E002 - Wed 1 Oct 2014 / Mer 1er oct 2014



Wednesday 1 October 2014 Mercredi 1er octobre 2014

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport

The committee met at 0900 in room 151.

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): A call to order. We’re here to resume the consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. There is a total of one hour and 40 minutes remaining.

When committee was adjourned the official opposition had completed its rotation, so we’ll start this morning with the third party for 20 minutes. Mr. Miller?

Mr. Paul Miller: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, everybody. Everybody’s going to be nice today? Everybody’s happy?

Interjection: Be happy; set the tone early.

Mr. Paul Miller: That’s good.

Well, Minister, we have a couple of questions for you. Yesterday we talked about the Pan Am committee secretariat and how it did not meet its sponsorship targets, which resulted in your $74-million increase of funds for the games because of that. And we mentioned Louise Lutgens, then responsible for external affairs and outreach, who since 2011 has received at least $500,000 in compensation and severance, having been let go in March. Why were the legal costs paid to Ms. Lutgens and the other executives when they were let go? Why were their legal costs paid?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Thank you for the question; I’ll turn it over to the deputy on that issue.

Mr. Steven Davidson: Sure. Just off the top, two points of clarification: What we’re talking about is staff within TO2015, not the secretariat. The secretariat is the little branch within the government that oversees the government’s role.

Mr. Paul Miller: That’s fine, but as I stated yesterday, it’s all taxpayers’ money.

Mr. Steven Davidson: Right, but the secretariat is Ontario government employees and these are TO2015 employees.

Mr. Paul Miller: You can call it whatever you like.

Mr. Steven Davidson: That’s just point number 1.

Point number 2: Louise Lutgens was not responsible for sponsorship. That was under a different senior vice-president, Kathy Henderson, who is still there. So the achievement or non-achievement on sponsorship was irrelevant to Louise’s situation. Those are just two points of clarification.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’m not really concerned about that; more about the money.

Mr. Steven Davidson: I’m not an expert in HR but my experience is that it is quite standard that in negotiating a severance package there be an allocation toward the individual’s legal costs, that that’s common across employers in Ontario.

Mr. Paul Miller: With all due respect, it may be standard with government contracts but in the private sector that doesn’t happen very often. The $500,000 should be for completion of her job. She was let go a year early on her job; she got this compensation for not completing. My understanding is that the original contracts were to stay a year after, until everything was done, settled, straightened out and transformed over to the communities—keep things going. She didn’t make it, and Mr. Troop and a few others didn’t make it, yet they still got paid. My problem is, who are the people that are negotiating these contracts with these people at the initial outset? Who is doing this and agreeing to these enormous payouts? Do you realize that that’s two years’ pay for the Premier or more, for a buyout? That’s ridiculous.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I think your number is off. Maybe it’s the year pay plus the severance. I have a different number here, and I have a number for the legal fees.

As the new minister responsible for this file, I had an opportunity early in being appointed to the position to reach out to the chair and ask him to stop the practice of bonuses, and they’ve complied. They’ve decided that this is something that they—well, not “complied,” but they took on the request, and they’ve moved forward with it as a board motion. I think it’s a reflection of some of the frustration that you have towards that type of cash being presented to different individuals at TO2015.

It also led to—there were many reasons why we pushed forward for a leadership change. I think with a new chair there, David Peterson, and of course a new CEO, Saäd Rafi, we feel quite confident that we’re in good hands and they’ll be able to deliver a responsible set of games.

Mr. Paul Miller: Okay, Minister, I understand that part of it, but what I’m saying is, this money that was paid out, which should have been for a job completed at the end of their year that they were supposed to stay extra—this is money that they were given and they didn’t complete their mandate. They did not finish their job. I don’t know any place in the world where you get money and you don’t complete your work.

And this is just two, Minister. There’s probably many more that have signed contracts, 60-plus that have signed contracts that are still out there, previous to your new agreement you had with TO2015. That’s understandable, but they have the ones that are previous to that. That is going to be millions more, millions you’re going to have to pay in compensation when the games are—either they get let go early or at the end of the situation, because you’re not going to be able to change the contracts you’ve already signed with those people. Oh, you’re saying you’ve stopped it for any new hirees. Well, there isn’t going to be that much. Maybe one or two people may change positions. So really, with all due respect, it’s useless, because you’ve still got all those other people that were originally there with the contracts they signed originally. And if you don’t pay them, you’re going to be in court, and they’re going to get their money from the government, because you signed a contract. So I’m very concerned about—your movement was good; what you did was good, to try and stop any further abuses, but it’s still there.

What amazes me, when this all transpired, was that the ministry is supposed to be working with Infrastructure Ontario, with TO2015. You’re supposed to be overseeing it. You even stated to me yesterday that you had two people on the board and the feds had a couple of people on the board. They were there when all this was done. They voted on it. Ian Troop voted on his own package. They were all there. All the financial was there. It was all there and done. You guys had people there watching it, and you let it go through. And now you’re saying, “Okay, well, I’ve stopped it now,” but we’ve got a lot of collateral damage and money that’s going to have to be paid out to these people. Am I incorrect?

Hon. Michael Coteau: What we’ve done—the chair has changed. Our two provincial appointees have changed. We have a new leadership when it comes to the provincial appointees. We, as a province, have influence on roughly one third of the board. The federal government has a—

Mr. Steven Davidson: A quarter of the board.

Hon. Michael Coteau: A quarter of the board.

Mr. Steven Davidson: Three of twelve.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Okay, three of twelve.

Mr. Paul Miller: So they agreed to this mess.

Hon. Michael Coteau: The federal government has three appointees, three of twelve.

Mr. Paul Miller: So they were all there.

Hon. Michael Coteau: The municipal government has three of twelve—


Hon. Michael Coteau: One, and the rest is from the organizing committee of—

Mr. Steven Davidson: COC, Canadian Olympic Committee, Canadian Paralympic Committee.

Mr. Paul Miller: My question for the deputy minister would be, did they all agree to this? They must have.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Here’s the thing: 25% of the board representation is made up of the province, and roughly one third of the operational cost is put in by the government. We’re part of a larger team—

Mr. Paul Miller: It looks like the team agreed to it.


Hon. Michael Coteau: —and what we did was, we have taken proactive steps to put in a new series of—

Mr. Paul Miller: You put another team in.

Hon. Michael Coteau: —a new leadership under the chair and the CEO. We’re very confident that they’ll be able to move these games forward to ensure success for Ontario.

Mr. Paul Miller: Well, that’s very fine. You still haven’t answered the question. Did they make the decision originally to give these payouts? Severance packages and bonuses were all voted on by people at TO2015—Mr. Troop and his group. You had people sitting there; the feds had people sitting there. You haven’t answered my question. Did they vote in favour of all these little gifts?

Hon. Michael Coteau: None of the three board members that are currently on the board were there when any of these contracts were put in place.

Mr. Paul Miller: Well, who was there? Who agreed to it?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Other members of the board.

Mr. Paul Miller: So there were other people, then. If those three weren’t there, there were another three.

Hon. Michael Coteau: TO2015 is made up of representation from the federal government, provincial government, municipal government and other members, and we have a stake in it as a province. But this is a partnership between the federal government, the provincial government and 16 municipal governments, and we have influence, obviously, by appointing the chair—

Mr. Paul Miller: Trust me, Minister. If you guys were my partners, you’d all be fired, with what’s going on with this nonsense.

I’ll move on to a new question. What are the current positions of the 50 temporary foreign workers that we talked about yesterday and how are they being used in the games?

Hon. Michael Coteau: The deputy has some more details, and he’ll go through some of those positions.

Mr. Steven Davidson: I would just start by saying, and I said yesterday, that TO2015 has certainly advised us that they take every action they can to hire Ontario/Canadian employees.

A couple of things that are particular about their organization: It’s a temporary organization and it has hard deadlines, and they have some very specific needs. For some positions, they require the individuals to be trilingual—French, English and Spanish. There is a small pool of Canadians with experience in large, international, multi-sport games.

That said, the positions that they have recruited for, under meeting all of the federal requirements, which are fairly extensive—posting of all positions for a minimum of four weeks, advertising positions on multiple national job boards, etc. Meeting all of those, they have recruited for director of operations, opening and closing ceremonies; director of international relations; and NOC/NPC services.

Mr. Paul Miller: Can I ask you a question, Deputy Minister? Were they hired for their linguistic abilities or were they hired to be interpreters? Were the jobs posted in Ontario for these positions? Because I know a lot of people who can speak Spanish in Ontario.

Mr. Steven Davidson: The first one I mentioned, the opening and closing ceremonies: They launched the job search in April 2013; it wasn’t filled until October. No qualified Canadians were available who were willing to relocate to Toronto, so they hired an American who had left the Sochi 2014 winter games early. He has ceremonies experience at multiple games, including Guadalajara, Pan/Parapan Am Games, Sochi, Atlanta, as well as—

Mr. Paul Miller: Can I ask you a question? What would be the wage of that person, roughly?

Mr. Steven Davidson: I don’t know.

Mr. Paul Miller: You mean to tell me there was nobody in Ontario who would be willing to do that job? You had to go to the States to get somebody—or other places.

Mr. Steven Davidson: These are TO2015 positions—

Mr. Paul Miller: Oh, I forgot. That’s that other group that you guys have nothing to do with. Okay.

Mr. Steven Davidson: —so TO2015 is the employer. This is information that we have received from TO2015. These are not government employees.

Hon. Michael Coteau: In addition to that, there is a process that’s put in place. You can’t just go out there and hire someone from overseas to bring them in to work. What you have to do is advertise here in Ontario, and there’s a process that’s outlined by the federal government. There’s an analysis that’s done; there’s a certain timeline. If you cannot find the right qualified person—it’s an assessment process that takes place—then you can actually proceed. None of these positions happen without going through federal regulation.

Mr. Paul Miller: So you’re telling me that all of these positions that I’ve mentioned were posted in Ontario—

Hon. Michael Coteau: There is a process. The temporary foreign worker piece: Yes, you have to advertise. There’s a process that’s put in place.

Mr. Paul Miller: Okay, next question: How have you ensured that the public will know the truth and complete costs of the games if, for example, expenditures associated with the Pan Am Games do not have a separate line item or are buried in the estimate books of the ministry or ministries?

