about amendments to the bill, and we should be making sure that a whole lot of people come to those committee hearings.

Now, what we normally do in subcommittee is discuss how many days we should give to hearings. In the good old days of the 1990 government, the then Bob Rae government, now turned Liberal, we used to have hearings that lasted for a month. We would give every opportunity to our friends and foes to come and beat us up on a daily basis. A whole month we would give to debate bills. Those were public hearings. We wanted people to tell us what they thought about the bills.

Today, we get two days, if we’re lucky. Two days, for a couple of hours each day. Those are not public hearings. You are circumscribing the bill and circumscribing the number of people who could come to speak to the bill, and that is wrong. That tells me you don’t even take your bill seriously. You want to pretend you’re doing something when in actual fact you’re doing so very little, because it doesn’t get to deal with the real problem.

I have to tell you, I know a whole lot of people who want to attend cultural and sports events in their communities. The Olympics are a big deal for a whole lot of people. It’s not for some, but they’re a big deal for a whole lot of Canadians. Yes, music and concerts are as important as ever to young and old people—not so much me. I’ve got to admit, I’m a pretty boring guy. I used to love to sing Tom Jones. I wouldn’t mind watching him on television, but to pay the big bucks to watch him live—you wouldn’t catch me paying money to see Tom Jones giving away his shorts or whatever else he was giving.

I just wouldn’t do that. I don’t know how women enjoy that kind of stuff, but God bless. They went—they still do, and he’s still good at it, at his 60 years of age. God bless him. He’s still doing okay. But I wouldn’t pay the big, big bucks to watch my friend Tom Jones, whom I imitated for three long years.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Imitated?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Yes.

The point is, I love a good soccer game as anybody else does. I really do—more than hockey, more than basketball, more than tennis, more than golf, more than anything else you could talk about. But to think that somehow I would go pay the big bucks to watch these soccer players—I’m just not going to do that; I think it’s insane. But there are people who do; there are. A whole lot of adults are pressured by their sons and daughters to go to these concerts, to go to these games—basketball, soccer, football or hockey; whatever it is.

They’re under tremendous pressure to buy the tickets to those concerts for their children. I’ll bet a whole lot of MPPs are probably nodding when I say that, because young people want to go. Martin Bieber, a nice young man—I wouldn’t go to see Martin Bieber myself, but I know that there are a whole lot of young kids who like this young man.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Justin Bieber.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Justin Bieber. Thank you, Doc. That’s why you’re here.

There are a whole lot of people who want to pay the big bucks to see this young man perform. God bless. But I say ordinary men and women, modest-income people, spend a whole lot of money that, in some cases, they do not have to go to these concerts, to go to these games.

I personally think we’ve got to lower those prices. I would boycott these games and these concerts. I would do that. Bring the price down so that modest-income people can enjoy these things that they love to see.

This bill doesn’t deal with it. I understand. That’s why I’m making the argument to people that the way to bring the price down is to boycott them. That’ll get to the brokers; that’ll get to TicketsNow, StubHub or any other term for any one of these resale organizations that exist. That’s the way we bring them down, if we have to, so that we can make life affordable to people.

To boot, we now have the HST on top of those tickets. Now we’ve got McGuinty saying, “Not only are those tickets unaffordable, but we’re going to put 8% on those tickets to make it really more unaffordable.” By the way, those fine brokers that are out there buying by the thousands, wherever they are, whether they’re in Ontario, New Brunswick or Alberta, who can buy tickets electronically, and they do, those people are still going to buy those tickets and resell them at incredibly high prices.

This bill doesn’t get to deal with that either. This bill ends the relationship that exists between Ticketmaster and TicketsNow, the resale organization, but that’s not the end of the problem. You’ve got scalpers, little guys, trying to make a few bucks. Would I go after some of those guys? They’re little guys, in my mind. They’re making a few dollars and making a living. But those are not the people who have a big pecuniary interest in the resale market. The brokers that are making the big bucks—those are the people who are jacking up the price two, three, four and five times the value of the original ticket.

Those are the people we’ve got to go after, and this government doesn’t seem too keen or interested in telling us how, through the hearings, we can invite the public, good doctor, to give us their judgment, their wisdom, on how we get to solve this problem. So you introduce your little bill that does a little something and then you kill it by giving the public a couple of hours of debate, by bringing them to give them five or 10 minutes, and you end it. Why do you do that? Why do you continue to disappoint me over and over again?

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): On that note, the House will stand adjourned until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1016 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Mike Colle: I’d just like to welcome a good friend from Burlington, Ontario, who came here today: Marilynn Heinz. I’d like to welcome her to the Legislature today.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature the Provincial Council of Women of Ontario. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature members of the Métis Nation of Ontario. In recognition of the 125th anniversary of Louis Riel’s death, there will be a special ceremony and a reception in rooms 228 and 230, beginning about 12:30, to which all are invited.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: I’d like to introduce page Jennifer Boothby’s parents, Carol Ann Boothby and Bob Boothby, who are in the public gallery. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the member from Don Valley East and page Miguel Agudelo, to welcome his mother, Lucia Henao, to the public galleries today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Seated in the Speaker’s gallery, from my riding of Elgin–Middlesex–London, I’d like to welcome a group visiting us today from the county of Elgin. They will be touring the Legislative Building. They are: Clayton Watters, Jim Carter, Cole Aicken, John Kersten, John Smith, Ernie Schned and Mike Westelaken. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.

