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

March 7, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Mar-07 (PDF)

L022 - Wed 7 Mar 2012 / Mer 7 mar 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 7 March 2012 Mercredi 7 mars 2012

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SECURITY FOR COURTS, ELECTRICITY

GENERATING FACILITIES

AND NUCLEAR FACILITIES ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

DES TRIBUNAUX, DES CENTRALES

ÉLECTRIQUES ET DES INSTALLATIONS

NUCLÉAIRES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICIES

ENERGY POLICIES

MANUFACTURING JOBS

TAXATION

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

CONCUSSIONS

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

MINING INDUSTRY

FIREFIGHTERS

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

FARM SAFETY

RENEWABLE ENERGY

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

VISITOR

CORRECTION OF RECORD

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD

HEART AND STROKE FOUNDATION

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

HEART AND STROKE FOUNDATION

CARLETON UNIVERSITY

RELAY FOR LIFE

AUTO INSURANCE FRAUD

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

NORTHERN ONTARIO

SPECIAL REPORT,

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

OF ONTARIO

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REDUCING AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

PREMIUMS BY ELIMINATING

FRAUD ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 VISANT À RÉDUIRE

LES PRIMES D’ASSURANCE-

AUTOMOBILE PAR L’ÉLIMINATION

DES ACTIVITÉS FRAUDULEUSES

AFFORDABLE ENERGY

AND RESTORATION OF LOCAL

DECISION MAKING ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR L’ÉNERGIE ABORDABLE

ET LE RÉTABLISSEMENT DE LA PRISE

DE DÉCISIONS LOCALE

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(ELEMENTS IN CLASSIFYING RISKS

FOR AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES ASSURANCES

(ÉLÉMENTS SERVANT AU CLASSEMENT

DES RISQUES EN MATIÈRE

D’ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE)

FAR NORTH REPEAL ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 ABROGEANT

LA

LOI SUR LE GRAND NORD

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(RISK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS

FOR AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES ASSURANCES

(SYSTÈMES DE CLASSEMENT

DES RISQUES

EN ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE)

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

RENEWABLE ENERGY

DOG OWNERSHIP

RENEWABLE ENERGY

WIND TURBINES

MARKDALE HOSPITAL

WIND TURBINES

HIGHWAY SAFETY

TUITION

EDUCATION FUNDING

WIND TURBINES

WIND TURBINES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY /

CRÉDITS PROVISOIRES

The House met at 0900.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SECURITY FOR COURTS, ELECTRICITY

GENERATING FACILITIES

AND NUCLEAR FACILITIES ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

DES TRIBUNAUX, DES CENTRALES

ÉLECTRIQUES ET DES INSTALLATIONS

NUCLÉAIRES

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 5, 2012, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 34,

An Act to repeal the Public Works Protection Act, amend the Police Services Act with respect to court security and enact the Security for Electricity Generating Facilities and Nuclear Facilities Act, 2012 / Projet de loi 34, Loi abrogeant la

Loi sur la protection des ouvrages publics, modifiant la

Loi sur les services policiers en ce qui concerne la sécurité des tribunaux et édictant la Loi de 2012 sur la sécurité des centrales électriques et des installations nucléaires.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. Rob Leone: I’m pleased to stand on behalf of the Ontario PC caucus to talk about Bill 34. I want to begin by talking a bit about what happened yesterday in our debate about the opposition day motion with respect to Toronto subways. We had a lot of interesting and heated debate in this House, and I’m sure some of the quotes that we heard from that side of the House are going to ring loud and clear throughout this session because it was very interesting to see Liberal MPPs who actually support a subway, and said that quite frequently in their speech, end up voting against it. It’s pretty interesting to see that.

I want to draw your attention to one of the quotes that we heard yesterday from the member from Etobicoke Centre. She said this: “As difficult as democracy is, as messy as it can be, it’s far better than benevolent dictatorship, or dictatorship of any kind, where you just go in and say, ‘Because I know best, this is what you’re going to do.’” That’s what the member for Etobicoke Centre said yesterday in debate. I find it very interesting when we take that quote and bring it into this House, into this debate, knowing what happened right here in the city of Toronto with respect to the G20 summit.

If there is any example of dictatorship and the invoking of what we call a police state, it was that precise time. Regulation 233/10 is exactly this. It’s an example of a dictatorship, as opposed to democracy. So, in light of that debate, in light of that discussion, why did that government, sitting across the aisle from us in the opposition, decide it was okay to essentially overrule or, in secret, talk about a regulation that has some fundamental implications for civil liberties in the province of Ontario?

In addition, last week during debate on this very topic, the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities spoke quite eloquently about human rights abuses and everything of that nature—and, you know, I applaud him for the work that he actually does on this file. But then he started to do something that has become all too much of a pattern. What he decided to do was, he laid the blame on the federal government. This is a pattern that we’ve seen from this government. They take all the credit for anything that happens that’s good, but never accept any blame for anything that has gone wrong.

As members from the NDP have consistently asked, particularly on this file, we’ve never heard an apology. We’ve never heard an “I’m sorry” for what happened during that debate, that whole issue. We still haven’t heard that apology from the government.

I’m learning quite quickly that there are a lot of contrasts in this business, and I want to highlight one in particular here. Last week when I spoke in the House I talked about Mackenzie King being a Liberal hero, being a person that they like on that side, and the key to his success being that he never let his left hand understand what his right hand was doing. We can’t get the connection between two distinct events. It’s the key to Liberal success; it’s the key to why Mackenzie King was the longest-serving Prime Minister in Canadian history.

So let’s do that same process with this debate, Mr. Speaker. On the one hand you have the G20: the incidents that happened here in Toronto, the mass arrests that occurred, the trying to quelch lawlessness that the government allowed the police to do during that whole episode; and you contrast that with what happened in Caledonia, the lawlessness that happened there. We had, on the one hand, heavy police involvement, we had mass arrests, we disrupted civil liberties, and on the other hand we let that situation in Caledonia fester and fester until—chaos.

I remember watching the newscast after the G20 protests, watching what happened in Caledonia in our newscasts, and you know what, Mr. Speaker? It didn’t look like Ontario. It didn’t look like Ontario when cars were put up in flames or police cars were put up in flames. These are pictures of our Ontario, the great Ontario, the Ontario that is the glue that holds Confederation together. These aren’t the images that represent our province, and frankly, it’s an embarrassment to know what happened with those incidents and the fact that we can’t even come to an agreement on how to deal with issues that have significant importance to the people living in those communities.

Frankly, when it comes to protecting the city of Toronto, excessive force was used, but when we’re talking about protecting a community like Caledonia it seemed like there was a hands-off approach: “Let the two parties deal with those issues.” I think that’s one of the tragedies that we’ve seen from this government.

One of the issues that we talk about with respect to this issue is the secrecy: How do we have such massive police powers bestowed on that force without having a discussion or debate or a vote in this Legislature? That’s exactly what regulation 233/10 had done: It was done behind closed doors; it was done at cabinet, the whole cabinet sitting around a nice beautiful table, including the members for Peterborough, Ottawa Centre, Ottawa–Orléans, Mississauga–Streetsville, Willowdale, Bramalea–Gore–Malton, Ajax–Pickering and Algoma–Manitoulin—lots of people at the table to discuss what was going to happen with respect to this.

Mr. Speaker, we’re in a democracy. We need to know exactly what we’re talking about. We need to know the information to have informed and reasoned debate. We try and get that information at any given stage. Last week, certainly, was a deadline that we saw with respect to my motion on hospital expansion projects and tabling that plan. We passed a motion in this House to table that plan by March 1, 2012. We still don’t have that plan tabled in this House, the detail that we’d expect. It’s just a pattern of secrecy, of keeping the opposition in the dark; keeping the people of the province of Ontario in the dark.

We’re seeing it currently with the stuff that’s happening at Ornge where, on the one hand, we desire to get to the bottom of the situation at Ornge and on the other hand, we’re not giving this Legislature the tools to do that. We’re not providing witnesses with the protections that they’d expect to get them to freely come forward with the information that they need.

This is a democracy; a democracy that we have built through hard work. Frankly, we have to defend it at every given stage, and talking about this bill and what happened here in the province of Ontario is a necessity to getting to the bottom, to making sure that we improve the democracy that we’ve come to know.

In terms of when I spoke last on this, when the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke talked very elaborately and eloquently and even humorously on this topic—although it’s not a funny matter, he really did entertain us at that debate—I questioned the fact that there needed to be some semblance of understanding what “legitimacy” and “authority” meant. I decided to hit the textbooks to provide some background on what’s happening here. Let me give you a couple of quotes.

First of all, “Governmental power without legitimacy is only coercion or force....” This comes from Dickerson and Flanagan, the 7th edition.

“Power without legitimacy represents coercion—naked force.”

“Coercion is the deliberate subjection of one will to another through fear of harm or threats of harm.”

“When coercion is applied, compliance is not voluntary but results from fear of unpleasant consequences.”

If we look at what happened during the G20 protests outside here at this Legislature and throughout the city, particularly the core of the city of Toronto, we saw instances of coercion. We saw instances where authority was applied without the necessary legitimacy. That’s what this bill seeks to rectify. We understand that it seeks to rectify it because we don’t want to have a situation like this happen again.

At the heart of it is having a free and loving province of Ontario that we all have come to know and love. That’s why we sit in this place each and every day, talking about the future of this province. And we need to make sure that we can do that freely, openly and democratically. I’m going to support Bill 34.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate? The member from Davenport—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Sorry. Questions and comments?

Mr. Jonah Schein: I’m happy to rise today to speak to this issue. I was among the thousands of people who gathered on the lawn at Queen’s Park on that day. I didn’t come to the lawn accidentally—my colleague yesterday mentioned that he kind of showed up to see what was happening. I came intentionally, because I shared the concerns of thousands of people who gathered there.

I come from a generation of people who grew up with a real concern about a changing globe, a globe that sees less and less democracy, a globe where we see growing corporate power. We’ve been sounding alarm bells on this for years and years.

To me, what I saw on that day, starting out, was a real optimism, a real hope about restoring democracy to the planet and bringing it right here to the Legislature. I saw thousands of people. I saw students, teachers, union members, folks who were unemployed, people who were struggling and people who were there because they were concerned about the environment. I saw, for the most part, people who were willing to demonstrate their concern by marching peacefully through the streets.

What I hoped I would see that day would be that folks there would see their concerns about democracy met seriously, and what happened instead was that people found that their concerns were more real than they could have imagined. They saw brutal police force. They saw an elected government that abandoned them and that sanctioned police brutality on that day.