Here’s one maybe you could explain from your ministry: page 57, under “Sports, Recreation and Community Programs, Pan Am Games,” there are no estimates for 2014-15 or 2013-14, but under “Interim Actuals, 2013-14,” there is nearly $3 million listed—for what?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Can you repeat the question?

Mr. Paul Miller: Yes, I can. On page 57, under “Sports, Recreation and Community Programs, Pan Am Games,” there are no estimates for 2014-15 or 2013-14, but under “Interim Actuals, 2013-14,” there are nearly $3 million. What’s that for?

Mr. Steven Davidson: The estimates for the Pan Am Games are distributed across the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, Pan/Parapan Am Games Secretariat, the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Community Safety, as responsibility is spread across. So what you’re looking at here: $3 million in the sport and recreation division within the ministry is the portion of the $42-million promotion, celebration and legacy strategy that the government announced two summers ago, which is made up of initiatives being delivered by a number of ministries. I believe this is the Pan Am/Parapan Am Kids Program, which is being delivered out of the sport and recreation division, so that shows there. I’ll just stand to be corrected if it’s—yes, that is it. So you might see a similar allocation in another ministry that is contributing an initiative toward that broader strategy.

Mr. Paul Miller: Okay. Yesterday it was mentioned that the OPP overtime costs are already factored in the estimate into the costs for 2014-15. Is that correct? They’re already factored?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Correct.

Mr. Paul Miller: Okay. So municipalities can expect no hidden costs from the OPP bills after the games are long gone. Would that be correct?

Mr. Steven Davidson: The costs for the OPP services are factored into the projected $239-million security budget.

Mr. Paul Miller: No, I’m saying that after the games are done, there will be no legacy costs for the communities with the OPP for—

Hon. Michael Coteau: The $239 million takes into account all costs associated with security in relation to the OPP and the municipalities.

Mr. Paul Miller: You also said that you wouldn’t be committed to a cap on security costs associated with these games if it in any way meant that the people of Ontario would be—you wanted them to be safe. That’s certainly credible, to want the safety factor, but where does it end? You said you wouldn’t put a cap on it. Obviously, it could escalate because of what has been going on in the world lately. Do you feel that you’ll be on time and on budget with that?

Hon. Michael Coteau: We can go back and forth with hypothetical situations, but the reality is this: Currently the estimate for security is $239 million. It’s the best estimate that the security experts have put in place. I have full confidence in the OPP that they’ll be able to deliver the type of security that we would expect as members of the Legislature but also as Ontarians.

Mr. Paul Miller: Well, Minister, I’m a little confused, because yesterday you said that it’s included. You stood outside and said it’s included in the costs of the regional police departments.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Yes.

Mr. Paul Miller: If you haven’t signed a contract with them, according—

Hon. Michael Coteau: It’s based on estimates, so—

Mr. Paul Miller: No, no.

Hon. Michael Coteau: It is based on an estimate.

Mr. Paul Miller: I know. Estimates are like the crystal ball I mentioned.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Mr. Miller, you have one minute left.

Mr. Paul Miller: Okay, thanks.

The crystal ball I mentioned yesterday; estimates, projections—that’s great, but you can’t come in here day after day and say that you’re on budget and everything is okay when you’ve got estimates still hanging out there. You’ve got the crystal ball. We’re not sure what it’s going to cost. If you were to say, “We’re not on budget; I’m not sure where it’s going to end up,” it would be much more credible and accountable to the people of Ontario if you would tell them that, and that’s what we’ve been pushing for.

Hon. Michael Coteau: We said yesterday that when it comes to our municipal partners and the universities, we’ve saved $50 million, roughly, through Infrastructure Ontario. For infrastructure projects as a whole, we’ve saved an additional $50 million. We are at a place right now where we’re well under budget when it comes to infrastructure. It’s something that doesn’t seem to resonate on your side; you haven’t asked me any questions about infrastructure. But we’re well under budget—


Mr. Paul Miller: Oh, I certainly did. I asked you about transportation.

Hon. Michael Coteau: We’re well under budget. When it comes to security—

Mr. Paul Miller: I asked you about security.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Paul Miller: I asked you about transportation. You didn’t answer.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Thank you, Minister.


Mr. Paul Miller: You’re not on budget.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Thank you, Minister. We’ll turn it over to the government side. Ms. Kiwala?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Thank you. Minister, I know that hosting a multi-sport event like the Pan Am Games is an exceptionally complicated undertaking. I’ve heard a lot about how you and your ministry have been working hard to make these the most open and transparent games ever. I’ve heard about this consistently in our riding, in Kingston and the Islands, and I’m very pleased about that.

I’m happy that you’re working to make the games the most accessible to everyone and providing us with the most up-to-date information throughout the planning process. Can you please explain some of the steps that our ministry has taken to achieve this goal?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Thank you very much for the question. We as a government want to ensure that these games are the most open and transparent games ever held on Canadian soil. In comparison to international games, we believe that these games will be the most open and transparent. It was part of our commitment back when we took on this task of really bringing forward these games. TO2015 was brought under the freedom of information protection act, resulting in the disclosure of executive salaries and the disclosure of their expenses.

We also have held three technical briefings, one of which I did a couple of weeks ago. We’ve provided the media—and, of course, invited opposition critics to come in and go through those documents with us, to ensure that there is transparency.

The ministry has also provided the opposition with close to 120,000 pages of documents based on the Pan/Parapan Am Games. That’s 45 boxes of documents to the Clerk’s office, back in November.

We’re very proud of the fact that every step of the way, we’ve interacted with media, with the opposition and with the public to update them on exactly where we are on these games, where our expenditures are, where the pressures are. If there have been changes, we’ve been very transparent about those changes and we’ve provided different pieces of information to explain why those changes have happened.

One of the changes, for example, and the need to adjust the budget—the $74 million that we were discussing yesterday—one of the pieces was a $2-million offset, because the federal government is not going to exempt the taxes that they exempted in Vancouver. The federal government exempted taxes in Vancouver, in the Vancouver Olympics, and they will not provide that same courtesy over here with these games. That was an assumption we had, and then we made an adjustment based on that change. Things happen, and we have to make adjustments, and we’ve been very transparent.

We’ve always been very clear to the opposition critics that they’re welcome to come and talk to us. We’ve held technical briefings to do that. I think, out of the three meetings, maybe one showed up for one of those meetings. But we’ve been very up front to invite them there to participate in that process.

I’m going to turn it over to the deputy to provide a little bit more information on transparency in relation to these games.

Mr. Steven Davidson: Thank you, Minister. I’ve invited my colleague Nancy Mudrinic, who is the assistant deputy minister of finance, financial oversight and risk management, to talk in a little bit more detail about some of the specific mechanisms that the government has put in place to ensure transparency and strengthen oversight of TO2015.

But before I do that, I’m just going to add a couple more points about the technical briefings. Those began last November, with one in March and then one more recently, just a week ago.

The first of those focused on the full financial picture. Certainly, what was apparent at the time was that there wasn’t a good, strong understanding of the specific role of TO2015, the games’ organizing committee responsible for putting on the games. As the minister has said, it is an independent, non-profit organization whose funding is made up of contributions of the provincial government, the federal government, municipalities and universities as well as the private sector, through the corporate sponsorships, and the government of Ontario appointing three of the 12-member board—so, clarification of their responsibilities as well as full disclosure and discussion about those areas of provincial responsibility: transportation planning, security of the public, the celebration and legacy initiatives and so on and so forth.

So the focus of the first one, last November, was on the full financial picture. Flash forward to the one in the spring. At that point we were shifting from big strategic planning to a more on-the-ground operational planning focus, and so on that day the government released the strategic transportation framework, which really locked down the big building blocks for the transportation piece. Subsequent to that, transportation would work with individual municipalities on local transportation plans, and a whole variety of very on-the-ground operational planning would proceed. That sort of coincided with a shift from strategic planning to on-the-ground operational planning.

When we convened a technical brief last week, the focus was twofold: one, on explaining the increased investment of $74 million to TO2015, but also to provide an update on the good state of preparedness for the capital projects: the venues and the athletes’ village in the West Don Lands. So each has had a theme and has coincided with the progress of planning. Right now where we’re at is we’re coming to the conclusion of the on-the-ground operational planning, so we’ve got a lot more information than we had even in March about what it’s going to take on the ground to deliver the games and associated cost information. That has been the trajectory of the technical briefs, and the plan is certainly to continue to provide those at critical junctures as we plan.

But at the beginning there were a number of pieces that were put in place to ensure a good, broad overall transparency, and Nancy can talk about that.

Ms. Nancy Mudrinic: Thank you, Deputy. There were a number of measures that the province put in place in Toronto 2015 to ensure openness and transparency, in addition to all the information provided in the technical briefing. I’ll skip over that part, but some other things that the province did was that they ensured that Toronto 2015 would be subject to FIPPA, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and this is the first time that such legislation is applied to an organizing committee such as Toronto 2015.

In addition, public salary disclosure as well: Toronto 2015 has been disclosing salaries for those individuals earning more than $100,000 a year, and the first list was released in March 2011, which included the salaries of individuals at Toronto 2015 in calendar year 2010, so they have been posting for a significant period of time in terms of salary disclosure.

The province has also ensured that Toronto 2015 is subject to broader public sector directives covering expenses, perquisites, as well as procurement. A number of audits have been performed by Ontario internal audit on these features as well. There have been three audits to date. The one on expenses and perks was issued in October 2012, procurement was in July 2013, and an audit of Toronto 2015’s compliance to its various governing agreements, including the multi-party agreement, the transfer payment agreement, and the Ontario support agreement, was issued most recently in 2014. The review on compliance also includes a look at transparency and requirements for transparency for Toronto 2015.

The province has also provided a lot of detail within the province’s annual estimates and other reports in terms of Ontario’s contribution to Toronto 2015: details of its transfer payment; costs associated with the athletes’ village—and that’s part of the annual estimates as well; costs associated with promotion, celebration and legacy strategies. The secretariat’s costs as well are included in the province’s estimates.

The annual spending for P/PAGS and also MCSCS in terms of security is broken up separately in the province’s annual budget as well, so a one-time investment line is provided there for complete transparency outside of the regular ministry spending.

