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

November 4, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Nov-04 (PDF)

L066 - Thu 4 Nov 2010 / Jeu 4 nov 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 4 November 2010 Jeudi 4 novembre 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOOD GOVERNMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA SAINE

GESTION PUBLIQUE

TIME ALLOCATION

SECURING PENSION BENEFITS NOW

AND FOR THE FUTURE ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA PÉRENNITÉ

DES PRESTATIONS DE RETRAITE

TICKET SPECULATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE TRAFIC DES BILLETS

DE SPECTACLE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

TAXATION

TAXATION

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

ROAD SAFETY

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

POWER PLANT

WIND TURBINES

ENERGY POLICIES

VETERANS’ LICENCE PLATES

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE BOARD

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS

HUMAN RIGHTS

CORRECTION OF RECORD

MEMBER’S BIRTHDAY

DEFERRED VOTES

GOOD GOVERNMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA SAINE

GESTION PUBLIQUE

TIME ALLOCATION

SECURING PENSION BENEFITS NOW

AND FOR THE FUTURE ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA PÉRENNITÉ

DES PRESTATIONS DE RETRAITE

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

JOSEPH SIMONATO

ASSISTIVE DEVICES PROGRAM

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

BOB REID

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

VETERANS

STEM CELL AND MARROW DONATION

POLISH INDEPENDENCE DAY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RESPECT FOR ONTARIO VETERANS,

SOLDIERS AND WAR DEAD ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE RESPECT

DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS,

DES SOLDATS ET DES MORTS

PAR FAIT DE GUERRE DE L’ONTARIO

HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE CREDIT

SCORING BAN ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 INTERDISANT

LE RECOURS AU POINTAGE DE CRÉDIT

POUR L’ASSURANCE

PROPRIÉTAIRE OCCUPANT

REMEMBRANCE DAY

PETITIONS

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

CEMETERIES

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

SAEED MALEKPOUR

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

PENSION PLANS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

KATELYN BEDARD BONE MARROW AWARENESS MONTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI KATELYN BEDARD DE 2010

SUR LE MOIS DE LA SENSIBILISATION

AU DON DE MOELLE OSSEUSE

AGGREGATE EXTRACTION

G20 PUBLIC INQUIRY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 CONCERNANT

LA TENUE D’UNE ENQUÊTE PUBLIQUE

SUR LE SOMMET DU G20

KATELYN BEDARD BONE MARROW AWARENESS MONTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI KATELYN BEDARD DE 2010

SUR LE MOIS DE LA SENSIBILISATION

AU DON DE MOELLE OSSEUSE

AGGREGATE EXTRACTION

G20 PUBLIC INQUIRY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 CONCERNANT

LA TENUE D’UNE ENQUÊTE PUBLIQUE

SUR LE SOMMET DU G20

ORDERS OF THE DAY

KATELYN BEDARD BONE MARROW AWARENESS MONTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI KATELYN BEDARD DE 2010

SUR LE MOIS DE LA SENSIBILISATION

AU DON DE MOELLE OSSEUSE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOOD GOVERNMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA SAINE

GESTION PUBLIQUE

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 28, 2010, on the motion for second reading of Bill 110,

An Act to promote good government by amending or repealing certain Acts / Projet de loi 110, Loi visant à promouvoir une saine gestion publique en modifiant ou en abrogeant certaines lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate?

Seeing none, Mr. Bentley has moved second reading of Bill 110. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

This vote will be deferred to the conclusion of question period.

Second reading vote deferred.

TIME ALLOCATION

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 3, 2010, on the motion relating to time allocation on Bill 122,

An Act to increase the financial accountability of organizations in the broader public sector / Projet de loi 122, Loi visant à accroître la responsabilisation financière des organismes du secteur parapublic.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Just a few words on this bill just to complete it: We’re obviously against the time allocation motion, and we just want to remind people that the bill doesn’t do what the public believes it’s going to do. Yes, it prohibits the lobbyists from being hired using public dollars, but private dollars, as it relates to the community colleges or universities, can be used to hire lobbyists. The practice will continue.

It’s not as if we’ve ended the practice of lobbyists; it will continue. That loophole remains. God bless the lobbyists. God bless all these people who make good money trying to talk to the ministers and the politicians. They’re not out of business yet. This province is open for business, any time of the day, to any lobbyist named as such or renamed in any other way. They are still open for business.

Peter Kormos should become a lobbyist, for God’s sake.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: Why? Who would he lobby for?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Just make a couple of good bucks and donate all that money to the New Democratic Party; that would be good. It’s not about you, Peter. It’s about what you can do for the party as a lobbyist.

Mr. Peter Kormos: What about the food banks?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Any leftover money that you earn, we can give to the food banks because God knows there’s a big lineup. You know these other lobbyists are not doing the food bank folks any good, because I don’t see their money being given to the needy. No, it’s all about the pecunia for themselves.

You understand the bill still says that inside lobbyists within the firm are still—

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We are very delighted that, finally, someone stands up in the NDP and proclaims their position.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That’s not a point of order. The honourable member may continue.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: God bless the member from Davenport.

Mr. Peter Kormos: From Cuba, from Havana. The member from Havana.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: We need you. The world needs you.

Mr. Peter Kormos: The world has him.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The world needs him on a daily basis in this place.

Inside lobbyists can still carry on. The bill doesn’t affect them. In fact, it says inside lobbyists can still do the good work they do. You understand, the bill simply allows those good people to continue to be open for business and to do what they’ve always done; that is, make money for so little, because that is the nature of the job.

How many of the people who used to work for ministers leave this place and become consultants and lobbyists? This happens by the dozens, by the thousands. They have the inside track; they still know staff that remains there. They can call John, Peter and Paul and say, “Hey. How you doing? Let’s have coffee.” And immediately that is a net benefit of 5,000 or 10,000 bucks, depending on what it is that he’s trying to do, because every meeting you get, every phone call you make that is received by the other side—

Mr. Peter Kormos: Billable hours.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: You just bill for them, right? Better than lawyers, because I think they get more money.

God knows, I remember when I was in government, and someone I know wanted access to the Minister of the Environment. I thought, “Okay. What’s the idea?” I needed to know that the idea was something that I could support; I needed to know that first. Then I said, “Okay. I’m going to arrange a meeting with the staff,” which I did. He tells me later that I saved him loads of money—look how naive I was—because I was doing the work of a consultant for free because I felt it was my job to link people up if they had good ideas and they couldn’t get meetings with the minister, right?

But he told me that he would pay up to $20,000 to get a meeting with a minister. God bless. I said, “Holy cow! I could have been rich.” Every time I arranged such a meeting, I could have been loaded with money, with the pecunia that so many desperately want and adore.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Open up a side company, then.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: But that’s the thing. So many do. How many Conservatives do that on the side? Not to name names, because some of you are—

Mr. Peter Kormos: Mike Harris works for a law firm now, and he’s not a lawyer.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Look at Mike Harris. I think he’s earning $100,000 a year. Or is that peanuts? I’m sure he’s earning more than that.

Mr. Peter Kormos: A mere bagatelle.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: That is Mike Harris. I know not everybody can be a Premier and earn the top bucks, but the guy killed our pensions and left with a—

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I know, Peter Kormos. Thank you.

He leaves with 860,000 bucks and the rest of us are left holding the bag. You fine people and oh so many Tories who got elected in 1995—we’re just getting 4,000 bucks in RRSPs. Mike left with pecunia. He could barely carry them bags; that’s right. He did okay.

Not to mention all the fine Liberals who have left to become consultants, because it’s a much more positive term than “lobbyist”—such a loaded, negative word. So consultants are making good money. Liberals are open for business. The bill doesn’t eliminate that business. They can still carry on and do their fine work; not to worry.

But the public believes, based on what the Liberals are saying, “We closed that door. It’s gone; that’s it; we did it,” because the Auditor General said, “Do this and the job is done.” So the Liberals stood up and said, “We did what he said. The job is done. No more work to be done.”

That loophole that the Auditor General identified was closed, but all the other loopholes are still there so that people can carry on and do what they’ve always done. It’s still—

Mr. Dave Levac: Don’t be cynical, Rosie.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: But you need to say what needs to be said. It is so hurtful to me to know that so many non-profit organizations—4,500—who are strapped for money, and have been strapped for the last 15 years, used some their meagre resources to hire consultants to give them access to this government, hoping that in using some well-connected Liberal consultant they might get a few more dollars. But there’s nothing to give. There’s a $20-billion deficit; they should know that. Liberals are not about to give any money to anybody. Consultants and lobbyists should be out of business by now, you would think.

With this deficit, no appeal can be made to any minister, because every minister is going to say, “I’d like to help you, but we’ve got a big debt here, a big deficit. Come back another time. Come back after the next election. I’m sure we can find money then.”

In the meantime, poor non-profits, desperate for money, are paying lobbyists to try to get access and to try to get a few dollars. It’s sad. In my mind, it is a sad, sad story. When I think about this bill, when I’m trying to think whether there’s something positive—you want to try to be positive from time to time, because otherwise people say, “You’re always so negative.” It is true that the Liberals did listen to the Auditor General; they did. Is that a good thing? Yeah. What else could they do? On a positive note, they said, “We told the Auditor General to go in and investigate.” Even better.

So I want to thank you for appointing or telling the Auditor General to just go do the job. On the day that he released the report you had a bill ready to go, because you wanted to do something to show goodwill. You had the bill ready to go, the very same day. So you did that. That’s good. You got to say that. Otherwise, when the rump is in tears, some of us have to help out, right?

I love to see the rump because often these benches here are empty. You say, “Where are they?” And every now and then, my good friend from Scarborough–Rouge River says, “They’re in the front benches, filling in seats.” Which was a good observation, because I thought, “Gee, they’re not here.” But they are here, sitting in the front benches warming up those seats, just getting ready to become ministers of the crown, right? So they are here. Somebody else isn’t here. So when they’re not praising you, I’ve got to do the praising.

You’ve done something good. You could do a little more, but it’s not the Liberal way. The Liberal way is only to do what you can get away with. Just do a little bit so that you can say, “It’s historic.”

Mr. Peter Kormos: And then there’s Gordon Campbell.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Gordon Campbell—God bless him. It was honourable.

Mr. Peter Kormos: One down, one to go.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It was time to go. And as my good friend from Welland says, when is the next one coming?

But as Jim Coyle of the Toronto Star said, I don’t think the Premier is going anywhere, because I think he likes the job. I think he believes he can persuade people that it’s a good thing: the GST was good, free trade was good, the harmonized sales tax is good. We have high unemployment throughout the world, we’re losing middle-class jobs and everything is good. Don’t worry; the Premier will be able to persuade people that the HST is good.