I’d like to talk more about this, this morning, but this comes far too late. We need to have this debate, but we needed to have it right then. We have not heard an apology from this government to constituents in this city, to small businesses who suffered that day and to people who were detained unlawfully and who were beaten. We need to hear this government come clean about their role and make sure this doesn’t happen again, ever, in this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I listened with great interest to what the member from Cambridge had to say, and it takes much more than two minutes to respond to the number of concerns he brought forward, but let me just make a couple of points.

Number one, no government ever directs the police to do anything. Policing matters are totally within the jurisdiction of the police. Whether we’re talking about a local government—a police commission does not tell the police how to carry out its function, and it’s the same thing here. So I just want to correct that. A lot of things happened on that particular weekend. Certainly, one of the ways to resolve some of those issues is to pass this particular law.

What does this law basically do? It basically makes sure that our court system, the judicial system that we all rely on and that we’re all very proud of in this country, is carried out in the best possible fashion. In order to do that, the court facilities have to be secure. Exactly the same thing can be said for our nuclear facilities as well, because we’ve all seen what’s happened in some parts of the world. You know what can happen with a nuclear facility. There’s always the possibility, and so they have to be as secure as possible.

Let me just talk to you about what democracy is really all about. I was on a council in Kingston for 16 years and a mayor for eight years. I know of no other situation where a mayor can just say on any issue, “We’re going to do this,” and the council takes a direct contrary position. It just doesn’t happen this way.

The government of Ontario is prepared to put up $8.4 billion of our tax dollars, all of our tax dollars, in order to deal with the transit situation here in the city of Toronto, but in order for that to happen it has to be done by way of a council resolution that the majority of council, which may or may not include the mayor, agrees upon. We are prepared to invest in transit in this province, as we’ve said before. It’s going to happen one way or another, but it’s not just going to happen because a mayor wants something contrary to what his council wants.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I very much appreciate the opportunity to comment on the member for Cambridge’s remarks regarding Bill 34. But before we get to that I also want to comment on the Attorney General’s remarks, where he specifically stated that he wanted to make it clear that no government tells the police. But I think the question that will come out very shortly that I’m going to try to allude to is: Are the police telling the government what to do in this particular situation?

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, we saw legislation come forward or bills come forward that drastically changed the direction of a lot of actions within the province of Ontario without coming to the legislative floor. What it was in the government and information that the government received that would cause them to do this is my concern: Where did this information come from and who is directing the government to say, “We need this done and we need it done this way and we need it done in this fashion”—that’s what hasn’t come to light in this whole issue.

Quite frankly, it’s quite surprising that they would bring one aspect of it without coming to the floor and passing the legislation and moving forward with the actions; without coming to the Legislature floor. However, when we’re getting rid of it, now all of a sudden, lo and behold, we have to come to the floor to discuss it.

We need the full details and disclosure as to why and what the government felt was so necessary to come forward; that “This is going to happen.” Was it the police telling the government that this is what’s going to take place?

Quite frankly, coming from a policing family—my father was the chief of police in Thunder Bay. He was 33 years in policing. My grandfather on my mother’s side was a chief constable in his homeland in Poland. So you get a different perspective of policing and the way that it operates. However, I’m still very concerned that that hasn’t come forward yet. Why hasn’t the government more or less given us some indication as to what the real reasons are as to why this was brought forward without coming to the Legislature floor? That’s what this province needs to know.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Prue: It was my privilege today to listen to the member from Cambridge. He’s a relatively new member in this House, so I’m still sussing him out to see what he has to say. But I have to say that in listening to him, he was both scholarly and measured in his comments. What he had to say, I think, was absolutely essential and important: He highlighted the fact that this government has yet to apologize for their actions. I think that in his statement, that is absolutely correct. So I was somewhat taken aback when I heard the two-minute comment from the Attorney General, because I don’t know what it had to do with the member from Cambridge’s speech, talking about transit in Toronto.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Well, he talked about it.

Mr. Michael Prue: The member from Cambridge may have made a passing comment on that, but the member from Cambridge used the quotes from Dickerson and Flanagan. The member from Cambridge talked about the role that the cabinet and the hangers-on to the cabinet were playing in conjunction with, although we don’t really know the circumstances, the police and the police forces in Toronto; the decisions that were made to take away the civil liberties of thousands of Canadian citizens and Ontarians who were doing nothing more than exercising their democratic rights.

I would have hoped that in the comments about the member from Cambridge, there would have been better comments from the government side than those that were proffered here today.

I commend the member from Cambridge, because he was measured, he was balanced and he was asking the questions that Ontarians, and indeed all people in Canada, need to know about the events surrounding the G20. I think the member from Cambridge should continue on this file and should continue to be asking these questions.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Cambridge has a two-minute response.

Mr. Rob Leone: I want to thank the member for Davenport, the Attorney General, the member for Oshawa and the member for Beaches–East York for their comments. Certainly, I also listened to the Attorney General with some interest. I guess the only reason why I brought up the debate on the subway was the quote that I had previously cited. I’m going to repeat that quote, because it’s certainly relevant to this debate: “As difficult as democracy is”—this is from the member for Etobicoke Centre—“as messy as it can be, it’s far better than benevolent dictatorship, or dictatorship of any kind, where you just go in and say ‘Because I know best, this is what you’re going to do.’”

That’s what the member for Etobicoke Centre said yesterday, and I wonder where the member for Etobicoke Centre was precisely when this whole discussion was secretly being talked about behind closed doors around a nice oak cabinet table. Because it’s the secrecy about this—it’s about keeping us in the dark. Well, Minister, I hope to soon be able to see what that cabinet table looks like, when the members of this side of the House actually form the government.

We have a situation in the province of Ontario of gross neglect of our democratic institutions. It’s a pattern that we’re seeing from that side of the House. It’s a pattern that we in the Ontario PC Party hope to end, Mr. Speaker, because we can no longer keep people in the dark, particularly with some significant issues that we’re seeing right here in the province of Ontario with respect to the promises that they made during the last election, with respect to the scandal that we’re seeing at Ornge. It’s a pattern that we’ve seen over and over again, and it won’t change until that government changes, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate? The member from Davenport.

Mr. Jonah Schein: Thank you, Speaker. To continue from where I left off, I felt hopeful, at the beginning of that day almost two years ago, that so many people came out on a Saturday to voice their concern, not just about what was happening in Ontario but what was happening around the world. People were expressing a real concern about democracy. They were expressing a concern about lack of sovereignty and about human rights abuses and about civil liberties.

Unfortunately, our government stood up and said, “This is exactly what you should be concerned about. You should be concerned about people’s civil liberties; you should be concerned about people’s freedom. This is a war. This is a war on democracy, on people who want to come out and voice their concerns.” The state came out that day and, in fact, ordered secretly to violate people’s rights.

I think all of us at the very least would agree that we need to restore hope in the political process. None of us appreciates the fact that half the people in this province have given up on electoral politics. It’s harder and harder to convince people that it matters, when we don’t see transparency in our government, when we see things negotiated behind closed doors, when we continue to see things off-loaded and responsibility is not taken at any level, whether it’s passed up the line to the federal government or down to the cities.

We are waiting, and people in this city are waiting, for an apology from this government to take responsibility, to say, “This happened in our backyard, and we made it worse. We took a bad situation, and we made it worse.”

Mr. John Yakabuski: “We?” They.

Interjection: Don’t take their credit for them.

Mr. Jonah Schein: The government. Thank you.

So I think the concerns that were expressed that day—people worry that the government is not in control, that it’s actually the corporations that are in control. They’re worried that it’s the corporations that are calling the shots.

So when we try to explain to people how it is that we have a government that continues to invest in nuclear power, that won’t make the public investments necessary to reduce our carbon footprint because they’d rather give money to the nuclear industry, we say, “Well, why is this happening?” Is it in the best interests of Ontarians to spend billions and billions of dollars propping up a nuclear industry and giving subsidies to big corporations?

Why is it that we’re losing jobs in this province, a province where jobs are walking away; where corporations can come and get a handout without any promise of job guarantees and people lose their jobs? It’s no wonder that people are giving up on the political process here, and it is all of our jobs to restore faith in that process. At some point, it begins with an apology. It begins with acknowledging that there’s a problem here.

I know that people look at what goes on sometimes, and they shake their heads and they say, “What is happening?” How come one day a government will vote to support more corporate tax cuts, with no strings attached, and then, a few weeks later, they turn around and say, “Oh, no, that’s wrong. We won’t move forward with the corporate tax cuts”? How does this happen? Where is the leadership? Where is the spine on behalf of the government? How do you have confidence in a government that will change its mind whichever wind blows?

We were having this debate weeks ago, and the member from the Ministry of Training and Colleges, who represents a Toronto community, was saying that this wasn’t a general meeting of the campfire girls going on in downtown Toronto. He was insinuating that the force that was used that day was necessary to protect against terrorists, and he used those words.

But then, years ago, back in June 30, 2010, he said that people were afraid to disagree with the Toronto police chief, even when he was wrong. He was calling out the police chief then. He says, “The police reaction to [the] last two days can only be described as bizarre.” He gave good reason why a public inquiry was needed. He said, “A country that generously funds police actions and doesn’t fund access to its human rights charter has forgotten its people.”

Yet he comes back last week and says that police force was necessary; this wasn’t the Girl Scouts here; that it was dangerous. And I beg to differ. What happened then—we had the largest mobilization of police in Canadian history, and we had the biggest mass arrest of people over that weekend too. What I saw, when people gathered on that first day here at Queen’s Park, was a highly disciplined crowd of people, people who wanted to voice their concerns about what was happening with the G20. That police force was well equipped to keep things in line.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Excuse me. We have two loud sidebars going on. If you’d like to discuss things, could you go out of the chamber, please? Thank you.

Mr. Jonah Schein: Thank you, Speaker. But instead of allowing people to voice their concerns—I should back up and say that this should never have happened in Toronto. It was just absolutely terrible planning.

I do agree with the government, in this case, that the federal government also owes this city an apology for what happened. But it should never have happened, and it was terrible planning that it happened in this city. It cost us over a billion dollars, and I know that that billion dollars could be well used to create jobs in this province, to build a transit plan in this city. There are people who desperately need the services that that money could pay for.

But I also felt bad in some ways. Because it was so poorly planned, we had this huge mobilization of police who didn’t know what to do, or seemingly didn’t know what to do. I think that they probably felt embarrassed after what happened, because they were set up for failure in some ways. They did not have clear direction. I think that the police force deserves to be set up in a way that they can uphold the principles of democracy and freedom of speech, and I think that in a lot of ways, they were set up on that day not to do their job properly.

Interjection.

Mr. Jonah Schein: That’s right.

But my real concern is with the people who were absolutely abused on that day, people who were kettled for four hours at a time, five hours at a time in the freezing rain; people who lived in this city—for days. These were people who lived in this city, who were asked, who were questioned on what they were doing in their own neighbourhood, why they were walking down the street, why they were buying groceries. People were detained for days at a time, without access to a telephone; people were strip-searched—just gross violations of people’s civil liberties over that weekend.