If I can spend a few minutes talking about Toronto 2015 specifically: Toronto 2015 publicly releases its financial statements quarterly and holds open media calls as a demonstration of transparency and accountability. Grant Thornton, an independent third-party auditor, has conducted independent audits of Toronto 2015’s financial statements for the past four years and concluded that they’re fair and represent the financial position of the organization. These audits are also posted on Toronto 2015’s website. The quarterly financial statements are also posted online, and they provide a dashboard of overall budget and spending to date. So there’s quite a bit of information there, and as I said they’re posted on Toronto 2015’s website.


All of the games’ key foundational agreements are also posted on Toronto 2015’s website, including the bid book, the multi-party agreement, the Ontario support agreement, and the province’s transfer payment agreement with Toronto 2015. So they’ve been online for the past two years and are available as well.

Toronto 2015 also lists its corporate sponsors on its website.

In addition, Toronto 2015 has made information available on the status of its procurements. It posts a procurement schedule on its website, and it’s updated monthly. They post all of their RFP awards—not including the value of the award, but the award itself—on its website. They advertise all their RFPs via email to all the registered businesses that have registered on Toronto 2015’s website. They have conducted 30 outreach business sessions to the community to promote the games’ business opportunities, and they also disseminate RFP notices through the market, through their supplier diversity advisory council.

Those are a few examples of the outreach that Toronto 2015 has done and the efforts that the province has made to improve transparency and openness with the games.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Can I just have your attention for a moment? We have a guest in the audience. Mr. Guy Zangari, an MP from New South Wales, is here today.

Welcome to our committee.


The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Back to the government: More questions?

Mr. Steven Davidson: If I could just add one further point to Nancy’s comment. It’s actually a clarification on the question around the $3 million in the sport and recreation line, in the interests of full transparency. I had mistakenly said that that was directed toward the Pan Am kids’ program, and it was in part, but there was another investment there in the CSIO, the Canadian Sport Institute Ontario, which is another Pan Am legacy piece. So just to be clear, it comprised both of those.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Mr. Potts?

Mr. Arthur Potts: Mr. Minister, thank you very much. Getting more clarity and more transparency on the transparency is an excellent example of how the government is being extremely transparent in what we’re trying to do both in the games and as a government as a whole.

Minister, we’ve had a lot of questions about the Pan Am Games. One might almost assume that you’re just the minister for the Pan Am Games, but we know you’re doing a lot more. There’s a lot more involved in your ministry.

I have a question for you about the Ontario Media Development Corp. The industry is so important to the province of Ontario—the monies it generates and the transparency of media across the province, the production of films and television. It’s a very important industry. In my area of Beaches–East York, just south of your community, where thousands and thousands of people make a living producing film, radio, print; writers; the arts—so important. Can you explain to us how your ministry is involving itself in creating more Canadian content and helping these people thrive in this economy?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’ll let the deputy weigh in on this, but I’d like to just talk about the organization agency and the great work that they’re doing in the province of Ontario to really develop media, film, television, and also to attract different businesses from across the country—in fact, internationally—to come and operate here in Ontario. There are some huge success stories in Ontario: Murdoch Mysteries, for example; the show Suits is filmed here in downtown Toronto. We compete now—and it was very different a decade ago, 15 years ago—with New York and Los Angeles as being a hub for music development, for film and television. I think TIFF is a perfect example of our success here as a province. We’re very proud, as a government, to invest in those areas, to ensure that creative cluster continues to develop and continues to grow because we know that there are tens of billions that are generated here in Ontario based on that, and they hire hundreds of thousands of employees. I’ll turn it over to the deputy, and we have one of our ADMs here who can talk a little bit specifically about the details.

Mr. Steven Davidson: Sure. Thanks, Minister. I will invite Kevin Finnerty, the assistant deputy minister for culture, to talk in more detail. I’d like to just put out a couple of facts, though, to set the stage.

As the minister says, the entertainment and creative cluster—the creative-content-creating agencies contribute $12.4 billion to the provincial economy, an important part of the knowledge-based economy. The rate of growth outpaces that of the general economy, at 28% compared to 17% overall over the past several years, creating about 45,000 net new jobs. It’s a pretty important piece of this ministry’s mandate.

The OMDC is the key delivery agent for the government’s programs. Ontario was a pioneer in tax credits for the creative industries beginning in the late 1990s. Other jurisdictions have caught up to us and kept pace, so it’s now highly competitive. Kevin will talk about how we try to keep pace in that competitive world.

Mr. Kevin Finnerty: Thank you. I’m happy to talk a little bit about the OMDC. Just by way of a few more figures: Film and television production contributes $2.4 billion to Ontario’s economy every year and supports some 46,000 jobs. Our interactive visual media sector is a $1.5-billion industry supporting 16,000 jobs. Our music industry, as we said yesterday, is the largest in this country and getting bigger. And more than half the magazines in Canada are published in this province and almost half of those titles ship to readers outside of Ontario.

Since 2003, the government has provided over $200 million in operating funding to the OMDC. Just a few examples of things that have happened: For instance, the industry development program at the OMDC provided $2 million in support in 2012-13 to 56 initiatives, leading to almost 6,000 business connections for Ontario’s trade organizations through initiatives that stimulate growth in the creative industries. The OMDC Film Fund has led to the production of a range of diverse and award-winning films which have fuelled the growth of the film sector in this province, and in fact, three OMDC-funded films were featured in TIFF most recently.

There is also the Ontario Film Commission, which is part of the OMDC. The film commission markets Ontario to the film and television production industry and provides location-scouting services at no charge to any production that is considering shooting in Ontario. What this does is, basically, it can help projects from script to screen through tailored location packages, using a digital photo library that features some 11,000 locations, representing more than 225,000 images. It’s available online 24/7 from anywhere in the world.

There is also an office in Los Angeles, jointly with the city of Toronto, which actually is a direct link to big Hollywood film producers, which has been a real success for Ontario. Some of the films that you might have heard of that are shot in Ontario include Pacific Rim, RoboCop and Total Recall. Television series include things like Degrassi, Rookie Blue, and Orphan Black, which has become a huge international success story. It has been nominated for multiple awards around the world.

If we move on to tax credits, as the deputy minister said, just most recently, renowned Mexican director Guillermo del Toro recently finished filming his upcoming feature, Crimson Peak, here in Ontario. He has a long history of choosing Ontario as a film location, based on our competitive tax credits, but also because of the complete package that Ontario offers in terms of infrastructure, quality of staff and quality of technical support.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Deputy Minister, you have about one minute left.

Mr. Kevin Finnerty: Thank you. His recent films include Pacific Rim, which was filmed in Toronto. I just want to say that Pacific Rim had a production budget of $190 million, which was invested into Ontario’s economy, and that supported hundreds of jobs during that production. It’s just one more example of how this province has been very successful in attracting film and television investment.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): We’ll turn it over to the official opposition. Mr. Smith.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you very much, Chair. This is our last 20 minutes to question the minister, so I know my colleagues here sitting at my right have some questions as well.

I did want to touch on a few more items regarding the Pan Am Games. One of the questions that I have, Minister, is, when you were here yesterday, we talked at great length about the $74-million bailout that was announced last week for TO2015. I was just wondering: When exactly was the date that TO2015 came to you and said, “Look, we’re out of money; we need another $74 million”? When exactly did that occur, do you know?


Hon. Michael Coteau: I can’t tell you the exact date. I can look at my calendar and try to pull that up. It was in the first half of my three months—I’ve only been on the job for three months, so it was probably in the first 45 days.

Mr. Todd Smith: In the first 45 days.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Yes. I can probably pull out a specific day.

Mr. Steven Davidson: It was July.


Hon. Michael Coteau: We think July 7.

Mr. Todd Smith: July 7 was when—

Hon. Michael Coteau: Yes. I think we were appointed—is it June 28? What’s the appointment day?


Hon. Michael Coteau: It was very, very early into me being appointed as minister.

Mr. Todd Smith: Okay. So we’re going to narrow it down to early July.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Correct.

Mr. Todd Smith: July 7 is the date that we have. On July 13 of this summer, the CEO of TO2015, Saäd Rafi, was quoted in the Guelph Mercury, saying, “It’s absolutely fair to say we’re under budget.” So I want to know what changed between—the dates don’t really match up. You can understand—

Hon. Michael Coteau: Yes. I can’t comment on a statement he made. If he made that statement and you have a quote—that’s a statement he has made. When I was asked about the budget, specifically around security, I said I couldn’t guarantee that it was going to be within the allocated amount and there were no guarantees. I was very clear, and I think your quote was, “I almost respect the minister for being honest.”

Mr. Todd Smith: Right. That was my quote because—

Hon. Michael Coteau: Thank you for the compliment, and I appreciate that.

Mr. Todd Smith: Quite honestly, your predecessor, Minister Chan, was saying, right up until we rose for an election, that these games were on time and on budget and there was nothing to worry about. But then just a few days after the election is over, here we have the CEO of TO2015 coming and saying, “We need another $74 million.” So I’m just wondering: In this new era of transparency—and you say it over and over again, so it must be true, right?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Openness and transparency.

Mr. Todd Smith: Right; openness and transparency. I’m just wondering why Minister Chan would say that the games are on time and on budget. It wouldn’t be because there was an election pending that he would be saying that, would it?

Hon. Michael Coteau: When I was appointed three months ago, I was put into a new ministry—from citizenship and immigration into this ministry. I sat down with the deputy, with officials, got feedback on all the wonderful things the ministry is involved in, and one of them, of course, is the Pan Am and Parapan Am Games.

When I came out of question period—very early into the appointment, I was asked a question, and I answered the question.

Moving forward, meeting with the executive officer from TO2015, they put in a request, and here we are today.

Mr. Todd Smith: So you knew very early on that there was no way these games were going to be on time and on budget, and obviously you had some information from Saäd Rafi that that was indeed the case. But that didn’t—

Hon. Michael Coteau: And I think I’ve been very clear.

Mr. Todd Smith: Yes. But that didn’t stop the minister, prior to the election, saying that, obviously—what he said time and time again was that the games were on time and on budget. That was a different time back then.

I just have a couple more questions about that $74 million, because we do have the credibility of this number hanging over our heads. If there’s any way—and I just want to make sure we get this right—to justify the $74-million bailout, if we could get the business case or documents presented to the committee on a line-by-line basis, not the technical briefing that we received last week on what the $74 million is for, but if we could get an actual business case for why that $74 million is necessary—is that something you could present to the committee?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Yes. When we sat down, obviously they presented reasons why they felt it was necessary to allocate the $74 million.

