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

April 30, 2014

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2014-Apr-30 (PDF)

L134 - Wed 30 Apr 2014 / Mer 30 avr 2014

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 30 April 2014 Mercredi 30 avril 2014

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SECURITY FOR COURTS, ELECTRICITY

GENERATING FACILITIES

AND NUCLEAR FACILITIES ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR

LA SÉCURITÉ DES TRIBUNAUX,

DES CENTRALES ÉLECTRIQUES

ET DES INSTALLATIONS NUCLÉAIRES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

REPORT, OMBUDSMAN OF ONTARIO

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

POWER PLANTS

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

MINING INDUSTRY

MINISTRY GRANTS

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

EDUCATION

RENEWABLE ENERGY

PUBLIC TRANSIT

ANIMAL PROTECTION

YOUTH SERVICES

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

JONATHAN JENKINS

MOOSE TAGS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION /

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

JAKOB BEACOCK

LOCAL FOOD

HYDRO RATES

COMMUNITY LEADERS

IN DURHAM REGION

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

1474486 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT, 2014

MADE IN ONTARIO

MATTERS ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR L’IMPORTANCE

DE LA FABRICATION EN ONTARIO

PETITIONS

CREDIT UNIONS

CREDIT UNIONS

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

GASOLINE PRICES

MINIMUM WAGE

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

TENANT PROTECTION

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

CHILDREN’S SERVICES

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES

CREDIT UNIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

YOUTH SMOKING

PREVENTION ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR LA PRÉVENTION

DU TABAGISME CHEZ LES JEUNES

CHILD CARE

MODERNIZATION ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR LA MODERNISATION

DES SERVICES DE GARDE D’ENFANTS

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please join me in prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SECURITY FOR COURTS, ELECTRICITY

GENERATING FACILITIES

AND NUCLEAR FACILITIES ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR

LA SÉCURITÉ DES TRIBUNAUX,

DES CENTRALES ÉLECTRIQUES

ET DES INSTALLATIONS NUCLÉAIRES

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 24, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 51,

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, 2013 / Projet de loi 51, 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 2013 sur la sécurité des centrales électriques et des installations nucléaires.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When we last debated, we were into questions and comments from the Minister of Rural Affairs. He’s not here, so we move to the next rotation.

Further debate?

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s a pleasure to stand this morning as our party’s critic for community safety and correctional services to speak on Bill 51, the Security for Courts, Electricity Generating Facilities and Nuclear Facilities Act, 2014.

When I read the words “security” and “electricity generating facilities” in the title, I did a quick read through the bill to see if the security involved was the protection of emails or other documents related to the gas-fired generating plants. I’m sorry to report that that’s not the kind of security that we’re talking about in this bill. Before anyone over there—I know the Chair of Cabinet is very quick with standing order changes—I’m going to try to stick to the bill.

The previous incarnation of this bill in 2012 was known as Bill 34 at the time. It actually made it through second reading. In fact, the bill went through committee, it was amended and ultimately it was brought back to this House for third reading. Just a few hours of debate remained and the bill could have been on the books as passed legislation from the previous Parliament. But you’ll recall, Speaker, something actually happened that interrupted Bill 34’s rather smooth sailing through the Legislature. In fact, what happened derailed not just this bill, but many other pieces of very good legislation.

That, of course, was Dalton McGuinty, the previous Premier, proroguing Parliament, and a lot of those bills that would have been passed and that had all-party support died on the order paper.

Let’s face it: He pulled the plug because of the heat he was facing from the politically motivated decision to flush more than $1 billion down the drain by cancelling the Oakville and Mississauga gas plants. Bill 34, again, was a victim of the former Premier’s decision to get out of Dodge, to leave this place. Unfortunately, we had just a few hours of debate left and the bill would have passed.

So we’re back here, back in office. Bill 51 was introduced on April 10. I have to tell you that I was amazed that my friend, Mr. Yakabuski, the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke—my predecessor in this critic portfolio—stood in his place and gave an hour leadoff one year ago this week. It was one year ago that our party gave the opening hour leadoff on this bill. A full year has now passed before the government got around to calling this bill again.

Interjection.

Mr. Steve Clark: No, Minister, it’s a full year before your government made this bill a priority and brought it back to the floor of the Legislature. His speech, back on April 24 of last year—I note that it had been 14 months since he joined the debate on Bill 34. So here we are today, a full year later. I know the member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton is here, and he’ll be doing his barnburner one-hour leadoff for the NDP.

I want to also say that my colleague from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke asked a year ago, when he spoke on the bill, what the government had been doing all this time. We’re going to find out tomorrow how badly this Ontario government has managed our economy, when the finance minister reveals the details about his plans to keep spending and put us further and further in debt.

I think the little history lesson I just provided on Bills 34 and 51 speaks to the inability of this government to manage the minority. I think we’ve seen this, time and time again. Whether it was under Premier McGuinty or, now, Premier Wynne, this government has significant difficulty managing the minority. How on earth can you presume you can run a province when you can’t seem to get a bill that has all-party support through second reading in 12 months? It’s unbelievable to me.

Basically, we’ve got a lot of fanfare and now Bill 51 is back on the order paper today, Speaker—and welcome, Speaker; it’s good to see you in the chair.

There’s no plan by this government to manage the Legislature, and certainly there’s no plan to get our province turned around. The people deserve better. I know that the people of Leeds–Grenville certainly want the government to stand up and put forward some legislation that is going to get us back on track. I know that our party has a bill, the Million Jobs Act, that is guaranteed to get our economy back and going.

It’s important to remember, with Bill 51, that it’s not only the “what” that is important but the “why.” This particular bill repeals the Public Works Protection Act, an outdated piece of legislation from the 1930s that suddenly found itself in the spotlight in June 2010 for reasons I’m going to get into in a few moments. It also amends the Police Services Act, to address issues around court security, and sets out stand-alone legislation for the protection of electricity generating and nuclear plants.

I know, when we talk about the matter of courthouse security, that we’ve had a very stark reminder recently about how vital that is. Like every one of our front-line police officers and first responders, we saw in the recent shooting at the Brampton courthouse that our court security officers also put themselves in harm’s way every day they show up for work.

That shooting in Brampton left Constable Mike Klarenbeek seriously wounded, while the disturbed individual who shot him was killed by officers on duty in the courthouse. Obviously, it’s a very tragic situation for everyone involved. I know that we’re all so relieved that Constable Klarenbeek survived and has since been released from hospital. Security officers like him play a critical role in the administration of justice in Ontario by protecting the public and the employees of Ontario’s 167 courthouses.

As MPPs, we have a duty to these men and women to do our jobs by setting the legislative framework that helps them do their good work. Again, that’s why I’m so frustrated at the delays we’ve seen with this government in getting this bill passed into law. As I said, it’s a bill our caucus supports. I know the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke expressed his support many months ago. I know it also has—at least, I believe it has—the support of the third party as well as various stakeholders.

I’m also pleased to see that the government has included amendments to the previous legislation, Bill 34, that were made at committee. My concern, though, is that we stand here, days or maybe weeks away from a possible election, so we could see this important bill washed away again as it was when Parliament prorogued. That’s more evidence on how the government again continues to mismanage its legislative agenda.

But as I stated, the importance of this bill isn’t just what it does but why it was introduced. It was interesting, taking a look at the former Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services’ leadoff speech for Bill 51 last year. Speaking to the impetus of the legislation, she said, “Simply put, the time has come to modernize the legal framework under which we protect our courthouses and critical infrastructure such as nuclear and electricity generating facilities.” Well, that’s one way to put it, and I agree: The time had definitely come to make some changes, although not for the reasons that I think the minister was alluding to.

Let’s make one thing very, very clear: The inspiration of the bill isn’t some bright idea from a former minister, who is now the Attorney General, or her staff. It’s far from it, and I think you concur. The truth about Bill 51 was that its origins can be found in the fallout from yet another scandal on this government’s terrible record—I’m talking about the G20 summit, as we all know, that was held in Toronto in June 2010.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The Ombudsman gave it to them on that one.

Mr. Steve Clark: The Ombudsman sure did. He sure did.

What we know is that on June 2, 2010, the Liberal cabinet secretly used the Public Works Protection Act to give special powers to police and security at the summit. They did this by invoking regulation 233/10 under the act, which effectively declared the G20 zone a public work for the period between June 21 and 28.

The June 2 date on which cabinet made that fateful decision to unilaterally invoke regulation 233/10 is important for two reasons. First, it was several weeks before the G20 summit actually took place on June 26 and 27, so there was certainly no urgent or compelling matter of public safety that required the government to behave in this way.

The second, which should offend every member of this Legislature sent here with their duty to represent their constituents and the people of this province, is that we were in session on June 2, 2010. But rather than bring the issue to the House so that MPPs could have their rightful opportunity to debate these extraordinary powers that they were talking about, cabinet acted secretly, behind closed doors. As someone who was a sitting member of the Legislature at that time, I find it insulting. It’s an affront to our democratic principles upon which this Legislature and this place was built.