I’d also like to draw the members’ attention to the Speaker’s gallery to welcome the Right Reverend Dennis Drainville, Lord Bishop of Quebec and former member from Victoria–Haliburton in the 35th Parliament. Welcome back to Queen’s Park today.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity to ask the pages to assemble for introduction, please.

I’d ask all members to please join me in welcoming this group of legislative pages serving in the second session of the 39th Parliament: Miguel Agudelo, Don Valley East; Jennifer Boothby, Etobicoke Centre; William Boulter, Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound; Drew Brennan, Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington; Sarah Charnock, Newmarket–Aurora; Casey Connor, Burlington; Jake Fell, Peterborough; Kyle Fitzgerald, Oshawa; Breana Hooks, London North Centre; Gabriella Howes, Windsor–Tecumseh; Emily Hryb, Bramalea–Gore–Malton; Mahir Malik, York West; Kira Kuzemchuk, Kenora–Rainy River; Tony Mistak, Halton; Alexandra Oleiche, Hamilton Mountain; Justin Patel, Parkdale–High Park; Vithuran Sukumar, Mississauga–Brampton South; Joshua Turner, Durham; Donna Wang, Thornhill; Elizabeth Wilson, Wellington–Halton Hills; and Connor Wood, Scarborough–Guildwood.

Welcome to all of you.

VISITOR

Mr. Joe Dickson: I guess I was not quite tall enough to be seen before, so I do apologize.

I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce someone special to the Legislature, one of the many children of Susan and Wayne Arthurs; I can’t mention their names, so I will say that they are from the riding of Pickering–Scarborough East. Their son Joel is with us, and seated beside him is his very young-looking father.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SMART METERS

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, yesterday you gave a brand new explanation of why Ontario families have seen their hydro bills almost double since Premier McGuinty took office. The energy minister said hydro bills are going up because hydro meters are crumbling on walls and poles across the province, and now your new smart meter is simply catching people who had it too easy. So I ask the minister, exactly how many meters have succumbed to crumbling hydro meter syndrome?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We’ve been saying for some time now that electricity prices are going up; we’ve been very upfront about that. There’s a good reason for it: We’re modernizing our energy system. We’re investing in modernizing our energy system to make it more reliable and more efficient. We’ve added new supply to ensure our homes, our schools, our hospitals and our businesses have the power that they need. Smart meters are a very important part of that modernization. They provide more accurate information to customers and allow them to better manage their usage. They provide timely information to local utilities so that they can deal with outages in a much better way.

We’re the only party here that’s been upfront about the fact that costs are going up. In the past, political parties of all stripes haven’t been true on this issue with Ontarians. Prices are going up. Both opposition parties try to play the game, to pretend that that’s not the case—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I think families would like to learn more of the minister’s theory of crumbling hydro meter syndrome; that they’re falling off of walls and hydro poles across the province. In fact, with all due respect to the minister, this is probably his most—how should I say it?—creative excuse yet to date.

The real problem, Minister, is with your new smart meter tax machines. Measurement Canada has said there are measurement problems with your hydro meters, which you’ve turned into nothing more than tax machines on the backs of Ontario seniors and families. Ontario PCs have the right approach, to freeze the program in place until you fix these problems and to give Ontario families a choice: Do they want to be on time-of-use smart meters or not?

Minister, did you just make up your latest theory to confuse families or will you finally do the right thing?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The last person we’re going to take advice from when it comes to time of use would be the Leader of the Opposition. He stands in his place, day after day here in this Legislature, and talks about concern about rising costs, yet he comes forward with an initiative that would create a duplicate billing system; an initiative that would pile an entire amount of administration and costs onto local distribution companies; an initiative that wouldn’t cause prices to go down; an initiative that would jack prices up to consumers across this province.

It’s very clear: Those guys didn’t know what they were doing seven years ago when it came to our power system. They still don’t know. They still don’t get it. The only idea they’ve come up with would cause rates to go up. The last person we’re going to take advice from when it comes to time of use will be the member opposite.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, as you know, energy analysts are finding your recent claim of crumbling hydro meter syndrome rather bizarre, to say the least. They’re saying that existing meters were highly tested and highly reliable. Minister, it’s not crumbling hydro meters that are the problem, it’s Premier McGuinty’s generous subsidies to Korea-based Samsung and expensive energy experiments. It’s your hidden tax on hydro bills. It’s your greedy HST tax grab and your smart meters that are driving families’ bills through the roof.

Minister, will you stop making things up on the fly, do the right thing, freeze the program until you fix it and give every Ontario family a choice whether they want to have one of your smart meter time-of-use machines or not?

Hon. Brad Duguid: It’s time to cut through the political rhetoric. Let’s hear from somebody outside of this Legislature, somebody who is an honoured expert in these matters. That’s Gord Miller, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. This is what Gord Miller had to say, our Environmental Commissioner: “It has been proposed to let people choose whether to pay a flat rate for their electricity, or have time-of-use pricing. I believe this would be short-sighted”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. It’s important to hear the questions and the answers.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I don’t mind when they heckle me, but when they’re heckling the Environmental Commissioner’s quote, that really tells you they really don’t want to hear the facts. I’ll start over: “It’s been proposed to let people choose whether to pay a flat rate for their electricity, or have time-of-use pricing. I believe this would be short-sighted.” He goes on to say, “Going back to the same-old same-old that did not work is not the answer.”

I agree with the Environmental Commissioner. I do not agree with this guy’s approach, which would take us back to where we were seven years ago.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Minister of Energy, whose smart meter tax machines are hitting families when they’re getting the kids ready for school every day and when they’re home from work, cooking meals and trying to get the kids to do homework. You know that not every family fits Dalton McGuinty’s definition of an ideal family.