We’ve been very clear from the beginning: We see this as an investment in our athletes in Ontario. I know you look at the Pan Am Games as a second-tier sporting event, and I know that you’ve said, “Why is anyone cheering for these games?” Well, we believe in our athletes. We believe in building the infrastructure for future athletes. We believe that Ontario deserves to have these games. We are 100% committed to ensuring that our athletes, both today and in the future, are successful, that people cheer for them and that we put on a first-tier operation.

Mr. Todd Smith: Okay. You sounded like Minister Chan right there. I certainly am supportive of the athletes. Our party is very supportive of the athletes. We want to see these games—

Hon. Michael Coteau: Well, you see them as a second-tier set of games.

Mr. Todd Smith: —be a success. But I can tell you that under the leadership—

Hon. Michael Coteau: You see them as second-tier games, and you said clearly in the Legislature—

Mr. Todd Smith: —of your government, these games have been anything else than professional.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Order.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Well, these are the same folks who wake up every single morning, 4 a.m., day after day—

Mr. Todd Smith: We’re talking about your credibility, not the credibility of the athletes.

Hon. Michael Coteau: —to qualify for the Olympics through these games.

Mr. Todd Smith: I have another question about security.

Hon. Michael Coteau: That’s an incredible feat for these athletes who have put 15 years into training. To say “Why would anyone cheer for these games?” is just beyond me.

Mr. Todd Smith: Nobody’s cheering for this government’s performance on these games. You can say “transparency” over and over again, but there’s certainly no transparency.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Well, you can criticize the government, but please, our athletes out there are—

Mr. Todd Smith: Let me ask you this, because when it comes to transparency, I want to ask you about this—

Hon. Michael Coteau: —people we believe in.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Order.

Mr. Todd Smith: I want to ask you about this. Yesterday, you said, as Mr. Miller alluded to earlier, that there was no cap on security. We agree that we want these games to go off well and be safe for the people who are attending the games, and for the athletes and officials as well. I’m just wondering if you have any idea if the same sweeping powers that were granted to the police and the G20 security officials will be granted to those who are providing security for the Pan Am Games when they come around next summer.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Again, these questions are the same questions we heard yesterday, and if you look through Hansard, you’ll be able to find the same answers.

We believe that we have a responsibility to work with the OPP to ensure that the people of Ontario are safe, at any time—

Mr. Todd Smith: That’s not what I’m asking; I’m asking if they’re going to have the same powers.

Hon. Michael Coteau: During the games, we want to ensure that our citizens here in Ontario are safe. If the OPP comes back and they say that there’s a threat level that is adjusted or there are other considerations that weren’t considered originally, then we’ll have that conversation. But this is an estimate. This is an estimate. An estimate is based on the best possible scenario based on the information they have—

Mr. Todd Smith: No, I realize that. I’m just asking you if you have any idea if the officers and the security that are in charge of the Pan Am Games are going to have the same sweeping powers that officers had during the G20 summit—if you know that. If you don’t know, please just say you don’t know. But I’m just wondering if you know if they will have those same sweeping powers. Yesterday, you said that it’s not like the G20. You said this is a sporting event; it’s like going to a Blue Jays game.

Hon. Michael Coteau: That’s right.

Mr. Todd Smith: So I just want to know if that is the case or if these officers will have the sweeping powers—

Hon. Michael Coteau: The OPP will work within provincial legislation and rules that are out there. To my knowledge, there have not been any special powers that have been granted to the OPP for these games—to the best of my knowledge.

Mr. Todd Smith: Okay. I know Mr. Hillier had some questions he wanted to get in.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Minister, yesterday, your deputy, if I heard correctly, said that all the annual reports for 16 of the 19 agencies were with the ministry. Would the minister make those available to the committee, those annual reports?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’ll turn it over to the deputy.

Mr. Steven Davidson: I’d be happy to speak to the process, which—

Mr. Randy Hillier: No, no. You said yesterday that you have them.

Mr. Steven Davidson: Well, we have them.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Yes. Would you make them available to the committee?

Mr. Steven Davidson: The process is that upon receipt, the ministry reviews them, makes a recommendation to the minister, who is obliged to present them to cabinet prior to tabling in the Legislature. I’m not aware that we would have the ability to provide those in advance of them being provided to the Legislature.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Do you have an expected time frame when they will be tabled with the House?

Mr. Steven Davidson: I’ll get back to you on that pretty quickly. As I said, we have received them all for 2012-13; 2013-14 are coming in.

Mr. Randy Hillier: That’s fine. Sure.

Again yesterday, Deputy Minister, you stated that the expansions for the MTCC since 2012 that are mandated to be reported quarterly are with the Integrity Commissioner—

Mr. Steven Davidson: No; they’ve been reviewed by the Integrity Commissioner, I’m advised. They would go in batches to the Integrity Commissioner’s office, back to the agency, which then posts them on the website. I’m advised that up to—I think it was June, I said yesterday—has now cleared that process and will be posted, they were anticipating, later this week.


Mr. Randy Hillier: So they have gone back to the MTCC, but they have not yet been posted online?

Mr. Steven Davidson: That’s my understanding.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Would you make those expenses that have been reviewed by the Integrity Commissioner available to this committee?

Mr. Steven Davidson: The ministry does not have those. This is an obligation that the Metro Toronto Convention Centre has under its own constituting authority—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Okay, so you can’t make those expenses—

Mr. Steven Davidson: Well, we don’t—I’m not aware that we have those within our custody.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Okay. That’s fine. Of course, it’s very disturbing to all of us that expenses that are to be reported quarterly and posted quarterly are left in the review process for two years; eight quarters is not one quarter, and that’s what has happened with the MTCC.

Yesterday, as well, you mentioned that 15 of the 16 annual reports for 2011-12 were reported on and made public. However, we have not seen the annual reports for Ontario Place, either, for 2011-12. Deputy, can we ensure that all of these annual reports are with the committee, in due process, and that they are posted online in accordance with the mandate of your ministry?

Hon. Michael Coteau: We will follow all the rules that the Legislature has outlined in order to ensure that all of the annual reports go through the process that is outlined by the Legislature. There are rules that we have to follow, and we’ll follow it.

I just want to say how proud I am of our agencies that—

Mr. Randy Hillier: You haven’t followed the rules so far, so why should I expect that you’re going to follow them tomorrow?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Yesterday we talked about the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. I know that you made an error in saying that they’re allocated $46 million—

Mr. Randy Hillier: You haven’t filed the expenses, you haven’t filed the annual reports, so—

Hon. Michael Coteau: —but this is an agency that we are proud of and that has been able to contribute $6 million back into the public purse. We’re quite proud of their accomplishments.

I know that the deputy wants to talk a little bit more about your specific question.

Mr. Steven Davidson: The minister’s comment about the Metro Toronto Convention Centre is absolutely true, but unfortunately I wasn’t accurate yesterday when I responded to your question. I apologize for that. In fact, I’m advised now that the Metro Toronto Convention Centre annual report for 2011-12 has been tabled—was tabled—and it is the Ontario Place 2011-12 annual report which is outstanding.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Still outstanding. It would be nice to get accurate information here.

Mr. Steven Davidson: Yes, so I do apologize for that.

Mr. Randy Hillier: What this committee is all about is examining and scrutinizing the methods and means in how you spend taxpayers’ money. Clearly you guys haven’t got a clue what you’re doing with your agencies. You don’t know what reports you have, which ones you don’t have, who’s filing expenses, who’s not filing expenses or where the hell they are.

Mr. Steven Davidson: There’s a process that’s in place—

Mr. Randy Hillier: I want to make sure that this committee gets the proper documentation—that you actually do follow the process and follow your mandate that you haven’t been doing so far, so that this committee can vote intelligently on what you’re asking for with your budgets, with supply.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I think that the deputy was very, very clear yesterday. In fact, he said, “For the year 2012-13, all 16 annual reports are in progress and will be brought forward for tabling very shortly.” We’re following the process, and he has been very clear. Yesterday he said that. He was very clear that we’re now in a position for receiving them from our agencies. The 16 reports are in progress.

Mr. Randy Hillier: We have reports that are two years out of date, that haven’t been made public. You’ve got all the reports, supposedly, from 2012-13, which are not made public. They’re still—like this review process with the Integrity Commissioner, of two years on a quarterly—

Mr. Steven Davidson: No, the Integrity Commissioner doesn’t review annual reports.

Mr. Randy Hillier: No, look, the expenses, but you guys have those annual reports—so you say—for the 16 of your agencies. The public hasn’t seen them. Nobody else has seen them. You talk the story of transparency, you talk the line of openness, but you’ve got all the annual reports buried so none of us on this committee can scrutinize—

Hon. Michael Coteau: Let’s get back to reality for a second here. Let’s get back to reality. There is a process in place by the Legislature and we are complying with that process. We have our annual reports that are moving through the process, and the deputy has been very clear that they are going to be tabled. There are 16 that are in progress and they will be tabled.

Mr. Randy Hillier: The 2011, 2012 and 2013 Ontario Place reports are not online. Metro Toronto Convention Centre reports: not online since 2011. You guys are not following the process. What I’m calling for is that you actually do: You get this documentation into the public realm, into the public arena, and allow it to be scrutinized by this committee, and if you can’t do your mandate, Minister—I know you talk like doing little bedtime stories about the Pan Am Games. I’m interested in you doing your job, upholding your mandate, and actually delivering openness and transparency to the people of Ontario.

Hon. Michael Coteau: You know, you talk about accurate information. Yesterday, you stood at this committee and you said that we were giving $46 million to the Metro convention centre.

Mr. Randy Hillier: The 2011, 2012 and 2013 reports are not filed.

Hon. Michael Coteau: You actually stood in this room and you said that this government, based on the document that we provided, is giving $46 million.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Let’s not shift—

Hon. Michael Coteau: You were wrong.

Mr. Randy Hillier: No, no.

Hon. Michael Coteau: You said that we were giving them—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Minister, will you make those reports available to this committee?

Hon. Michael Coteau: —and the fact is, I told you, and I was very clear, that the Metro Toronto Convention Centre actually returned $6 million back to this government.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Will you make those reports and those expenses available?

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Order.

Hon. Michael Coteau: You would think that the Conservatives, of all parties here, would be so proud of the fact—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Your mandate letter means absolutely nothing.

Hon. Michael Coteau: —that they are actually giving back.