And we have not yet heard a clear apology from this government and we have really not moved this forward to make sure this never happens again. I think it’s good that we’re talking about it now, but without a real apology it’s a bit hollow.

And it goes far—in ridings across this province. I know somebody; I don’t know if she’s a constituent, but in Parkdale–High Park this woman was pulled over by police and searched for no reason at all. She was an artist who used spray paint as her medium, so she had a mask in her bag when she was detained. She was held for 48 hours for doing her principal job as an artist. What is the reason that we give that we should host the G20 in Toronto when we can’t even protect people’s civil liberties here at home? It’s absolutely obscene.

I think overall, we need to restore people’s hope that government matters, that we can be a democratic society. We can’t off-load everything; we need to take responsibility. We can’t give the job of setting the budget to a banker. It’s hard to argue with people who are concerned that banks are running—

Interjection: Finance minister Drummond.

Mr. Jonah Schein: Yeah. It’s hard to argue that government matters when we won’t even do our job; when we hire a banker to do the job of the finance minister. It’s hard when we have the two biggest parties here competing on who will cut taxes faster, who will get rid of government faster.

Interjection: You’re backtracking a little bit.

Interjection: Yeah, Jonah, stay on message.

Mr. Jonah Schein: I’m on message.

We need to make sure that people know that we are ready to step up and that, consistently, the NDP will stand up and say, “We’re ready to govern.” We believe in public policy. We know that we can protect civil liberties in this province. We know that we can provide education to our province. We know that we can help people when they’re in trouble. We know that we can create jobs when we work together. We’re going to take responsibility for planning in this province. We’re not going to offload our jobs. We’re not going to make secret deals about how policing happens. We’re not going to hire in bankers to set public policy.

We actually believe that this place should create good public policy that should serve Ontarians, and never was that more clear that that was missing than over that weekend. I know that constituents in my riding and across the city are still waiting for an apology and would like to get to the bottom of this.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jeff Leal: It was interesting, to say the least, to listen to the comments from my colleague from Davenport.

There was an interesting line when Benjamin Disraeli was the Prime Minister of Great Britain. He was in question period one day and was being asked a question from the opposition. The Disraeli government had changed a position after getting some new information with regards to public policy in Great Britain, and Prime Minister Disraeli’s response to the Leader of the Opposition was, that day, “Sir, what would you do if you received new information about your particular position?” So things happen from time to time when positions change.

If you look at this issue, there’s no question: The Public Works Protection Act was brought in in 1939, and the companion act, the War Measures Act, was brought in at the same time, dealing with a set of particular circumstances back in 1939, the advent of the Second World War.

But it’s interesting: I remember when I was a municipal councillor and, from time to time, you would get briefings from the local police service as they would quantify risk factors of particular things that might be happening in a community at any particular time; guns and gangs and other influences that might impact policing in one’s community. There’s no question that the G20 summit held here in Toronto—most of us recognize that that would amount to a significant security risk, having the leaders of the largest economies come right here.

But I want to move on—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Are you defending what you did, Jeff?

Mr. Jeff Leal: My friend Mr. Yakabuski is trying to throw me off this morning but I won’t let that happen—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): We know that we don’t use names; we use ridings. Thank you.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I did not honour the rules.

It’s time that this act, a new act, was brought in to cover these circumstances.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I must say to the member for Peterborough, the chief government whip: I would have thought that he might have taken this opportunity to stand up and apologize, not try to defend what they did with respect to passing this regulation 233/10 in June of 2010. I heard the member for Davenport speak.

We know today, Speaker—and I’ve already spoken to this for an hour, so I won’t get another chance—that the Liberals, the government, the ones that passed this G20 regulation and the ones that have had to bring this legislation to try to get away from it, don’t want to speak to this bill anymore. It’s their bill; they don’t want to speak to it—a few two-minute hits.

I would expect that every one of the 54—52, I guess it is, because of the Speaker—members over there would want to take the opportunity during this debate to stand up to the members of this Legislature and to the people of Ontario and say, “If we have nothing else to say, we at least have one thing to say, and that is, ‘We’re sorry. We’re sorry for the abdication of our legal responsibility to govern, and we’re sorry for passing a regulation behind closed doors, hiding it from the Legislature and thereby hiding it from the people.’” I just say that you’ve got an opportunity here.

Having said that, an apology doesn’t suffice. When you’ve done something wrong, there are two things that have to happen: You have to have contrition; and there is a price to pay. Just because the criminals say they’re sorry doesn’t mean they don’t go to jail. This government has failed on two accounts, and it must be held to account. On this side of the House, we will do our job.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Parkdale–High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Thank you, Speaker. First of all, I want to applaud the member from Davenport, who spoke with passion and compassion about what happened those fateful days.

I’d like to quote the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, who tweeted on that day, “What happened was wrong and I believe violated our charter rights.” We agree with him. We believe what happened was wrong and did violate our charter rights. I wish he had had the ear of his cabinet. Clearly, not even he knew what was going on behind closed doors. Unfortunately, he had a bit of a change of tune, because later he described or inferred that everybody who was demonstrating on those days were terrorists. I mean, please; I was one of them. I was one of them, standing with Tibetans.

Were the Tibetans terrorists? I was one of them, standing with church leaders and people of faiths of all kinds on a Sunday to do a service. Were they terrorists? I was standing with unionists, who covered the grounds of Queen’s Park. Were they terrorists? Those were the ones hurt by the invocation of a secret regulation, done in secret when the Legislature was in session—not even known by Liberal backbenchers. That was only outdone, I might say, in the history of this country by a Liberal Prime Minister who at one point invoked the War Measures Act and suspended civil liberties from coast to coast.

That outdid this particular action, but this particular action was right up there. Not only does it demand an apology; it demands an inquiry. We have long called for such: a public inquiry that would hold the cabinet ministers who made that decision to account. That’s what is needed so that we can actually get them on the stand and ask them to account for their actions and tell us what really went on, because we still don’t know. That’s not democracy; that’s an oligarchy at work. And that was this government at work in an oligarchy. The people of Ontario deserve better. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. Questions and comments? The Attorney General.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Thank you very much, Speaker. Of course, you know, when you’re in opposition you try to create as much chaos as possible. I’ve been over there. I know the routine. You get together first thing in the morning, and somebody is going to come up with the ultimate question that will bring the government to its knees.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Order.

Hon. John Gerretsen: I realize that. Everything here is put on a totally partisan basis. Look, the regulation was passed, but you also know from the various reports that were done that the regulation was used only in a very limited sense. What you’re trying to do is take everything else that happened on that weekend—many things that shouldn’t have happened; I totally agree—and blame it all on this limited resolution that, to my understanding from the various reports that I have read, was only used on one or two isolated occasions of everything else that happened.

Speaker, you know what I would really hope for—and I come from a municipal background, as do the member from Ancaster and the member from Peterborough. I can honestly tell you, having been here for 17 years—

Interjections.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Just hear me out for a moment—that there are more intelligent debates at most municipal council meetings around this province on an ongoing basis—

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I’m looking at standing order 23(h), (i), (

j) and (k), “Makes allegations against another member.... Imputes false or unavowed motives to another member.” I think that’s what the Attorney General just did to the entire opposition.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Stop the clock. Frankly, I did not hear anything of that nature from the Attorney General. I rule that that’s not a point of order. Thank you.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Thank you, Speaker. I would never impute a motive on any member in this House—never have, never will.

As I said earlier, I’ve heard more meaningful debates at council meetings than in this place here, because everybody looks at their speaking notes and blah, blah, blah. The debate here sometimes is pretty awful, and I think we can all agree on that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Davenport has a two-minute reply.

Mr. Jonah Schein: In response to the member opposite, I’m new here, and I respect your years of service here. I’d love to sit down and have a coffee and hear about how we could make debate better here. I would like to hear from you how we can make this a place where we actually serve the needs of folks in Ontario, where we—

Hon. John Gerretsen: Leave all talking points out of here—

Mr. Jonah Schein: Friend, do I look like I’m using—

Interjections.

Mr. Jonah Schein: Speaker, to the member opposite: In fairness, I wasn’t using any talking points this morning. I was speaking from my heart, as somebody who was there, somebody who actually has a real concern about the way this province is governed, about the kind of growing inequality that we see in this province, about the environmental disaster that comes every day because we don’t have proper government regulations—

Interjection: No leadership.

Mr. Jonah Schein: We don’t have leadership. So I speak from my heart as a new person here and as somebody who was on the streets those days.

It might seem like a little thing, or you might say that it was only used in a small way, that secret law, but in fact the chill that it puts through a city and a province when people don’t know what rights they have, they don’t know if they are eligible to be searched when they’re going to buy groceries, they don’t know how close they have to be to a fence before they have to show identification—this puts a chill through a city, through a province, and it fundamentally undermines the democratic process, when people don’t know what their rights are and when we have deals secretly negotiated.

So I hope that you won’t minimize that concern. Even though it was not used on a mass scale, the implications were massive.

Hon. John Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I respect the member from Davenport, as I respect every member in this House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’m not sure that was a point of order, but it was a statement. I can’t count that as a point of order; I’m sorry.

Further debate?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Point of order, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Speaker, I understand that you don’t consider that a point of order. Is there any way that we might consider it an apology?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): That is not a point of order either.

Further debate?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s a pleasure to be here today to debate Bill 34. I’m also pleased to join the debate and congratulate my colleagues. From time to time in this chamber, we have disagreements. We all, in this chamber, have our own views that have been shaped by our own histories and by our communities that we represent, that we’ve grown up in. I think that speaks to the heart of this legislation, doesn’t it? It speaks to the legitimacy and the credibility of this parliamentary process that we’ve engaged in, and the lack of one last year.

I’ve heard many people speak on this bill, and some people, I agreed with; others, I didn’t. Elements of some people’s speeches, I agreed with; elements of that same speech, I didn’t. But the reality is, that is why we have debate in this chamber. It is the rules that protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. And it is in this House where we are expected to have that debate.

It’s not every day we’re going to have that great debate on philosophies and how this place should be run, but when it talks about the need to police our streets in an international come-together of nations in one of our major cities not only in this province but in Canada—it’s important that that be brought to this chamber.

I was here last year. We asked some questions in the Legislature about this particular issue. I was one of the members who asked the Minister of Health Promotion at the time why she would allow this secret law to be rubber-stamped at cabinet. It was the Minister of Health Promotion at the time, because there were a number of members of cabinet who sat on that secret committee that rubber-stamped that.