While the popularity of this government is plummeting by the day, don’t worry, fine Liberals, the Premier will save you. Seventy-six percent of respondents say they would like to see another party in power, but not you. Stick around. Be firm. Be strong. It’ll be fine.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Seeing none, Ms. Smith has moved government notice of motion number 32. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will defer this vote until after question period today.

Vote deferred.

SECURING PENSION BENEFITS NOW

AND FOR THE FUTURE ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA PÉRENNITÉ

DES PRESTATIONS DE RETRAITE

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 26, 2010, on the motion for second reading of Bill 120,

An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act and the Pension Benefits Amendment Act, 2010 / Projet de loi 120, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les régimes de retraite et la Loi de 2010 modifiant la

Loi sur les régimes de retraite.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 3, 2010, I’m now required to put the question.

On October 25, 2010, Ms. Smith moved second reading of Bill 120,

An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act and the Pension Benefits Amendment Act, 2010.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will also vote on this matter in deferred votes after question period today.

Second reading vote deferred.

TICKET SPECULATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE TRAFIC DES BILLETS

DE SPECTACLE

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 3, 2010, on the motion for second reading of Bill 172,

An Act to amend the Ticket Speculation Act / Projet de loi 172, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le trafic des billets de spectacle.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): When Bill 172 was last before the House, Mr. Kormos had completed his remarks. It’s time for questions and comments on the member for Welland’s remarks. Questions and comments?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I know the member from Welland talked about scalping being illegal, and I was thinking to myself, “If it’s illegal, why aren’t we enforcing the law?” Why do we have so many police over on Bathurst north of St. Clair every day aiming that gun trying to catch people who are speeding? There are no residents over there, right? Some mornings, there are two policemen; some mornings, three; some mornings, four; and some mornings, one. What the heck are they doing? Maybe they saved them all up for the G20 so they could just bring them all together because they need them there, and really enforce the law during that kind of serious preoccupation—against threats to the world.

So you say to yourself, “If scalping is against the law, why isn’t the Liberal government enforcing it? Why isn’t the Liberal government telling and directing police to root out this particular problem?” To me, it’s a big wonder. So that’s one question I’ve got.

The other question I have is that, when you think about this issue, the government obviously is saying, “We’re going to eliminate the potential collusion there is between Ticketmaster, which sells tickets, and the corresponding related company, because there is money to be made, and it’s in the courts to deem whether this is collusion.” Of course it’s collusion. This arm says to the other, “Yeah, you can buy and resell, and we’re going to make some of that money.” Naturally there’s collusion. But it doesn’t solve the problem because brokers are still going to be able to buy and resell. Nobody’s controlling those big brokers buying and reselling.

I have a solution, member from Welland. My view is let’s boycott these events. Let’s boycott sports events and other concert events. That will teach them a lesson. That will bring down prices real quick.

Mr. Peter Kormos: That means you’re not going to the Lady Gaga concert?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: That’s right. It’s a suggestion of mine.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I think we all need to agree that consumers need protection and they need protection for buying tickets for hockey games—

Interjection.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: Member for Simcoe, tickets to the Islanders at Little Current and tickets to the Beavers at Blind River are not a huge problem as far as this particular concern, although both have very worthy hockey teams that we should go see.

My folks even in Algoma–Manitoulin attend concerts around the province, they attend sporting events around the province, and they know that they want a fair-priced ticket. They want to know that there is not collusion amongst—we’ve heard about Ticketmaster, but others. People are concerned in a number of jurisdictions.

I think this is a key point: What this legislation actually does is harmonize our laws with those of jurisdictions around the country and around the US so that we will be able to enforce our laws so that our consumers will be protected. It is important that people know that they are getting value for money and that they are not having the price of the ticket manipulated by large powerful corporations that have the ability to buy large blocks of tickets etc. I think this is a good step forward.

I remember, and my good friends in the New Democrats can remember, the first time we dealt with this issue in my time, which would be back in about 1988 or 1989. Our good friend Gilles Pouliot came to me, and he said, “You know, I just spent an hour trying to explain free enterprise to the third party.” I thought it was entertaining, and Gilles was always on the mark.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Gilles understood free enterprise. I could tell: He was the only member of the NDP I ever knew who had more than one Rolex watch. They know that.

We were talking about the member for Welland’s comments, though we got a little carried away from there, and I agree with most of what the member said. This bill will do nothing. It will do nothing to create one more seat at any venue in Ontario. It will do nothing to save one purchaser of those seats one thin dime. This bill, make no mistake, will do nothing.

Where I separate from the member for Welland is on his use of the word “collusion.” He assumes that there is collusion. The Competition Bureau of Canada did an exhaustive investigation into the relationship between Ticketmaster and TicketsNow, and they found no sign of collusion. The US competition bureau did an investigation on TicketsNow and Ticketmaster after the New Jersey Bruce Springsteen concert, and they found no example of collusion.

I would suggest to the member from Welland that he uses the word “collusion” in relation to this bill outside this House at his own peril. You are protected in this House; you are not protected outside the House, and I challenge the member to use the word “collusion” in dealing with this when he exits this chamber. We’ll see how his commitment to this assertion, whether or not it’s—

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Do you have an interest in Ticketmaster?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Do I have an interest in Ticketmaster? I say, no, I do not. But I do have an interest in legislation that comes before this House that is a complete and total sham. That’s what this legislation is: It’s a complete and total sham on the people of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Prue: I had an opportunity to hear most of the speech the other day from my colleague from Welland, and he tells it like it is. That’s what he does. He stands in this House and he tells it like it is.

For my honourable friend who just spoke, the member from Halton, if the member from Welland uses the word “collusion” in this House, it’s because he can. It’s because we are protected inside this House from telling it like it is.

What is happening out there on the street when people try to buy tickets is that they’re getting ripped off. We all know they’re getting ripped off. We know that if you go out and try to buy a ticket for the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey game—given the way that they’re playing, I don’t know why anybody would—

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: They’re playing good.

Mr. Michael Prue: No, no; they lost again last night.

But you know, if you go out and try to buy one of those tickets from a scalper, you know you’re going to pay two or three times the cost of that. If you want to go and watch Lady Gaga or anything else, and if you don’t have a ticket, you’re going to pay two or three times that.

When I was a municipal councillor, I had the opportunity over many years to meet a wonderful councillor by the name of Howard Moscoe. Howard Moscoe did not shy away from things. He put himself through school, through university, his young life, by being a ticket scalper. He can tell you wonderful stories. He thought it was great free enterprise. He made thousands of dollars a week scalping tickets. To listen to his stories of how things are done and how people are willing to pay, it’s truly mind-boggling.

This bill—I don’t understand all of sudden why the Liberals have brought it back. This sat in limbo for months and months and months with nothing being done. I guess you’re running out of legislation to talk about in the House, so I guess that’s why we’re here.

I commend the member from Welland; he always tells it like it is.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The member for Welland has two minutes for his response.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Speaker, I’ll tell you this: I’m not a shill for Ticketmaster, that’s for sure. I know that there are lobbyists on this file because they did contact my office and wanted to speak to me. I have no interest whatsoever in speaking to them because I can read the legislation. I understand the pros and cons. I can analyze it without the help of high-priced lobbyists.

As I say, I have no idea who they were lobbying for. I suspect it might be Ticketmaster; I’m not sure. But let’s understand one thing: Ticketmaster owns TicketsNow. I suppose this isn’t so much a matter of collusion. Collusion is if Mr. Zimmer and I, as independent parties, agree to do something together, as compared to a company that owns the other company; they’re one and the same.

The problem is that this legislation won’t even prevent TicketsNow from selling tickets at inflated prices. All that Ticketmaster has to do is bow out of the selling of tickets at face-value prices. It’s as simple as that.

As for TicketsNow and Ticketmaster, one should flesh it out and tell all of the components, because in New Jersey, Ticketmaster had to pay the Springsteen operation $350,000 in compensation. For an operation that is so pristine, it seems to me that they settled to the tune of over a third of a million dollars to avoid the consequences of litigation, and I understand that.

As I say, I’m not a shill for Ticketmaster. I could care less about Ticketmaster, quite frankly. I have no interest in them. I don’t know them; if I did know them, I may or may not like them. Who knows? Who cares? The fact is that this legislation is grossly ineffective. It will not serve the goal that it purports to serve.

I would like to hear Mr. Zimmer, the parliamentary assistant, and his legal analysis of the bill and the legislation that it’s amending, and why the government hasn’t enforced that legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. David Zimmer: Let me offer these comments. First of all, by way of background: The first legislation governing ticket speculation in Ontario was introduced in 1960. That’s 50 years ago. For the last 50 years, Ontario has recognized the need to regulate and bring some order to this activity. So that legislation was introduced in 1960.

The first test case of the propriety and constitutionality of that piece of legislation was in 1967. That was the Fink case, which the member for Welland referred to, on which Mr. Justice Edson Haines offered his thoughts and analysis of the constitutionality and effect of that legislation.

Yesterday, the member for Welland referred to Justice Edson Haines and his reputation on the bench and so on. I can say that way, way back, many years ago when I was a very junior lawyer, I had occasion to appear before Mr. Justice Edson Haines—along with the senior lawyer of course; I carried the senior lawyer’s briefcase and handed him his talking points, if you will. But I had occasion to sit in the courtroom and listen to that very wise-looking and indeed wise judicial authority who had a deep appreciation of the technicalities of the law and also of the social purposes of the law.

With respect to the social purposes behind the Ticket Speculation Act, let me just quote from that 1967 decision. I say to my colleagues in this chamber that the philosophy or the intent that Mr. Justice Haines described the legislation as having is really the same intent, purpose and philosophy today, albeit with some changes, and I want to talk about those changes.

The world in 1960, in terms of ticket speculation, and in 1967, when Justice Edson Haines offered his remarks, was a much smaller world. We were talking about a $4 ticket that someone scalped for $25. It was typically—my friend opposite referred to Howard Moscoe working his way through college and university by ticket scalping—a small, sort of one-on-one operation. An individual would get his hands on a couple of tickets—stand out in front of typically a football stadium or hockey arena and personally buy three or four tickets—and then try to peddle them at the door for a markup as people were going in.

The scalper might sell three or four tickets, make 50 or 60 bucks that night, as Howard did, put it in his pocket, pay for his tuition and away he went.

But the world has changed. Today, ticket sales for the big sports events, the big rock concerts—all the big stuff that goes on at the Air Canada Centre and the Rogers Centre and the stadiums and so on—is big, big, mega-business. Big primary operators buy blocks of tickets. But the mischief is that usually the primary ticket buyer has a subsidiary company set up. The primary ticket company is called X and the subsidiary company is called Y, and there’s a business relationship between those two entities, between X and Y, the primary and the secondary.

The primary company, X, holds on to tickets. Big advertisement campaign—the concert is coming to downtown; the football game is on—you’ve got to have these tickets, here’s the price. People call up, and those tickets are quickly sold, because a substantial portion of the tickets have been reserved for the secondary company, Y. If there’s a business relationship between the primary and the secondary, between X and Y, that’s a manipulation of the market, if you will, and that’s the mischief that this legislation is intended to get at.