Mr. Randy Hillier: The Premier’s mandate letter means absolutely nothing to you. Right?

Hon. Michael Coteau: The mandate letter from the Premier of Ontario—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Uphold it.

Hon. Michael Coteau: —is the actual document that I will live up to and carry forward. It is my mandate as the minister.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Economic analysis, fiscal prudence, openness, transparency: You’re failing. You’ve got 19 agencies under your administration. You don’t give a tinker’s damn what they are doing. You’re not giving any information to this committee or to the public. You’re just whitewashing it and saying, “Ah, process. It’s process.”

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Mr. Hillier, you have about two minutes.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Process leads to an objective and to an end, not a never-ending journey of BS. Right? So will you provide those annual reports? Will you make sure that the expenses are posted online? Will you uphold your obligations that the law compels you to do?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Well, we—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Will you uphold the law that you are compelled to do as a minister of this crown?

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): You have one minute, Minister.

Hon. Michael Coteau: What we will do, and what we always do as a government, is follow the rules outlined by the Legislature of Ontario. I have an obligation, as the minister, to follow the law of this Legislature. We are very confident that we will follow process and be able to table our annual reports here in the Legislature, and at that point you will be able to look through them and you will be able to go through the numbers yourself.

We have a process in place during question period and there are other methods you can use through committee to talk about those and challenge the government, and I would expect you to continue, as one of the critics of this government, to continue to challenge us on those pieces. That’s how we ensure accountability.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Well, let me give you one more challenge, then.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Our Premier has been very clear—

Mr. Randy Hillier: You’ve got a half-million—

Hon. Michael Coteau: Our Premier has been very clear that she wants the most transparent and open government here—

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Time’s up, Minister.


The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Mr. Hillier, time’s up.

Third party: Mr. Miller.

Mr. Paul Miller: Thank you. Now you get the nice guy. Okay? All right.

I’m back on to the severances again, Minister. Can your deputy minister or yourself tell me the total severance packages that are or will be paid out to executive management levels at TO2015?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’ll turn that over to the deputy.

Mr. Steven Davidson: And I’ll ask Nancy to come up while I look.

Just to clarify the question, so the total of the severance costs for the two executive vice-presidents and the former CEO?

Mr. Paul Miller: No, that’s not my question. My question was, we already know what’s going on there; we heard. There are other people that you have mentioned, other executives, other members of TO2015, who have signed contracts with you guys.

Mr. Steven Davidson: Well, with TO2015.

Mr. Paul Miller: Whatever. My question was, how much is it going to be, total? If they all finish their mandate, or don’t finish their mandate, how much is it going to cost the taxpayers to pay out all these people who are on the payroll? What’s the end result? Have you got any numbers on that?


Mr. Steven Davidson: If the individuals who were hired under time-limited contracts complete their contract, then my understanding would be that they would not be entitled to any severance at the completion of those contracts.

Mr. Paul Miller: Yes, but if they quit a week before their mandate is done, they get a severance.

Hon. Michael Coteau: You’re talking about the bonuses, correct?

Mr. Paul Miller: No, I’m talking about all the compensation that will be paid to those people who are still there who will be leaving whenever—either too early or too late or whatever. I want to know how much we’re on the hook for, for those contracts, for all those people who are remaining. I already know about the two we’ve talked about. You have no numbers to tell me.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I just want to be clear, Mr. Miller. There are two separate pieces. If you quit your job today, you get a severance, right? If you quit your job, there’s a process based on the contract. If you complete the job and you actually reach the deliverables—

Mr. Paul Miller: You get your bonus.

Hon. Michael Coteau: —there’s a bonus.

Mr. Paul Miller: Right.

Hon. Michael Coteau: So what specifically are you asking?

Mr. Paul Miller: How much? How much do they get for bonuses? How much would they get for severances? If I quit a week before my mandate is done, do I get a severance?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Bonus is based on performance—

Mr. Paul Miller: Do I get a severance?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Do you get a severance?

Mr. Paul Miller: If I quit a week before my mandate is done.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Are you talking about Mr. Miller?

Mr. Paul Miller: Come on, Minister, give me a break. Not me personally; the people who are there: TO2015. You’re avoiding the question. How much is the compensation? How much is the bonuses? How much could it cost us? You’re great at estimates. You’re great at projections. Give me a projection.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Okay. It’s a completion bonus. You can’t really answer that question because if, for example, you don’t reach your financial targets, then the board will be able to—

Mr. Paul Miller: You’re either going to get a bonus or you’re going to get severance.

Hon. Michael Coteau: No, that’s not necessarily true.

Mr. Paul Miller: One or the other. You’re not—

Hon. Michael Coteau: Let me try to explain it.

Mr. Paul Miller: You’re not telling me.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Do you want to listen?

Mr. Paul Miller: Yeah, sure.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Okay. Let me try. The bonus structure is based on performance. If you do a good job and you reach your deliverables, you’re issued a bonus. If you don’t do your job well, then you don’t get the bonus.

Mr. Paul Miller: What do you get? Severance.

Hon. Michael Coteau: No. Severance is usually—

Mr. Paul Miller: So you’re telling me that Ian Troop did a good job? You fired him. Did he get a bonus?

Hon. Michael Coteau: A severance is usually a departure pay, based on a specific circumstance.

Mr. Paul Miller: Did he get a bonus or a severance, Troop? Or did he get both?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I believe he was issued a severance upon being removed from that position.

Mr. Paul Miller: That’s all I’ve asked you. What will it be, either severance or bonus? What will the total be for the existing—

Hon. Michael Coteau: Hypothetically, from this point forward—

Mr. Paul Miller: Hypothetically? It’s not a hypothetical.

Hon. Michael Coteau: —I’m assuming the severance could be zero.

Mr. Paul Miller: What?

Hon. Michael Coteau: It’s based on a circumstance, correct?

Mr. Steven Davidson: Yes. I think the expectation is that the team that is in place now will be there.

Mr. Paul Miller: You know when they’re done. They could quit a week before.

Hon. Michael Coteau: You don’t get a severance on the completion of the contract. It’s based on a bonus structure. That’s what my assumption is.

Mr. Paul Miller: Well, I don’t know. Either we’re not communicating well here—I’ve said—now I’m going to reiterate for you. Either you get a bonus for your job well done—

Hon. Michael Coteau: So let’s talk—

Mr. Paul Miller: Just a minute. For a performance, you get a job well done. If you don’t get that, you get a severance if you leave early. Is that correct? I’ve asked you what would be a realm of possibilities, with your estimates and your projections—what would be the payout, the final payout, for all these people?

Hon. Michael Coteau: That is too hypothetical—that’s a hypothetical question. There are so many different circumstances—

Mr. Paul Miller: It’s not hypothetical. Either you’re going to get one or the other.

Hon. Michael Coteau: If you’re fired, it’s a different condition than if you finish the contract. So how could you answer that question? It’s based on two different scenarios.

Mr. Paul Miller: This is a beautiful dance you’re doing.

Hon. Michael Coteau: It’s two completely different scenarios.

Mr. Paul Miller: Listen, you get a bonus for performance, you said. Okay, if I stay there in the job and I perform well, I get a bonus.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Yes.

Mr. Paul Miller: Ian Troop did not perform well, and the other person you let go—you fired them—he got a huge severance. So did that lady. She got a huge—

Hon. Michael Coteau: Well, TO2015 is responsible for HR, not the government.

Mr. Paul Miller: They got a huge severance. They were supposed to complete the whole year. They were supposed to stay a year after, and they didn’t. They left a year early and got a huge severance. All I’m saying to you is—call it what you like: bonus, severance, whatever you’re giving the people who are still there—what are they going to get?

Hon. Michael Coteau: It is impossible to answer the question.

Mr. Paul Miller: Why?

Hon. Michael Coteau: It’s hypothetical, because you’re talking about severances—

Mr. Paul Miller: You mean you didn’t sign a contract with them?

Hon. Michael Coteau: —and you’re talking about bonuses.

Mr. Paul Miller: Why can’t we see the contracts you signed with them? I want to see the contracts.

Hon. Michael Coteau: We’ve gone through the transparency—

Mr. Paul Miller: Can I see the contracts? Can I see—

Hon. Michael Coteau: We have gone through the transparency—

Mr. Paul Miller: No, you haven’t done the contracts.

Hon. Michael Coteau: We have gone through a transparency process—

Mr. Paul Miller: I want to see the contracts.

Hon. Michael Coteau: —and I can go through every single item in the transparency that will provide—

Mr. Paul Miller: You’re not answering.

Hon. Michael Coteau: —any piece of information that you want.

Mr. Paul Miller: Okay, you won’t show me the contracts. I got it.

Hon. Michael Coteau: You go through that transparency process.

Mr. Paul Miller: Let’s move on.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Let’s go to the next question.

Mr. Paul Miller: Let’s go to the next question because I’m not getting anywhere with this one.


Mr. Paul Miller: I hope it’s clearer; you’d better believe it. Transparent, remember?

Here’s a good question for you.


The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Miss Taylor?

Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you, Chair. I believe my colleague—I think it was Mr. Smith—was talking about the G20 law previously and—

Hon. Michael Coteau: Sorry, what’s that one?

Miss Monique Taylor: The G20 law—

Hon. Michael Coteau: Yes.

Miss Monique Taylor: —and whether that would be used during these games. I recall in the last session that we were debating this law and hoping that it wouldn’t be used again, and that it was supposed to be taken out of the laws. Will your government ensure that this G20 law is not in existence before these Pan Am Games?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’m the minister responsible for the Parapan Am Games, and what I’ve said—

Miss Monique Taylor: Okay, that’s fine. Will you go to the Premier?

Hon. Michael Coteau: —and I’ve been very clear that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no special arrangement or legislation that is being crafted or created or being used to change the current scenario.

Miss Monique Taylor: But it still exists, and you do sit at the table. Will you go to the Premier and ask that this law be brought up to—

Hon. Michael Coteau: I think that’s a question that would be appropriate for the ministers responsible for that file: the Attorney General and Yasir Naqvi. You can ask them. But I’m saying, in relation to—

Miss Monique Taylor: But Minister, you’re in front of me today. Can you please do that?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’m not going to speak on behalf of other ministers. What I can speak to is the Pan Am/Parapan Am Games and the security measures that have taken place.

The question was very clear: Will there be special laws in place for the Pan Am Games? To the best of my knowledge, I haven’t been briefed on that. Maybe I can turn it over to the deputy to bring some clarity on that.