At the time, we were told we had to speak to the Attorney General and ask him the questions, because it dealt directly with his portfolio. But at the time, us in the opposition, and me as one of the folks who actually asked the question, wondered why it went through a regulatory change at cabinet and not as law in front of this chamber. Because at the end of the day, we may have agreed with the Liberals; maybe we would have agreed with the NDP. But the point is, we deserved and we had the right to debate in this chamber, because that is why we are sent to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: It’s called democracy.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It is called democracy, as my colleague from Northumberland–Quinte West just pointed out. It is about bringing an idea to this chamber, to represent the people who sent us here to talk about the big issues of the day. None were bigger at that moment in time, in 2010, when people were being charged and arrested, and fear was in the eyes of a lot of people in our country because we saw horrific images on our television sets. I remember sitting in Nepean one day—it was a Saturday—watching the channel with my husband to see what the spectacle was here in Toronto that day.

In the opposition, we’re not the only ones to have had serious concerns over how that secret G20 law—

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Sneaky.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: —sneaky G20 law came into being. We know, for example, there is historical context to why this act was put in place. I remember at the time, and colleagues who were here then will tell you, that the Liberals tried to blame a Conservative Prime Minister and a Premier from the 1930s for this legislation. Get with the times. You’ve been in power for three elections now. When are they going to take responsibility? They never want to take responsibility.

Those who were here last week heard probably one of the most remarkable speeches they’re going to hear in the 40th Parliament—and the Attorney General today spoke about people not using talking points when they speak in this chamber. My colleague Mr. Yakabuski from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, our critic for community safety and correctional services, spoke with great passion about the historical relevance of this bill, how we arrived at that point, and why this party, this Liberal Party, should take responsibility. He told us, for example, about the historical context of the War Measures Act. He actually spoke at great length about his father’s service to this—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Excuse me. Could the members in the gallery please take their seats? Thank you.

Sorry. Go ahead.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: He spoke at great length about his own father’s service, and I was really touched by that, because for all members who are here today, not only was his father a member of this assembly for a great many years, but before that, he actually served in the Second World War. He talked about the historical context of the threat to civilization in the 1940s. It was also at that time that I learned a little bit more about my colleague. I think that’s what we are sent here to do: to learn a little bit more about each other’s point of view and respect that, not sneak legislation through the back door.

You’ll recall: This wasn’t the only piece of legislation that they snuck through at the time. They also snuck through the eco fees during that same period. It became very clear that this was a government that got lazy, arrogant and entitled and decided to do things their way, not our way.

My colleague talked about Canada declaring a war in September 1939, about three days after it was declared by Great Britain. The federal Parliament of Canada at the time invoked the War Measures Act, and we brought it in through the Public Works Protection Act just after that.

That brings us to 2010, when we saw those horrific images on our television sets during the G20. Then, fast forward, of course, to our Ontario Ombudsman, who produced a report called Caught in the Act. He says on page 9, point 9, “The only way to understand why the Legislature of Ontario would create a statute conferring police powers of this kind is to hearken to history. The Public Works Protection Act is a war measure.”

Interjection: War measure.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: War measure. “It was enacted in 1939 during an emergency session of the Legislature in the days following the declaration of war against Germany to deal with the threat posed by saboteurs against Ontario’s infrastructure. Guards and peace officers were given the kind of authority one might expect in a time of war or emergency circumstance—the kind of authority that stretches, if not transgresses, constitutional rights.”

The Ombudsman, then, further says, “Yet here, in 2010, was the province of Ontario conferring wartime” measures and “powers on police officers in peacetime. That is a decision that should not have been taken lightly, particularly not in the era of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Like my colleague from Oshawa, there is a policing background in my family. For years, my father was the chairman of the police commission in the small town of New Glasgow, Nova Scotia. He was also the president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. He had a service of 26 men. He, of course, got to work with people like Norm Gardner and, at the time, Julian Fantino from Toronto during that period where they had thousands of officers, and they learned to respect and work with one another.

I have the greatest respect for our police officers in the city of Ottawa and elsewhere across this province and our nation, but the reality is, at that period in time in 2010, they were equipped with powers that likened those that were to threaten Ontario’s infrastructure during a time of war.

Interjections: War.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: War, Mr. Speaker. And this government decided at that time to ignore this Legislature so we could not have public debate.

Then, as our friend the Ombudsman, a friend of this Legislature, an officer of this Legislature, said, they were caught in the act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Prue: It’s a pleasure to listen to the member from Nepean–Carleton and her 10 minutes of description of what actually went on.

I noted many catcalls at the beginning of her statements, but I didn’t find anything that she said untoward. What she was talking about is that the government chose to enact legislation akin to the War Measures Act against the citizens of Ontario. She quoted extensively from the Ombudsman, Mr. Marin, and what he had to say about this.

Again, we keep coming back and back to this. The government of the day, the cabinet of the day and the hangers-on around that table knew precisely what they were doing. They have many government tools. They have many tools at their disposal, but they chose to take

an act which was intended to protect Canadian interests, particularly property interests, in a time of war. They used that in a time of peace. They used it against people who were not insurgents who were coming to the country to attack our infrastructure, but against people who were out there exercising their legitimate right of self-expression and for people who wanted to simply state that they felt that the world economies and the things that were happening in their lives were not to their liking.

I commend the member for bringing this up. I am still waiting, as she is, for an apology from those who sat around that table. Surely, with the force of hindsight, looking back, I don’t know how anyone around that table could have thought we were in a time of war. I don’t know why anyone sitting around that table would have thought that this was an appropriate action. Please, somebody over there, stand up and do the right thing and apologize to the people of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s a pleasure to join the debate today, and certainly I’m listening to the other speakers as they bring forward their opinions on this. Some of the things I’ve heard, I think I’d agree with. Some of them are factual and some of them I think are stretched a little bit, and that’s not unusual around this place, I don’t think.

But certainly I think we can all agree that the G20 was held in Toronto and the G8 was held in Huntsville—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order, member from Nepean.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Further to the member from Oakville’s statement, he may want to correct the record. He did impugn motive toward me in suggesting that what I was saying was not factual when I was quoting from the Ombudsman’s report.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’ll rule on that right away. I don’t feel that he did that. I think he was skirting around the issue, but he did not exactly make a comment to you directly. So I’m going to rule that that’s not a point of order.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you, Speaker. Certainly I think people are a little more sensitive to what they’ve been saying than others around this place, and from time to time, we will disagree.

The city of Toronto was given four months to come up with a plan for the hosting of the G20. Huntsville was given two years. Obviously there were a number of goings-on that have been discovered since the G8 was held in Huntsville. Questions continue to be asked about what went on up there. I think down here what has happened is that a piece of legislation that’s been around since the 1930s was enacted. In hindsight, it was found to be lacking.

We’ve put forward suggestions as to how that can be changed, as to how that can be improved. The federal government has clearly said that they’re trying to, I think, avoid responsibility for this. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has said that the federal government is clearly responsible for the G20. It’s time to move on. Everybody is using this, I think, as a bit of a scapegoat.

I think what we’ve got is a way of moving on, and it’s time to move on. This bill is worthy of the support of all members of the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: I listened quite carefully and attentively—and quietly, I might say—to the member from Nepean–Carleton. I thought she was quite fair in her assessment. It really reflected what I think I heard the Ombudsman say in December; I believe it was in 2010. It was a scathing indictment on the McGuinty government. That’s clear.

Frankly, what we’re asking here today—they won’t stand to defend their own piece of legislation. The report, of course, was Caught in the Act. That couldn’t be any more deliberate an accusation of the government. Impugning motive: There’s the motive by the Ombudsman. Not only that; the only other person that invoked the War Measures Act was Trudeau. They use a hammer when you need a fly swatter.

Now, the issue here is really this: We were never apprised of this in this Legislature, which would have been a fair and reasonable thing to do, and yet they want to blame Stephen Harper for this. It would be my understanding that the G20 was held in Toronto, the largest, most-respected city in Canada probably. So I think there was a lack of leadership on that side, a lack of transparency and a lack of respect, basically, for the people in the Toronto area.

Not only that; Roy McMurtry, the former Chief Justice of Ontario, also commissioned a report. This report by an independent, well-respected former Conservative Attorney General for Ontario basically redrafted the 1939 legislation. Why didn’t they do that before they had the secret cabinet meeting, and get it right? I have lost trust in this government’s processes to lead the people of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Parkdale–High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to the member from Nepean–Carleton. She always speaks with passion, and she spoke with passion about this. It’s hard not to speak with passion. This was a blight upon Ontario and our reputation around the world; it was a blight on Toronto. I was part of those demonstrations; I’m neither a terrorist nor a murderer, nor were the other thousands that took place peacefully in downtown Toronto and were met with what could only be construed as police violence. This government was behind that.

This government met in secret, invoked a secret regulation that nobody knew about, not even their own backbenchers, while this Legislature was in session. No wonder they were slammed by J.J. McMurtry; no wonder they were slammed by the Ombudsman. They would be slammed by anybody concerned in the least with civil liberties in this province and in the city of Toronto. And yet, what horrifies us in the opposition and what horrifies not only us but anybody concerned with civil liberties across Ontario is the lack of the public inquiry that could call those cabinet ministers and the Premier to account and, quite frankly, what we’re all saying here today: the absolute lack of an apology.

This government is a government in denial. You can look at them now: All their heads are down. They’re guilty. They should be guilty, guilty as charged, and they should apologize.

It was mentioned once that when you’re guilty and you’ve been proven so by not only an Ombudsman but by a special report by a former Attorney General, you do two things: You say you’re sorry and you act that apology out. This, they think, is their apology. This bill is by way of an apology. I look forward to speaking about this bill and its pluses and its shortfalls in a few minutes. But for now, it would be enough just to hear, “I’m sorry.”

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Nepean–Carleton has two minutes.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’d really like to congratulate my friends for entering into debate today because that is why we’re here: my colleagues from Durham, Parkdale–High Park, Beaches–East York and, of course, Oakville; although I do believe the member from Oakville, had a bit of heifer dust in his speech today. I’d just point that out. I see my friends here from the Ottawa firefighters. I appreciate you being here today.

Look, at the end of the day, the Ombudsman said that this group here was caught in the act. I have the report here. Let me read a

section from page 11,

section 15. This should clear up everything.

“More importantly, it was grossly unreasonable and unfair for the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services to let regulation 233/10 fly under the radar”—as it did. “No one knew about the regulation until after the news of Mr. Vasey’s arrest under the act went viral. Not the public, not the press, not the administrators of the very city in which it was to be implemented. As our investigation revealed, quite remarkably, not even the Integrated Security Unit Steering Committee lead or key members of the Integrated Security Unit’s G20 Public Affairs Communications Team knew of the regulation.”