The legislation is not—I want to make it quite clear—intended to deal with the situation where my friend from Welland has tickets for a game at the Rogers Centre, because he’s a great fan of sports events at the Rogers Centre. He’s got two very expensive tickets—$200 each—and he finds that he can’t go because we’re having a midnight sitting and he wants to be here to speak. So he calls up his personal friend—it’s a relationship between the member for Welland and his friend here in town; it might be his friend from Beaches–East York—and he offers the tickets to his friend for Beaches–East York.

They agree on a price and he sells it to his friend. That’s not the sort of mom-and-pop small-time operation that this legislation is intended to get at. It’s intended to get at those larger operations where there’s a business model that has been thought through and the business model is a primary and a secondary company, a block of tickets, they’ve got a lock on the market and the price in the secondary market is pumped way up.

I want to remind members what the Attorney General said on second reading of this bill on October 21 here in this chamber, and then I’m going to just expand on a couple of things that I want to make really clear. He said, “Mr.

Speaker, since the first reading we have been responding to concerns brought to our attention by stakeholders to ensure that the wording of this legislation properly reflects the types of arrangements we want to deter.” Let me say that again: We want to make sure “that the wording of this legislation properly reflects the types of arrangements we want to deter.” We do not want to deter that activity where somebody holding concert tickets, symphony tickets, rock tickets or sports tickets wants to get rid of those tickets because he or she can’t use them.

We are after the larger business model, primary and secondary companies, where a huge block of tickets are obtained, where there’s a relationship, an inherent and inchoate business relationship, if you think of it that way. We want to ensure that that business relationship, that business model, does not continue to create this situation where the same entity, if you will, controls the primary and the secondary markets.

As a consequence of wanting to make it very clear that we’re not after the mom-and-pop operation, somebody getting rid of some tickets that they can’t use that night, we are planning to introduce some amendments at the committee, amendments to the original bill that was introduced last year. I can tell you that those amendments are going to reflect this thought: We’re not targeting season ticket holders selling off extra tickets at face value because they find they can’t use the tickets that night.

The legislation is directed to a corporate structure where there is an inherent business relationship, if you will, between a primary and a secondary operation where the tickets are sold in the secondary market at a substantially higher price than they are in the primary market. That’s the mischief that this legislation is intended to deal with.

Let me go back to Mr. Justice Haines in the Fink decision, because as I said, the original piece of legislation was from 1960, and really the first case that commented on it was in 1967. I said that Justice Haines was both a superb technical lawyer and a superb observer of the social intent behind legislation. This is what he said about the intent of the legislation, staying away from the technical aspects—this is the philosophy behind the legislation then; it continues to remain the philosophy behind the legislation today. He said: “In my opinion, this act is best classified as one of regulation.

It is designed to regulate the orderly sale of tickets to places of entertainment and amusement in Ontario for the benefit of those persons connected with these industries as well as for the benefit of the entire public”—that is, the entire Ontario public.

He goes on to talk about speculators, or scalpers as they’re often called. He refers to them as persons who “operate to buy up varying quantities of tickets to various types of performances in order to place themselves in the positions of monopolists with respect to the resale of the tickets.” That’s what this legislation today is intended to get at: that inherent business-model relationship between a primary and a secondary market being effectively operated by the same entity. It places that entity in the position of a monopolist. You have no control over the price in the secondary market because the secondary market is, in effect, owned and managed by the owners of the primary market.

Justice Haines then goes on to say: “By then reselling these tickets at highly inflated prices, they deprive many persons of modest means of attending certain performances, and they also cause great resentment in many of those to whom they do, in fact, sell.”

We almost have a class structure kind of thing here, where people want to go to these concerts, but they have to go to the secondary market. The prices are high, high, high, and it freezes out people of modest means who, in these tough economic times, have to spend their entertainment dollars wisely. Working people of modest means have every right to access, at a fair price, a Maple Leafs game, a football game or a rock concert. They ought not to be frozen out by monopolists.

Justice Haines then goes on to say, in a very wise statement, “The victims of these practices, if they were allowed, would be both those persons whose lives are associated with the entertainment and amusement industries as well as the entire public. In Ontario, we owe much of our cultural heritage to the performing arts and to the various spectator sports which provide enjoyment and pleasure to all of us, and it would seem appropriate to me for the Legislature to take whatever reasonable steps are necessary to protect these aspects of our lives from the dangers of unchecked ticket speculation.”

Those are the words of a very wise judge, spoken in 1967, 43 years ago, about a piece of legislation that was originally introduced in 1960, 50 years ago. I say to the members of this Legislature that that philosophy is the philosophy that continues to be behind this legislation.

I’ve spoken about and I’ve made reference to our intention because when the legislation was first introduced, of course, it went out to the public. We got a lot of comments back and, as the Attorney General said on October 21, it’s not our intention to go after the individual season ticket holders, for instance, who find that they can’t use their tickets that evening to prevent them from disposing of those tickets.

We want to bring order and fairness to that aspect of the market that Justice Haines referred to, which, if not properly regulated and controlled, will allow monopolists into the system to control both a large primary market and an even larger secondary market because there’s an inherent business relationship between the operators of the primary market and the operators of the secondary market. If it’s the same person, and there’s a business relationship there, of course the person operating both of those markets, given a choice, will want to sell a ticket through the secondary market and get X-plus dollars rather than sell it through the primary market and just get X dollars.

In

summary, when you think about what Justice Edson Haines said, when you think about the intent behind this legislation and when you take into account the amendments that we will introduce at committee hearings, this, in its last analysis, is a piece of consumer legislation to make it fair for all Ontarians, no matter what their station in life, so that they have reasonable and fair access when they are purchasing and spending their entertainment dollars, be it on the arts and theatre and symphonies or athletic events—so that they are treated fairly in the market. That’s what this legislation is all about.

I’m very pleased and very happy that our government has brought this in. I have heard from many, many people on this issue. I hear from my daughter. I hear from my daughter’s friends. I hear from my nephew. I hear from constituents in Willowdale. I get emails on this. The gist of all of the comments is, “I saw an event advertised”—a big sports event, a big arts or cultural event, a big concert—“and tickets were going on sale at X day at X time. I called right away and they were out of tickets. I got referred to another operation.

I called there, and yes, they’ve got tickets, but the tickets are substantially pricier than the first company that I called.” Reasonable-thinking people know and feel in their gut that that’s unfair.

So here we are, 50 years after the original legislation was introduced. When the legislation was introduced, in 1960, it was a very different world. I’m repeating myself, but I want to make it very clear that in those days the typical, if you will, speculator or so-called scalper was a small operation: Get a couple of tickets and sell them—stand outside the event—to somebody going in the door. Sell them for a little extra money. Make $50 or $60; maybe make $100 if you’ve got three or four or five tickets.

But the world has changed 50 years later, and we have these big, mega-business models where the potential is that an operator can operate the primary market, advertise, put a limited number of tickets on sale through the primary market. That quickly sells out; refer the potential purchasers to the secondary market. We’re talking about events at the Air Canada Centre and the Rogers Centre where 25,000 or 30,000 people attend—the big sports events, the big rock concerts. This is a big big-money operation; and we want to ensure that all Ontarians have fair and reasonable access.

This is a very good piece of consumer legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I was of the opinion that the first scalping legislation was brought into Ontario around 1910—that was some research that was given to me—not 1960, as the member pointed out. I was surprised his research didn’t show that legislation went back that far in our history. I would appreciate the member’s comments on that. Perhaps his research on the rest of this bill is as wanting as the research on that, on the longevity of the legislation in Ontario.

What he’s talking about—he’s not talking about a huge number of companies; he’s not talking about even a handful of companies—is one company. The only company in Ontario that has a relationship with a reseller is Ticketmaster. They have a relationship with TicketsNow. The collusion that they talk about, the block of tickets that Ticketmaster supposedly sold to TicketsNow, is a figment of someone’s imagination because the Competition Bureau of Canada did an exhaustive examination of the relationship between those companies and found no examples whatsoever of collusion. They gave both those companies a clean stamp of approval.

Therefore, what this bill is designed to protect it is not going to do, because it doesn’t exist in Ontario in the first place. And secondly, it is going to make TicketsNow impossible to operate in Ontario, thereby reducing competition in the secondary market. Even this government must recognize that with reduced competition you increase prices. So this legislation could very well increase prices of tickets in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments?

Mr. Peter Kormos: Somebody here has been lobbied, extensively, I believe.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Say that outside of the House.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Oh, I will. The member for Halton should perhaps correct his record. I just had the legislative library obtain my Hansard from yesterday and scan it for the word “collusion.” The word did not appear in the Hansard search. The word “collusion” was not used by me yesterday. It was used by Mr. Chudleigh. That’s obviously the spin that some lobbyist wants him to use here in the chamber.

The reality is that I’m not a shill for Ticketmaster. At the same time, I have no interest whatsoever in accepting this government’s pathetic rationale or lack of rationale for this legislation because it won’t address the problem. It will tune up Ticketmaster all right, but the existing legislation could do that as well because of the offence of attempting to purchase or purchasing for the purpose of reselling. In fact, that also addresses—the existing legislation—the matter of arm’s-length resellers. This amendment does not address arm’s-length resellers who will continue to make millions of dollars at the expense of consumers.

The other reality is that people are paying these prices. The market sustains this. These concerts, even with scalped tickets by the computer scalping process, the big corporate scalpers—people are still buying the tickets, and as I read the newspapers these concerts are sold out. What more can I say? Perhaps the performers and their corporate operations should tune in to that.

Will the member for Halton correct his record when he alleged earlier today—stated, in fact—that I used the word “collusion,” but in fact it does not appear in the Hansard of yesterday’s comments by me. Shame on him.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Bob Delaney: I have a good friend who is a journalist in the state of Illinois, and he was talking to me about a story that they did a number of years ago about tickets and ticket reselling. They found one guy who had arranged to line up, and he was number one in line when tickets for a concert went on sale. He had camped out for nearly two or three days, and when he got there, anticipating that he’d be able to buy his favourite seats—front row, dead centre—he found out that all that was available were a bunch of tickets way out in the bleachers somewhere up in the nosebleed section.

All the prime seats had gone. Shameful. This legislation is here to protect against that very kind of practice in which the ticket vendor just flips a whole bunch of tickets to a wholly owned subsidiary.

I think this legislation is about people like him who lined up, and not merely the ticket purchasers. What about the people who do the set-up and the takedown? Don’t they deserve a share of the value in a concert? Right at the moment, if you can flip a big block of tickets, they don’t get a dime. What about the people who sell the refreshments? What about the people who act as ushers? If all you’re doing is flipping your tickets to a wholly owned reseller, they don’t get a dime, and that’s the kind of person that this legislation needs to protect. How much money does TicketsNow pay them? Nothing; absolutely nothing.