Mr. Steven Davidson: Sure. I think, just to reinforce the minister’s response, this is the responsibility of the integrated security unit under the Ministry of Community Safety.

Miss Monique Taylor: Right, but he is the minister responsible for the Pan Am Games.

Mr. Steven Davidson: Right. We don’t have information about whether or not that particular power—

Miss Monique Taylor: So we’re working in silos again.

Mr. Steven Davidson: —continues to exist or would be invoked. I’m sorry, we can’t respond to that.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’m glad you opened up the security envelope because now we can discuss—it’s my understanding that there are actually two types of security. There’s going to be external and internal, I’ve been told—two different budgets, which I didn’t see before. Now we’ve got internal and external that haven’t been signed, is that correct? There are two different security systems going to be in place. That didn’t show up in your preliminaries.

Mr. Steven Davidson: What we talked about in the technical briefing last week, and I’m not familiar with an internal-external division—

Mr. Paul Miller: Two different responsibilities for internal and external.

Mr. Steven Davidson: —but we did clarify in the technical briefing last week that the province’s responsibility is for the security of the public, so that is the $239-million ISU budget.

Mr. Paul Miller: Which will go up.

Mr. Steven Davidson: There’s a much, much smaller security budget within the games organizing committee’s budget, and that is simply for them to ensure the security of their assets: the games venues overnight, sporting equipment, that kind of thing. So I think—and we talked about this in the technical brief—there has been maybe a little bit of confusion over that, but TO2015 actually has a very, very narrow specific security responsibility.

Mr. Paul Miller: I don’t have numbers on that, but okay, I’ll take your word for it. I don’t have numbers on the internal security costs.

Mr. Steven Davidson: But I’m not aware of an internal-external.

Mr. Paul Miller: Anyway, next question: New funds were recently granted to establish, as you said, the satellite villages, to house athletes in university residences and local hotels in Welland, Hamilton and Innisfil. We’ve been told that the mega-transportation plan would ensure that athletes and spectators would easily be transported to the competitive venues, but now it seems it will take too long for the athletes to get there, so you’ve made changes. Does this mean that we’re going to have a significantly improved transit system that should handle getting anyone to the venues on time? Are we going to go ahead with those changes to the transportation? And why are we rushing this diesel-fired air-rail link to Pearson airport for the Pan/Parapan Am Games if we’ll be insufficient to move the athletes and spectators to venues in Caledon and Milton?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Thank you very much for the question. With transportation, there has been a plan put in place. Some of the goals that we’re attempting to achieve are a 20% reduction in traffic and the establishment of specialized HOV lanes.


Also, one of the innovative steps they’re taking is, included in the actual tickets to the Pan Am Games and the Parapan Am Games will be the ability to use transit. So you buy a ticket, you have access to transit. So we’re going to encourage people to use public transit rather than driving down to the specific venue. We’ll also be working with Smart Commute. We’re very proud of the work that the secretariat, TO2015 and the ministry have been able to do to actually save millions of dollars when it comes to transit and traffic planning during the games. We’re quite confident we’ll be able to reach those targets.

Mr. Paul Miller: Okay. My next question is regarding the operation estimates for Ontario Place Corp. It’s listed at just over $2 million for 2014-15. That estimate is down from 2013-14. That’s good, I guess, but the actual interim operating costs this year are listed at $3 million plus that amount, at $6.61 million. What happened with this dramatic jump, the actual expense versus the estimated cost? And I’d like to know, what is the AFP process for Ontario Place—security, for instance; have you gone out for private contracts on that site?

Hon. Michael Coteau: There are a few references, I believe, in the book. Which page specifically are you referring to, Mr. Miller, in the estimates book?

Mr. Paul Miller: I don’t have the page—

Miss Monique Taylor: Page 51.

Mr. Paul Miller: Page 51.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Page 51? No, there’s nothing there.

Miss Monique Taylor: Page 50.

Mr. Paul Miller: Sorry, it’s page 50.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Page 50? No, I don’t think that’s the right page.

Mr. Steven Davidson: Yes, it is.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Is it?

Mr. Steven Davidson: Yes. The estimate for 2014-15, the $2 million, that’s the projected government transfer to Ontario Place. Ontario Place does continue to operate revenue-generating business lines even though they are no longer open. They continue to operate the marina. They contract out for the Molson Amphitheatre, the Atlantis pavilion and parking lots. So they generate revenue, but the government continues to provide operating support, and this year it’s projected to be $2 million. The estimate last year was projected to be $2 million, but the actual was $6 million, and the difference was, I believe, based on cash flow. And in the year that Ontario Place closed, there were, of course, closure costs associated with that. Those were not fully expensed in the year of closure, and some of those were carried over into this year. So that’s why the 2013-14 actuals are higher. We didn’t know that at the beginning of the planning cycle when we were projecting—

Mr. Paul Miller: But that’s a huge jump, to $6 million.

Mr. Steven Davidson: It’s about a $4-million difference between what—

Mr. Paul Miller: That’s huge. That’s after it closed.

Mr. Steven Davidson: Those were the—

Mr. Paul Miller: Closure costs?

Mr. Steven Davidson: —costs of closure.

Mr. Paul Miller: Four million dollars?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I don’t know if you’ve been to the site—

Mr. Paul Miller: I’ve been there a couple of times, yes.

Hon. Michael Coteau: —but it’s 150 acres in downtown Toronto, off the water. Closing any type of site with that type of infrastructure and personnel and that much space obviously is going to be a very complicated endeavour.

Mr. Paul Miller: What about the security for the site?

Hon. Michael Coteau: What do you mean, what about the security?

Mr. Paul Miller: The security of the site. What’s going on there? What contract is that? Who’s paying for that?

Hon. Michael Coteau: That would be through the actual Ontario Place Corp.

Mr. Paul Miller: Is that part of the $4 million?

Mr. Steven Davidson: That’s part of their ongoing operating costs. As they continue to operate business lines, they continue to ensure that the facility is secure, so they have security resources that they deploy.

Mr. Paul Miller: We have information that the security has been let go.

Mr. Steven Davidson: No, they have issued a—

Mr. Paul Miller: Private contract?

Mr. Steven Davidson: Right, a request for services, and they are going to join the mainstream of other operational enterprise agencies and contract out for their security services. That’s going to give them better flexibility as they manage during this time of partial closure.

Mr. Paul Miller: Okay. I guess a new line of questioning: What types of programs have you put in place to boost ticket sales? Is that costing anything—hidden costs that we don’t know about?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Ticket sales for Pan Am/Parapan Am—for Ontario Place?

Mr. Paul Miller: No, for Pan Am.

Hon. Michael Coteau: So the question is, what have we done to—

Mr. Paul Miller: Boost tickets.

Hon. Michael Coteau: —boost tickets? I was so proud to hear that in the initial 48 hours there were 75,000 tickets that were sold, so I thought that was a huge accomplishment for TO2015. They actually had a launch recently with Pinball Clemons, and Wendel Clark was there. We had some Olympic gold-medal athletes who were there to really promote the games. But the tickets are on sale and I’d be happy to share the current numbers, but—

Mr. Paul Miller: Can I ask you a question, Minister, about the 75,000—

Hon. Michael Coteau: Well, there’s a marketing strategy.

Mr. Paul Miller: But I’m just saying you seem proud of 75,000 tickets.

Hon. Michael Coteau: It’s fantastic.

Mr. Paul Miller: That’s not very good.

Hon. Michael Coteau: We thought it was a great accomplishment.

Mr. Paul Miller: The soccer stadium alone holds 24,000 people per game.

Hon. Michael Coteau: We’re talking about the first 48 hours.

Mr. Paul Miller: Just let me finish. You’ve got the velodrome; you’ve got the rowing in Welland; you’ve got the equestrian riding north of Toronto. You’ve got all kinds of other venues—boxing in Oshawa—and you think that 75,000 tickets is good?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’m talking about the first 48 hours.

Mr. Paul Miller: Minister, if you break that down over the entire games and the venues, that’s miniscule, my friend. You’re going to need a heck of a lot more than 75,000 tickets to—

Hon. Michael Coteau: We were very, very proud that within the first 48 hours of sales—75,000 tickets. We’re going to continue to build on this.

We’re 10 months away—

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Mr. Miller, you have two minutes left.

Mr. Paul Miller: Thank you.

Hon. Michael Coteau: The other interesting thing about the tickets is that more than 75% of the tickets will be sold for under $45, so they’re affordable and accessible, and we’ll continue to build on it.

Mr. Paul Miller: Have you done anything to stimulate private sponsorship? You said you fell short. What process is in place to encourage more involvement by corporate sponsors? What are you doing right now? Have you just said, “Okay, that’s it; we can’t raise any more,” or are you doing anything to attract new sponsorship? What are you doing?

Hon. Michael Coteau: TO2015 is responsible for sponsorship. They’ve been able to generate and raise over $100 million in sponsorship. Their goal was a bit higher than that, but it’s the most ever raised in the history of the Pan Am/Parapan Am Games. So far, CIBC is the lead sponsor. Our premier partners are Chevy, Cisco and Loblaw. We have Cirque and CBC. We’re very proud. We’ve got some top-tier sponsors. To raise over $100 million from corporate Canada for these games to us is a huge accomplishment, but the goal is to raise more and we’re going to continue moving down that pathway.

Mr. Paul Miller: Thank you.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Thank you.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): We’ll move to the government. This is the last round. Ms. McGarry.

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: I live in the beautiful riding of Cambridge, and I’ve been there for almost 30 years now. What I’ve noticed is that there’s quite an increase in festivals and events in the riding of Cambridge. We’ve had our usual highland games, and the Mill Race folk festival that was in its 16th year this year. The Mayor’s Celebration of the Arts has gone on for 13 or 14 years. But this year in particular, I’ve noticed quite an increase in festivals and events in Cambridge. I was very pleased to go to the first annual tasty ribfest that we had in Cambridge, and we’ve also launched the first international festival just this past weekend. We’ve got the studio gallery and art tour that goes on every year. So I’ve noticed kind of an increase in festivals and events in Cambridge and, I think, throughout the area.

Minister, would you outline for our committee how festivals and events actually contribute to our economy?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Thank you very much for the question. Over the last three months I’ve had the opportunity to get out to different communities and experience different festivals, cultural shows and activities. Even last night, being at the Ontario Art Council’s reception yesterday, it was just astonishing to meet the folks that are part of that creative sector, part of the arts sector that contribute to festivals.