They shut out members of this assembly, who are sent here to debate important issues of the day. They did it under the radar, as the Ombudsman said. He finishes with this: “And the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services did nothing to ensure that people would be aware of these powers so that they could govern themselves accordingly.”

We stand here today demanding an apology.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Nothing, Speaker. They did nothing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Order. Further debate?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s an honour and privilege, always, to be able to stand in this place on behalf of the people of Ontario and the incredible people in Parkdale–High Park.

To talk about the incredible people of Parkdale–High Park for a moment, I’ll tell you what happened on the Sunday in my life and in the life of Parkdale–High Park that was during the G20. I’m a United Church minister by trade, as many know, and I went down to the G20. I called for all faith leaders to go down and have a prayer service. People from all denominations went; we gathered and we went down to King Street because of the disruption brought upon us by this government—I’ll talk about that in a minute. We went down to King Street to hold a prayer service Sunday morning.

We gathered and we held that prayer service, only to be met with a riot squad—again, we’re faith leaders here of all denominations—a riot squad, a line of people who looked like Darth Vader moving towards us, clearing us away from King Street. This is our street. These were our streets. Remember that chant? “Whose streets? Our streets.” Well, King Street was our street, nowhere near the meetings of the leaders but close enough that we were cleared off our own street. In fact, one of the faith leader’s church was very close to there; she was cleared away from that as well.

Not wanting to invoke trouble—none of us—I left. I came back to my riding in Parkdale–High Park, only to find, right outside my home on Queen Street, the entire street closed down. Now, I can tell you that Queen Street, Queen and Dufferin, is nowhere close to where the G20 leaders were meeting and discussing. There was no reason to close down Queen Street, and nobody would tell us why, by the way. Shut down completely.

My neighbours, some of them lawyers, came out and asked the police for badge numbers. They were not forthcoming. They asked the police where they were from and on whose orders they were there; that information was not forthcoming. People, of course, were tweeting all over the place. We expected that the police would invoke violence, because all of a sudden we expected hundreds of people to come to Queen and Dufferin from downtown once they heard what was going on there. I went over and spoke to the police person in charge and said, “You know, you’re just inciting violence here by your presence. You’re not helping the matter.”

I was standing, Mr. Speaker, next to an Iraqi war vet who had come up here from the United States. He said he had never seen policing like that. He was trained in the marines.

He said, “Who’s in charge here?”

I said, “Good question. Who’s in charge here?” because it was apparent nobody was.

Finally, they packed up. Finally, they left. One of my favourite chants from that day was—because we’re very good friends with our police people in my riding, the 11th and 14th. Shout-outs and kudos to them; they do a great job. One of the chants that I liked best was: “Whose police? Our police. Who are you? We want our police.” That was part of the problem. These were police from who knows where, brought into a situation that they had no control over and then didn’t know what they were doing in, clearly. So there are problems there.

But the question is: Where did the problems start? Who unleashed this nightmare on the city of Toronto?

Hon. John Milloy: Stephen Harper.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I hear a jibe from across the way that it was Stephen Harper. Do you know what? There is enough blame to go around here. I’m absolutely ready to say there—a pox on both their houses, Mr. Speaker. There was some blame to go around. Ottawa, no doubt, is to blame, in part.

But it wasn’t Ottawa that sat around a cabinet table here at Queen’s Park while this Legislature was in session. It wasn’t Stephen Harper; it was, in fact, the Premier of this province who sat around that cabinet table and decided to invoke a little-known regulation meant to be used in wartime in this situation, that both confused and befuddled not only the people of Ontario but the police themselves. It was this government that did that. This government did that and got slammed by the Ombudsman and got slammed by Justice McMurtry for doing so. That’s what happened here.

Now we have Bill 34 that has been brought in that undoes that regulation. But I want to talk about something it also does, which is of a little concern to us in the New Democratic Party and should be of concern to civil libertarians. It also says that, going forward, even though they’re going to get rid of that regulation, it requires any person entering or inside a courthouse to produce identification and provide information to assess their security risk. It also talks about this at nuclear facilities.

I don’t really get the juxtaposition, Mr. Speaker. There were no nuclear facilities in downtown Toronto on that weekend, and, to my knowledge, courthouses were not under threat. The main demonstrations were downtown and around Queen’s Park and around downtown where the G20 was meeting. So why put together these two items? We are very concerned about civil liberties for those who are entering and leaving courthouses. Why aren’t courthouses open to the public? Why shouldn’t they be? These are public facilities. We’re going to be looking for amendments, and I just put that out there because clearly that’s a problem.

Again, you see the hand of the government here, trying to work almost in secret: “We’ll pass a bill that, yes, we want to get rid of that regulation—but no, we don’t”—a little bit of a poison pill there. We’re going to be looking at that in the New Democratic Party because, again, we don’t want to correct one mistake only to make another.

On the Saturday of that weekend, I was out here demonstrating with Tibetans. There were thousands of Tibetans who were demonstrating about the occupation of their homeland, those same Tibetans who are now immolating themselves—about 23 monks and nuns who have died in Tibet because of the occupation there. Those Tibetans had not seen policing like that, some of them, since they left Tibet and saw the Chinese army at work.

Can you imagine how the police presence felt to all of those immigrants and new Canadians who were demonstrating here, who came to this country, who arrived in Ontario, just exactly because they wanted a country that didn’t use police forces like that? They wanted a country, a province and a city that exercised democracy. Yet they came here only to see people being shoved by people in riot gear, cleared from areas they had no business being cleared away from.

I was here on the Saturday with the Tibetans demonstrating—“those terrorists” and “those murderers,” in the words of the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, who, by the way, had a little change of heart, because on that weekend he was tweeting about the fundamental rights of the citizens in his riding being abridged and insulted; then all of a sudden, I guess he got the Liberal Party line, and all of a sudden he’s talking about murderers and terrorists, and the reaction was to deal with them.

Mr. Speaker, I’m not a murderer; I’m not a terrorist. I was there every single day. I was there for a good reason. I was there, like the vast majority, the 98.9% of the people who were there, to demonstrate peacefully, to let the world know about issues we felt were important. That’s why I was there.

What happened was unconscionable. It was, as many have said, a blot upon our history in this province, in our city. Movies have been made about it. People in other countries are talking about it still. The Ombudsman did a report; the Attorney General did a report slamming the government for this. And yet, silence, silence across the aisle—silence. Heads down, guilty expressions, nobody saying nothing: “We weren’t there; we didn’t see anything; we didn’t hear anything.”

This is exactly the sort of situation that we in this parliamentary tradition are trained, brought here and enabled to prevent. I mean, we were elected just to prevent such an occurrence as occurred that weekend, when a government can act single-handedly while a Legislature is in session, undemocratically, without consulting even their own members, to bring in a little-known regulation that can be used to take away, virtually, the civil liberties of its citizens.

We were elected—people fought and died to get us elected—to be able to stand up for freedom of speech, civil liberties, freedom of association, all of those good things, all of which were abridged, all of which were insulted on that weekend.

Now, the government wants to have us forget, but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, we will never forget. People in Parkdale–High Park will never forget. I hear from people from all political persuasions in my riding, saying, “Whatever happened out of that? Who was ever held to account for that? Who paid the price for that? Who had to resign over that one?” The answer I have to give them is: not one person; no apology, no resignation, no answer. Silence, heads down, heads looking away—the kind of silence that the guilty always invoke. I mean, come on. Come on.

This was horrendous. This was chaos. To quote the Attorney General—he wants chaos? That weekend was chaos: hundreds of arrests without cause, hundreds of citizens stopped without reason. That was chaos. He wants chaos? It’s chaos when a government can get away with it without one person apologizing, without one person resigning, with silence across the hall. That’s chaos. That’s chaos waiting to happen.

This regulation or not, Mr. Speaker—even if they take it off the books and this bill is passed? They are still guilty and they still have not said so. We still have not got an apology. Say you’re sorry. Say it now.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It being 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. John Yakabuski: I would like to welcome today members of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, who will be visiting members of the Legislature in their offices and also having a reception this evening as part of their annual Queen’s Park day. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Introduction of guests? This is going to take some time, so let’s be patient.

The member from Hamilton Mountain.

Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good morning. I would also like to welcome the firefighters this morning, and one of our representatives from Hamilton Mountain, or from Hamilton as a whole, Mr. Ron Summers. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Attorney General.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m not yet the Attorney General. It’s coming, but I’m not.

I would like to welcome all the members of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association who are here today as part of their legislative conference. We have Fred LeBlanc and Barry Quinn from the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, and John Sobey and Erik Leicht from the Ottawa Professional Fire Fighters Association. And finally, I would like to acknowledge all the firefighters who are here from across the province this week for meetings with the MPPs.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I want to welcome to Queen’s Park today—and they’ll be joining us in the gallery—two grade 5 classes from St. Martin Catholic Elementary School in Smithville, Ontario. Teachers Frank Wilson and Leanne Szabo are bringing their students here, and I want to welcome them from my home riding here to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We welcome them.

Member from Welland?

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’d like to introduce four individual firefighters who are here today—Mike Fowler, from Welland; Ryan Madill, Mike Vail and Chris Wheeler, from St. Catharines—and, of course, all the other firefighters who are here with us today. Thanks for being here.

Hon. John Gerretsen: I’m here to welcome a number of Queen’s University students on their annual trip to Queen’s Park, organized by one of our favourite columnists, Christina Blizzard, and they’re all in the media gallery there. I’ll just name them all: Stephanie Beakbane, Dan Bodirsky, Lorenzo Colocado, Rebecca Cuthbert, Summer Danakas, Daniella Davila-Aquije, Alia Elmsary, Sandrine Emmanuel, Janina Enrile, Andrew Green, Moraa Mochama, Marina Makris, Jacqueline Palef, Olivia Robinson, Diego Santesteban, Brittany Shales, Allison St. John and Kelly Whiting. I’m sure they’ll have a great day, meeting—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. The member from Prince Edward–Hastings.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me. I’d like to mention a guest I have here. There are a number of people from Prince Edward county, but one specifically whom I wanted to mention, a former member of federal Parliament in 1979, representing Scarborough West, and he currently lives in my riding of Prince Edward–Hastings: Mr. Bill Wightman.

Mr. Kim Craitor: I, too, want to recognize the firefighters and, in particular, two from my riding of Niagara Falls. Todd Brunning has been a firefighter for 10 years and has been the association president for two years and an executive board member for over five years.

The other individual I want to recognize is David Jarrett, who has been a firefighter for 15 years and holds the rank of acting captain. The captain has been the secretary for three years and a great community leader in Niagara Falls.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’ve got a number of people to introduce, first of all from the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association: Michael Gagnon from the Midland firefighters association, and Glenn Higgins and Randy Oldfield from the Orillia firefighters association.