This is 50-year-old legislation that could not anticipate the computer-driven, high-tech, high-volume, wholesale appropriation of value that basically takes from performers, promoters, exhibitors, staff and the people who attend, and just puts the money in their pocket and runs. It’s time for this legislation. This is good legislation. Let’s pass it now.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Just a quick comment on what we’ve been hearing this morning. As I sit here I’m getting somewhat concerned that the proposers of this legislation have absolutely no idea what problem it is they’re trying to correct. We’re all talking about different things. The last comment made was about how the people in the venue of the presentation are not getting the same money they would get if every ticket had been sold by the venue itself. Of course, the money going into the venue and to the people who are performing stays the same regardless of how those tickets are sold beyond that.

The other thing I have a little problem understanding is how we have a system that allows people to take tickets and sell them for different prices. Why are the people who are providing the entertainment not selling them at the higher prices so that they could use that money to pay the people who work in the venue a little bit more money? Why are the prices set that way? Obviously there must be a reason—the scalpers who stand outside the stadium as I’m going to the ball game and buy the ticket—why they’re doing that: because they weren’t being sold any other way.

I think we want to make sure that the legislation has to protect the consumer, that we don’t turn around and make it impossible for those excess tickets to be sold at a later time so that they can at least fill the seats in the stadium and get a return for the tickets that are there.

With that, I will have an opportunity to speak to this bill a little later.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member for Willowdale has two minutes for his response.

Mr. David Zimmer: In answer to the member from Halton, who has been grinding on now for a couple of days about why he thinks this legislation is not needed, let me refer once again to the Attorney General’s remarks of October 21, when he spoke on second reading.

The member from Halton said: “There are some across the floor who would argue that stronger enforcement of existing laws should be enough, that the Ontario consumer is already adequately protected.” That’s the position of the member from Halton. In answer to that, the Attorney General said:

“But while ticket scalping has been illegal in Ontario for a long time”—that’s obvious—“the advent of Internet ticket sales in 1996 and the development of software to defeat attempts by ticket agencies to limit Internet sales to a certain number per customer makes enforcing the existing laws extremely difficult. In addition, the maximum fines to deter scalpers have not been enough. We need to do more.”

We need to do more because, as I said in my longer remarks a few minutes ago, it’s a different world today than it was in 1960 and 1967, when we were dealing with mom and pop selling extra tickets outside a local event.

As the Attorney General said in his remarks, since the advent of Internet ticket sales in 1996, and the whole computer revolution and the development of software and going into your computer and buying blocks and blocks of tickets, it’s a whole different order of magnitude.

The world changes, and it’s incumbent upon the government to deal with the circumstances of the day. This legislation does that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 172,

An Act to amend the Ticket Speculation Act. As I start, I have here a printout from the National Post, May 5, 2009. It would have been about the time this bill was introduced, and I find it interesting. It states: “Too little attention was paid last week as Ontario’s Attorney General did what governments do best: pander to public perception. Seems like no issue is too small and no public misconception so stupid or wrong that it cannot be answered with legislation or regulation.” He’s talking about the day that this is introduced.

I can take from that, then, that the author of that in the National Post had read the legislation and come up with—I wouldn’t say “identical,” but somewhat the conclusion I came up with as I was reading the legislation. I wanted to refer to it, if I could. The explanatory note, of course, is always the first place I look when I receive a new piece of legislation, to explain what it is that needs doing and how this bill proposes to do that. I read from the explanatory note:

“The bill amends the Ticket Speculation Act to provide that it is an offence for related primary and secondary sellers to make available for sale in Ontario tickets for admission to the same event. An individual who is convicted of this offence is liable to a maximum fine of $5,000; a corporation is liable to a maximum fine of $50,000. The Attorney General”—and I think this is the interesting part; this is in the explanation—“is given the power to make regulations exempting any person or class of persons from the act and prescribing conditions attaching to an exemption.”

We already have the rules against the reselling of tickets, the scalping outside the venue, and yet it’s not working well enough. Well, I expect that that may have something to do with the fact that it’s not being enforced at all, so we wouldn’t expect it to work really well. We are now, it would appear, applying a piece of legislation to certain groups or types of people that are different from the rest, because it appears the rest is already looked after and, in case we aren’t hitting just the target we want to, we want to give the Attorney General the ability to, by regulation, readjust it to get just the right people we want.

I think the other thing that’s rather interesting and that I have some problems with is the actual wording of the act and how we define what the seller is. From my colleague from Halton, there’s been some discussion about that: how this act is really written to apply to only one individual company and a subsidiary of that company and how that works with the rest of the secondary sellers they work with.

Section 2.1 of the act states, “No primary seller shall make a ticket available for sale for admission to an event in Ontario if a ticket for admission to that same event is or has been made available for sale by a secondary seller who is related to the primary seller.” I’m not sure how that works. How does the secondary seller get to sell the ticket before the primary seller? I think there was a case where that had happened because of a computer glitch, but the truth of the matter is I don’t know why you would have a bill that says the primary seller can’t sell any tickets to a secondary seller.

I guess that would mean that, upon someone who was related to anyone who owned a primary seller’s establishment scalping a ticket to the event, the primary seller could no longer sell all the tickets to that event.

The second one is the prohibition on the secondary seller: “No secondary seller shall make a ticket available for sale for admission to an event in Ontario if a ticket for admission to the same event is or has been made available for sale by a primary seller who is related to the secondary seller.” Again, we run into the same problem, as we know.

We haven’t seen enforcement of the present law. We can have a debate about whether it was from 1910 or 1960 or whenever it was, but I can assure you that the amount of enforcement of that has been somewhat limited. So we have here a new law that, it would appear, isn’t going to be enforced either.

As I was coming here to speak to this bill this morning, I found it rather interesting that just prior to us speaking to this bill, we had two closure motions on two other pieces of legislation. When you cut off debate on a piece of legislation, the assumption is that the government feels that the legislative time that is required to debate it further is going to be too great, based on the importance of the bill and the importance of further discussion. They believe that they’ve heard enough. They’re going to move forward with the bill, get it done and not use more of the House’s time.

Having done that for two bills, one of them being, I believe, a government accountability bill, it would seem to me that it’s hard to understand how the government decided that this bill is the one that requires all this debate, even to the point where I kind of wonder. When this is a two-paragraph bill that seems to direct its enforcement or its discussion towards one individual company, it would seem to me that that could have been put in a bill with something else that would then not require the House to be debating just this bill that, in the end, as the National Post says, is going to do very little in solving a problem that, it appears, the government doesn’t understand.

Yet there have been other bills that have gone before it and that were very large issues that didn’t seem to warrant having a bill of their own. They were snuck into another bill, or put into another bill for debate, along with numerous others, an omnibus bill which, of course, some would call housecleaning. But if they’re major issues, then obviously that’s not housecleaning; it’s a way of quickly getting it through with little debate.

One that I want to just touch on and I want to put on the record: Just a few weeks ago, the government forced through an omnibus bill that included changes to the livestock compensation for farmers. It’s a very important issue to our rural community and to our farmers, but apparently not important enough to have a bill, as we have this bill, and have some fulsome debate on whether they’re doing the right thing.

In that bill, in that part of that one omnibus bill, they took out the compensation for livestock; they took it out of legislation and put it in regulation. They also added it and took it out of a direct payment to the damage, and they put it in—it would be part of the AgriStability program, which of course would then, at the end of the year—if they had got a payout, they’d have to put it in, and that would be deducted from their AgriStability payments. They were also going to pay—they’ve changed the rules so that they don’t pay for the full loss of the value of the animal, only for the market value of the animal if it had been sold as it was the day it was killed.

Another thing, I think, that was very important, as I mentioned, about independent bills and putting in an omnibus bill—five years ago, this government decided that they were going to change the—and the reason this comes up, of course, is that just last week, we had a municipal election. I want to commend and congratulate all the people in Oxford county who put their name forward and also all those who were elected to represent the local municipalities for the next four years.

But I want to point out that the change from three to four years to municipal government elections was not a bill. It was part of an omnibus budget bill, in fact. When we discussed the budget—and the Speaker will be aware that there are a lot of things that warrant a lot of discussion—of course, we didn’t get the opportunity to have any extensive debate on the term of office, and that made a great difference to a lot of people in Ontario. Yet, we didn’t get to discuss that—yet again, too, on the other bills that they put forward that don’t require bills of their own.

I want to point out that in large part, this bill is actually unnecessary. Today, in the province of Ontario, it’s illegal already—and again, I go back to that—to sell tickets above their face value as a reseller. The problem here is not that we don’t have the law; it’s that the province doesn’t enforce it.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Just like cigarettes.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: It’s a similar problem that we’re having with the illegal cigarettes, just as you mentioned, my colleague from Halton. Fifty per cent of the cigarettes sold in this province today, according to the information I have, are being sold illegally. We know that and we know there’s a problem, but the government refuses to address it. The Auditor General in his report said that there is at least half a billion dollars a year of taxes lost because of these illegal sales.

I think, to be honest about it—not that I don’t think we shouldn’t make sure that people are protected in the sale of tickets to special events, but I think it’s also important that we go after the problem of illegal cigarettes. First of all, we have people smoking. The government keeps telling us that a way to reduce smoking is to increase taxes on cigarettes so that people find it more difficult to buy them. That way, we will see a reduction in smoking. But in fact, if they are buying them illegally, which 50% of them now are, then we’re going to see great increases and no monitoring of government.

We’ll see figures coming out of how well we’re doing in smoking cessation, and yet at the same time, smoking is increasing.

I can understand the frustration that people feel when they decide to buy a ticket and they’re told that they can’t buy the ticket for the event at the rate they thought they could, and then they have to go out and pay more money. They can still get a ticket but they have to pay more for it. I can imagine that it’s a little like voting for a government, when they promise they aren’t going to raise your taxes and then turn around right after the election and do exactly that. They told you what they were going to do, and then when they turn around, they don’t.

I imagine it’s like believing the same man when four years later, he says he isn’t going to raise your taxes, and this time, “I really mean it.” That’s what he said. But we all know what happened. We’re being hit with the HST, the tax that increases the cost of hundreds of items for people every day.

I think it’s nice that the members from the other side finally realized that the people of Ontario are not an endless source of money and that they are trying to do something to protect their wallets. But I think they’re looking in the wrong place.

I think the people of Ontario are going to be smart enough to realize that the money they’re losing—the money they’re paying for the extra HST, the money they’re paying from the health tax, the money they’re paying for other taxes that the province keeps putting on them—is a far greater problem, in my community, than the fact that when they want to buy tickets to an event at the Air Canada Centre, they have to pay more for the tickets than they had originally envisioned.