I was saying to them that the big difference between the former ministry I was in, citizenship and immigration, and this ministry is that at the old ministry, you meet folks who arrive in Canada and go through the biggest challenges of trying to find the right school, trying to find the right home, trying to find the right neighbourhood. Obviously, immigration is sometimes a big struggle for a new family to Canada. But then the citizenship piece kicks in once they have gone through the immigration process, and that’s the full participation in society, getting out to festivals, learning about the Canadian heritage culture.

If you go across this great province, there are some extraordinary things happening. These festivals contribute so much to our economy. They raise awareness on specific issues. They celebrate things that we’re proud of that actually draw people to this country. I’ve had the opportunity to go to, of course, big festivals like TIFF and Caribana. Caribana attracts over a million people here to Toronto and contributes hundreds of millions of dollars back into our local economy. But even the smaller festivals—I was at the Brick Works a few weeks ago when they had the garlic festival. I don’t know if anyone has ever gone there, but it’s extraordinary. You get thousands of people coming through. They’re exchanging recipes. They have different products that use garlic and talk about—there’s an education piece to it. There’s a whole education side to it. There’s a whole piece around the celebration of different culture and heritage.

Our festivals contribute so much to our economy. In fact, in my remarks yesterday, I said that the tourism sector here contributes almost $30 billion back into our local economies in the province of Ontario. They contribute so much to tourism. We had over 140 million people come to visit Ontario, moving around, seeing Ontario last year. That’s something we’re proud of as a ministry, because we contribute to that success. But we also work with our partners, who are the real champions of tourism, and they leverage tourism through culture and sport and many different—heritage, for example. So we’re very proud. We also know that there are over 22,000 jobs that are directly connected to the sector, to festivals, and we’re very, very proud.

I’d like to turn it over to the deputy. We have one of our assistant deputy ministers who can talk a bit about it.

I just want to say that I am so proud of the work that our festivals do here in Ontario, not only to educate, to preserve our heritage, to share different cultures, but really to help define who we are as Ontarians and really to speak to the things that make us proud as Canadians.

Mr. Steven Davidson: Thank you, Minister.

I’d like to introduce Richard McKinnell, who is the assistant deputy minister of tourism, policy and development. I’m going to ask Richard to provide just a little bit more detail around the nature of the Celebrate Ontario program that is the principal funder for festivals and events, and also some of the impact the program has had. I am also going to ask Richard to talk about the process for assessment. Yesterday, Mr. Hillier referenced the importance of ensuring sound economic analysis that’s highlighted in the minister’s mandate letter. We do that in assessing applications under all the ministry’s programs, and Rick will just highlight how that’s done in this case as well.

Mr. Richard McKinnell: Thank you very much, Minister and Deputy, and thank you to the member for her question.

I’m really delighted to talk a little bit about the Celebrate Ontario program. As the minster alluded to, it helps us celebrate a sense of pride and place in our province. It helps us celebrate and recognize great cultural, food and local experiences, heritage etc. But most importantly, it is an economic development program. As the deputy said, I will tell you a little bit about how we do the economic impact analysis, what we expect applicants and recipients of our funding to do in terms of economic impact analysis—and then ultimately that does make a stronger economy for us.

Just stepping back and talking a little bit about the Celebrate Ontario program, it is really designed to help festival and event organizers across our province improve and enhance their festival. It’s about how to increase attendance and then, in turn, how to get those people to come, attend your event and make the difference and spend a little bit more money, which in turn helps local businesses.

Colleagues at the Ontario Business Improvement Area Association tell us that our programs, through festivals and events, which really do support some of those local festivals and street fairs in so many of our communities, makes the difference between a profit and a loss for the year. The people who are on the street for that Saturday afternoon, or that Sunday, stop in at stores and visit.

In terms of economic impact, the minister was correct: It contributes. In 2012, it was a $28-billion industry in our province, but it does continue to grow.

With that, our recipients out of Celebrate Ontario—and they are required to report back to us about what they’re seeing in terms of improvements and enhancements—reported in 2012 that they saw an 18% increase in the number of visitors that attended their events, which resulted in over $206 million being spent, in addition to what it was.

Our program is really designed to help people grow that festival, attract more people and generate more economic impact. It’s not a judgment on the success of any given festival when you apply, because there are hundreds—I dare say thousands—of successful festivals across our province. Our application process is really designed to fund the enhancement and the improvement.

How we do that—of course, it’s a very wide open application process. I should say that the application process for 2015 is currently open. We launched the program about two weeks ago, and the deadline date for 2015 applications is November 6. So if any of your local organizers and events want to apply, we would encourage them to do so.

The program is highly, highly competitive. Last year, in 2014, we received 441 applications. Based on the review of those applications against the set criteria—and I’ll talk a little bit about that in a minute—we were able to announce, earlier this year, funding to 228 of those festivals, so approximately half, but that meant, obviously, that a number of them weren’t successful.

When we evaluate an application, it is based on a very fair, objective process by our staff, who are trained to do evaluations. They look at a number of things, including the organization’s capacity to be able to develop or deliver an event, and project information about what is being proposed, what kind of improvement. Does it seem to be a reasonable sort of thing? Would the provincial investment lead to a longer-term sustainability of the event and festival in that community?

We really zero in on performance measurement—it’s that attendance, it’s that spending, what the related economic impact is—so much so that we suggest to applicants, before they approach us with their proposal, that they visit our website. On the website, we have a tourism regional economic impact analysis model—we call it TREIM—and what that does is that it will calculate the economic impact of your proposed change or your festival. That’s a big part of our analysis, and as per the reference to the minister’s mandate letter that we should provide funding where there’s an economic impact, we very much rely on that model. It is something that is publicly available. I would encourage people to visit that website and see the kinds of things we ask. Ultimately, it generates economic revenue for the province, which in turn can be invested in other key services and priorities.

Once the evaluation is done and we make the decisions around the funding—which can be difficult, because there are so many good festivals out there—we enter into a transfer payment agreement with each of our recipients. That is absolutely key: They are required to sign that agreement before we flow any money to them. We also retain a portion of the funding back, to ensure that the festival does occur and that they report in to us on that, at the end of the process. Those holdbacks are very important.

As part of the transfer payment agreement with each of those festivals, it spells out what we will provide and what we expect of them in terms of the things they’ll report on—their performance measures, their increase in attendance. Based on that information, we are able to go back and calculate, using our TREIM model, as I referenced, what that economic impact would be.


For instance, we know that according to the information provided by Celebrate Ontario recipients, for every dollar of program money that we have given our applicants, in fact, that triggers $10 in additional spending by an attendee at an event. Then when you use the economic impact model, that generates $1.57 in provincial tax revenues. That is a rate of return for our province of 57% of our investments through Celebrate Ontario, and does go a long way in addressing the statement in the minister’s mandate letter.

Those are sort of some of the things that we do. We’re very enthusiastic. I think we work hard with our applicants to make sure there’s a wide range of festivals and events supported.

You referenced some in Cambridge. We really do support and fund everything from county fairs, the plowing match—that is so important to rural Ontario—to things like Caribana. The minister, in his opening remarks yesterday, referenced WorldPride and Toronto Pride, and how we have supported that. We are open to both rural and urban events, and certainly multicultural events. Francophones and First Nations are already priorities for us through the funding.

Maybe I could just talk a little bit about a couple of examples of projects. I hesitate to pick out one or two out of 228, because there are so many success stories.

Tall ships: In the last year, I think a number of you, and I know some of the members around this table, participated in tall ship events that I was part of last year as well. The tall ships event: We provided one-time funding to the organizers of those events. That brought over a million visitors to our waterfronts. The funding went to 15 different communities that hosted events.

I was in Hamilton the evening that the tall ships were there, but they visited St. Catharines, Brockville, Owen Sound, Sault Ste. Marie—the list went on and on. A million visitors to our waterfronts were able to take part and celebrate some of the great improvements that we’ve made to our waterfront communities. It also generated a lot of interest in the heritage and the culture and the local food of those areas. In each of those cases, not only was it about the ships and seeing them, it was also about that community’s role in the War of 1812 etc. It was a huge success. It wasn’t just one event; it was in fact 15 different events over the course of an entire summer, which was very beneficial to us.

Another one that I’d like to talk about, maybe very briefly, if I could, is the Burlington Sound of Music Festival. We’ve had the privilege of being able to work with those organizers over a number of years. Certainly, we’ve provided some support to them. In 2014, they’re actually receiving $106,000, but that’s less than some of the other years that they’ve received.

I don’t know if people have attended it, but it’s a hugely successful event. They estimate, based on their numbers and using our economic impact model, that they’ve had an economic impact of $1.1 million, and that’s just Burlington alone. They have 22 full-time jobs supported by that event. It attracts, obviously, not only people from the Burlington-Hamilton area, but they feel that they have over 5,000 visitors from other parts of the province and even some international, which is great. Each year, of course, obviously, the beach in the Burlington area really comes alive. It’s free concerts; it’s five days—but again, back to $1.1 million in economic impact, which is significant, of course.

Just another one I wanted to talk about, if I could, is the Ottawa Folk Festival. That’s another one that we have funded over a number of years. Through our funding, the organizers have been able to expand their festival. They’ve increased the capacity of the park from 15,000 up to 20,000, to 25,000, and now it’s currently 30,000. This meant a really important expansion in that program.

In 2013, compared to 2012, tourism visitor spending for that festival alone grew to $1.4 million. It was $1.4 million, which was a $400,000 increase over the previous year. The overall economic impact has grown to $2.8 million, with a gross domestic product of $2.1 million, and that’s a big increase over 2012.

Those are some of the successes we’ve been having. Certainly for WorldPride, I think the estimates—and we’re still waiting for the final report because the event just happened earlier this summer. We understand that there were 1.8 million visitors to those events over the course of the year. It was obviously important to celebrate Ontario as a welcoming destination—certainly welcoming our diversity—our tolerance and as a champion of human rights.

Other things that we funded too would include that the Windsor-Essex area hosted the International Children’s Games last year. Those games alone attracted over 1,600 athletes from 80 cities and 31 different countries from around the world.

I could go on and on, but I want to turn it back to the minister at this point. Thank you, Minister.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Thank you. I think there’s another question. Are there any other questions? We’ve got one over here.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Yes, Mr. Ballard.