I can’t put it any better than the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke did when he spoke for our Ontario PC caucus following the minister’s leadoff. What the government did, he said, told MPPs that they didn’t count and, by extension, neither did our constituents. And he’s right: That’s exactly what the government was doing.

I mentioned that I was an MPP at the time. In fact, I had just been elected as the MPP for Leeds–Grenville. I had been a member for not quite three months.

I know I recall being in Toronto just prior to the G20 and—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): We’ve got, probably, seven sidebars going and two or three—really loud—in the group of the member who is speaking. It would be nice if we cut it down.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I don’t need any backseat drivers on this, thanks very much. So we’ll keep it down a bit. If you have a very heated discussion and you need to do it, you know where to go: outside. Thank you.

Mr. Steve Clark: Thank you, Speaker, for your very thoughtful ruling. I appreciate that. Thank you.

I mentioned that I was a new MPP; I had been here not quite three months. The G20 was starting and I remember having an event in my riding on a Sunday and deciding not to drive and taking the train. I got into Union Station quite late—I think the train was about an hour late—and I can remember coming out of the station and seeing this massive wall; it was huge fencing. The entire area around Union Station had been cordoned off with this 9- or 10-foot fencing.

I remember it was almost unreal coming out of the train station at midnight. There was not a person around Union. I remember walking blocks through fenced areas not seeing a person and this was well in advance of the G20. I can remember sitting that final week before the summit and seeing fencing put up behind Queen’s Park, in the park just north of this place. I can remember it was very unreal. I can remember taking the train home that week and having 10 or 15 officers at almost every corner of this massive structure of fencing, so it was a bit strange to me.

All of that fencing and the other security measures I saw were very intimidating and it definitely changed the place that I had come to visit as an MPP over those three months.

Imagine how upset I was to learn, as we all did, following the uproar in the wake of the G20, that the security measure which would have the most impact on the people—and in some cases, it would change their lives forever—was unknown to me. We weren’t part of that decision to invoke that piece of legislation.

I couldn’t see it when I left Union because even as a sitting MPP I had no idea the government was up to this. It was offensive. We, on this side of the House, deserved an opportunity to uphold our sacred duty as an opposition to question the government on its plans. Had we been given that opportunity, which the government obviously found too inconvenient, the events that unfolded at the G20 could have been different.

It is through debates like the one we’re having this morning that we put the government’s plans under the microscope. I’m sure there would have been some tough questions asked about whether it was appropriate to use a piece of legislation drafted at the outbreak of the Second World War, when the government of the day was worried about Nazi spies. Certainly, I think the mood of the province, and indeed our nation, as we prepared for war with Hitler, was much different than it was heading into the G20 summit.

If not for the use of a bill that hadn’t been reviewed since the end of the war in 1945, then I’m sure we would have talked about the specific nature of powers being granted to police and security officers for the summit.

There’s no question that there was confusion amongst police about exactly what the government had handed to them under the arcane Public Works Protection Act. It’s that confusion, I believe, that led to what we now know was the abuse of power by authorities in detaining people at the summit. Let’s remember that there were more than 1,000 people who ended up being detained.

I know it’s easy to lay the blame at the feet of the police, but let’s not get carried away in using the luxury of hindsight. It’s this government that made those decisions. I think it’s worth noting that prior to the summit, media began reporting that police had been given special powers of arrest. Those reports, I think you’ll recall, focussed on a five-metre perimeter on either side of the security fencing that had been set up.

Even as it witnessed the confusion in those conflicting media reports—questions that extended to police and the general public—the government did nothing to provide clarity. They did absolutely nothing. In fact, I think there is merit to the suggestion from many that the government purposely let the confusion grow in the hopes that it would deter protestors from getting too close to the security zone. We know it didn’t work out like that. What we got was chaos and the widespread trampling of people’s rights.

I think it’s important to look at what Ontario’s Ombudsman, André Marin, had to say in his report on the G20. He called his report Caught in the Act, and there’s no question that he holds the government accountable. It really is some enlightening reading, I have to say, and I quote one passage in particular:

“The Public Works Protection Act under which” regulation 233/10 “was proclaimed authorizes regulations to be created to protect infrastructure, not to provide security to people during events. Regulation 233/10 was therefore probably invalid for having exceeded the authority of the enactment under which it was passed. These problems should have been apparent, and given the tremendous power regulation 233/10 conferred on the police, sober and considered reflection should have been given to whether it was appropriate to arm officers with such authority. This was not done. The decision of the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services to sponsor the regulation was unreasonable.”

That’s from the Ontario Ombudsman. That’s pretty conclusive.

So what happened was an important message of what can happen when a government is determined to do an end run on the checks and balances that exist in democracy. And sadly, this isn’t the only evidence that cutting those corners and a preference for doing things behind closed doors is just another day at the office for that Government. It’s a shame.

I think we saw that, certainly, in the Auditor General’s scathing special report on the OLG modernization last week. The people of my riding were outraged when the government agreed—again in secret—to close our OLG facility in the Thousand Islands Casino in my riding and move it to downtown Kingston. Again, that report that was just tabled by the Auditor General confirms that there were a lot of discussions that went on behind closed doors, when they looked my officials in the face and said that everything was open and above board.

Just like in that report this week on the OLG modernization, the fix was in. I think it’s surprising that this government waits a year to bring Bill 51 back. Again, I think it’s not surprising. This government can’t manage the minority; Bill 51 is just yet another example.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Just to echo some of the points that the member from Leeds–Grenville made, this was one of the most egregious moments in Canadian history, the G20—he’s absolutely right. I was sitting in the House; we were all sitting in the House—the House was in session when the cabinet, unbeknownst even to their own backbenchers in the Liberal Party, brought in this regulation—dusted it off—meant to be invoked during wartime conditions, and put it into place.

I was also part of the demonstrations. I was a member of a student Christian movement who did a special service. It was a church service that we conducted downtown among Christians, only to see the riot squad come to us, with full riot gear, pushing us back. I’ve never seen anything like it. A thousand people were arrested. A democracy was put on hold. How and why? By Dalton McGuinty and his cabinet, in which the current Premier sat. It was absolutely outrageous.

I can say that the only other time in Canadian history that this was matched was under Trudeau the first, and that was the War Measures Act, when the civil liberties of all Canadians were lifted for a local situation.

This is not, in any way, partisan or ideological. People from across my riding came to me and talked to me about how absolutely egregious this was. They couldn’t believe that a small group within cabinet could dust off a War Measures Act kind of security measure and put it into place just for what were, in the main, peaceful demonstrators. It was outrageous. I still hear from people about this.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association condemned it. The Ombudsman condemned it. This was not about bad policing; this was about very bad government—in fact, the absence of democratic government. This government should be ashamed of this, and it should be ashamed it’s taken this long to correct that simple regulation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, who was having a lovely discussion there, nice and loud.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on a very, very important piece of legislation.

First, I want to thank my predecessor, the current Attorney General, who, in her role as the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, has done a tremendous amount of work in bringing forward this particular bill and its predecessor, Bill 34, which has been debated in this House, has gone through the committee and was reported for third reading.

There is no doubt, hearing from the conversation that’s taking place in the House and from the member from Leeds–Grenville, that there was definitely a need to modernize a law when it comes to security of public buildings. As mentioned, the previous law was developed around the Second World War when the world was very different; Canada was very different than it is today. I’m very happy that our government, through the advice of Justice McMurtry, has been able to bring forward a modern bill in Bill 51 that will ensure that there is the right balance between providing security and safety for critical infrastructure in our province and that of civil liberties.

Now, Bill 34, the predecessor to Bill 51, as has been noted, had gone through the entire process. It had gone through committee, it had gone through the amendment process. All three parties worked together in making sure that the right set of amendments came forward, and it died, unfortunately, because of prorogation. Bill 51 contains all the changes that were made through the committee.

This bill has the agreement of all three political parties, so I urge that this bill is important. This bill is the right step, and I think we all agree. Let’s make sure that we use our time wisely in this House in terms of debating Bill 51, given that it is Bill 34, amended, and pass this bill as soon as possible so that we’ve got a modern, new bill speaking to the reality of 2014 Ontario in place.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: Mr. Speaker, it’s a pleasure to see you in the chair this morning, and in good spirits.

The member from Leeds–Grenville, I think, gave an excellent

summary of where this bill has been in its previous form as Bill 34, as he said, about a year ago, actually—no, it’s two years ago, really. The process had been followed.

Once again, the reminder to all of us of the importance of this place and our right to have a voice is the prorogation. It will reign in my mind as the biggest slap in the face in the province for the time I’ve been here, in 18 or 19 years. This bill was a victim of that circumstance as well, as the member from Leeds–Grenville pointed out.

It’s also important to look at the three sections of the bill, in my case specifically, because the riding of Durham is home to a very large nuclear facility and other power installations. The security for electricity generating facilities and nuclear facilities is described in some detail. It’s important that they get this thing right.