I just want to point out that when Minister Bentley introduced this bill, he said, “Ontarians work hard. They work to support their families and support our economy.” And this is a quote from Hansard. “As we all work our way through these lean economic times, we must be able to count on principles that have carried us through challenging times in the past, and one of those principles is the importance of fair business practices.

“Recently, Ontario consumers have joined the chorus of voices expressing concern and frustration over unfair ticket resale practices in Ontario. Their frustration stems from the concern that companies may make tickets available for sale to popular Ontario events on the primary market, and then, on the secondary market at much higher prices.

“The McGuinty government wants to do something about this, and so today we’re moving forward on our commitment to protect Ontario consumers.”

But just yesterday in this House, we learned about many local electricity distributor companies that have had to attend fundraisers given by the Liberal Party just to be heard by the McGuinty government. I believe that’s wrong. But the reason I put those two together is that I think there is a direct connection. When it was found that the utility companies were putting a lot of money into the government coffers—I shouldn’t say the government coffers; the Liberal Party coffers—and when they were asked about it, they said, “We didn’t know we donated to the Liberal Party.

We were just paying so we could meet with the government members.” If that is what has happened and if that’s what they were led to believe, to me that is far worse than someone who intends to go to an event with the thought that they’re going to pay a certain price and who then finds out, once they’ve decided they want to go to the event, that they have to pay more because the primary tickets that were allotted are gone so they have to buy it from someone else who already owns the ticket. To me, they still have the choice to decide not to go to the event.

But these people here that paid money to go to meet with the government, hopefully to get the ear of the minister as to what they’re going to do to their sector, are now told, “No, no. That money you spent wasn’t for that. In fact, to be truthful, we weren’t even listening when you were there. It was really just a fundraising thing.”

We heard yesterday in the House, in fact, that the leader of the third party had a number of letters from people who had bought those tickets and who said that they had no idea that they were going to a fundraising event and actually contributing—particularly contributing to by-elections that were nowhere near their sphere of governance for that utility. To me, we need legislation to keep that from happening much more than we need this piece of legislation that is not going to have an impact on the industry at all.

Another couple of places where I think we need some control on what government can do is when they introduced the eco fees. Not only was that wrong—and they realized that shortly afterwards, when one of the major chains, Canadian Tire, refused to collect them any more. Then the government changed their mind. But what I find troubling about that is that no one seems to want to talk about those fees that were collected from July 1 to whatever date it was that the government decided not to implement the eco fees. We seem to have forgotten about that.

It seems to me that when I go somewhere and buy something, and then if I don’t get the product, I have a right to my money back. And if I gave more money than I was supposed to pay for that, then I think that I have a right, and consumers have a right, and the people in Oxford county have a right, to get their change back. But nobody seems to talk about that.

I just want to point out, too, that one of the things that I think is important—you may know that I do try and go back to my riding on a regular basis, something like every evening, and I come back here every morning. One of the reasons I do that and the thing I like about that is it gives the person an opportunity to talk to the people in their riding as we’re having these discussions here today.

I can tell you that in the last week or two, or since May, as I go to Tim Hortons to have my coffee—and I’m not sure I want to be that commercial about it; as I go to the coffee shop to have my coffee, when I talk to people, the number one issue that they want this government to deal with is not the issue that is in this bill before us today. There are a lot of things that they think are far more important to deal with than the issue of overpaying for their tickets.

I just want to list a few of them: the ever-increasing cost of hydro; they can’t understand how the government can allow that to happen and, furthermore, they don’t even understand why it’s going up. They want to know why all these extra charges are appearing on their bill to cover the cost of government policies that had been added. Whether they’re the right policies or not is questionable, but the cost of them is added to the hydro bill.

They want to know about the HST and why, all of a sudden, they have to pay HST on the debt retirement charge that the provincial government said years ago shouldn’t have any tax on it. Now, all of a sudden, we have 18% provincial tax on it through the HST.

There’s also the challenge of the fundraising in our schools that they have to worry about, where they have to raise money for things that used to be part of the education system.

The list goes on and on of things the people of Ontario, the people in Oxford county think that we should be debating rather than what we’re doing right here.

I will not be voting for the bill, because I really believe that the bill does absolutely nothing to solve the problem. One of the challenges that you face if you vote for the bill, even if it does nothing, is that the government goes away and the people of Ontario believe that they have solved the problem. The truth of the matter is, if it takes as long for the next review as it has taken for this one, the people of Ontario, by that time, will realize that this bill has done nothing more than the previous legislation for the problem that they’re trying to address.

Thank you very much for allowing me to speak.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): It being 10:15 of the clock, this House stands in recess until 10:30, at which time we will have question period.

The House recessed from 1017 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Steve Clark: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two people from my riding who represent Community and Primary Health Care. I’d like to introduce Tracey Lirette and Jean Perry.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: In the west members’ gallery, we have from the York Region Children’s Aid Society president Rev. M.J. Perry and executive director Patrick Lake.

In the east members’ gallery, from the College of Chiropodists of Ontario: Bob Goldberg, president; Colin McQuistan; Donna Coyne; Esrick Quintyn—all members of council; Felecia Smith, CEO and registrar. From the Ontario Society of Chiropodists: John Infanti, president. From the Ontario Podiatric Medical Association: Bruce Ramsden, president of that organization. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: It’s my pleasure today to introduce visitors from the Katelyn Bedard Bone Marrow Association. Bryan Bedard and Joanne Bedard were parents of young Katelyn. Carolyn Mayea, Annette Martin, Melba Bedard, Rene Bedard, Jackie Leardi, Sadie Carnochan and Andrea Sulyok are here today in support of Bill 80 and for the event that the member for Oakville and I are hosting in room 163, starting at 11 o’clock, to show you how easy it is to donate to bone marrow and stem cell research.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I would like to introduce Mike and Kim Smyth from Oakville. They’re in the west members’ gallery. Unfortunately, their son, David, recently passed away from leukemia while awaiting a stem cell match. They’re here today to spread awareness about the need to grow our bone marrow registry.

The donor clinic is being held in room 163 today. I’d urge all members and staff under the age of 50 to attend the clinic.

Applause.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: I thought that standing ovation was for me, Mr. Speaker. I joke, of course.

I rise today to introduce Colleen Hochgeschurz, mother of page Carina. Today is Carina’s last day as a page, and I want everyone to know that I’m considering hiring her on full time here at Queen’s Park to help me in the future. She has done such a great job.

I also want to introduce my friend Paul Virgin from Almonte, who is here today from my riding to participate in Advocis Day here at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Today we have here students from the public affairs and policy management program at Carleton University, which we know is located in Ottawa Centre. Please welcome Asietu Numekevor, Sheliza Esmail, Kira McClenaghan, Lauren Tarasuk, Garima Talwar and Blair Newbold to Queen’s Park. Welcome.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Today my page, Nicholas Waltenbury, is the lead page. Here to celebrate on his last day are his mom, Dawn, who’s up in the public gallery; his dad, Al, who’s in the members’ gallery; and his brother Spencer, who we seem to have lost but is somewhere in the Legislature.

Mr. Reza Moridi: It’s my pleasure to introduce Ms. Viji Antony, the mother of page Jonathan Antony, in the public gallery. Please welcome Viji.

Hon. John Wilkinson: Today is Advocis Day, and we want to welcome all the members from Advocis.

I do want to pay special tribute to Kris Birchard, who’s here—he’s the immediate past chair of the national board of directors—and also Greg Pollock, who’s the president and CEO of Advocis. I hope that all members will meet with members from Advocis today and, in particular, go to the reception here at Queen’s Park this evening.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I just want to introduce my son Kennedy. We’re a day late for the bring-your-kid-to-work day, but that’s a Duguid thing, I guess.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I want to introduce a very good friend of mine, Kirk Wrinn, who is visiting from Ottawa today for Advocis Day. Kirk, welcome to Queen’s Park again.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I am really delighted to welcome the president of the Canadian Polish Congress, Mr. Jan Cytowski. He’s inviting all the members to the Polish Independence Day celebrations. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Pickering–Scarborough East and page Sanjay Pavone, I’d like to welcome his mother, Dr. Rosemarie Lall, to the public galleries today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

On behalf of the member from Brampton West and page Harnameh Dhawan, we’d like to welcome his class visiting Queen’s Park today from Robert H. Lagerquist Senior Public School in Brampton. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Seated in the Speaker’s gallery, from my riding of Elgin–Middlesex–London, I’d like to welcome the parents of page Bridget Heeman, Florence and Rudy Heeman. As well, if you ever need strawberries and you’re in the London area, make sure you visit Heeman’s—great strawberries. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

We have with us in the Speaker’s gallery today a parliamentary delegation from the assembly of the Republic of Macedonia, led by Assembly President His Excellency Trajko Veljanovski. The delegation is accompanied by Ljubica Damjanovska, consul general of the Republic of Macedonia, Toronto. Please join me in welcoming our guests to the Legislature today. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Acting Premier: Acting Premier, why are emergency patients at Credit Valley Hospital in Mississauga being treated in the hospital’s garage?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: My understanding is that is simply not the case.

Our government has made a number of investments in health care to help reduce wait times in emergency rooms. We have had the opportunity to make investments to reduce wait times, not just in emergency rooms but across a range of surgical procedures as well as across a range of other services that are available to Ontarians.

Two days ago, the Minister of Health informed the province that more than five million Ontarians have electronic health records, which will help with the efficiency of our system.

No doubt more needs to be done, but these investments, these choices, are the right choices for a better health care system for all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: With all due respect to the Acting Premier, it’s obviously not the right choice to be using a garage to treat patients at Credit Valley Hospital. If the minister denies this, I’d suggest that either he or the health minister make a field trip there at once.

We have found out that the Credit Valley Hospital is using its garage as a so-called treatment centre. How do we know this? We were informed by Mississauga families and then we asked. In an email confirming this, the hospital’s chief communication officer tries to boast that they’ve renovated the garage “to include heating and other necessary utilities for patient care,” but photographs show that leaves on the floor of what patients locally will now call the McGuinty Wing hardly show that this is an appropriate place to treat patients.

Minister, I ask you: What makes you think it acceptable to treat Mississauga and local families in a dirty garage?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: As we are redeveloping that hospital, a hospital that needed redevelopment, a number of interim steps have been taken which, as I understand it, have been approved by the board of the hospital and are seen as temporary solutions to overcrowding in the emergency room. The funding that we have approved will help redevelop that hospital and assure those patients who use that hospital that they have the best opportunity and continue to have the best access to care in Ontario.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Hold on a second here, Acting Premier. A few moments ago, you said this wasn’t true; now you’re saying it is a temporary solution. Quite frankly, Mississauga families aren’t going to be impressed to see the Deputy Premier speaking out of both sides of his mouth within two minutes when it comes to patient care in Mississauga.