Also from Ducks Unlimited—it’s their lobby day and they have a reception here this afternoon as well down in room 228. There is Julie Cayley, Michelle Stuckless, Joanne Barbazza, Owen Steele, Erling Armson, Kevin Rich and Christie-Lee Hazzard. I know there’s a number of others. I want to welcome them all to Queen’s Park today.

Mr. Jeff Leal: He’s to arrive shortly: Mr. Robert Lloyd, who is president of the Peterborough Professional Firefighters Association.

Mr. John O’Toole: I have two different introductions. The Ontario Professional Firefighters from my riding of Durham: Dan Worrall from Clarington and Dan Bonnar from Ajax.

Also I’d like to recognize students from the Canadian Federation of Students whom I’ll be meeting with today: Chantle Beeso, Clara Ho and Asad Jamal. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker. I have got a few introductions; I really appreciate it. The family of page Michael Davidson is at Queen’s Park. Michael is from the great riding of Ottawa Centre. We’ve got his dad, Paul Davidson, who lives in Ottawa Centre, here today; Aunt Ann Davidson; and grandparents Ross and Doris Davidson, who live in the riding of Don Valley West. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from—

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I have two more quick introductions, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Make them very quick. I’m trying to be patient here with everybody.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Very quick: Two of Ottawa’s finest firefighters, John Sobey and Erik Leicht, are in Queen’s Park. Welcome.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I would like to introduce, from the Waterloo firefighters, Brett Gibson and Dean Good. Welcome both of you.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Jim Holmes, Phil King and Fred LeBlanc: London firefighters and great representatives of the profession.

Mr. Rob Leone: I’d like to introduce firefighters from Cambridge visiting Queen’s Park: John Jetter and Ken Talbot.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I have a couple of introductions as well. I want to welcome the professional firefighters from Thunder Bay. Eric Nordlund and Phillip Dzuba are here today, and I think maybe others as well.

I also want to welcome Ducks Unlimited. They do tremendous work in the province in terms of restoring and reclaiming our wetlands. There’s a reception, as my colleague pointed out, this afternoon in rooms 228 and 230, from 5 to 7 p.m.—tremendous work. We welcome them very much today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As you could all see, I tried my best to get as many in as possible. We were over the time, and I’ll try to ask for your patience in getting to this as quickly as possible. A friend of mine from Brant, Ed Glover from the professional firefighters, is in the Speaker’s gallery.

I would also advise you that there might be moments where you can slip in some of the introductions that won’t be a point of order and that I will accept.

It is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is directed to the Premier. Premier, we have two major crises in the province of Ontario. We have a spending crisis—we’re heading towards a $30-billion deficit; and a jobs crisis—we have 600,000 women and men unemployed. The problem is that you’ve backed away from most of the recommendations of your own senior economist, Mr. Drummond, and you’ve added about another $4 billion or $5 billion into the hole. As a result you’ve had to make taxes higher than they otherwise would be to pay for all your spending. This is going to hurt job creation even more.

But Premier, my question today is, the real key—one of the other keys to creating jobs in Ontario and opening us up for investment is reliable and affordable energy. Today I’m introducing a private member’s bill to take us down that path away from your expensive subsidies. Will you support that initiative—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this particular discussion. I think it’s always helpful to Ontarians when they know where their leaders stand on the issues. It’s not always easy to tell when it comes to my honourable colleague, the leader of the official opposition. They were against subways; now they say they’re for them. They were against full-day kindergarten; then they said they are for it; and now they’re against it; They were for the HST; then they were against it, and now they’re for it.

But I will give them full marks for consistency when it comes to clean, green energy: They have been unwavering in their opposition to clean energy in the province of Ontario.

I want Ontarians to understand that we favour clean green energy, the jobs that come with that and the clean air that benefits our children—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, here’s the problem, Premier: You’ve taken us down a path of very expensive energy rates. One of the historic strengths of the province of Ontario: For 100 years we had lower energy rates than the average of the US states. We were among the most competitive bordering states and provinces. Now, under your expensive feed-in tariff program, we are, as of 2009, above the American average and heading to having the second most expensive energy in all of North America.

I want to see us creating jobs. A key component of that is reliable and affordable energy. Premier, will you take us off the path of your expensive feed-in tariff program? Because quite frankly, it’s costing us even more jobs in the province of Ontario.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, my honourable colleague confirms once again that he stands foursquare against clean, green energy in the province of Ontario and the jobs and clean air that come with that.

My colleague made reference to the American circumstance. Two days ago, coincidentally, I had a meeting with Governor Pat Quinn, the governor of Illinois. We engaged in a very fruitful discussion, and most of our conversation was devoted to Ontario’s feed-in tariff program and what it is that they might do in the state of Illinois to adopt this kind of a program down there. He wants the jobs there that we’re creating here. He wants the clean air there that we’re enjoying here. He wants the bright future there that we’re building here in the province of Ontario by committing ourselves to an exciting new sector. It’s clean, green energy and it speaks to the promise of the future—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Final supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, the problem is that your feed-in tariff program fails basic economic sense. In fact, the Auditor General ripped the lid off of your program and exposed the expensive track that you have us on in his rather scathing report in December 2011. In short, the Auditor General said that we have subsidized exports of power to New York and Quebec because your contracts force us to take power even when we don’t need it. Tom Adams says that we’re heading towards having the second-highest energy rates not only in Canada but in North America.

I want to see businesses creating jobs in Ontario. I want to see us open for investment again, and a key part of that, Premier, is reliable, affordable energy. Why don’t you free up Ontario’s job creators and get us back on the historic track of reliable, affordable energy to power our economy and help us create jobs—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I know that my honourable colleague is going to want to recognize that, after California, we are the world’s favourite destination in North America for foreign investment. First is California; then there’s Ontario.

We have drawn billions and billions of dollars in new investment in our green energy plan here in the province of Ontario.

Interjection: Where?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague says, “Where?” Speaker, there is a manufacturing facility they’re building in Tillsonburg with 400 jobs; another in Windsor with 700 jobs; another in Don Mills with 200 jobs. Farmers, in particular, are the most adamant proponents of our feed-in tariff program—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew, come to order.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: —and we see them participating in the program—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member will be—

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: —Renfrew county, Perth county, Haldimand county and so many other parts of rural Ontario. Our single strongest group of supporters and champions for feed-in tariff in Ontario, Speaker, is Ontario farmers.

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Tim Hudak: You know, Speaker, it’s disturbing to see the Premier looking with envy on California, which is running into bankruptcy. If this is your model for Ontario, it’s frightening indeed.

The Premier’s ignorance of the reaction of small-town and rural Ontario from the last election is frightening as well. He has almost a cult-like zeal for this program that has moved away from any kind of connection to economic reality. Your own Auditor General said that for every subsidized job you create, Premier, you lose two to four jobs in the broader economy: in manufacturing, in resources and in the commercial sector.

Premier, instead of trying to continue to drive off the cliff, let’s reverse course. Let’s get back on track: reliable, affordable energy to strengthen our economy. We want to create jobs in the province of Ontario. I don’t want us to see us become another California. I want to see a strong, proud, prosperous province of—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, to the Minister of Energy.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Order. The less I have to stand, the better.

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Thank you very much, Speaker. Ontario families, Ontario businesses have been doing a lot of work in the last eight years rebuilding the transmission system, bringing on new generation and cleaning up the air from the mess that was left by the party opposite.

Families and businesses expect power when they flip the switch. They expect the air to be clean; they expect their homes and businesses to be able to work and to function. The reality is, the other party burned coal, the other party invested in dirty air, and the other party had generators on street corners. We’ve taken a reliable, clean approach to energy in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Leader, supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I kind of want to pursue the Premier’s response a moment ago that he wants to turn Ontario into another California. I think that’s a very dangerous economic course to take us on when the state is catapulting towards bankruptcy.

Premier, not too long ago when you were the energy critic, you said the following: “I submit I am not going out on much of a limb when I say there is a direct correlation between Hydro’s rates and our rate of unemployment in Ontario.” Premier, you said, “As the rates go up, so will the rate of unemployment.” That was Dalton McGuinty in 1991.

We’d actually agree with that statement. We think that it’s actually grounded in sensible economics. The problem is, Premier, you’ve become detached from basic economics here. Rates are heading up under your policies to among the highest in all of North America. We have a jobs crisis in Ontario. We want to see businesses powered up and hiring again.

Will you take us off this reckless course of turning Ontario into—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Minister of Energy?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: You know, Speaker, the job numbers are coming up from our clean and green energy investments—jobs that rely on reliable power.

The previous party did not have reliable power. We had to import it at high cost, but they hid the cost on the taxpayer. They froze the cost and put it on the taxpayer and then they freed up the market and put it on the taxpayer, and that’s why we’re all paying a debt retirement charge right now—still paying.

We’ve invested in clean air instead of hiding the $4 billion on the health payroll. We’ve invested in clean energy jobs, which affects every part of this province. I think the people of Ontario want to breathe clean air, have good jobs and have the clean energy jobs that go with those investments.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Again, I’d just like to ask the Premier more about his plans to turn Ontario into another California. Premier, your jobs plan is obviously badly broken. We have the combined populations of Brampton and Burlington out of work today in Ontario: some 600,000 unemployed.

Now, before you said we should be like California, you used to say we should model ourselves after France and Germany and Spain and Italy when it came to the feed-in-tariff program, which they started about—what?—10 years ago.

Premier, they’re now moving away from that. In fact, they’re ending the subsidies in those countries and dramatically moving away. It’s an experiment that has failed everywhere else it has been tried. You seem to be wanting to double down.

I’ll ask again: In the sense of economic reason, don’t take us down California’s path; get back to basics here in Ontario—reliable, affordable energy so we can create jobs in Ontario again.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: We have invested in clean air and the clean energy jobs that go along with it. You know, from the depths of the economic recession, we’ve attracted $27-billion worth of investment to the province of Ontario. Those billions of dollars of investment have already produced 20,000 jobs, and we’ll soon be up to 50,000 jobs. But more than that, Speaker, even more than that, those investments have already meant over a billion dollars in investment for local communities and community owners of property in those areas—a billion dollars of investment from the taxes and the fees.

The fact of the matter is that every part of this province has been touched by investments in green energy.

If you don’t stand for clean air, if you don’t stand for green energy jobs, where do you propose to find the jobs in the future? Come to green.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The government handed out more than $30 million to Navistar, only to watch Navistar then ship nearly 2,000 jobs to Mexico. We requested the contract that was signed with Navistar, and the government, of course, refused to provide it, so we went ahead and we got it through the freedom-of-information process. However, when we received the contract, job targets, investments and all sorts of other pieces of information were censored from the contract.