I think the

section that is only a very small troubling concern here is

section 6—the powers sometimes need to be examined. “Section 6 sets out offences and

section 5 provides a power to arrest a person committing any of the offences, without warrant and using reasonable force if necessary.” It’s explained in more detail in the full

section of the legislation as well.

I’ve visited facilities many times over the years and I’ve noticed already, without this bill being passed, a step-up in background checks of anybody who even comes on the site. You have to have your passport and everything really submitted before you even attend the site.

Let’s be reasonable, I think, as the minister himself said this morning, using a balanced approach, and get it right. We are likely supportive of this bill.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I’ll be presenting my lead on this issue very soon, but I’d like to just give a little bit of a

preamble.

G20, from which this bill arrives, was one of the worst civil rights violations in the history not only of Ontario but of Canada. Over 1,000 people were detained, the majority of whom were released without any charges whatsoever. This was a severe abrogation of civil rights, and much of that was due to the Public Works Protection Act, and I’ll go into detail about that.

But it was also about a culture of both government and police, which see dissent as a threat, which see the freedom of expression that is one of the hallmarks of our society—the idea that people can stand up and say, “We do not support what our government is doing,” the freedom to get up and say, “We disagree with the policies of this government,” or the policies that are being enacted worldwide, that is one of the hallmarks of a democracy. That is one of the pillars of a free society: to be able to get up and have the right to dissent. That right to dissent was stifled through a systemic approach to silencing protesters.

In my speech, I want to get into this idea that instead of language like “crowd control” or “suppression” of people who are speaking, we need to look towards language of facilitating democracy, encouraging people to dissent, to voice their opinions in a safe manner. The language and the culture need to shift, both from a government side as well as a police side, to encourage and support people who wish to engage in democracy in the most meaningful way, which is to stand up and voice their expression. That’s what I’ll be speaking of in a couple of moments, so stay tuned.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to thank the member for Parkdale–High Park, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, and my friend the unstoppable John O’Toole, the member for Durham. I appreciate his good counsel. Also, I appreciate the comments made by the member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton, who will be speaking in a few moments.

I see that the minister spoke, and that the previous minister is here. I appreciate their work in community safety and corrections. I know that there are a lot of issues going on in the ministry right now. They’re spending hundreds of thousands of dollars building bunkers for their managers, if they’re called into duty in case the front-line correctional workers are walking off the job.

The member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore and I toured the Toronto South Detention Centre, and I know that there continue to be challenges to open that facility. I know that there are continuing issues at detention centres like the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre and the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre that need to be addressed by this ministry.

Here we are with Bill 51. We’re coming up to the four-year anniversary of the G20. I think it speaks volumes that after the public outcry and two scathing reports on the fiasco, this government still hasn’t been able to manage to put those changes into a bill and get the bill passed in this Legislature. I think it’s shameful. I think it’s a sad commentary on this government’s record.

I really hope that the people of Ontario will have their time to cast judgment on this government in the days and weeks ahead.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I believe I have a full hour—at least, I’ve prepared notes for a full hour—so I encourage everybody to sit back, relax and enjoy this discourse on public participation, on democracy, on civil liberties and on the feelings of this government. Hopefully, we can learn from it, moving forward.

I want to begin with saying a very common saying: You need to learn from your history, and if you don’t learn from your history, you’re doomed to repeat it. I submit that this government has not learned from its history, the history being G20, one of the worst civil rights violations in the history of Ontario. They haven’t learned from their history because they are repeating their history in this current piece of legislation. They’re repeating many of the problems that we saw in G20 in this current piece of legislation.

So I’m gravely troubled. I am skeptical of whether or not this government or the minister has read either the report of Justice the Honourable Roy McMurtry or the report written by the Ombudsman of Ontario, André Marin, because this piece of legislation recreates many of the problems that existed in the Public Works Protection Act. So it boggles my mind that you would create some of the very same problems that were identified by Justice McMurtry in this legislation.

Let’s go back to the history, and I’ll tell you how this is so flawed. Hopefully, we can find some amendments to make this more appropriate, more fitting with the recommendations made by Justice McMurtry and more in line with the spirit of democracy and civil liberties and civil rights. Let’s begin with a little bit of the history.

With the G20, we talk about the worst civil rights violation in the history of Ontario. There were 1,105 people arrested during the G20. The vast majority of those individuals were released without any charges whatsoever. This means people were detained, were kept in custody, and their liberty, their freedom, was literally stripped from them. They were placed into holding pens and holding cells for two days, only to see later on, for many of them, that no charges were laid. Those who had charges laid, the charges were withdrawn.

A small percentage, approximately 50 people out of the 1,105 people, actually faced charges. Even half of those charges were withdrawn, and a small percentage actually went to trial. This is absolutely unacceptable. This is such a violation of civil liberties, it is unbelievable.

People, citizens, just watching what was going on in the streets, who stepped outside of their home just to see what was going on—the streets were shut down. They lived there. Residents walked out of their homes to be kettled by police, to be thrown into these cells, these outdoor pens, kept in custody for two days, only to find that they had not committed any offence whatsoever—absolutely unacceptable.

Why did this occur? This occurred for a number of reasons. There are two major reasons why this occurred, and we need to address these two reasons. One, and Justice McMurtry identified this in his report, was that the Public Works Protection Act provides too-broad powers; the powers it allows or confers upon the police officers are too broad. The often-used saying is, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The idea is if you have too much power, it’s hard to use it judiciously. If you have too much authority, it’s hard to use it in a manner that is fair. That’s why we place limits on the powers given to police.

The problem specifically with the Public Works Protection Act—I quote from Justice McMurtry on page 20 of his report. He’s speaking with respect to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. He refers to that and says, “The report of the CCLA called for the repeal or significant amendment of the PWPA ‘to meet basic constitutional standards.’” The suggestion was that even allowing these extra powers in and of itself may have been unconstitutional. This is exactly what Mr. André Marin says as well: that the powers given to the police were probably unconstitutional to begin with.

So off the bat, there is a constitutional violation, let alone the civil liberties violation that actually did occur when we see the 1,000-plus people who were arrested and detained without any charges.

Justice McMurtry goes on to say, “I agree with the observation of the CCLA that the provisions of the PWPA”—the Public Works Protection Act—“led to a ‘lack of clarity as to the scope of the search and seizure powers,’ which created many difficulties and conflicts that probably could have been avoided.”

Now, it’s clear—I want to highlight this—that the lack of clarity as to the scope of the search and seizure powers created the difficulties and conflicts. I want you to remember that, that having too-broad powers creates problems. When you give someone too much authority to interfere with someone’s liberties, it creates conflict; it creates issues. This is something that was identified by Justice McMurtry, this is one of the major problems with the Public Works Protection Act, and this is the very same problem that exists in the current legislation. I’ll go into some detail on that.

The second issue, which is a significant problem, is—let’s make sure it’s clear: The Public Works Protection Act was the responsibility of the Liberal government. They used that power, they used that authority under that legislation, to give the police officers additional powers that they should not have had. That was this government’s fault. This government set the tone and the tone was: “Let us silence dissent. We are afraid of citizens who want to speak their mind. Let’s silence every and all form of democratic dissent.

Let’s silence the ability of protestors and those who wish to exert their democratic right to say, ‘Hey, listen, I don’t agree with what’s going on.’ Let’s silence them and let’s catch in the net people who are just bystanders, just people living their lives, who walked out of their homes just to see what was going on. Let’s make the net so broad that we are not only going to silence dissent, but we are also going to just capture and arrest everyday citizens.” That’s what this Liberal government did due to their actions. The climate they created and the tone they set was that dissent was unacceptable.

Of course, we want to ensure that there is safety. We’re not proposing to support violence in any way; however, there’s a huge line, there’s a huge gap, between violence and the democratic right to dissent. There isn’t a blurred line here; there is a huge gap. To put in place protections to prevent violence is fully acceptable. To ensure that people are safe, that’s fully acceptable. But it’s absolutely unacceptable to create zero tolerance, an absolute silencing of dissent, and that’s what this government created.

The second issue is, the police, once given the powers, have a cultural issue that needs to be addressed. I want to make it clear that it is not all police officers who are bad, not in any way, but there is certainly a culture in policing which is combative. The culture which is combative we’ve seen in recent incidents in Toronto involving those with mental health issues, involving the overuse of force against citizens where less force could have been used, which resulted in charges being laid against police officers who inappropriately used force against citizens, against vulnerable people.

There needs to be, again, as the Ombudsman of Ontario has identified, a cultural shift where police officers look to de-escalate conflicts. De-escalation is the number one strategy that needs to be utilized in any sort of confrontation or any sort of conflict, period. The police culture is one of combat between the public and the police, and that needs to be shifted.

When we shift that culture, we can have a facilitative discourse between the police and the public. What I mean by that is—I spoke at a conference of the police services board of Ontario. They asked me to give them some feedback, and I asked the organizers, “Are you sure you want some feedback because some of it will be negative?” They said, “Yes, we want to learn.” I applaud the leadership of that organization for accepting criticism. That’s how you grow, and I told them very clearly.