Also, I want to bring to the minister’s attention that on every bill, Ontario families are paying a debt retirement charge for a debt on generation projects that were built as far back as the Peterson era. The debt was $7.8 billion when Ontario families started paying it. They have now been paying it for eight years. Minister, exactly how much is left on the debt retirement charge, given that families have been paying for eight years?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’ll refer that to the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: That member and his party put a debt retirement charge on every Ontarian’s bill in 1999—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock for a moment. I just ask all—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): It’s coming from both sides.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d prefer we talk about questions and answers, and not about what somebody wants to have for lunch.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In 1999, they put the debt retirement charge on every Ontarian’s bill, and between 1999 and 2003, when they were turfed from power, they didn’t use one penny of that to pay down the debt. They diverted it to a price freeze. They diverted it away from that. When we came to office we began to apply it, and every year we have put $1 billion on to that debt.

They want to go back to debt retirement charges; we’re eliminating the debt. They don’t want to be straight up with the people of Ontario; we are. We’re going to pay down—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Order.

Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: With all due respect, Minister, to use parliamentary language, what a bunch of horse feathers.

Look at your own OEFC reports that show, from 2002 until 2009-10—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): My apologies. Stop the clock, please. I would just say to the honourable Minister of Economic Development that the debate should be taking place within this chamber and not to any political staff who may be sitting behind me.

Please continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, the government’s own reports show that $7.8 billion has been collected from Ontario families and consumers since 2002. The original debt was $7.8 billion, so enough has been collected to pay off that debt.

Minister, you’ve collected $7.8 billion. Where did the money go? How did you waste those funds? Why did you tell Ontario families one thing and do the opposite with the money they’re paying through their hydro bills?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Not only did they not use the money they took off of every Ontarian’s bill to pay the debt for four years, they added to the stranded debt. And it wasn’t because they were adding supply. We lost almost 1,800 megawatts of power on his watch. That’s the equivalent of Niagara Falls going dry. We had to have diesel-fired generators in downtown Toronto. Why? Because they failed to level and be straight up with Ontarians about the mess they had created. Not only did they put that charge on people’s bills, they raised the price of electricity 30% in six weeks with their failed deregulation scheme.

We’re paying down the debt. We’re building new systems. We’re building—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, I think you know you’re playing a little fast and loose with the facts here. There has been some—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment.

Mr. Tim Hudak: That’s fine. I withdraw. The minister’s statements are not quite in keeping with the facts.

Minister, the residual stranded debt was $7.8 billion. To date, $7.8 billion has been collected through that charge on the bills of Ontarian families, $7 billion of which came under the McGuinty government.

I’ll ask the minister: Where did the money go? You’ve collected $7.8 billion. That’s the amount the debt was. That’s what has been collected. Where are you hiding the money? Where did you put it? Why do families keep paying more and more, and you won’t even say how much is left to pay off when they should have paid off the $7.8 billion by now? What did you do with all that money?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We do have to pay interest, and—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That took maybe all of five seconds to ask the members to come to order. I sat down and you started to interject. I think we all want to recognize the importance of question period, and it is important for members—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): It’s also important that the member from Renfrew, when the Speaker is speaking, should be listening as well.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Every year we have paid down the debt, which is very different from what happened when he was there. They may think the billions of dollars we have paid off is horse feathers; we think it’s an important initiative to ensure that this debt retirement comes off in a timely fashion.

That debt retirement charge, the stranded debt from the old Ontario Hydro, that charge they put on people’s bills for the first four years it was in place while they were government—not one nickel went to the debt retirement charge.

This has been reported every year. The money is going to that debt. The system will be stronger when that debt is paid off and when we make it cleaner and more affordable.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. People struggling with tough times are looking to their government for a break. Instead, they see a government that simply won’t help. The government has found money for everything from a consultant’s vacation to Japan to corporate tax cuts that cost our treasury billions. Will the government re-evaluate their priorities on Thursday, or can we expect just more of the same?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We look forward to presenting the fall economic statement in this House, as my honourable colleague well knows. I’ll leave the details, of course, to the finance minister to present at that time, but I can say that it will build upon our continuing efforts to support our public services, to invest in jobs and the economy.

I want to remind my honourable colleague of what we’ve in fact been doing for Ontario families. We are cutting taxes for people to the tune of $12 billion over three years. The average personal income tax cut this year is $200 every year. Ninety thousand Ontarians are no longer paying any income taxes. My colleague knows as well that we put in place an energy and property tax credit. It’s up to $900 for families and up to $1,025 for seniors. All told, it will help nearly three million Ontarians when it comes to their electricity and property taxes. That’s the kind of direction we will continue to pursue.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here’s what families in Ontario are experiencing: closed emergency rooms, skyrocketing hydro bills and a Premier who responds to their challenges with simply a shrug while public money flows to well-connected insiders and huge corporate tax giveaways.

We know this government is scrambling. Will they finally re-evaluate their priorities Thursday, or can we expect corporate tax cuts to keep trumping families?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague knows that one of the most important things that families count on is a job. I had the privilege and great pleasure just a little over a week ago to visit Hamilton. I was at an event attended by both the incoming and outgoing mayors of Hamilton and a number of other people there representing the community. We were there together to celebrate a new initiative. JNE Consulting has announced a venture together with a Chinese company: 300 new jobs in the green energy sector.