Can the Premier tell us why the government is hiding information about multi-million-dollar handouts to a company that sent 2,000 jobs to Mexico?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Economic Development and Innovation.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m pleased to have this opportunity to speak a little bit about the Navistar situation and Navistar’s decision. It was unfortunate it closed its Chatham truck plant after a very long process that goes back to 2002, when it initially announced that it was going to close this plant. I guess the NDP’s position, in retrospect, is that we shouldn’t have fought hard to save those jobs in Chatham that were preserved for many, many years, since this plant was going to close down in 2002.

Our investment and the federal investment in Navistar, Mr. Speaker, turned out to—in the end, Navistar decided to leave. But our investments preserved those jobs in Chatham for many, many years, and we did indeed hold them accountable for the investments that they did not make on top of what they were supposed to make, and we did claw back a portion of the amount that they received.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I’ll remind the minister that the NDP’s position is that there should be strings attached to the money that the Liberals give away to these corporations.

Navistar broke their contract. In August 2011, then-Minister of Economic Development Sandra Pupatello told the Windsor Star that she didn’t expect to recoup very much at all of the $30-million investment.

Will the Premier tell us exactly how much he expects to recoup and why the then minister didn’t think it was going to be very much at all?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m pleased to share with the member the amount that we got back. I believe it’s in the range of $5 million to $6 million in total that came back to the province as a result of this investment.

The fact is that Navistar made a $151-million investment following the negotiations with the federal and provincial governments. They fell short of the investments they were going to make; they were going to make an investment of $173 million. In all, they didn’t make the entire investment they were going to make. But at the end of the day, what happened is, people stayed working in Chatham; hundreds of workers stayed working there over many, many years. Eventually, Navistar decided to leave. We regret that decision, but this government stood up for those workers and we fought hard for their jobs, and that’s something we’re proud of doing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, Navistar’s US employment levels are up 166% since 2010. In Springfield, Ohio, Navistar is adding new union jobs to their working ranks. As the Premier may know, Ohio provides job creation tax credits instead of handouts to companies. We have put forward positive proposals to actually help create good jobs in this province, but Ontario keeps following a failed strategy of handouts to companies that ship jobs away.

Is the Premier going to listen to us, or is he going to stick to the status quo that just hasn’t been working in Ontario?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that the NDP are just not on our side when we make important investments that leverage private sector investments in this province and create jobs. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that the NDP are just not on the side of Ontario workers. They used to be one day; I don’t know what happened.

Mr. Speaker, why would the NDP not want to support our investments, for instance, in Kellogg Canada in Belleville, which created 60 jobs? Why would they not want to support our investments in Anaergia in Burlington, which created 206 jobs? Why would they not want to be supporting our investments in Liquiforce in Kingsville, 88 jobs; or how about the GE smart grid in Markham, 146 jobs?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I can go on and on. We are working very hard—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Hon. Brad Duguid: —making important investments.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance recently called on the federal government to end corporate income tax writeoffs for luxury business perks like sports boxes and meals. Now, if the minister has a problem with this sort of writeoff, why did he sign the HST agreement that does the exact same thing?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, in fact, that’s just simply inaccurate. The HST doesn’t do the same such thing, so that’s just fiction on the part of the leader of the third party, and that’s part of her problem—they just don’t get it.

Mr. Drummond indicated in his report and strongly recommended as we move forward that we need to eliminate what he termed tax expenditures; that is, areas where government chooses to forgo revenue for a couple of reasons: One, they’re not very accountable; two, as Mr. Drummond indicated, we now have a very competitive corporate tax system. No one less than President Obama is now advocating a similar thing.

I hope the leader of the third party would support us as we continue to build a competitive tax structure for all businesses and individuals.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, in tough times, generous handouts like these on luxury items make very little sense, especially to families who are paying more than ever and watching things like emergency rooms across the province shut down. Now, if the minister opposes these kinds of handouts, why is Ontario piling on and planning to increase the giveaways by over $1 billion annually, allowing businesses to write off their HST as well?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: You know, the member opposite might want to turn to her colleague immediately right, who was on TFO supporting subsidy to the horseracing industry, Mr. Speaker. We managed to capture that.

Mr. Speaker, I would say this: The NDP—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Energy.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: That indicates how they’re galloping off in—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As soon as I get quiet, I get someone who likes to use the quiet to shout something. The member from Simcoe–Grey and the member from Nepean–Carleton will come to order.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: That shows how the NDP are galloping off in every direction possible. The fact is, we will be bringing forward a budget. I do agree with the member opposite, unlike the federal government, that health care and education should be a priority over supporting generous corporate tax cuts that are designed and were brought into place, as Mr. Drummond pointed out, at a time when the tax system wasn’t competitive. Now that it’s competitive, we think they need to be looked at.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: On the particular one she mentioned, we would need the federal government—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Look, I’d like to remind a couple of you of a few things: Number one, I’ve made it quite clear that when I say, “Thank you,” that should be the moment in which you sit down, after the answer when I ask you, “Answer” or ask you, “Question,” and I don’t have to stand up. If I have to stand up, it means that you’re ignoring the Chair. That’s not appropriate.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, we hear a lot of hot air from the minister and a lot of the same old ideas. The minister called those handouts a subsidy. Now, how can he claim on the one hand that the corporate income tax loophole is a bad one and should be closed while, at the same time, the HST loophole is a good one and should be open?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again, the member opposite doesn’t understand how it works. The NDP are trying to have it every which way. They want to raise corporate taxes; they want to keep these generous subsidies in place. They voted against it when we cut personal taxes on the first income tax bracket and took 90,000 people off the tax rolls entirely.

Mr. Speaker, we have created a competitive tax environment for business. We welcome some of her proposals; they’re very reasonable. We look forward to working with the third party after we bring in the budget to ensure that our tax system and our economy continue to be fair and competitive for all Ontarians.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health has agreed to support the establishment of an all-party select committee if it is the will of the Legislature. The PC caucus and the NDP caucus expressed their will more than a week ago in a joint press conference.

We continue to hear from front-line paramedics, dispatchers and people in administration at Ornge that, because senior managers are still in charge there, nothing has changed. They want to come forward. They want to give us information about how we can restore confidence in Ontario’s air ambulance service.

I would like to know from the minister: When can we expect to have a motion tabled that will establish a select committee of the Legislature on Ornge?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, it’s very clear that the issue of Ornge is one that is of significant interest to the people of this Legislature. There will be several opportunities for members of this Legislature to have much by way of conversation about Ornge. We will be introducing legislation that will bring enhanced transparency, accountability and oversight to Ornge. That, of course, will go to committee. The Auditor General will be releasing his report shortly. In fact, I have exercised

section 17 of the Auditor General Act and I’m asking him to table that as quickly as possible. I fully expect that members of the Legislature will want to examine that as well.

We believe in transparency. We believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant. The members of this Legislature will have ample opportunity to talk about Ornge.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, we don’t want to have a conversation about Ornge; we want to have a select committee so that we can get to the bottom of what that issue is.

Front-line employees at Ornge are getting more frustrated by the day, and it’s precisely because of the kind of rhetoric that we’re hearing from the minister today. They hear the minister quoting CVs of board members. They see the minister condoning the ongoing work of front-line senior managers whose fingerprints are all over the mess at Ornge. Patients are still at risk on a daily basis because the minister refuses to act.

Here’s from an email this morning from an employee:

“I look forward to seeing an all-party select committee concerning Ornge. I have information that will shed some light on the mindset of personnel at the head office.”

Speaker, why can’t the minister understand how important that select committee is and that we have to get to the bottom of it? Why will the government not give us what she promised—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think it’s very important that we let those objective reviews take place. The OPP is engaged in an investigation about some of the allegations at Ornge—the Auditor General, Speaker.

My focus is on moving forward. My focus is on fixing the problems at Ornge. We are taking important, significant steps in that regard, and front-line staff tell me that they can see a tangible difference in the quality of care that they are allowed to deliver now at Ornge.

It’s important that we continue to make progress at Ornge. Part of that is a new performance agreement; part of that is new legislation. I’m sure the member opposite will have a lot to say when that legislation is introduced, and I look forward to hearing what he and other members have to say about this legislation.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. Speaker, the Premier hasn’t answered a single question in this House about Ornge. Since more information surfaced about his top adviser receiving a 35-page document outlining the web of for-profit—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Durham will withdraw.

Mr. John O’Toole: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; sorry. My question is simple: Will the Premier, not his Minister of Health, explain to Ontarians why his top adviser didn’t raise alarm bells before Ornge hit the 6 o’clock news?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I think it’s very important that people understand that the January meeting has been in the public domain for some time. There was a series of steps that did result, Speaker, that culminated in my calling the senior leadership of Ornge into my boardroom and telling them that I expected them to co-operate with the Auditor General, to co-operate with my ministry officials and release information that had been requested for some time.

When that information finally started to be released, it became apparent that there were serious problems at Ornge. We’re acting on that information. We’ve pulled in resources, including a forensic audit team from the Ministry of Finance. That work is under way now, Speaker. The OPP is investigating.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Back to the Premier, Mr. Speaker: This morning the Premier put all the blame on Dr. Mazza, but we know that three employees from the Premier’s office, including his principal secretary, were told about the Ornge scheme 14 months ago. Has the Premier spoken to his adviser about what they knew about Ornge? And if so, how come it didn’t raise alarm bells before it hit the front page of the paper?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, there are significant changes under way at Ornge right now. As I have said, the front-line staff acknowledge that and are very grateful for the steps we have taken.

As we move forward to rebuild Ornge, I look forward to the co-operation and the input from all members of this Legislature. The new legislation will allow us to have much more oversight. It will set the stage for a stronger air ambulance service as we move forward. But I have every confidence in the new leadership to make the kind of changes that we all expect as Ontarians.

CONCUSSIONS

Ms. Soo Wong: My question is for the Minister of Education. Before I came to Queen’s Park, I had two careers: one as a nurse and the other as a school board trustee. As both a health care professional and an educator, I have a unique perspective on the dangers that head injuries pose to our children.

Mr. Speaker, concussions are a growing problem. A concussion is described as a mild traumatic brain injury, and it usually happens after a blow to the head. As we learn more about concussions, we learn how big an impact brain injuries can have on people, especially our kids and teens.

Would the Minister of Education please tell the House what the government is doing to protect kids from head injuries?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I want to thank the member for Scarborough–Agincourt for the question and her interest in this important issue. As I said yesterday, concussions don’t discriminate. They can derail the career of our best hockey players in North America, and we saw one of them being able to return to play and return to contact yesterday. But they can also derail the academic careers of our students, and yesterday we heard from students, student athletes, whose academic careers had been derailed as a result of concussions. What we’ve learned is that we haven’t always responded in the right way. We haven’t known enough about concussions.