In their response to the G20, they came up with some recommendations internally and in the internal memo they had created where they looked at some of the issues, they talked about improving crowd control. I said to the members gathered there, “Why are you using the language of crowd control? When you assist at festivals and you’re present, as the police, to help different festivals that occur in our communities, you don’t talk about crowd control. You are facilitating a festival. You are facilitating people who want to enjoy themselves.

Similarly, you are pre-emptively creating a conflict when you call it crowd control. If you believe in democracy and believe that people should be able to get together, gather and say, ‘Listen, I don’t agree with what’s going on. I don’t think the government is doing the right thing here, or I don’t like the way that policy direction is headed,’ people should be able to do that.”

Let’s talk about facilitating the use of this right, facilitating democracy, facilitating dissent, allowing people to engage in democracy in a safe way. The language itself, actually, would encourage people to move away from this climate of combat and this culture of combat just by saying, “Listen, let’s look at our strategy around the facilitation of democracy.” How do we facilitate demonstrators? How do we facilitate protestors?

How do we allow them to engage in their rights in a fair and safe way, so that people can still engage in the civic process and the democratic process, but also so that the rest of the citizens can be safe, and ensure that they’re not disrupted in a dangerous manner? The language itself suggests conflict. That’s why I speak about the culture that needs to be addressed.

Interjection.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I feel that the member from Trinity–Spadina is enjoying, or at least appreciating, this concept here.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Absolutely. I’m all ears.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I appreciate that.

I want to quote from Amy Goodman, the well-known radio host and journalist. Amy Goodman writes in her article, “Dissent Is Essential to Democracy”—first of all, the title says it all. It’s very clear: Dissent is essential to democracy. She writes, “The bulwark against tyranny is dissent. Open opposition, the right to challenge those in power, is a mainstay of any healthy democracy.” I couldn’t have put it in any better words—I think there’s a reason why Amy Goodman is so well respected as a journalist and as someone who is maintaining the strength of independent journalism—it is truly something of grave importance.

If you look through history, any time there has been a significant silencing of dissent; whenever there has been overuse of police force or state powers against the public, that has preceded some of the worst violations that we’ve seen in our history. The climate that’s created by silencing dissent creates an oppressive environment, something that we need to stand against. That’s why it’s so important that we protect the right to dissent everywhere, and that’s why it’s so vitally important that we look at G20 as an example of how horrible things can be if we’re not cognizant of supporting this right and of encouraging people to engage in their civic responsibilities.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association spoke in great depth with regard to the problems around the G20 around the overuse of police powers and, again, of this climate that was created of silencing dissent. They also spoke on the fact that the government-side problem was that the Public Works Protection Act provided powers that were far too broad.

Now let’s turn to the proposed legislation, Bill 51. Again, before we actually get into the details, let’s talk about some of the history here. We have debated this—and my colleague from the Conservative Party talked about this—at second reading. We had committee hearings where we heard from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association as well as many organizations that had a stake in this matter. We heard their testimony; we submitted amendments; we raised issues. We had third reading debate.

But the government prorogued and, as we say in colloquial terms, the bill was killed on the order paper, or the bill essentially ceased to exist. It no longer existed and had to be reintroduced. All the work that was accomplished, all of the effort that was put into place—we now have to do that once again. But there’s a silver lining to that.

While I want to denounce the prorogation and the fact that a bill like this, something that happened years ago now, has still not been rectified, and that this government has been derelict in its duties and in its responsibilities to ensure that what happened at G20 doesn’t happen again—one of the ways was, very clearly, to repeal the Public Works Protection Act, and they have waited years to do that. That’s absolutely neglectful. That’s absolutely unacceptable. On top of that, when they actually had a solution, when they were about to rectify something they should have rectified right away, they prorogued the government. The bill ceased to exist, and we had to start all over again.

The silver lining, though, is that the bill initially had a great deal of problems. I raised those problems—I was very clear on them—and they were not fixed. I attempted to fix them in committee. Again, the government was not receptive.

Let’s go through the problems with this bill.

I started off my remarks by saying that Justice Roy McMurtry, who wrote one of the major reports on the problem of G20, identified one major problem; I hope you remember that problem was that the Public Works Protection Act provided powers that were too broad. When you have powers that are too broad, it is very easy to overuse those powers; it is very easy to abuse those powers. So, powers that are too broad—that’s exactly what Bill 34 did, and that’s exactly what Bill 51 is doing.

First and foremost, when it comes to court security, court security is something that’s been going on. We have a very strong form of court security that goes on, and the major purpose of court security is to ensure that dangerous weapons and items don’t get into the courthouse. Beyond that, there are police officers who are present in the courthouse, there are a number of security individuals who are there, and the major issue that you need to prevent is weapons and dangerous materials: flammable material, incendiary material, explosive material—you want to prevent those from going into the courthouse.

Another important thing to keep in mind is that one of the other indicia or other hallmarks of a free and democratic society is open and transparent courthouses. In societies that are tyrannous or dictatorships or where there is not full democracy, the courts are not transparent. People don’t know what goes on in a court. They don’t know what goes on in the legal system; there is often not a legal system. Those are the symbols or the signs where you do not have a democracy.

In contrast to that, where you have a democracy, you have open and transparent courthouses. You can go into a court and watch the wheels of justice. You can go and observe a trial and you can see what happens. Those are important things. Where you do not have that, you don’t have democracy.

To encourage democracy, we need to make sure that our courts are accessible. We want to ensure that people can come into court and see what is going on. We want to make sure that people can come into court and there are no barriers to their access to the court beyond the safety requirements of not bringing in explosive material or inflammatory material or weapons, to ensure their safety. Beyond that, there is really no reason to restrict anyone from entering the courthouse. In fact, if there are any barriers, if you require people to identify themselves when they come into the courthouse, there are many problems that can arise from that.

If there is a sensitive case, if there is a case of an individual who has raised some concerns against the government and has protested and maybe faced some improper charges, and you want to go in and support that individual—say there is an environmental group and you want to go in and support this environmental group for its activities in protecting the environment. Someone is facing charges, and you enter the courthouse and they ask you for your identification. They say, “Identify yourself.” Maybe you don’t want anyone to know who you are.

You’re not going to commit any offence, you’re not bringing any weapons in and you have nothing dangerous with you, but you just don’t want your identity to be known because you fear, perhaps, reprisal; or you fear, perhaps, that you’ll be identified and that will be used against you in some way. That could be a barrier to accessing the court.

Initially, in Bill 34, this government required that someone had to produce identification to enter a courthouse. No one does that right now. I was a lawyer before I became a politician. We have lines and lines of people who line up to go through the metal detector—

Hon. John Gerretsen: You’re still a lawyer.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I’m still a lawyer. Thank you very much, minister without portfolio.

As a lawyer, commonly you’ll see a lineup of people coming into the courthouse. They’re going through the metal detectors; they’re searched for weapons. They walk through. No one asks them their name, no one asks them to identify themselves; no one produces any form of identification. However, Bill 34 had the requirement that you had to produce identification. Why would you put that in there? What was the point of that? I’m glad you removed it; that was a good step.

However, you still require someone entering a courthouse facility to identify him or herself and provide information relating to “assessing whether the person poses a security risk.” What does that mean? What is information regarding “assessing whether the person poses a security risk”?

What you’re doing here is exactly what Justice McMurtry said not to do: too-broad powers. Why would you require someone to have to identify themselves to enter a courthouse? What difference does that make, what their identity is? You’re not running a criminal records check for someone to come into the courthouse. In fact, people with criminal records are going to go into the courthouse because they’re going to be answering charges, perhaps. So really, what is the purpose of asking them to identify themselves?

What it does do—and also allowing this right, allowing this power that you not only have to identify yourself, but you have to provide information so that the security guard can assess whether you’re a risk or not.

Now, again, if we’re talking about the Public Works Protection Act, we’re talking about powers that were too broad, that created a conflict, that created difficulties, that created a violation of civil liberties. That’s what Justice McMurtry said.

Now, to rectify it, you’re creating a new set of laws. You’re repealing the Public Works Protection Act, which is right, but you’re creating, again, too-broad powers. Why would you require someone to have to identify themselves to enter the courthouse? And secondly, why would you require that they have to provide information that the security guard has to assess?

Another problem with the Public Works Protection Act was that it created powers that were too broad in terms of search and seizure; it created powers of arbitrary detention that were too broad. These are two pillars of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 8 of the charter protects us from unreasonable search and seizure and

section 9 protects us from arbitrary detention. These are pinnacles of justice.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms that we have in Canada is one of the go-to pieces of legislation in the world, something that supports freedoms and liberties and is something that is pro social justice. It set up a foundation of rights and freedoms that we should all enjoy.