There was a time when the NDP supported clean, green energy, when they supported clean, green jobs, when they supported shutting down dirty coal-fired generation in the province of Ontario. That time does not appear to be now. We have not changed; we will continue to find ways to invest in clean energy and to create jobs at the same time.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Despite the Premier’s empty promises, the government’s HST and corporate tax cuts are not creating scads of jobs, but they are making life harder for everyday Ontario families. This Thursday, the government can actually make a difference. They can make a choice that makes a difference for the people of Ontario. Will they make relief for families a priority finally, or will they continue with their flawed tax schemes that leave people paying more and more?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to remind my honourable colleague of some of the things we’ve done to support families, which she has failed to support: There’s our Ontario child benefit, the first benefit of its kind in the country. It is $1,100 per child. We’re proud of that, and we’d love to have the member’s support in connection with that. There’s a new children’s fitness tax credit: $50 per child. It’s not the end of the world—we recognize that—but from a family’s perspective, if you have a couple of kids, it’s $100 a year, and believe me, that’s nothing to sneeze at.

We’ve also invested in our sales tax credit. It’s $260 for every Ontarian who qualifies. It’s going to benefit 2.9 million Ontarians. For a family of four, that’s over $1,000 every single year.

Those are real, they’re concrete, they’re practical and they’re meaningful to families. Our fall economic statement will continue to pursue that kind of direction, and in that, we would be very honoured, of course, to have the support of the member opposite.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. Over the fall session, New Democrats have been bringing the challenges facing everyday families right here into the Legislature—their worries about jobs, health care and the growing cost of living—and every day, the Premier has responded with condescending indifference. But now the government’s back is to the wall. Will the Premier give people a break and take the HST off the hydro bills on Thursday?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The leader of the third party continues to get up in her place and oppose the important investments that we’re making in our energy system.

I want to go back to where the Premier was, because it was just last week that the Premier attended, with our member from Hamilton Mountain, an event where 300 jobs were announced in Hamilton. JNE Consulting and Daqo Group are forming a joint venture that will create 300 jobs for a solar panel assembly plant.

The question I think the people of Hamilton need to know, the question the Hamilton Spectator should be asking, the question I think Ontarians need to know, is: Does the leader of the third party support the important investments we’re making in our energy system that are creating those 300 clean energy jobs, or will she go back to her riding and tell her constituents she does not support those jobs?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thursday’s priority should be making life more affordable for families, period. That should be the priority. Families have seen their bills go up, up, up, and the Premier responds with a shrug. The government has found money for corporate tax cuts, for vacations to Japan, and today we learned that you can even charge the public for a rollercoaster ride in this province. Will the Premier finally provide some help for families and take the HST off electricity bills?

Hon. Brad Duguid: As the Premier said earlier, we’ve brought forward an energy and property tax credit. Two thirds of Ontario’s seniors are going to benefit from that. That’s going to provide relief to those seniors when it comes to rising energy costs. It also provides relief to middle-income Ontarians. We recognize that Ontarians are going through tough times. We recognize that we’ve just gone through one of the toughest recessions certainly in our time and perhaps since the Great Depression, and we’re working with Ontario families to help them get through those tough times.

What we will not do is what the NDP want us to do. They want us to back away from creating jobs in this province. They want us to stop investing in our green energy system; stop building that clean energy economy; kiss away those 300 jobs that the people of Hamilton are going to be getting, that we announced just last week; kiss away the 50,000 jobs we’re creating across this province. We will continue to invest in building a clean, strong—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It really is the theatre of the absurd some days.

Lisa Blois from London writes, “My hydro bills have been upwards of $400 the last few months and we are having a heck of a time keeping up with this bill and trying to pay it off each month. This is absolutely insane and NOT FAIR.” The Premier’s response to people like Lisa has been a shrug. He can’t help, he says. But voices like Lisa’s have grown too loud for the government to simply continue to ignore them. Will the Premier give people a break and take the HST off their hydro bills on Thursday?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’ll tell you what we’re not going to do. We’re not going to back away from the important investments we’re making in energy, the important investments we’re making to create clean energy jobs and build a green energy hub.

I have a quote for you here that I’d like to read. This came from that announcement last week in the member’s community of Hamilton. The quote is: “The international collaboration between Hamilton’s JNE Consulting and Dago Group Ltd. in China is a great example of Ontario’s strength as a global leader in green energy. This announcement means good jobs for Hamiltonians and a clean environment for Ontario families.”

That quote comes from our Minister of Revenue, the MPP from Hamilton Mountain, who gets it when it comes to standing up for Ontarians and creating jobs across this province and standing up for Hamiltonians who needs those jobs. The leader of the third party should show similar courage and stand up for Hamiltonians, stand up for jobs in Ontario and stand up for the things the NDP used to believe in.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question this time is to the Premier. Premier, you just heard your finance minister say that the reason that you’ve not paid down the residual stranded debt is because of interest. I’m not sure exactly what kind of rates the minister is signed on to, but Premier, you’ve collected $7.8 billion to date. That was the original residual stranded debt. Could the Premier inform us exactly how much you have paid back in debt interest and then how much you paid down in the principal, or else where exactly all that money did go?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I will give the member a little lesson on the structure that he and his government set up. They created the OEFC, the Ontario Electricity Financial Corp. A whole bunch of revenues go into that, the debt retirement charge and other things, and things come out, including the debt retirement payments.