Mr. Chris Ballard: Thank you very much. Through you, Madam Chair, to the minister: I’m new to this committee, and I have found yesterday’s discourse and today’s events very enlightening. I appreciate the information that you and your staff have put forward on a variety of topics as good background and good detailed information. So I’d like to thank you and your staff for pulling all of that together. It’s been very good.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Thank you.

Mr. Chris Ballard: Frankly, I’m quite confident in your stewardship of the Pan/Parapan Am Games. I view them as a top-tier sporting event, and the athletes, of course, have my full support, as they do our members’.

I was also impressed yesterday to hear about the facilities that are being built and have been built. The question I have, because I look forward to what’s to come: How are these facilities going to be used when the games are finished?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Thank you very much for the question. Back in 2008, I guess the folks who came around the table to put together a bid really wanted to look for ways to leave some legacy out of these games. The fact that we’ve been able to work with the federal government—and I think this is a perfect example of two levels of government really working together to get this right. The fact that we’ve been able to leverage half a billion dollars to invest in infrastructure here in the province of Ontario I think is a great accomplishment. Working with our 16 municipalities and their taking a strong leadership role in the Pan/Parapan Am Games—again, it’s been a huge accomplishment.

I gave an example yesterday of one of my site tours down to the Scarborough aquatics centre. It’s incredible to see the city of Toronto and the University of Toronto working together to form a new organization to administer that building. I think it’s the first time in the history of this province that—and I believe there was actually a regulatory change in order to allow that to happen. Often, governments all around the world or different organizations are accused of working alone. I think this is a perfect example of our government taking a leadership role to bring people together to build infrastructure and to bring organizations together.

You take that building, this impressive building that was built on a former dump, and to transform that section of Toronto and Scarborough—it’s transformed the neighbourhood. I know Bas Balkissoon, who is sitting next to you, will know first-hand that infrastructure investment in Scarborough is a big priority of his and the members from that area. This is a great example of infrastructure investment.

You walk into the building and you will see many organizations using it. You’ll see hundreds if not thousands of people within the building taking advantage of the state-of-the-art weight and fitness centre. There’s community space that’s available for community-based organizations, different boardrooms. It’s really just a hub of activity.

You’ll see, of course, the track being used, the state-of-the-art basketball courts that are there. It is now the new home of the Ontario wheelchair basketball association, so they’re in the facility.


The leadership of the Canadian Sport Institute Ontario and the fact that we made, I believe, an $8-million contribution to them to call that, I believe, 32,000-square-foot section that they have access to home, meeting the CEO—

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Excuse me, Minister. Could you wrap up? We’re at the end of the 20 minutes. Thanks.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Seeing people—


Hon. Michael Coteau: I wish we had another hour. But to see different folks and associations in that building is incredible. You know what? Any of the members of the opposition who want to go down to that building and take a look, I would love for you to join me. You will be so impressed with the fact that Ontarians, all of us—that this government has been able to accomplish this.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I thank the committee members for their time and questions. I appreciate the opportunity to speak.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Thank you, Minister, and thank you to all of your staff for being here.

We actually have some votes and things to deal with, so if people just want to hang around for a few minutes.

This concludes the committee’s consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Standing order 66(b) requires that the Chair put, without further amendment or debate, every question necessary to dispose of the estimates. Are the members ready to vote?

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m sorry. I didn’t hear. I was saying goodbye. I’m sorry.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Can you repeat that?

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): This concludes the committee’s consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Standing order 66(b) requires that the Chair put, without further amendment or debate, every question necessary to dispose of the estimates. Are the members ready to vote?

Interjections: Yes.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Shall vote 3801 carry? All in favour?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Is it 3801 you’re on? It’s on page 3.

Ms. Cindy Forster: It’s 3801. There’s no debate or amendment allowed.

Mr. Randy Hillier: No, but we can call for recorded votes.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Absolutely, yes.

Mr. Randy Hillier: So let’s have a recorded vote. If you want, I can say that each and every time, or we just can put it as if I’ve done and we’ll have recorded votes.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Each and every time—

Mr. Randy Hillier: Yes.


Balkissoon, Ballard, Kiwala, McGarry, Potts.


Harris, Hillier.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Carried.

Shall vote 3802 carry?

Mr. Randy Hillier: No.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): You have to call for a recorded vote.

Mr. Randy Hillier: That’s what I thought. I’d just ask if I could have a blanket recorded vote for—

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Each time.

Mr. Randy Hillier: You want to do it each time?

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Yes.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Okay. Recorded vote.


Balkissoon, Ballard, Kiwala, McGarry, Potts.


Harris, Hillier.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Carried.

Shall vote 3803 carry?

Mr. Randy Hillier: No. Recorded vote.


Balkissoon, Ballard, Kiwala, McGarry, Potts.


Harris, Hillier.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Carried.

Shall vote 3804 carry?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Recorded vote.


Balkissoon, Ballard, Kiwala, McGarry, Potts.


Harris, Hillier.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Carried.

Shall vote 3805 carry?

Mr. Randy Hillier: No. Recorded vote.


Balkissoon, Ballard, Kiwala, McGarry, Potts.


Harris, Hillier.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Carried.

Shall vote 3806 carry?

Mr. Randy Hillier: No. Recorded vote.


Balkissoon, Ballard, Kiwala, McGarry, Potts.


Harris, Hillier.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Carried.

Shall vote 3808 carry? All in favour?

Mr. Randy Hillier: No. Recorded vote.


Balkissoon, Ballard, Kiwala, McGarry, Potts.


Harris, Hillier.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Carried.

Shall vote 3809 carry?

Mr. Randy Hillier: No. Recorded vote.


Balkissoon, Ballard, Kiwala, McGarry, Potts.


Harris, Hillier.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Carried.

Shall the 2014-15 estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport carry?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Recorded vote.


Balkissoon, Ballard, Kiwala, McGarry, Potts.


Harris, Hillier.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Carried.

Shall I report the 2014-15 estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport to the House?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Along with the annual reports, absolutely—with the annual reports and the expense accounts.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): All in favour?


Balkissoon, Ballard, Kiwala, McGarry, Potts.


Harris, Hillier.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Carried.

I adjourn this committee meeting until—

Mr. Michael Harris: On a point of order.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Sure.

Mr. Michael Harris: Was there a list of questions that were documented by research that they can just read out, that we’ve got on file or will be provided to the committee? There is—

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Chair, can we hear what he’s saying?

Mr. Michael Harris: I was just asking if there has been a list of questions throughout the past five hours that were recorded by research that will be brought back to the committee for us or answered.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Madam Chair, we didn’t discuss any questions and—

Mr. Michael Harris: Well, no, throughout the—

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: —actually entertain it as a request of the committee.

Mr. Randy Hillier: There were requests made during the examination. We’re asking if they were recorded.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I don’t think there was agreement.

Mr. Michael Harris: There doesn’t need to be agreement. There was agreement by the minister and the ministry. They’ll go through Hansard; they’re all there.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Katch Koch): The practice has been for the research officer to track any undertaking that the ministry has made to the committee. For anything outstanding, the research officer would usually provide a memo, which I would distribute to committee members as soon as I get it.

Mr. Michael Harris: That memo will come?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Katch Koch): As soon as the research officer has a chance to compile it. She would have to look at today’s Hansard, as well, to make sure nothing is—

Mr. Michael Harris: Yes. I just want to make a note that there were a lot of outstanding commitments from the ministry, and we just want to make sure that’s documented.

Mr. Chris Ballard: They’re not outstanding.

Mr. Michael Harris: They are outstanding.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Until they’re complete, they’re outstanding.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: We’ll see the list, right?

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Yes. The minister, I think, did undertake to provide some information.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: If the minister has, that’s fine, but I think we should see the list.

Mr. Michael Harris: You’ll see the list.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): Okay. We’re going to adjourn this committee till next—

Miss Monique Taylor: Chair, just for clarification, does that mean that we’re not allowed specific questions from the ministry to report back without the okay of the—

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: No. We’re just asking to see the list, because as far as I’m concerned, he’s got a list, but several times the minister did not agree. We need to see if what he’s saying is agreed based on what’s in Hansard.

Miss Monique Taylor: Is it up to the minister to agree for information that we request as a committee? If he doesn’t want to give it to us, he doesn’t have to? I don’t understand what the member is saying.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Katch Koch): Basically, what we’re doing is we’re tracking what is expected back from the ministry. If there was no undertaking taken by the ministry, we’re not expecting that to come back. But if there is an undertaking, then we follow up on it.

Miss Monique Taylor: I understand that point, but with the member opposite asking these questions, I’m curious as to, if we ask for information—

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: There were members on the other side who made a request that the minister did not agree with.

Miss Monique Taylor: But the ministry can’t disagree with providing information.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: As long as it’s one the minister agreed with, we’re okay.

Mr. Randy Hillier: It’s getting somewhat circular, so I’m going to leave.

The Chair (Ms. Cindy Forster): We’re adjourned till October 7 for the consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Infrastructure.

The committee adjourned at 1047.


Wednesday 1 October 2014

Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport E-37

Hon. Michael Coteau

Mr. Steven Davidson

Ms. Nancy Mudrinic

Mr. Kevin Finnerty

Mr. Richard McKinnell


Chair / Présidente

Ms. Cindy Forster (Welland ND)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente

Miss Monique Taylor (Hamilton Mountain ND)

Mr. Bas Balkissoon (Scarborough–Rouge River L)

Mr. Chris Ballard (Newmarket–Aurora L)

Mr. Grant Crack (Glengarry–Prescott–Russell L)

Mr. Han Dong (Trinity–Spadina L)

Ms. Cindy Forster (Welland ND)

Mr. Michael Harris (Kitchener–Conestoga PC)

Mr. Randy Hillier (Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington PC)

Ms. Sophie Kiwala (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et les Îles L)

Miss Monique Taylor (Hamilton Mountain ND)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry (Cambridge L)

Mr. Paul Miller (Hamilton East–Stoney Creek / Hamilton-Est–Stoney Creek ND)

Mr. Arthur Potts (Beaches–East York L)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes

Mr. Todd Smith (Prince Edward–Hastings PC)

Miss Monique Taylor (Hamilton Mountain ND)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr. Katch Koch

Staff / Personnel

Ms. Anne Marzalik, research officer,
Research Services