However, inherently in this legislation there are some serious violations to those charter-protected rights. If someone is entering a courthouse, I agree that weapons should be searched for and dangerous materials should be searched for. But let’s be careful about our language. First of all, the law here states that any person entering a courthouse can be searched. The language of “search,” again, is too broad. If you can search someone, that means you can go into their pockets, you can go into their purse, you can go into their material, you can go into their briefcase, and you can search it.

That’s not, again, what we’re looking to do. We want to encourage people to come into the courthouse. We don’t want them to be subject to a pat-down, a thorough search of everything they carry with them. We want to screen them for weapons. We want to screen them for dangerous materials. The language should be that people should be subject to a screening with a specific purpose, not just a broad “you can search them for anything;” a specific purpose: Screen them for certain material that we do not want to come into the courthouse, and those materials can be defined. The Criminal Code defines them very clearly.

What are weapons? Materials that can be used to harm another individual: explosive material, material that is flammable, material that is corrosive or chemicals that can cause damage. We want to screen for those types of materials so they don’t get into the courthouse. But we don’t want to allow a broad power of search so that anyone coming into the courthouse can be subject to an exhaustive and thorough search—absolutely not. That’s not what we want to do. That would discourage people from accessing the courthouse, and it’s not what goes on right now.

When you go to a courthouse, you’re not searched, your pockets aren’t emptied and your laptop and briefcase aren’t examined thoroughly. There is a screening process where you walk through a metal detector. Your briefcases and your purses are put through a conveyor belt, and also scanned for any sort of inappropriate materials. That’s the right way to do this. But the way this law is written, it is again providing too-broad powers.

Let’s go further: It’s not only allowing a broad power of search, it also says that your vehicle that’s on the premises can be searched. If you’re a passenger in a vehicle, that vehicle can also be searched. What grounds does an officer or security guard have? If I’m dropping off my brother who’s working at the courthouse—to go to the courthouse—and the security guard has some issues, asks my brother to identify himself and asks some questions around assessing whether he’s a security risk, and at some point arbitrarily determines, “I want to search him and I also want to search the car that he was dropped off in,” that’s clearly a violation of

section 8 of the charter. That’s an unreasonable search.

What evidentiary basis, what reasonable grounds do they have to search the car in which you were a passenger? What if there is material found in that car that has nothing to do with the individual himself or herself? What you if you were dropped off—you just needed a ride to the courthouse and you got dropped off by somebody else? All of a sudden, that person’s car gets searched and things are found in that car that have nothing to do with the individual initially. These are exactly the reasons why we have the Charter of Rights.

Section 8 of the charter clearly says that there shouldn’t be unreasonable searches. That’s against the charter. That creates a climate of totalitarianism and creates a climate of oppression, to allow such a broad power of search without any reasonable grounds.

Let’s keep in mind that the police always have a power to search someone if there’s grounds. That always exists. You don’t need legislation for that. There’s already thorough, exhaustive jurisprudence where police officers have the power to arrest someone if they have reason to believe that they have committed an offence. They have the power to search someone if there’s reasonable grounds. That always exists. But to give this additional warrantless search power is absolutely unacceptable. It basically goes further than the existing powers of the police—which are properly mandated, which have jurisprudence—and gives them far too much power.

So very clearly, this government has not learned from its history. The PWPA was criticized for being too broad in its power, for giving police too much power—and that it resulted in the G20, which was one of the worst civil liberties violations in our history. Now, there have been many reports about this that talked about the problems of the PWPA. Again, the number one problem that was identified, one of the major problems that was identified, was if you give someone too much power, if you give them too-broad powers, it’s hard to interpret those powers.

There’s a lack of clarity, and what happens is, conflicts arise, and abuse of power arises. That’s exactly what’s happening again in this legislation.

This legislation provides powers that are too broad, that are unconstitutional, that potentially violate the charter and that do not address the specific problem that we need to address. What we need to address in our courthouses is security, absolutely. We need to identify what makes a courthouse secure and safe. We need to provide the powers necessary to do that in the most defined way possible so that the powers that are given are not overly broad, and are directly associated with the problem or the risk.

One thing we certainly need to work on is the power around the search. The search needs to be clarified so that it is defined as a screening for weapons or for any dangerous material. I ask this government—I asked before, and I’ll ask the government again—to look at legislation that works. Manitoba—I guess it’s no coincidence that they have an NDP government—enacted a Court Security Act. In that Court Security Act, they were very clear.

The Court Security Act in Manitoba uses the language of screening instead of search, because it wants to make it clear that you should screen individuals for certain materials and not allow them in. So the Manitoba Court Security Act has the language of screening. It defines what the purpose of that screening is, defines what material should be screened for—weapons and matters of that nature—and narrowly defines the powers. That’s the right way to do this. If you want to address a problem where powers are too broad, you need to come in with powers that are more narrow.

Solving a problem of a law that’s too broad by bringing in another law that’s also too broad is absolutely not solving the problem.

Schedule 2 of Bill 51 sets out these two areas where I think the powers are far too broad. Beyond that, if someone is in custody at a courthouse, the search powers there are appropriate, so there’s no issue with that.

Schedule 3 of the bill talks about security at electricity generating facilities. This is an important place to make a distinction. When it comes to the security associated with electricity generating facilities, there are two absolutely different scenarios, two absolutely different examples.

With the courthouse, there is something of importance. There is something that we need to address in terms of allowing access. People have a fundamental right to access courthouses. That’s good for democracy, and we need people to access courthouses.

For electricity generating facilities, that same requirement isn’t there. You don’t have a democratic interest in entering an electricity generating facility, a power plant, to the same level that you would have with a courthouse. The laws can be more restrictive when it comes to a power plant, and that’s acceptable as a social policy. We would understand that the laws defining how you can access a power plant would be more narrow, would be more difficult; it would be harder to access. That’s absolutely acceptable.

The fact that there are so many similarities between the laws that the government is proposing for a power plant and for a courthouse suggests that this government has not done its homework and thought this through.

A more thorough search of someone entering a power plant may make sense, and that’s something that I leave open to perhaps some deputations at committee to address whether or not there are some issues there. But on first blush, it makes sense that a power plant would have a higher level of security. That’s something that makes sense. However, even with a power plant, we need to make sure that people have the opportunity, the legal space and the physical space to voice their dissent.

If there are issues around the power plant, if there are issues around the type of power, if there are issues around the way in which it is generated and people want to voice their concerns around it, there needs to be a safe legal space as well as a physical space in which they can conduct that.

The reason that I address both legal and physical space is that one of the issues that needs to be addressed is where the perimeters are, so that people who do wish to voice their dissent or their concerns around a particular electricity generating facility are able to do so. But, again, the restrictions placed on someone at a power plant can be certainly higher than they are with a courthouse.

I spoke before about this government’s priorities with respect to various legislation. I’ve been elected for just over two and a half years. The G20 occurred some years ago now, and there are clearly some problems in terms of this government’s priorities. They have not addressed matters that need addressing, and they’ve waited years for them to be brought forward.

This bill is not associated with any costs; it doesn’t cost us anything. It’s not going to stress the public purse in any way, it’s not going to affect the deficit, it’s not going to affect spending, and it’s something of vital importance. I struggle to understand why this government has waited so long to bring this bill forward again. After prorogation, when we were so close to passing this bill, when we were so close to repealing the Public Works Protection Act, why didn’t this government bring this bill back in immediately and debate it immediately?

I struggle to understand why this government has not made this a priority. I hope the government appreciates the damage that the PWPA has left, the mark that it has left on the people of Ontario, and particularly in Toronto.

To this day, people talk to me about what happened. I personally was present as a legal observer during the G20 protest and witnessed some horrendous violations. People peacefully protesting; my colleague from Parkdale–High Park talked about members of her church gathering peacefully. Peaceful protestors gathered and were met with violence, were arrested, were detained. It was absolutely unacceptable. It was something that, as a legal observer, was horrible for me to watch, to see the manner in which people were being treated.

The strategy of kettling: Observers, peaceful protesters, people just stepping outside their homes on Spadina and on Queen Street were met with the police tactic to kettle them, to surround them, to enclose them, so that they couldn’t leave. They were detained before they had the opportunity to even walk away. I had cited before—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Is the Attorney General paying attention?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I had cited before, 1,105 arrests; 1,105 people detained. The majority, again, were released without any charges. This is not something to be taken lightly. This is not something that should be two and a half years into this session and only now being brought for second reading. This is something that should have deserved more priority. The fact that the government prorogued and didn’t bring this bill forward quickly and expeditiously speaks to an absolute lack of respect for how serious this is.

This speaks to the absolute lack of seriousness with which this government is taking this issue. This government has shown that civil liberties don’t matter, that the abrogation of one’s rights—

Hon. John Gerretsen: Oh, come on.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: —doesn’t matter, it’s not important. They haven’t prioritized this bill. The fact that we’re debating it only now, two days before a potential budget is coming forward, speaks to the absolute lack of priority. This bill doesn’t cost you anything. It doesn’t cost you any money. I don’t understand why this bill was not brought forward before.