Let me just share with him what happened between April 1, 1999, and when they left office. The unfunded liability under that member and his government rose from $19.4 billion to $20.5 billion, an increase of over $1 billion. We have continuously paid it down since taking office. It has declined from $20.5 billion in 2004 to $14.8 billion this year. That’s a record of achievement. That is the fact. You set this—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: I know the minister is trying to confuse the issues between residual stranded debt and other debt that he has put on there. But here are the facts that you well know, Premier. To date, the government has collected $7.8 billion through the debt retirement charge, $7 billion of which was under your watch. On top of that, you’ve slapped down the HST. So with 13% on top of that coming out of people’s hydro bills, if you collect $1 billion, it’s a further $130 million.

I think you do understand this. Ontario families are struggling with their hydro bills. A typical family can be paying up to $100 or more in debt retirement charges on their hydro bills. Bills are unaffordable to Ontario families. Premier, why won’t you come clean and tell us exactly how much you’ve paid off in debt interest and exactly when this charge will be gone, because you’ve collected $7.8 billion to date from Ontario families?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the people of Ontario, again, when Mr. Hudak, the Leader of the Opposition, and his party were in power, the unfunded liability—that’s the debt associated with Ontario Hydro—increased from $19.4 billion to $20.5 billion, even though on every bill they slapped a debt retirement charge. They didn’t use the money for that. On our watch, according to the audited financial statements of the province, that debt has gone from $20.5 billion to $14.8 billion and will be eliminated, because we’re doing the right thing. We’re not messing around with people’s bills and fooling around with the numbers to paint a story that, frankly, isn’t accurate.

COURT BACKLOG

Mr. Peter Kormos: To the Attorney General: Tzvi Erez bilks his Toronto victims out of $27 million and the crown attorney withdraws the criminal charges because it doesn’t have the resources to prosecute. How does the Attorney General explain that?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: That’s an important question. We take allegations of fraud very seriously. We prosecute the allegations. We do not walk away from cases. We have resources for the cases that need them, and where more are required, we find them. I take a number of the reports that I’ve heard and read in the media very seriously. They cause me a great deal of concern. I have asked the chief prosecutor to get to the bottom of it and I’ve asked for the report as quickly as possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Kormos: Assistant Crown Attorney Donna Gillespie is reported to have said that the charges were dropped because the courts were tied up with more serious criminal matters. Seventy people lose $27 million—for most of them, this is their life savings—in Erez’s Ponzi scheme. The Attorney General withdraws those criminal charges, refusing to prosecute. Is Ontario now open for business when it comes to high-end, sophisticated fraud artists?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: All Ontarians take allegations of fraud very seriously. All Ontarians expect, where the evidence supports it, that allegations will be prosecuted. This government takes these allegations very seriously, as I told my friend. As I told my friend opposite, a number of the reports cause me a great deal of concern. I have asked the chief prosecutor to get to the bottom of it and provide me with a report as quickly as possible.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Ontario’s Green Energy Act is over a year old now, and over the course of this last year we’ve heard over and over again about the Green Energy Act’s projected job numbers and investments. The ambitious goals of the Green Energy Act—50,000 jobs, billions of dollars in private sector investment and countless megawatts of clean energy—have already begun to show.

I’m proud to say that in my riding of Guelph we’ve been blessed with some new solar power manufacturers, but Ontarians want to know what this legislation means for them. Could the minister update the House on the government’s progress towards creating a clean energy economy in Ontario?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to thank the member from Guelph for her question. Like so many members on this side of the House, she has been a tireless advocate for clean energy in her riding. I want to thank her for that, because it’s important.

The fact is, the Green Energy Act is making Ontario a world leader in the clean energy industry. In recent months we’ve attracted over $1 billion in private sector investment and created more than 1,400 construction jobs. We’ve made outstanding strides in the solar power sector alone. Ontario is Canada’s leader in solar capacity and home to the largest solar farm in the world. The Sarnia Solar Project, with 80 megawatts now online, represents approximately $400 million of investment and enough electricity each year to power more than 12,000 homes. Construction of the project created about 800 jobs.

Last month, the Premier visited the Melitron Corp. in Guelph, where solar panel parts will be manufactured, creating up to 60 direct and 300 indirect jobs. We’re—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mrs. Liz Sandals: These numbers are significant. Investments and jobs in clean energy manufacturing will go a long way to rebuilding both local economies and the economy of our province as a whole.

Interjections.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: The members opposite may be laughing, but my constituents in Guelph are very happy to see that our manufacturing sector, which was traditionally focused on auto parts, is diversifying into clean energy.

I know that green energy is about more than just figures and facts or dollars; it’s about making life better for the citizens of our province. Could the minister explain what Ontarians can expect to see as a result of these clean energy investments? How will they affect the everyday lives of our citizens and their communities?

Hon. Brad Duguid: There’s no question about it: Investments in clean energy manufacturing and jobs will have a good rate of return for all Ontarians. But I’m not just talking about financial returns; I’m talking about quality of life here in the province.

As I said earlier, the member from Guelph has been a strong voice for clean energy in her riding and making life better for her constituents, and her hard work is clearly evident.

Just last summer, I had the pleasure of joining the member to launch a solar module manufacturing facility that will create up to 500 jobs in the Guelph area. This Canadian Solar Inc. plant perfectly illustrates how the government’s Green Energy Act is positively impacting the lives of Ontarians. In every corner of the province, solar energy products and manufacturing plants are opening, creating jobs and bringing investment to Ontario.