Yesterday, we demonstrated that about $3.7 billion in McGuinty government waste, like eHealth and the LHINs, could have gone into front-line patient care. Today, we find out that the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. is back up to their old tricks, hiring an untendered consultant for $12,000 a week to be something called a senior financial adviser: yet another scandal and waste at the OLG while Mississauga and area families are being treated in a garage at Credit Valley Hospital.

What happened to your priorities? How can you defend—

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The only one speaking out of both sides of his mouth is the Leader of the Opposition, who wants to cut $3 billion out of health care. He would attempt—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Nepean. The member from Simcoe North. The member from Halton. The member from Renfrew. The member from Halton and the member from Simcoe North again.

Please continue.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Talk about speaking out of both sides of his mouth: This member was part of a government that closed hospitals in Ontario. We’ve opened them. That government didn’t make provision for enough doctors for Ontarians; today, more than one million more Ontarians have access to a doctor. He was part of a government that fired nurses—6,200; we’ve hired 10,000.

There are enormous choices to be made in the provision of health care in this province. We’ve made the investments to build a better system and a stronger system for all Ontarians and undo the damage that that party—

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

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Tim Hudak: My next question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Earlier this week, the Ontario Electrical League attended consultations held by the College of Trades appointment council in Ottawa. Shortly after that, in the media, Pat Dillon, the chair of the appointment council, attacked the OEL for its position on apprenticeship ratios. The Ontario Electrical League has responded by saying, “It is completely unacceptable for a public appointee”—Mr. Dillon—“to smear stakeholder organizations that appear before them.... [He] cannot continue in this position, and we ... call for his resignation.”

Minister, has Mr. Dillon now offered to resign? If not, are you going to hold him accountable?

Hon. John Milloy: I find it interesting that the members across the way can’t take yes for an answer when it comes to the issue of apprenticeship ratios. We have had discussion and debate in this chamber for a number of years about apprenticeship ratios. The government has put together the College of Trades so that they can go out and undertake a wide range of consultations on the issue of apprenticeship ratios. We welcome input from all sides so that they can move forward with a solution that is fair, a solution that makes sense and a solution that is going to help build the apprenticeship system here in the province of Ontario.

I’m proud of the work that’s being undertaken by the College of Trades. They are reaching far and wide. There have been ongoing consultations across the province and we look forward to them coming forward with a fair and reasoned approach.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: No wonder the minister avoided my question—this isn’t about the consultations. It’s about the person you have appointed to head up these consultations, and it certainly appears that the game is fixed.

We know who Pat Dillon is: He’s the head of the so-called Working Families Coalition, an American-style group that colluded with the McGuinty Liberals on $7 million of attack ads against PC candidates in the last two elections. It has become so clear that Mr. Dillon is so much a Liberal partisan and that he wears so many hats that he is not capable of representing the interests of Ontario families at large. His job is to listen to stakeholders like the Ontario Electrical League, to listen to their issues on the apprenticeship ratio. Just because they have views like us—that you need to modernize—Pat Dillon shut them down.

He is not capable of doing his job. He is a Liberal partisan—

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

Hon. John Milloy: Of course we’re aware of Pat Dillon. He was appointed to the WSIB by the Conservative Party when they were in power.

Pat Dillon is part of a group representative of the apprenticeship system and the skilled trades system across this province that has been asked to look at a series of complex issues related to apprenticeships. Let me share with the member who some of the other individuals are. The chair of the group—it’s not Mr. Dillon; the member was wrong when he said that—is Rod Cameron, who’s a retired former dean of technology at Fanshawe College and a motor vehicle mechanic. We also have Mr. Hugh Laird, the executive director of the Interior Systems Contractors Association. We have Gail Smyth, the executive director of Skills Canada–Ontario, who was recently in this Legislature—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Let’s be clear: Pat Dillon chaired the Ottawa session and then was shortly in the media thereafter, attacking one of the very stakeholders appearing before the committee.

What has become clear is that the minister has no intention of firing Mr. Dillon, because you dispatch Mr. Dillon to attack your critics in a partisan manner while you pretend to take the high road. Senior McGuinty Liberals like Don Guy and the member for Vaughan have orchestrated the Working Families Coalition to campaign on your behalf. Quite frankly, Mr. Dillon is so focused on being the Liberal attack dog, he is not capable of doing the job that you’ve given to him. He is clearly in a conflict of interest.

Minister, are you so deep in the pockets of the special interest—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment, please.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Withdraw.

Minister, will you do the right thing? There is a clear conflict of interest. Will you show Mr. Dillon the door today?

Hon. John Milloy: I would point out that Mr. Dillon comes from an organization that represents 150,000 apprentices in the province of Ontario. I have been very proud of our government’s record in terms of building apprenticeship in this province. We want to make sure that we have voices around the table that represent important sectors, and I consider 150,000 apprentices an important sector of this economy.

Let me tell you who else is sitting around the table. I mentioned Gail Smyth, who heads up an organization that reaches out every year to tens of thousands of young people in this province to convince them of the value of skilled trades. I can talk about Al West, vice-president of K.J. Beamish Construction. Al West represents the small business community in this province. I can talk about Norm Wolfson, a partner in—

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

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This is to the Acting Premier. Last year, when British Columbia announced plans to harmonize their sales tax, this government predicted big success for Premier Gordon Campbell and claimed that other provinces would also be following Ontario’s lead. Does the McGuinty government still stand by this assessment?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: This government is committed to creating jobs in Ontario and fostering a climate of growth as we move forward. The leader of the third party may want to ignore the fact that most of the country now is harmonized. There are obviously challenges with this in the sense that we have to help people understand the long-term benefits that have been pointed out by a range of groups.

We’re moving forward with a plan to create jobs. It’s about jobs. It’s about jobs for unemployed auto workers and unemployed steelworkers. It’s about a better future for their children and their grandchildren. Governments take tough and important decisions. These are the right choices for a better future for all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: At this time last year, the McGuinty government predicted Manitoba and PEI would soon follow BC and slap the HST on their residents, but those governments rejected the scheme. This government also predicted that residents in BC and here in Ontario would learn to love the HST. Instead, people are rejecting an unfair scheme that makes their lives much more difficult, tougher and tougher at times when things are very difficult already.

I ask the government one more time: Since they got this so very, very wrong, why are they still so certain that they’re right?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Our government has taken a stand to create jobs. That is the most important thing we can do. The leader of the third party may say what she wants. She may not be prepared to take difficult decisions to help Ontario families get through this. We recognize the importance of ensuring that Ontarians have a more competitive economy. We will continue to work with all Ontarians to build that better economy for a brighter future. It’s about a more competitive tax system. It’s about more investments in our education system. It’s about more spaces in post-secondary education. It’s about a better and more competitive health care system.

All in all, difficult decisions have to be made by governments. We take those decisions and we look forward to having the opportunity to have the people of Ontario have a say in this, as they have up until now, as we build that better future.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The soon-to-be-former Premier Campbell got in trouble because he didn’t listen to the families in his province who were struggling through tough times. Here in Ontario, this government continues to tell struggling families that the HST is somehow going to create 600,000 jobs, but more and more Ontarians continue to get layoff notices right here. They’re told that the HST will save money, but the average family in Ontario is short $800 a year because of the HST. When will this government finally acknowledge that all their HST predictions amount to nothing more than a hill of beans?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: As that member is determined to not be fully candid, as she was earlier this week, in all of these issues, this government is committed to building a stronger economy with more jobs for all Ontarians. We won’t shrink from that responsibility.

I invite her to listen to some of her own supporters and hear what they have to say. Hugh Mackenzie supports the plan. He said, “Ontario’s 2009-10 budget establishes the right direction for the next few years. It provides substantial economic stimulus. It is consistent with the new orthodoxy that relies heavily on governments to help rebuild damaged economies.... It increases support for low-income families and individuals. It modernizes Ontario’s consumption tax.”

These are difficult choices. Premier McGuinty makes difficult choices to build a better future, whether it’s fixing the health care system or building a better education system. That’s what the next election is about. We look forward to that election and the opportunity to take our case to the—

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

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Acting Premier. People across Canada are tired of out-of-touch governments. They are tired of them—tired of arrogant governments as well. They’ve seen friends and family members lose jobs all too often. They see that they’re one paycheque away from losing the house or losing the car or having their hydro cut off.

When they look to their government, they see yet another consultant earning $12,000 a week. They see public money flowing to the Liberal Party and empty promises about half a million jobs that are somehow expected to be created.

We’ve been putting forward a very simple proposal to actually make life easier for the people of this province. Why does this government stubbornly refuse to take the HST off of hydro?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: This government has cut taxes for all Ontarians. This government has provided the most generous sales tax credit in the country. This government has taken the funds of $4 billion from the federal government, and it is giving it back to the people of Ontario to help us readjust to this.

This government is about creating jobs. It’s about making sure that we have a brighter future for our children. We provided the northern Ontario credit and for industry an industrial energy policy. We provided a property tax credit, an energy credit for seniors, which that member and her party voted against.

We’ve brought forward the right package of changes to help build a stronger economy and a brighter future for Ontarians as we come out of this very, very difficult economic period.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Michelle Snow from Thornton says it better than I ever could. She writes: “Dalton McGuinty needs to know”—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just remind the honourable member that, even though she’s quoting, she should use a title.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —“that Ontario families are still struggling....

“With skyrocketing hydro, it is making it tough for families to live with the basic necessities of life—slap the unnecessary HST on to that, and surviving has become that much tougher.”

Instead of telling women like Michelle that they’re wrong and that Premier McGuinty knows better, why doesn’t the government simply listen and take the HST off of Michelle’s hydro bills and everyone else’s?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Let me just tell the member opposite what Richard Koroscil says; he’s from Hamilton: “At the end of the day, it’s big-time savings for businesses and ultimately the consumer. We recognize this is a big challenge and a big step forward in how we do business, but it’s an important step and probably one of the most important steps we’ve made over the last 10 to 15 years.”

Here’s what John Voortman, an entrepreneur in the Leader of the Opposition’s riding, says: “The HST will benefit us in the building of our plant and in buying our equipment. The money we’ll be saving will enable us to do more business and hire more employees.”

This is all about making decisions; it’s all about leadership. It’s not about pandering. It’s about a brighter future. It’s about more jobs. It’s about better jobs for all Ontarians as we move forward in the 21st century.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Ontario’s Premier McGuinty seems to be the only Premier left who hasn’t got the message yet. People are struggling and they’re tired of being ignored.

Maureen Ross writes this: “I just don’t think anyone is listening. I would be really happy to think someone cared about the working person.”

What will it take to get the McGuinty Liberals to care?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Well, I would rely on a fellow named Michael Oliphant, from the Daily Bread Food Bank, who says, “The sales tax credit is a sensible, forward-looking way to deal with (single sales tax) and could become an important long-term piece of the economic security puzzle for poor people in the future.”