We addressed that the priority is lacking. On top of that, I’m hoping that someone on the government side can answer this question for me: If Justice McMurtry said that the problem with the PWPA was that the powers were too broad, why would you present a bill that also has powers that are far too broad? Why would you do that? I need to understand that. I’m hoping someone from the government side can answer that question and at least set my mind at ease that they thought this through.

The other issue that I want to raise—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): You’re quite active today.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The other issue that I want to raise is that I’m hoping we’re on the same page. I want to ensure, from the government side—Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure: Do we have a quorum at this time?

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Do we have a quorum?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member asked if a quorum is present; I don’t believe it is.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Anne Stokes): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Anne Stokes): A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you.

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 1014 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m honoured to have two important people in the chamber today to watch the proceedings. I’d like to welcome my mother, Susan McNaughton, to the House, and also my aunt, Diane Brewer, who has been the reeve of Newbury for 30 years. Welcome to the House.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Tashi delek, everyone. Today is Tibet day at Queen’s Park. We have Students for a Free Tibet here. We have the Tibetan Women’s Association. Of course, the Ontario Parliamentary Friends of Tibet are hosting a lunch on the second floor for everyone. Please join us and have some delicious Tibetan food. Particularly, check out the momos. Welcome.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: It’s my pleasure to welcome Sarbjit Deol, who is a very active member of my community and has promoted supports and active living among youth and seniors. Along with him are his friends Paramjit Singh from England and Rajinder Mand. They are in the east members’ gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m very pleased to present to the House Paul Vickers, chair of Gay Lea Foods and a fellow Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program grad. Welcome.

M. Gilles Bisson: J’aimerais être capable d’introduire Michelle Lebel, qui est ici et qui est la maman d’Émilie, page de Kapuskasing. Puis aujourd’hui, Émilie est la capitaine de tous les pages.

I’d like to say again that I’d like to welcome Michelle Lebel, who is the mother of Émilie, who is a page here at Queen’s Park from Kapuskasing. Guess what? She’s the page captain today. Welcome to mom.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to welcome the staff and students from Hillel of Greater Toronto: Marc Newburgh, the executive director; staff Jaime Reich and Julia Bernshtein; and students Bailey Fox—bear with me, Mr. Speaker—Carina Newton, Samantha Cooper, Amanda Osak, Yaron Mildwid, Deborah Benhamu and Cyrus Cohan. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to welcome Pat Jilesen and Heather Frook from the Bruce County Federation of Agriculture. I don’t believe they are in the House, but they are coming to spend the day at Queen’s Park.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Page Victoria Recagno has two special guests who are joining us at Queen’s Park today: her grandmother, Joanne Belvedere, and her aunt, Pat Plant. Please welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: I’m pleased to welcome to Queen’s Park my constituent Monica Graves, who will be showcasing her one-of-a-kind jewellery line at the Legislative Assembly gift shop today from 11 to 1:30. Everybody, come out and buy something.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: It is my pleasure to introduce my page captain William Qin’s mother, Ning Zhang, and father, Max Qin, from the great riding of Mississauga–Brampton South. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I ask you all to join me in welcoming Ashley Bowes, Oshawa’s page, and her mother, Kathreen Bowes. As well, I see that Mr. P. is here with the staff and students from G.L. Roberts.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I’m pleased to welcome to the Legislature today from Thunder Bay, sitting up in the public gallery behind me, Mr. Mark Brassard. Mark is here to see his son in action, Thomas Brassard, who’s one of the newest pages here this week. Welcome.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’d like to welcome today Diana Hamilton, John Robotham, Wayne Underhill, Tanya Tompkins and her children, Tatiana and Colton Tompkins, who are here today to talk about housing issues and to visit the Legislature.

REPORT, OMBUDSMAN OF ONTARIO

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table a report from the Ombudsman of Ontario respecting his investigation into how the Ministry of Transportation administers the process of obtaining and assessing information about drivers who may have uncontrolled hypoglycemia.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question to the Premier: We’re at a turning point in Ontario. I know in my heart that Ontario can and will do a lot better. After 10 years of higher taxes, deeper debts and skyrocketing hydro, it’s time to turn the corner to a time of lower taxes, more jobs, affordable hydro and less debt under our million jobs plan. That’s what I plan to do.

Premier, when I see your budget—I mean, pretty well everything now has been leaked by your budget-leaking team—it appears that you’ve utterly given up on trying to even pretend to balance the budget. You’re going to spend money. You’re going to increase taxes. You’re going to actually increase both the deficit and taxes, which is an incredible feat.

What I see here are deeper debt, higher taxes and higher hydro rates. I have a simple question: Can you tell me one thing that’s different about you than Dalton McGuinty?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Order.

All right, let’s get to it. The Minister of Rural Affairs will come to order. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will come to order.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just say that, tomorrow, the Minister of Finance will table a budget that is designed to build opportunity today and to secure the future for the people of the province of Ontario. While we’re working to create jobs and partners so that those jobs can be created, the Leader of the Opposition seems intent in his proposals to kill jobs, to actually move jobs out of the province.

We’re working to strengthen pensions and to make sure that people in this province have the prospect of a secure retirement. The Leader of the Opposition has no intention and, in fact, seems quite content to let people face a future of insecurity.

We’re working to build infrastructure in this province, in the GTA, in the north, and the Leader of the Opposition has no—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Look, I get it. You don’t want to say the M-word: McGuinty. I understand that. You didn’t answer my question about a single difference between your approach and Dalton McGuinty’s.

The Premier talks about securing a future for—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Natural Resources, come to order.

Mr. Tim Hudak: After all this, Speaker, all the Premier cares about is securing a future for her Liberal MPPs and insiders. I’m going to stand up for the real people. It’s time we had a Premier who was focused like a laser on job creation and a team of confident economic managers to put our province back on track.

Look, I understand why you want to continue the McGuinty record. You were there at the cabinet table. You held senior positions. You should actually be proud of that, that you had senior positions and a big

part in the McGuinty team. I don’t know why you deny it.

But I think it’s time to end this charade. This should not be about a Premier who is looking out for Liberals and Liberal insiders. It should not be about a feckless NDP leader who simply wants to get a contract extension to prop up the coalition. It’s time for a change, a focus on jobs. Premier, wouldn’t you agree?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, any Premier or, quite frankly, any leader worth his or her salt would be focused like a laser on making sure that good jobs, like those that are coming to the province through OpenText, come to the province. Any leader focused like a laser on the future would make sure that children have the education they need and that post-secondary institutions have the support they need.

We are focused absolutely on the investments that this province needs. If the Leader of the Opposition suggests that there is no need for investment in roads, bridges and transit, in education, talent and skills, if he’s suggesting that partnering with industry and business to make sure jobs come to this province—if he’s suggesting that’s not what’s needed, then he’s just dead wrong.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Oh, he didn’t say anything.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Delayed reaction. Just trust me.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I talk to job creators. I talk to workers each and every day. What they tell me is, they want a fair and level playing field, the chance to succeed. They like our plan to make hydro affordable, to focus on private sector job creation and not more and expensive bigger government, to actually have a government that spends within its means and focuses on the skilled trades. They’re confident. They’re behind my plan because they want to see hope in Ontario. They want to see people back to work in our province. I’ll tell them this: Hope is on its way. Opportunity is coming to our province. Jobs are around the corner. That’s my plan.

I’ll just ask you one thing: Stop with the higher hydro. Stop with the increased taxes. Stop with the runaway spending. We’ve had enough of Dalton McGuinty. We don’t need his twin. It’s time for a bold, new path: Focus on jobs and get Ontario working again.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Be seated, please.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just do not believe that picking fights with organized labour, that cancelling full-day kindergarten, that firing education workers and health care workers, that moving away from a practice of partnering with industry that has been in place in this province for decades—Premier after Premier, government after government, Conservative, NDP, Liberal, all governments have partnered with industry to bring business to the province.

And yet the Leader of the Opposition says that all of that partnering is not necessary, that we can just stand back as government and we can let those jobs go to other jurisdictions. I just don’t believe that that’s in the best interest of the province. You do. There’s a real distinction between us, between the Leader of the Opposition and me.

I believe that building our future is what we need to do. He believes that tearing down the province will somehow get us there; it—

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

Interjections.

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

New question.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Premier. For the past two years, we have been looking, as have Ontarians, for the true answers surrounding the cancelled gas plants. So this what they know: The Premier signed the cabinet document authorizing the cancellation of Oakville. They know that she was the campaign co-chair for the cancellation at Mississauga. They know that she told us the cost was only $40 million; that was far exceeded. She also told us at that period of time we had all of the documents, which we know we did not.

The Premier needs to clear the air because the public deserves to know exactly what her and her transition team knew about the alleged destruction of documents in the Premier’s office.

She’s threatened to sue my leader and I in the hopes that she could silence us, but we won’t be silenced. Today, our lawyers have sent the Premier a letter about the preservation of documents in relation to the cover-up, and we’re wondering if the Premier will be open and transparent as she professes and provide us with that documentation immediately, and today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Stop the clock. I’m going to ask the member to withdraw.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I know the government House leader will want to speak to the details of what’s going on at committee.