Across the province, we’re creating clean energy jobs that are putting our highly skilled workforce to use, jobs in construction, installation, operations and maintenance, engineering, manufacturing, finance—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Premier. Premier McGuinty’s failed wage restraint experiment is going to lead to more McGuinty Liberal health care cuts as hospitals look for ways to fund the pay increases that arbitrators are awarding. McGuinty Liberal health care cuts have already closed emergency rooms in Fort Erie and Port Colborne and forced the Credit Valley Hospital in Mississauga to use a garage as an ER. Only in Premier McGuinty’s Ontario can patients have their blood pressure and their tire pressure checked at the same time.

To the Premier: Have you visited the McGuinty wing of the hospital to see it for yourself?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Since the budget policy was announced, there have been some 40 collective agreements achieved in Ontario. Four of those were subject to arbitrators’ decisions, and the balance, 36—more than half—achieved zero and zero. The average public sector settlement is down to 1.7%. It’s below the private sector, and it’s certainly below the settlement the federal government gave their employees, which was quite high relative to what we’ve done.

Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker: We reject their ideas about labour unrest, about fights, about all of that. We rejected what they did with the social contract. This is harder, it takes longer, but we are seeing results. We will continue to work with the bargaining agents in hospitals and universities and across the broader public sector as we move back to a balanced budget.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Only after we asked about the conditions at the Credit Valley Hospital did the McGuinty Liberals hastily assemble a funding announcement, yet not a nickel was dedicated to the emergency room.

After seven years, Premier McGuinty has changed. He used to hold himself out as the defender of public health care. Now, McGuinty Liberal health care cuts have put the emergency room in Wallaceburg on the chopping block, and the Minister of Health is sitting on the rural and northern health care plan to cut more emergency rooms if the McGuinty Liberals are re-elected.

Now you use a garage as an emergency room. Is the garage equipped with defibrillator pads, or will mechanics be trained to use battery cables on patients in a pinch?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise in this House and tell the people opposite that their antics around Credit Valley Hospital are nothing short of disgusting. It is shameful what these people have done.

I did take the opportunity to visit Credit Valley Hospital last week after I heard allegations of patients being kept in dirty garages. That is a complete misrepresentation. It is completely unacceptable, derogatory and insulting to the health care professionals who work at Credit Valley Hospital. I did go to Credit Valley Hospital, I did speak to the emergency department professionals, and I did assure myself that patients—that quality never suffered.

The Credit Valley Hospital does have surgeons. We are building a new addition. We have expanded bed capacity, but to suggest that patient care was compromised is completely—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

POVERTY

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Premier. This year, over 400,000 Ontarians were forced to turn to food banks for help. That’s a 28% increase since 2008, when the Premier launched his so-called poverty reduction strategy. The government won’t release its own poverty indicators until after the 2011 election, but new numbers from the Ontario Association of Food Banks show that more families struggle to put food on the table. Will the government admit that its poverty reduction strategy has been a total, abject failure?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I’m very pleased to be a member of a government that takes poverty seriously. No other government before us had the courage to set a goal to reduce poverty 25% over—

Interjection: By 25 in 5.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: By 25 in 5. So I’m very pleased.

First of all, let me thank Food Banks Canada for this report; it’s very important. I want to thank all of those who are working with the food banks.

This government has done a lot since we came to power. First of all, we have increased the minimum wage, which you know was not increased for many years.

Interjection: Almost nine years.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Nine years. We are also delivering close to 35,000 rent supplements to help those in need. We have—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: When this government talks about a 25% reduction in poverty, we do not expect a 28% increase in food bank use.

The McGuinty government refuses to take responsibility for the hunger that plagues more and more Ontarians. Instead, it blames things like the recession or has no answer at all. But food bank use is rising, even with the modest economic recovery and in spite of the fact of your 2008 promise. The Ontario Association of Food Banks knows that precarious work, lack of employee benefits, rising hydro prices and inadequate social assistance and retirement incomes mean that rising numbers of Ontarians are turning to food banks. My question: When will the McGuinty government stop letting hunger plague 400,000 Ontarians and do something concrete to reduce it?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Again, I’m going to let the member opposite know what we have done. We have accelerated the phase-in of OCB by two years, providing $1,100 annually per child. We have committed to investing $200 million in 2010, increasing to $300 million in 2011, to fund full-day learning, which also helps to reduce poverty in Ontario.

We know we have a lot to do. We have increased social assistance by 12% and will be announcing the review of social assistance, which is long overdue. But I take exception when a party that increased social assistance by 165% when they were in power is trying to give us lessons today. I’m not taking your advice. We will continue to work to reduce poverty in Ontario.

DIABETES

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question is for the Minister of Health Promotion and Sport. This week we marked World Diabetes Day, and I’m curious to know how the government is working to keep Ontarians informed about diabetes prevention. Specifically, what is the Ministry of Health Promotion and Sport doing to inform Ontarians about ways to prevent the onset of type 2 diabetes?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I would like to thank the member from Scarborough–Rouge River for the question.

I am certainly pleased to rise in this Legislature to acknowledge World Diabetes Day and to speak to some of our government’s initiatives to prevent type 2 diabetes in the province. The government, through the Ministry of Health Promotion and Sport, is investing in community-based initiatives and workplace programs to increase awareness of diabetes risk factors. We are providing education and skill development through prevention initiatives and community partnerships.

We have targeted high-risk communities, including low-income families and people of aboriginal, Asian, South Asian, Hispanic and African-Caribbean descent. Many of these programs have been facilitated through cultural roundtables and aboriginal health access centres.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: We have developed and implemented prevention initiatives in 19 neighbourhoods in Toronto, Peel and northwestern Ontario. We have established 132 community—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: We all know that diabetes has become a major health concern for Ontarians throughout the province. Diabetes affects not only adults but our children as well. We understand that the cost of treating diabetes can be significant, and it’s important that we move forward to ensure that families across Ontario have the knowledge and understanding, along with the proper supports in place, to help not only treat but prevent the onset of diabetes.