You know, there is another government in the land that has an HST. That’s the government of Nova Scotia, an NDP government. Not only did they not get rid of it, not only did they not keep their commitment to take it off of energy; they raised the tax by two percentage points.

Governments have difficult choices to make. This government, this party and our leader are prepared to take our case to the people of Ontario: a case for building jobs, better education, better schools, cleaner air and a healthier future for all Ontarians.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, yesterday in Hong Kong, the Premier announced a new $30-million program to award full academic scholarships worth as much as $40,000 each per year to international students. My question is simple: Why is the Premier using tuition dollars from Ontario students and tax dollars from Ontario families to put people who don’t even live in this province through university?

Hon. John Milloy: I think all of us should welcome the news yesterday that the Premier announced 75 scholarships—I think the honourable member’s math is a little wrong—at $40,000 a year to attract the best and the brightest Ph.D. students from around the world to Ontario. As part of our Open Ontario plan—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. Members from Oxford, Halton, Nepean–Carleton.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): And Halton again and Renfrew.

Interjections.

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

Please continue.

Hon. John Milloy: I cannot believe the gall of the party over there. I heard a member shout, “When are you going to stand up for Ontario?” We have one of the best post-secondary education systems in the world. We want to strengthen that system by attracting the best and the brightest. We want to open our province to Ph.D. students from across the world, so that they can come to Ontario, they can enhance our system and they can serve as a magnet to draw more international students here and make sure that we continue to have the best—

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: I say to the minister, it’s clear that Premier McGuinty’s priorities are not the priorities of Ontario families. Ontario families are worried about the cost of tuition. They’re worried about whether their children can get into university, whether there are enough spaces, and they’re worried about where they’re going to find the money to get their children through university.

Premier McGuinty’s priorities are to give $40,000 a year for scholarships to foreign students while Ontario students are leaving school with tens of thousands of dollars of debt to pay back. Will the minister commit to scrapping this program and redirect the money to Ontario students who are having to find the money to pay their own way through school?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I just say to the honourable members, perhaps they had a little too much sugar on their Heeman’s berries this morning.

Minister?

Hon. John Milloy: The nerve of that member. We are a government which has introduced changes to bring about the most generous—

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. John Milloy: We’ve put in place the most generous student assistance program in the country. That member was part of a government which cut student aid, which saw tuition go through the roof and which cut funding to our colleges and universities.

Do you know what the Council of Ontario Universities is saying about today’s announcement? They are saying, “Ontario’s productivity and competitiveness in the 21st century depend on a highly skilled and culturally diverse workforce, to which these scholarships for graduate students will contribute.”

We will be attracting the best and the brightest to our province. All they want to do is take this province backward.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Minister of Energy. The cost of nuclear power is skyrocketing, putting more pressure on struggling ratepayers. The refurbishment of the Bruce A nuclear reactor is $2 billion over budget. The Ontario Clean Air Alliance says that the cost of building Darlington could be as high as $35 billion. The anticipated cost of building a new reactor at Darlington was so high that the government delayed the project.

Why won’t the government consider allowing more affordable green energy to replace the Pickering nuclear station when it closes in 2020, instead of building expensive new nuclear reactors?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We’re the government that’s leading the world in attracting renewable energy to Ontario. On top of that, we’re doing it over the daily objections of his leader, who stands in her place every single day opposing the investments we’re making in renewable energy, opposing the investments we’re making in conservation and, yes, opposing the investments we’re making in adding 8,000 new megawatts of power to our system. That’s helping us as we adjust to some of the challenges when it comes to renewing our energy infrastructure, giving us more time to make those adjustments.

There’s a very serious wedge developing between that leader and her critic. That leader stands up day after day opposing renewable energy; that critic stands up in his place saying we should do more.

We’re leading the world when it comes to attracting new renewable energy to this province, and we’re very proud of that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: This minister has missed a career in stand-up and really has to go do it.

What the NDP wants is a discussion of the cost of nuclear power and the alternatives. This fall, the minister launched what he called a public consultation about the future mix of electricity in Ontario, but immediately said that nuclear power was not negotiable.

Why won’t the government at least permit an independent review of the nuclear cost estimates and the green power alternatives?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I appreciate the member’s comments about my sense of humour, but at the same time, I really have to let the member opposite and his party know: There is no such thing as an energy fairy in the province of Ontario. I think they still believe that there is. I think they still believe that somehow an energy fairy is going to come down and provide us with the baseload capacity that we need to provide the backbone of our energy system that nuclear is.

Nuclear power is an important part of the backbone of our energy system. It’s part of our baseload capacity. It’s clean. It’s affordable. It’s reliable. Any system of energy in this province, other than in the make-believe world of the NDP, would require further investments in nuclear to ensure that we’re renewing our aging infrastructure, to ensure that we move forward with the purchase of two new renewables, as part of a very vibrant mix that includes renewables, that includes other sources of clean power, that includes a—

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

ROAD SAFETY

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. My constituents in Oak Ridges–Markham remain very concerned about road safety, especially as we get closer to the holiday season. We all know that drinking and driving is a deadly combination.

I attended the 2010 provincial launch of Operation Red Nose, held at Queen’s Park yesterday, like many of my colleagues. This event was launched in partnership with the Ontario Safety League and the Insurance Bureau of Canada. Operation Red Nose is a free, confidential designated-driver service where a team of dedicated volunteers drive an individual home if that person thinks they cannot drive themselves. This initiative is certainly an important one, but it is not universally available. Could the minister tell us what else we are doing in Ontario to combat drunk driving?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I thank the member for Oak Ridges–Markham for the question, and I especially want to thank the Ontario Safety League, the Insurance Bureau of Canada and the thousands of volunteers who make Operation Red Nose work. I see this campaign as part of a whole strategy to fight drinking and driving. We all know that drinking and driving is unacceptable.

In August, we brought into effect the rule that all drivers 21 years of age and under cannot have any blood alcohol in their systems. All novice drivers in the graduated licensing system will face escalating sanctions for repeat violations under their graduated licence conditions. We also introduced the ignition interlock program for drivers convicted of an impaired driving offence for the first time, and we know that that ignition interlock system will help change behaviour. That’s all in the aid of fighting drinking and driving.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: You and I both know that driving while under the influence of alcohol is a crime. It is an irresponsible and dangerous act that can result in fatalities. Each holiday season there are preventable deaths. We must do everything we can to reduce deaths and injuries on Ontario’s roads. I know road safety is an important mission for this government and, in fact, Ontario has among the safest roads in North America.

At the Operation Red Nose launch, their message was that we cannot accept the status quo. We must continue to improve road safety in Ontario through public education and safety awareness all year long, but especially during the holiday season. Could the minister explain what this government is doing to stop and prevent drinking and driving during the holiday season?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Thank you very much; it’s a great question.

I was there yesterday with some colleagues from the Legislature, at their press conference, and I want to commend the Ontario Safety League and the Insurance Bureau of Canada for the launch of what they call the Operation Red Nose campaign. These organizations deserve commendation. Thousands of volunteers have dedicated countless hours to make this program a success.

Operation Red Nose is a volunteer driving service provided during the holiday season to any partygoer who has been drinking or who does not feel fit to drive their own vehicle. Donations the volunteers receive go to support youth and amateur sports programs across Ontario. Last year, more than 5,340 Ontarians relied on this program.

Our government continues to fight against drinking and driving. Since 2008, Ontario has doubled its support for local police officers who perform RIDE checks. There’s really no—

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

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister for Government Services: In the coming constituency week, members will be taking

part in Remembrance Day ceremonies honouring those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for the freedoms that we enjoy here. Thanks to a resolution by the member for Simcoe North, military families receive a portion of the sale for each “support our troops” licence plate that is purchased. Since these plates were introduced, the price of the regular plates has increased by $5 and personalized plates by $22. Can the minister tell us why all of that increase in what Ontarians pay for these designated plates is now being pocketed by the government of Ontario and is not being passed on to the military families?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Let me say this: We are very proud of the work that our Canadian Forces do, and anything that we can do to recognize their work we are always prepared to do.

I want to tell you that when I became the Minister of Transportation—there was some work done by the members on the other side, but we were the first government to actually introduce the veterans’ plates. We also introduced the yellow licence plate sticker. Then, this summer, I actually went to Petawawa and we opened a ServiceOntario centre there as well, so we have done a lot.

The work that we have done with regard to the yellow ribbon licence plates is very well recognized by the Canadian Forces Personnel Assistance Fund. When I was in Petawawa actually, people came to me, unsolicited, and they told me they very well appreciate the contribution that we are making towards these licence plates.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Not my question, and certainly not the answer to my question.

Ontario families are willing to pay the additional fee for these plates because they believe that the additional contribution will go to veterans and military families. In fact, the government’s take for the HST grab on these plates is twice what military families receive on the regular plates and five times more than what they receive on personalized plates.

The finance minister recently committed to refund the HST on poppies. That was the right thing to do. My question now is: Will the Minister of Finance turn over the HST Ontarians pay for “support our troops” plates so that those funds can be passed on to veterans and military families?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I will pass this question to the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Those funds go to invest in hospitals and long-term-care facilities. Those funds are important to the future of Ontario and for our veterans and their families.

We were pleased to be able to remove the HST from poppies and to persuade the federal government of the importance of that. That was the right and appropriate thing to do in the circumstances.

As when we created the Highway of Heroes, this government will continue to work with veterans, with our troops in Afghanistan and with all Canadians. We join all Canadians in saluting the heroism and valour of our troops, both present and past.

POWER PLANT

Mr. Peter Tabuns: For the Minister of Energy: When the Liberals proposed the Oakville gas-fired power plant, the NDP said that this plant wasn’t necessary. At that time, the Minister of Energy made an argument along the lines of, “The energy fairy says we don’t need a plant here.” The energy fairy has landed. The energy fairy is bringing a big bill.

TransCanada announced that they have “commenced negotiations with the OPA on a settlement which would terminate the contract and compensate TransCanada for the economic consequences associated....”

Will the minister reveal to Ontario families how big a bill they’re stuck with?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m very pleased that this government was able to announce, not long ago, to the people of Oakville that we would no longer need to move forward with this gas plant. A lot of that came about as a result of the work of our good friend the member from Oakville, who worked very hard on that file.

But it also came about because of the hard work done by this government over the last seven years that has created 8,000 new megawatts of power, a 20% increase in the power capacity of this province. That is what enabled us to have some more flexibility. That is what enabled us to move towards a transmission solution for the Oakville area and the southwest GTA rather than have to pursue a 950-megawatt gas plant.

I’ll speak more in the supplementary about the discussions going on with TransCanada, but this is a good-news story for the people of—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: You know, when you bungle something, when you don’t listen to advice and you incur a liability for the people of Ontario, that’s not a good-news story.