But I will just say, as I have said many times in this House, from the moment I came into this job, I was very clear that we would open up the process, that we would provide information as it was asked for. Hundreds of thousands of documents have gone to the committee. I have appeared before the committee twice.

We’ve changed the protocols and the rules around retention of documents. I’ve made it clear across government that everyone understand what documents need to be preserved, and that is because we worked with the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Leeds–Grenville, come to order. Second time.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: On top of that, we’ve changed the process around the location of large—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Northumberland, second time.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —energy infrastructure.

We will continue to co-operate in the investigation.

We’ll continue to co-operate with the committee and make sure that the information that is asked for is made available.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Well, this wasn’t a committee question, and if she wants to co-operate with the committee, she could haul Monique Smith and Tom Allison into our committee rooms, as we’ve requested and as they have denied.

But let’s get back to the lawsuit and the billion-dollar question of where the money went and why there were deleted documents in her office during the transition period. If she wants to put this behind her once and for all, we’ve given her the opportunity. Myself and the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition have asked. We’ve requested this of her lawyer:

—copies of any and all correspondence between the Premier and the former Premier Dalton McGuinty and/or members of his staff;

—records pertaining to any official meetings held by the Premier and the Premier-designate;

—any and all records pertaining to and identifying the individual staff members who were employed in the Premier’s office on January 26, 2013, through to February 10, 2013.

The list goes on.

Will the Premier do the right thing? Release that documentation to our lawyers today, so not only can we defend ourselves, but we can get to the truth of a—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Government House leader, and the member from Nipissing.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I am not qualified to conduct—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I tend to agree with the member from Oxford, but not the way he thinks. So I’ll repeat what he said: Enough said. Thank you.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I am not qualified, nor certainly is the member opposite qualified, to conduct a legal discovery process in this chamber, Mr. Speaker.

What I will say to the member opposite—and I wanted to answer this part of the question, because she mentioned two people, both of whom have agreed to appear before committee. They have agreed to appear before committee, and she implied that they had not agreed. I will say again: I will debate the truth and facts any day. I will not—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You’ll be returned to. The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will not debate unfounded allegations. I will debate facts any day.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The Premier said she wasn’t qualified; I couldn’t have said it better myself.

We know that while documents were being destroyed in the Premier’s office, she was holding private meetings. On the same day, February 7, she directed the Auditor General—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will withdraw.

Hon. David Zimmer: I withdraw that I referred to her—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do not make any comment.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Let me finish so I can bring attention to the fact that I’m not happy.

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will withdraw.

Hon. David Zimmer: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish your question, please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Hey, guys, I guess we’ve struck a chord again.

Let’s put this into context. On the same day as hard drives were being wiped in the Premier’s office, this Premier was holding a private meeting directing the Auditor General to expand the scope of the gas plant cancellation and investigation.

We know that her campaign transition chair, Monique Smith, had many conversations with Peter Wallace, the secretary of cabinet, about the gas plants. We know that the OPP are continuing to dig deeper and deeper into this scandal and probing it because among all of the Liberals, they’re refusing not only to speak to our committee, but also to the OPP.

If she is not prepared to provide us with the documentation, will she call—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. Be seated, please.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: This is, quite frankly, appalling, Mr. Speaker. The member stood up here and talked about testimony of Peter Wallace.

Let me share the testimony of Peter Wallace on April 15, 2013: “We did not express any advice with respect to the management of political records or the hard drives or the emails associated with the former Premier’s office” to the transition team. “The area that we did not cover, because we had no visibility into it whatsoever, was the management and the practice of the former Premier’s office with respect to its records management, whether it be hard drives or other mechanisms, of its political records.” That is what the secretary of cabinet talked about in terms of his relationship with the transition team.

That is the truth. The truth is that members of the Liberal Party, members of this government, have agreed to appear in front of the committee, unlike the Conservative—

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

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier said, “As soon as we knew that there was a problem with the girders in Windsor, we stopped the building.” But three months prior to that, there was a heated email exchange between senior officials about—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Stop the clock. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, I’m looking for quiet.

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There was a heated email exchange between senior officials about the safety of the girders. The Ministry of Transportation project lead for the parkway, Fausto Natarelli, wrote to Infrastructure Ontario saying: “I have no confidence in you or frankly your organization to act in the provincial interest ... we need a conversation with more senior officials.”

Is the Premier telling Ontarians that these senior officials, who regularly meet with deputy ministers and had this heated discussion about the girders, never raised concerns with anyone?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m just going to go through the timeline once again, because I think it’s important that we deal with the facts. As we’ve explained many times to the NDP, the issues brought up at the meetings that the leader of the third party is referring to had to do with non-compliance as opposed to safety.

Here are the dates: On June 14, 2013, the minister’s office staff were first briefed on the safety—on the safety—and durability issues regarding girders on the Herb Gray Parkway. On June 19, 2013, the minister was briefed on the issue of girders; he immediately took action to cease the installation of the girders. On July 22, 2013, the minister called on a group of independent experts to look into the issue and make recommendations to the government. On November 1, 2013, the Windsor Essex Mobility Group and the Parkway Infrastructure Constructers announced that they were rejecting and replacing the girders at no cost to Ontario taxpayers.

That’s what happened, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We now know that in the fall of 2012, the Canadian Precast Prestressed Concrete Institute expressed concerns that we know were discussed in the minister’s office. They wrote to say: “If non-conforming girders, supplied by non-certified precasters, result in future structural or durability deficiencies that affect public safety, this will impact our industry significantly.”

Now, is the Premier going to stand by her minister who says that safety concerns were never raised?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have gone through the chronology of when the minister was informed about and briefed on safety and durability issues. I know, because the minister and I spoke, that he took action right away. That was action that he took because I supported him in doing that, and making sure that—the fact that there was a safety issue meant that we would take action.

Those girders have been removed, those safety issues have been dealt with and at no cost to the Ontario taxpayer, because it was part of the contract. So yes, I stand by the process and I stand by my minister’s decision.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier said yesterday that the minister’s office staff were first briefed on the safety and durability issues regarding the girders on the parkway on June 14, 2013, and that the minister was briefed on June 19, 2013. But documents show a decision was made by the minister’s office on February 14 not to intervene in the girder issue.

Now, can the Premier explain why she’s saying one thing and the documents are saying something completely different?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The fact is that those meetings took place, obviously. There was not sufficient information during that time period that the leader of the third party is talking about to make definitive recommendations on safety. There were issues on compliance. I’ve been through the chronology of the meetings that took place, and I’ve made it very clear that as soon as the minister knew that there were safety concerns, action was taken. Those girders were removed, and they were removed at the cost of the company. They were not removed at the expense of the taxpayers of the province, and that is exactly what should have happened.

If the leader of the third party is suggesting that we would put people’s safety at risk, that is just not the case. We acted as soon as we knew there were safety concerns.

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: To the Premier: We on this side of this House have learned to actually rely on the documents, not the word of Liberals.

Documents show that substandard girders and installation of panels is not the only concern that senior ministry engineers have with the parkway. Is the Premier prepared to tell us what other structural problems exist on this parkway?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I am very, very pleased the contract that was put in place was designed such that an issue like this could be dealt with in the way that it was. I’m very, very pleased that the safety of the people of Ontario was protected because action was taken as quickly as it was and, quite frankly, that those girders were removed as soon as we knew there was a potential that there was a safety issue.

I would think the leader of the third party should actually agree that it is a very good thing those girders were removed, should agree that before more of them were put in we stopped that process—we stopped the construction so that the testing could be done. Once that testing was done, the girders were removed at the expense of the company, and that’s exactly how it should have happened.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Government documents show that senior ministry engineers are concerned about bearings, protection boards, waterproofing and poor mixture of concrete. These are not isolated in one area. These structural deficiencies cover different stretches of the parkway.

Now, what is the Premier prepared to do to ensure the safety of the parkway and the tens of thousands of people on both sides of the border who will be using this road each and every day?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What we are prepared to do—and I think the leader of the third party is bringing forward accusations that are unfounded. What we will do is we will continue to work with the engineers to make sure that at each stage, if there are concerns, we will take action, just as we did with the girders, exactly as we did with the girders. If non-compliance issues transform into safety issues, then we will take action and make sure that the number one priority is the safety of the people of this province, as we did with the girders.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Senior engineers have flagged a variety of structural issues. These are not unfounded accusations. These are senior engineers who have found these problems, issues including bearings that did not meet code requirements.

Internal correspondence shows, “This situation is not unlike the girders issue. It is true that these bearings are being installed and are not approved.” Bearings are what the bridges on the parkway depend on for their stability.