Our diabetes strategy has gone a long way to ensure that the prevention and treatment of diabetes remains constant, but we can always do more. Could the minister please tell this House what the government is doing to help prevent the onset of diabetes in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: To the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We are very concerned. Far too many Ontarians are developing diabetes. That’s why we’re working hard to prevent or delay the progresssion of the disease and to ensure that all Ontarians with diabetes get access to the best possible care.

We became the first province to fully fund insulin pumps for children and youth with type 1 diabetes. We’ve expanded the program to include adults with type 1 diabetes.

We’re investing $741 million into our diabetes strategy. It’s a comprehensive approach that includes public education, expanded services, a diabetes care registry, the expansion of bariatric surgery and much, much more.

Ellen Malcolmson, the president and CEO of the Canadian Diabetes Association, says, “Providing Ontarians with type 1 diabetes the tools they require to effectively manage their disease is a great step forward.”

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Transportation: Two weeks ago, I asked the minister to order a comprehensive review of the motor vehicle inspection program. That request was made because of an increasing number of reports of safety certificates being issued on what were subsequently found to be unsafe vehicles. The minister declined to do so.

Now we have evidence that safety certificates are being issued for vehicles that have been recalled under a manufacturer’s open recall, even though the repairs under that recall have not been made. Given the serious safety implications, why is the Ministry of Transportation allowing this practice to continue?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I appreciate the member opposite again raising this issue. Certainly when he raised it initially, I made inquiries with the ministry and established that the system that is in place was put in place many years ago, before 2003, that there are fines and there are protocols in place to deal with any problems that arise. We have also put in place a call centre so that consumers could contact us. We’re making sure the mechanics have the credentials they need. If there’s a specific case that he has unearthed that he would like me to look into, I will certainly take that under consideration. He can let me know about the specifics of that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: I brought the specific case to the minister’s attention. She seemed to have ignored it. What I’m referring to today is that thousands of vehicles are being sold every day under ministry-approved safety certificates, even though repairs have not been made. This is a wide-reaching issue.

Ministry licence inspection facilities make no effort to determine whether a vehicle has been under a recall or whether the prescribed recall repairs have been made. The ministry has access to all recall notices, but there’s no requirement on inspection facilities to actually determine whether a car is under recall.

Will the minister agree to take the necessary steps to ensure that inspection facilities make compliance with recall notices a mandatory condition of issuing safety certificates? Will she put that policy in place in her ministry?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, as I say, we are regularly investigating garages that we suspect aren’t following the rules. We investigate mechanics registered at multiple inspection stations. We monitor the practices at garages around the province. We will continue to do that. If there is a specific issue around recall, I will investigate that and I will talk with ministry officials.

This regime was put in place when the previous government was in office. We have improved on that regime. We continue to improve on the regime. If there is a specific issue—

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The members opposite talk about the length of time the regime has been in place. The protocols were put in place by their members. We have improved upon those protocols, we will continue to improve upon the protocols, and on this particular issue of recall, I will investigate with the ministry. I appreciate the member raising it.

AGENCY SPENDING

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Today we learned that a Niagara Parks Commission executive racked up $400,000 in expenses on everything from $10,000 hotel stays in England to a $1,800 nightclub tab, to a $200 trip to the liquor store. The executive even charged a pound of Starbucks coffee to the commission and claimed it as a meal. Does the Premier think that expensing Starbucks coffee and a pricey night out is acceptable?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Tourism and Culture.

Hon. Michael Chan: I appreciate the opportunity to talk about tourism and also the Niagara Parks Commission in our great province. I am aware of the matter. This government is committed to protecting taxpayers’ money and increasing agency accountability for the people of Ontario. This is why we have brought in new expense rules across the government in all agencies to bring in greater accountability and transparency. These new rules came in the fall of 2009, after the expenses were incurred. These types of expenses are no longer acceptable.

We have appointed a new chair, Fay Booker, to the Niagara Parks Commission. She has invaluable experience in governance, accounting and auditing. We are moving ahead with the Niagara Parks Commission.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontario families were literally taken for a ride when an executive expensed a rollercoaster ride in Las Vegas. When people hear stories of backroom, sole-source deals and lavish executive spending on nightclubs and roller coasters at the Niagara Parks Commission, they quickly lose faith. Why should we believe this government’s claim that they are restoring accountability at the Niagara Parks Commission when day in and day out there is more evidence that they are not?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you again for the question. Our government, one more time, is committed to protecting taxpayers’ money and increasing agencies’ accountability to the people of Ontario.

In September 2009, the Premier directed all government agencies, boards and commissions to strictly adhere to the rules in the public service travel, meal and hospitality expenses directive. The expenses incurred were prior to September 2009. These expenses are no longer acceptable. Chair Fay Booker has made significant changes to the corporate culture at the Niagara Parks Commission. I have full confidence in the chair, and we are looking forward to moving the Niagara Parks Commission forward.

ROYAL AGRICULTURAL WINTER FAIR

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, this past weekend marked the closing of another year of the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair. It’s a signature event for Toronto, and like everyone who lives in Toronto, I’m thrilled to see it. It gives the urbanites here an opportunity to know and understand rural communities. Of course, it’s a wonderful opportunity for the children, because they get to actually understand where their food comes from and they get to see animals upfront.