Right at the beginning, the NDP said this plant was not needed. You didn’t have to be a genius to figure that out. The reality is that they went ahead with a mistake. They have incurred a liability. The ratepayers of this province are going to pay for it. What is this bungle going to cost us?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The NDP clearly don’t think anything is needed when it comes to power. They don’t support nuclear. They clearly no longer support renewable energy. Although I know the critic supports it, it’s his leader who stands up day after day and opposes it. They don’t support our investments in conservation. They don’t support the efforts we’re making to rebuild the energy generation in this province.

We’re building a stronger, more reliable and cleaner system of energy. There was a time when the NDP may have supported that, but they apparently have lost their principles. Instead of being in favour of cleaner air and a brighter future for our kids and grandkids, they’re standing clearly in the way of that. Man, they’ve moved a long way from their previous positions.

The leader and the critic—I can see that wedge growing wider and wider every time each one of them stands up in this House and takes an opposite tack on where we should be going with—

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

WIND TURBINES

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Climate change is something every government must deal with. Ontario is a world leader. The McGuinty government has made great progress by shutting down dirty coal-fired plants, investing in transit and protecting green space.

Green energy is becoming a larger and larger share of our energy mix, and while my constituents know that harnessing the power of the wind is a key renewable, they are also concerned by misinformation and half-truths being spread about the approval process.

Ontarians want to know if it’s true that once an energy company announces a new project, the public has no say?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my colleague for the question, because nothing could be further from the truth. Our renewable energy approvals process at our ministry mandates a transparent, open and predictable process for people, municipalities and proponents.

I know that some municipalities have concerns about proposed projects, and I want to be very clear: My ministry views municipal consultation as essential to this entire process. That’s why it’s built right into the process. That’s why it is the law under the Green Energy Act.

Any company that wants to build a wind project must sit down with the municipality to hear any legitimate concerns. They must hold public meetings and they must attempt to address any outstanding issues in order for them to have a complete application. If they don’t put a complete application in front of my ministry, they will not receive an approval, and if they don’t receive an approval from my ministry, it cannot be built.

When it comes down to this, we have final say, but we will say no unless the public and municipalities are given their say. That’s the law.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Phil McNeely: I know my constituents and Ontarians will be pleased to hear you correct that misconception. I’m also glad to hear you confirm there are clear setbacks and a clear process for municipal consultation, but, Minister, I am also hearing concerns that you are changing the process. Are you giving more power to companies or taking away the power of landowners to make decisions about their property? Are you making changes to the way the process works?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to be very clear. We are currently consulting with the public by getting feedback through the environmental registry on some amendments to the regulations that would clarify our intentions and our rules. We are the first in North America to have this process.

These rules were put in place to protect human health. We established a tough setback of at least 550 metres from what is known as a receptor. So we’re not changing policy direction and we’re not changing the way the approvals process works. We based our rules around the distance to a receptor, which means—and I want to be clear—a place where people live, sleep or go to school. The amendments make it clear that we do not consider a tool shed or a hunting cabin a receptor. It is where people live, sleep and go to school. That’s why we’re proposing even greater clarity through these amendments.

I know what Ontarians want. They want clean air to breathe. Science is clear that dirty coal—

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

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Energy. It’s just a very straightforward question. When will your long-term energy plan be going before cabinet for approval?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Whenever a member gets up and says, “This is a very straightforward question,” you can rest assured that it really is never that way.

I’m looking very, very forward to moving forward with our long-term energy plan. As I said to this Legislature and as I said outside of this Legislature, this long-term energy plan will be out before the end of the year. We’re hoping it’ll be sooner rather than later.

We’ve been working very, very hard. We’ve been talking to Ontarians. We’ve been talking to industry. We’ve been talking to the environmentalists. We’ve been talking to people right across this province, because Ontario needs the certainty that our long-term energy plan is going to provide.

Seven years ago, we didn’t have that. Seven years ago, there was no such thing as energy planning in this province. Seven years ago, energy planning consisted of day-to-day—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The members from Halton and Simcoe North.

Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I heard a lot of words; I didn’t get an answer there.

I have another very straightforward question for the minister. He did so well on the first one, you know? How much more do you plan to spend on advertising to promote Premier McGuinty and George Smitherman’s Green Energy Act?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Why didn’t it tie into your first question?

Mr. John Yakabuski: We asked them about the plan. How much they’re going to spend on advertising the plan as it moves forward would be very pertinent as part of the supplementary.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I can tell you one thing: I know why the Conservatives would not want the public to know a lot about what’s going on with green energy in this province. They would not want the public to know that they stand steadfast against the 50,000 clean energy jobs we’re creating. They don’t want the people of Ontario to know that. They don’t want the people of Ontario to know—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Take this as a warning, to the member for Simcoe North.

Please continue, Minister.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member asks where they are. I know that some of the members know because they join us when we cut the ribbons. I remember when I was in Sarnia–Lambton not long ago. The member from Sarnia joined me. In fact, I’ve got a picture. I’m not going to show it because that would be a prop, but I’ll certainly send it over to the leader of the third party. While we’re working hard to create jobs in this province and their leader gets up steadfastly opposing it, his members are spreading out all over this province celebrating the jobs that we’re creating in those very communities that many of his members represent.

These are important—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I appreciate the efforts of the armchair Speaker from Renfrew.

New question.

VETERANS’ LICENCE PLATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. We will mark Remembrance Day a week from today. One way that Ontario remembers and honours our veterans each and every year is through the issuance of poppy-adorned licence plates. But the Ontario government does not make poppy plates for motorcycles. In British Columbia, they’ve been able to do that; they’ve been available since 2004. In Quebec, they’ve been available since about last year.

My question is: Will the McGuinty government make the motorcycle poppy plates available here in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I thank the member opposite for the timely question. I have heard about this issue from other people in the province. I want to put this in context, because we’re the government that introduced the poppy licence plates in Ontario; we’re the government that designated the Highway of Heroes. I think it’s pretty clear that we understand it’s important that we honour our veterans.

I want to say to the member opposite that I am working with the Minister of Government Services. We think this is a good idea and we would like to move forward with it. We’ve asked both of our staffs to come forward and tell us not whether we do it but how we do it. We’re going to be working with them and hope to announce soon.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The follow-up to the question is in the words of Ken Blanchard, a veteran and sergeant-at-arms for the Royal Canadian Legion, branch 4, in Welland, who is one of many veterans asking this government to act soon to make the poppy plates available for motorcycles. He says, “There have been lots of lives lost and we don’t want people forgetting why they’re doing what they’re doing.”

I thank the minister for her initial response. Will the minister now tell Mr. Blanchard and other veterans how soon they will be able to have access to poppy plates for their motorcycles?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think I made it clear that we will move as quickly as we can. There is a series of approvals that we have to go through, but I think we agree that it’s an important thing to do.

I can’t promise that we’ll be able to do this for this November 11, but it would be my sincere hope that before next November 11 these licence plates would be available.

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE BOARD

Mr. Charles Sousa: My question is to the Minister of Labour. My constituents and local businesses have asked me about recent changes to the WSIB. They know that the WSIB has a plan to reduce their unfunded liability, which is similar to six other jurisdictions in Canada. But can you tell the House how this will improve services for employers and workers? Workers, their families and businesses need to know that they will be protected.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I want to thank the member. The member is quite right that the WSIB does have a prudent plan to retire the unfunded liability. This is about protecting workers, making sure that we’re building and bringing security and sustainability to their insurance system. This is something that no other government has done in the past.

We appointed David Marshall, a former Auditor General, as the new president and CEO of the WSIB this past January. Mr. Marshall has been working on a plan to ensure that the WSIB is on a firm financial footing. Also, there is a funding review with stakeholders and a consultation that’s being led by Professor Harry Arthurs. This consultation is meeting with labour groups and employers; and I know that leaders of both opposition parties have been contacted through a letter to participate in this consultation. These consultations will be valuable toward the full funding of the system.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Charles Sousa: The WSIB has served our workers and employers and employees for over 100 years, and the extent of their unfunded liability has been severely impacted by the recent economic downturn. The WSIB requires long-term sustainability. Can you elaborate on the funding review and what this government is going to do to ensure that employers and workers are covered by a secure and stable insurance system?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Again, I thank the member. The funding review, as the member mentioned, is going to allow the stakeholders to assist the WSIB in putting together this strategic plan to address its financial sustainability. We’ve asked Professor Arthurs specifically to engage on what should be replaced. One thing is that the model is the Friedland formula; it’s called the F-word by injured workers. It was brought in by the NDP; it became more regressive under the Conservatives. This government needs to get rid of that.

The government is also intending to introduce legislation to support the outcomes of the funding review and further strengthen the independence of the WSIB as an arm’s-length agency.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Energy, and it’s very straightforward. Is the minister refusing to make the Samsung deal public because he does not want Ontarians to know its price?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Under freedom of information, that contract has already been released to other parties, so it has indeed been made public.

But let me talk a little bit about what the Samsung agreement achieves. It is a huge, $7-billion investment, creating 7,000 jobs. Ironically, it wasn’t long ago that I was out in the Haldimand–Norfolk area, where we were all celebrating together with Six Nations and the community at large the creation of a green energy hub. And guess who joined us in celebrating these 12,000 jobs that the Samsung agreement is going to bring? The member from Haldimand-Norfolk.

I won’t show it but I do have with me here—I’d ask you to pass it over—a newspaper picture of all of us together, arm in arm, celebrating what our Green Energy Act is doing in the Haldimand–Norfolk area. We’re creating jobs and we’re proud of it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: The McGuinty Liberals have alleged that the Samsung deal will create 16,000 jobs and that the Green Energy Act will create 50,000 jobs. Despite the big talk, you have little more than announcements; and your track record on creating these jobs has been, to say the least, underwhelming. Are you refusing to back up your claims because so few jobs were actually created in the year and a half since the Green Energy Act came into force?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I invite the member to come out with me to Windsor and talk to the 600 families who are getting jobs out in Windsor. I invite the member to join me in Guelph, where 800 jobs are being created. I ask the member to join me in Kingston, where 1,200 jobs are being created. How about Oakville, 200 jobs; how about Welland, 1,000 jobs; how about London, 300 jobs? Or why don’t we all go together to Simcoe, Lanark, Middlesex, Oxford and the united counties of Leeds and Grenville, 2,500 jobs?

We are creating jobs right across this province, in ridings that they represent, in ridings that we represent, in ridings that the third party represents. We’re building a strong, clean energy economy here in Ontario. We’re leading the world when it comes to attracting investment, we’re leading the world when it comes to creating jobs and we’re leading the world when it comes to cleaning our environment and cleaning the air that we and our children have to breathe, something all Ontarians—

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

ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, in northern Ontario, the MNR is setting aside vast areas of crown land for tourist outfitters. The greater issue is the limited access trad