We do know now, and that’s why we’ve introduced legislation to make sure that all of our boards, all of our teachers, all of our parents and all of our students know how to protect themselves, how to prevent a concussion, how to manage a concussion and make sure that when they do return to play or return to learn, they do so in a way that keeps the health of their brain—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Soo Wong: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her response. There was a recent story in a local Ontario newspaper about a teenager who suffered from a concussion while cheerleading. She had difficulties returning to her studies and her parents are concerned about the impact that her head injury has had on her grades.

Sometimes post-concussion symptoms like headaches and dizziness can last for weeks or even months after the initial injuries. As the minister said, concussions can be tricky to diagnose.

Can the minister tell us how Bill 39 can help to protect students and provide support to teachers and parents from concussions?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Unfortunately, Speaker, the story that my colleague read in the paper is all too common. What Charles Tator, one of the amazing experts in Ontario, told us yesterday is that the best thing we can do to protect our kids is empower them: have them know and understand, and how to describe what they’re feeling—what has happened as a result of that injury.

Bill 39 is just one part of a cross-ministry comprehensive strategy that brings together the Ministry of Tourism and Culture and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to boost awareness across the province, to make sure that all of us have the information that we need to make the right decisions to protect our kids in our schools, in our parks, in our playgrounds and in our homes. We will make sure that our kids are healthy and safe in Ontario.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Health. For six years, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation has been requesting a coroner’s investigation into the death of Sheila Childsforever, a 54-year-old woman who died on an Ornge air ambulance, but the request has been denied for six years. Now the CBC has uncovered an initial coroner’s investigation statement which states that the delay in the air ambulance service “had some bearing on this patient’s outcome.”

Minister, given the mounting evidence that the operational protocols at Ornge have put lives at risk and may possibly have contributed to patient deaths, will you now accept our call for a select committee to make sure all lives are protected in the future?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member opposite knows that it is the coroner who decides whether a coroner’s inquest will be held or not, so I would hope that the member would recall that in her questions.

However, Speaker, what I can tell you is that I have to take exception to a comment she made. We are very proud of the safety record at Ornge. That is not to say that there isn’t more that can be done, and that’s why the new board is very much focused on measuring safety, on reporting safety. In fact, in our new legislation, we will be requiring Ornge to notify the public of their quality improvement plan, just like our hospitals have done, because we know that if we measure it, we can improve it. That’s vitally important when it comes to safety and quality of—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t ask for a coroner’s inquest. I asked for a select committee.

Each day we hear of new deaths that occurred when people were being transported by Ornge. I raised one about the gentleman from Sault Ste. Marie the other day.

The public in the province of Ontario have lost confidence in Ornge. It is time to investigate what happened in the past and restore that public confidence. Moreover, the families of those who have died are looking for answers, just as the Nishnawbe Aski Nation is.

I say to you today, Minister, I believe these deaths and all of the other questions underscore the need for a select committee. Will you restore public confidence and file a motion for a select committee?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, there is a lot of work going on right now. There is the work of the Auditor General. The Auditor General will, of course, report to this Legislature, and I fully expect that members of this Legislature will have questions concerning the Auditor General’s report. The OPP is doing their work. We must let them do their work. We are introducing legislation. That legislation will go to committee.

We are moving forward on bringing change to Ornge, and that work, I expect, is supported by the people of this province. They want to know that they can count on air ambulance; they want to know that we’re fixing the problems and that we’re taking steps to make sure they don’t happen again.

MINING INDUSTRY

Ms. Sarah Campbell: To the Minister of Northern Development and Mines: Members of KI First Nation are here again today to fight for their rights, as this government has failed to respect the moratorium on KI land. God’s Lake Resources has refused to stop exploration on KI’s traditional land, and they’re set to start drilling at any time.

This government made changes to the Mining Act that were meant to assure First Nations that conflicts would be minimized and that they would be equal partners. It’s clear that this has not been the case. Why does this government allow the escalation of tension to continue on this issue, and why won’t the minister meet with Chief Donny Morris to work out a solution?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Nothing can be farther from the truth than that—what was said in the form of a question. Over the course of the last three years, our ministry people asked to meet with the KI community to talk about those issues. To date, that request has not been answered. But, because we understand the sensitivity within that particular area, we withdrew those lands from exploration and development.

We believe that it is very, very important that everyone, as this government does, understands its duty to consult, its duty to engage, to ensure that a First Nations community and a mining company come together so that there can be some commonality of purpose and—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Sarah Campbell: It’s true that over the weekend the government removed land from development, but it failed to deal with the most pressing issue, which is God’s Lake Resources that is scheduled to start drilling soon.

Not long after members of KI were thrown in jail for standing up for their community, this government promised a Mining Act that would respect First Nations, but drilling is still being planned on sacred burial sites.

I will ask again: Why does this government allow the escalation of tension to continue on this issue, and why won’t the minister meet with Chief Donny Morris to work out a solution?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I’m not going to repeat what I said, but we have been, for the last three years, trying to get a meeting with the community so that we can talk about their concerns. That offer is still on the table.

But let me tell you: We are doing anything but raising the temperature; in fact, we are lowering the temperature to ensure that that type of negotiation can take place. Our modernization of the Mining Act clearly indicates that we support the Supreme Court of Canada’s rulings that there must be a duty to consult. There has to be also a reciprocal duty to respond.

We understand the importance of dialogue, of discussion, because we want to ensure that everyone maximizes the opportunities there are with regard to mineral exploration and development.

FIREFIGHTERS

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. The people of my riding, Pickering–Scarborough East, know how vitally important firefighters are to Ontario families. In fact, I know this first-hand, coming from a long line of firefighters—my father and my two uncles—and I know of the great work that firefighters do in Pickering–Scarborough East.

It’s important that emergency services are integrated and seamlessly delivered to provide the best possible care to those who need it most. All Ontarians understand how every second counts when responding to an emergency call. The faster our first responders are able to respond to an emergency, the better their chances are for our folks affected by emergencies and to allow the responders to do the great work that they do. Furthermore, I move we continue to build a patient-centred health care system.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister how she will work to improve care for patients, particularly those in emergency dispatch systems.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thanks very much to the member from Pickering–Scarborough East for the question. I’m very proud of our early adopters program, which will begin later this month. This is a program that notifies both fire and ambulance simultaneously in the event of an emergency call for medical assistance. It means that patients will get faster care when they need it the most.

I’m very pleased that our government is supporting this program. It’s more than $4.3 million over the next five years. We’re going to have four pilot sites. Those pilot sites are in Kitchener, in Mississauga, in Barrie and in Guelph. Speaker, 911 operators will have access to a real-time view of ambulance locations. It means faster access to care when people need it the most.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you. Just recently, my constituents in Pickering–Scarborough East—and all Ontarians, for that matter—were reminded of the vital role our front-line responders play when they witnessed the efforts to help those injured in the tragic Via Rail train crash in Burlington. The Toronto Sun reported that “it was a real show of teamwork as police, fire, ambulance and CN and Via Rail staff worked in unison to identify who was pinned on the train, who was hurt and who needed to be treated first.” Our firefighters respond to tragic accidents; that’s the nature of their jobs. They support victims in life-threatening situations.

Speaker, through you to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, can you explain what the McGuinty government has done to help support Ontario firefighters?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Let me thank the member from Pickering–Scarborough East for raising this important issue. First, I want to offer my deep condolences to the families of the victims, and I wish a quick recovery to all of those who were injured in the tragic accident.

Secondly, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the firefighters who are here today and those who are at home keeping us safe. Thank you very much.

That’s why the McGuinty government passed presumptive legislation supporting firefighters who develop cancer or suffer a heart injury as a result of their jobs, providing compensation to the families of firefighters who suffer from work-related injuries unless shown otherwise—specifically, eight forms of cancer and heart injury suffered within 24 hours of fighting a fire. So I want to thank them all for getting up every day and making sure that we are all safe in our communities.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: No one is more disappointed at the minister’s hands-off attitude at Ornge than the front-line paramedics, pilots and dispatchers, the people who work there—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): To the minister?

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Health.

No one is more disappointed in the minister’s attitude. She refers to the Auditor General’s report. She refers to police investigations. She refers to legislation that she’ll bring forward. None of that has anything to do with our request for a select committee. Those can take place in parallel. I point the minister to the Gomery investigation, which had an RCMP investigation going on in parallel.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question?

Mr. Frank Klees: I say to the minister now: Allow those things to take place, but express some urgency at what is going on at Ornge. Allow those employees to come forward and testify and bring forward—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I remind the member to please adhere to what I requested.

Minister of Health?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I absolutely have a sense of urgency. That’s why I’ve taken the very significant steps that I have taken to clean up what we found at Ornge. That’s why I called in a forensic audit team; that’s an extraordinary step that is very rarely taken. I referred this matter to the Ontario Provincial Police. They are doing an investigation. That reflects the urgency of the situation.

We have replaced the entire board of directors with a very high-calibre board of very competent people who take their responsibility to the public very, very seriously. We have replaced the CEO. There are many changes that have already been made at Ornge, and there will be more changes. We are driving forward with a new performance agreement and with new legislation—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, what we see across the way from the minister, as well as from the Premier, who has refused to answer even the most basic of questions about this important issue, is simply a waste of time while patients continue to be at risk, according to information we have from front-line medics, from front-line pilots and from front-line administrators at Ornge.

Speaker, if the Premier and the minister refuse to show leadership on this issue and bring forward a motion, we will show leadership on this issue. We will table our motion by 5 o’clock this evening to ensure that this House has an opportunity to express its will on that issue.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think that the people of this province expect me to take my responsibility as Minister of Health and Long-Term Care very, very seriously. I do take that responsibility seriously, and that is why I have taken the very unusual steps that I have taken at Ornge.

We are moving forward with new legislation. We’re moving forward with a new performance agreement. We have the right board in place. Barry McLellan is heading up the safety committee. Patient safety is the number one issue. Winding down the for-profits is under way. We are addressing the fiscal challenges and fiscal irregularities.

We also need to remind all people who work in health care that they have a fundamental responsibility to the people of this province. They must never, ever lose sight of their responsibility to the people they are there to serve.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Today, the Premier announced an MPP pay freeze. He said that it’s about leading by example. So my question is: Will he finally put a hard cap on the salaries of CEOs in hospitals and other public sector CEOs?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, we are facing a significant challenge in terms of the deficit before us, but it’s also a time of great opportunity for us to transform government and deliver better services in a more efficient way.

We’ve asked our teachers to be part of the solution. It’s not an easy thing we’ve asked of them, but we’ve been great partners. I’m confident we’ll find a way forward. We’re asking our doctors to be part of this. In fact, we intend to ask all our public sector partners to be part of the solution when it comes to eliminating our deficit and preserving the quality, and indeed enhancing the quality, of our public services.

I think it’s important that all of us le