I’d like to know, Minister, if you could share a little bit about what’s happened this year at the royal agricultural fair?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: Thank you very much for the question. At the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, we are very pleased to be the lead ministry at the royal winter fair. I want to share with the Speaker that the Royal is now in its 88th year. It is the world’s largest combined indoor celebration of agriculture and equestrianism—the largest in the world.

When the country comes to the city, I can tell you that the Royal celebrated with rodeos and rock music, and I’m very proud of the strong attendance from those in Toronto and the GTA. It’s an excellent opportunity to see the great things that are happening in our agricultural sector and rural Ontario. It offers an opportunity to learn about our agri-food industry and to know about the good things that are growing. It provides shoppers with a classic farmers’ market—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: Each year, there are thousands of attendees and exhibitors that visit the Royal, and I would expect the size of this event would have a very significant impact on the local economy. November is a slow month in Toronto when it comes to having tourism. Over the past few years, as the Royal has experienced a very positive and steady growth in attendance with the exhibitors and corporate partners, it really does a wonderful job of marketing and promotional efforts for attracting both domestic and international visitors to Toronto.

I imagine the economic impact on the city is very substantial, both by spending through the show itself and, of course, by the visitors. I wondered, Minister, if you could give us some idea and share with us the actual results and the number of attendees at the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, and let’s talk a little bit about that economic impact on our city.

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I’m very pleased to say that this year’s attendance was over 300,000 people. I think that’s remarkable.

I also want to say that for the Royal in 2009—just to give you a sense of the scope—the economic impact was estimated at $40.5 million for the city of Toronto and $56.3 million for the province. When we look at the international guests, 4,240 international guests, 65 countries, attended the Royal. And the educational component is always a huge draw; it’s a wonderful class trip for our students. More than 500 schools brought 26,000 students to the Royal to visit 18 educational centres. That’s incredible.

AGENCY SPENDING

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Minister of Tourism. When the executive director of the Niagara Parks Commission was caught handing out a $500,000 sweetheart deal, the minister said it met an exemption at Management Board rules. Now, new information has come to light that Ontario families have paid $400,000 in expenses to that same executive director.

Is the Management Board exempting roller-coaster rides and bags of Starbucks coffee now?

Hon. Michael Chan: As I said, in September 2009, the Premier directed all government agencies, boards and commissions to strictly adhere to the rules in the Ontario public service travel, meals and hospitality expenses directive. The expenses incurred were prior to this. These expenses are no longer acceptable.

Let’s look at the root of the problem. This individual was hired by the Conservative government. Chair Fay Booker has made significant changes to the corporate culture at the Niagara Parks Commission. I have true confidence in the chair. We are looking forward to moving the Niagara Parks Commission forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: That response by the minister about his agency was disappointing and, frankly, it was disgraceful. The fact of the matter is, he’s exempting them from one thing and now he’s allowing another thing to occur which has cost Ontario taxpayers almost $1 million under this executive director’s leadership.

Instead of showing accountability, the commission and its executives right now are pointing fingers at one another—hardly confidence for the Ontario people. It’s bad enough that these sweetheart deals and expense scandals keep happening time and again after the Premier promises continually to do better. Now, when we bring forward more scandalous uses of taxpayer dollars—Ontario families have had their confidence eroded in this government—why can’t the Ontario Liberal Party give the people of Ontario the change they absolutely need at this time?

Hon. Michael Chan: Pointing fingers is being performed by that honourable member.

Let’s look at the facts. We have increased accountability, we have increased transparency, but we must address the root of the problem here. This is an individual that was hired by the Conservative government.

On the other hand, we are committed to moving forward. That’s why we have appointed an excellent chair, Fay Booker, who is an expert in corporate governance. Chair Booker has made significant changes to the corporate culture of NPC. I have full confidence in the chair as we move forward to strengthen the Niagara Parks Commission.

STEEL INDUSTRY

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. Nine hundred workers in the Hamilton area are off the job because US Steel has locked them out. The other day, those workers came to talk to the Premier about what they’re facing, and the Premier snuck in and snuck out the back door. If the Premier is so proud of his job record in Hamilton, why is he sneaking past the men and women who want to talk about their job losses and how this government has let them down?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The member knows full well that situations like this are always complex, they are never easy, and they are always unfortunate for those workers, for their families, for the community.

I want to commend the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, the Minister of Finance, and especially the Premier for standing up for those workers, for encouraging and urging the parties to get back to the table. That’s the approach that this government has always taken: to be there, to work with the parties, to encourage them to get back to the table, to keep them at the table and to resolve the dispute so they can get the work moving forward. We will continue to do that.

That is the focus of my Ministry of Labour. We have a seasoned mediator at the table working with the parties, trying to work through this very difficult—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: Once again, no answer.

Hamilton has been losing thousands of jobs in the last seven years under this government, with an additional 1,200 jobs last month. A vague promise of jobs two years down the road at some point doesn’t do anything to help the 900 men and women locked out of their jobs today.

Will this Premier help the workers of US Steel today and really do something by stopping foreign corporations from bullying them and by making scab labour illegal in this province? Make scab labour illegal in this province if you want to help all the workers of this province.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: We will do anything and everything that we can to bring the parties together, to keep the parties together, to work with them to get a resolution. We are working with all parties that have an interest in protecting those jobs, as well as any other job in Ontario. And I want to again commend the Premier, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

It was our party that came to the table with $150 million to protect the pensions of those workers. It is our party that continues to encourage all those that have an interest in keeping those jobs in Hamilton, in protecting those jobs. Again, we will do everything that we can in our power to protect those job