How can the people of this province trust this government on transit and infrastructure projects worth billions of dollars when this project, a major international border crossing—one that the Premier used to brag about negotiating—has so many serious, serious safety problems?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said, there is nothing more important than the safety of the people of Ontario. So we will continue to work with the experts, with the engineers to make sure that all of the parts that go into the building of the parkway are safe. Ontario has the safest roads in North America. We will continue to make sure that the Herb Gray Parkway is part of that.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that there is going to be a budget introduced tomorrow. I have been trying to get a meeting with the leader of the third party since February, to have a conversation about how we might work together to pass the budget. My hope is that she will agree to meet with me so that we can look at a path forward. I know that the Leader of the Opposition has no interest in working with us, but I hope that we will have an opportunity to meet, because a lot hangs in the balance, including continuing to be able to build infrastructure in this province.

Interjections.

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

New question.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question this morning is to the Premier. Premier, in Saturday’s London Free Press, your Minister of Health claimed that she didn’t know why the Ministry of Health used an irrevocable trust agreement, which would have allowed two Liberal-friendly groups to pocket up to $40 million—this, despite the fact that she personally signed off on two separate renewals.

I have since learned that this government set up irrevocable trust arrangements in a number of ministries over the past 10 years. Premier, will you immediately order every ministry to disclose how many trusts were created, what organizations ran them and how much taxpayers’ money was involved and possibly pocketed by groups that may be affiliated with the Working Families Coalition?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the member opposite is talking about the Nursing Retention Fund. When we took office, hospitals were running massive deficits, and they were signalling layoffs of nurses as a result of PC cuts. That was unacceptable to us, so we took action to reverse that drain on our nursing workforce. We put strict controls on the funding that was put in place in terms of the Nursing Retention Fund. The Minister of Health has been working to see what we can do to make sure that the Nursing Retention Fund is utilized.

But you know, I think, really, what the member opposite is doing once again is undermining the work of organized labour in the province. That’s really what this is about. We put in place support for keeping nurses in the province. What he wants to do is to undermine that relationship.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Sarnia–Lambton will come to order.

Supplementary?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Back to the Premier: Premier, we know that it is extremely unusual to use an irrevocable trust to fund government programs.

This morning, I met with Ontario’s Auditor General in follow-up to my letter requesting that her office immediately launch audits on all irrevocable trusts that this Liberal government has set up and maintained. One of the documents I turned over to the Auditor General is confirmation from a Ministry of Finance official that, over the past 10 years, these types of funds were set up in at least seven government ministries, including the Ministries of Education, Aboriginal Affairs, and Agriculture and Food—three ministries that you know quite well.

Premier, will you confirm this morning that you have never set up or helped maintain an irrevocable trust during your time in cabinet?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Nice.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The point of the Nursing Retention Fund was to make sure—

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, that’s what the question is about. It’s about the purpose of setting up such a fund.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If I have to take direct action, I will.

Premier, finish.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: So the—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: You must not be qualified to answer.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton is warned.

Mr. Mike Colle: How many warnings?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Eglinton–Lawrence, maybe one.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

In January, the minister met with nursing organizations to talk about how the fund was being managed and to make sure that it could be used in the best way possible to retain nurses. That’s what it was about.

The reason the member opposite is asking this question, as far as I can tell, is that he wants to undermine the reputation for competence of these groups. His quote from April 28: “Acting Premier, the most generous possible

interpretation of the Nursing Retention Fund boondoggle is that the RNA, RPNAO and ONA are utterly incompetent project managers and cannot be trusted to serve as stewards of taxpayer money.”

So, Mr. Speaker, this—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Stop the clock.

Given some thought, I’m going to ask the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex to withdraw and the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound to withdraw. One at a time, please.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I withdraw.

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

Mr. Bill Walker: Withdraw.

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

New question.

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. Percy Hatfield: My question this morning is to the Premier. Good morning, Premier.

Speaker, Premier Wynne promised that her government would be open and transparent and that her ministers would correspond on government business using official channels, including ministerial email accounts.

Despite the Premier’s claims of a more open government, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure regularly corresponds on sensitive ministerial business with senior Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of Infrastructure and Infrastructure Ontario staff, as well as government legal counsel, using his Liberal caucus email account.

Why are there no emails at all from the minister’s email account regarding the girders as part of the 1,200-page FOI request submitted on August 12 last year?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, again, both the minister and I have answered the questions around the chronology of how we took action on the girders. We’ve answered that question a number of times. I will continue to answer the question.

The primary concern is that the safety of the people of Ontario be protected. The primary concern is the one that motivated the actions. As soon as the minister was aware that there were safety concerns, the construction was stopped, and the girders were tested. The girders were removed at no cost to the people of Ontario, and that is how the system should work.

I would just say that the member is well aware of this, because he was included in the process. He was brought up to speed. He was part of the discussion with the minister, so he knew all along how the girders were being dealt with, and the safety concerns and the actions that we were taking.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Premier, I’ve seen the evidence. I’ve seen the documents; I know what’s in there. Don’t try to pull that bluff with me.

According to government documents, there are only four email chains that included messages from the minister about the girders between June and August 2013. Four second-hand emails were the only correspondence the minister sent about the girders that we received in the documents included in the FOI request.

Is the Premier telling the people of Ontario that she believes the minister only exchanged four emails about the Herb Gray Parkway while it was going off the rails, or was he purposely concealing public information?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the member opposite is reading the email because he received it through freedom of information. Government business is subject to freedom of information no matter where it takes place.

What I can tell you is that the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure was having regular meetings. He was having face-to-face meetings. He was on top of this issue and he was making sure that he understood what the concerns are and he was taking appropriate action.

That’s what he was doing. That’s why the girders were removed. That’s why the safety issues were dealt with. That’s why the safety of the people of Ontario is preserved: because of the actions that the minister took, because of the meetings that he was attending.

MINING INDUSTRY

Ms. Dipika Damerla: My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. As we all know, the Ring of Fire is a historic economic opportunity for northern Ontario, but it’s bigger than that. Just like a rising tide raises all boats, the Ring of Fire is going to raise not just the north, not just Ontario, but all of Canada.

That’s why it’s a shame that the federal Conservatives have completely abrogated all responsibility on this file. But we here, the Liberal government, continue to show leadership.

Minister, I understand that you and our northern colleagues, this past Monday, made a major announcement—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay will come to order.

Carry on. Finish.

Ms. Dipika Damerla: I know that the minister and our northern colleagues, this past Monday, made a major announcement regarding the Ring of Fire. Could he please tell us more about that?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I want to thank the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville for the question. Indeed, this past Monday I was very excited to announce, alongside my colleagues the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Natural Resources, that our government is prepared to make a commitment of up to $1 billion to develop all-season infrastructure in the Ring of Fire.

We are making tremendous progress on this multigenerational project that will not only see benefits for the north but for the entire province and, indeed, for the country. Just this past week, Premier Wynne and I also signed a historic landmark agreement with the Matawa First Nations communities that will not only ensure that the First Nations and the province can work together to advance Ring of Fire opportunities but will also ensure that their communities significantly benefit from Ring of Fire opportunities.

We’re very excited about it—a great commitment for the province, but the federal government needs to come in now.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. A billion dollars—wow. If only the federal government was listening. I know that, once this project gets going, it’s going to create jobs right in my riding of Mississauga East–Cooksville. Minister, could you, through the Speaker, tell us how you are driving this project forward?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Again, my thanks to the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville. We’re very proud of our government’s commitment to this project.

We’ve said many times in the past that we were prepared to make a very significant investment in Ring of Fire infrastructure. Now that we have announced our financial commitment to the project, we are indeed providing clarity and making incredible progress on this multi-generational project.

In order to maximize the Ring of Fire’s potential—not just for the province but for the entire country—we need the federal government to follow through on what they have said many times: This is a project of national significance and national benefit. The expectation we have is that they will be a partner in this project, they will match the dollars that we’re committed to paying, and they will help with the two major infrastructure pieces: the industrial park and community access, which is very important to the First Nations.

My focus is to get the federal government on board. If they’re on board, this is a better project; it’s a bigger project; we’re completely—

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

New question.

MINISTRY GRANTS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Premier, the auditor’s report on the Ministry of Citizenship’s year-end slush fund made it clear to your government that the availability of grants must be communicated to all potential recipients.

We discovered that, as Minister of Agriculture, you’ve been giving away year-end grants to hand-picked companies. There was no publicly available application; in fact, companies were only invited to apply because of their relationship with staff in your ministry.

Minister, do you believe that the rules of financial accountability don’t apply just because you’re trying to get money out before year-end?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I actually would have expected that the member opposite, a former Minister of Agriculture, would have understood that it’s very important that we work with food processors and with the agriculture community to make sure that they can make the investments that are necessary.

The investments that we’re making through the Local Food Act—for example, I was at a bakery just on the weekend. The applications had come in. Those grants—I think it’s over 60 grants to promote local food and make sure that they have the capacity to grow their enterprise.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, second time.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: You know what? These are businesses all over the province. They are businesses that have a wide range, whether it’s bakeries or whether it’s farmers’ markets and local food strategies. All of that promotes local food and allows food processors and food producers to do better in the province. I would think he’d be supportive of that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Premier, you must have missed the original question about which grants I’m talking about. Premier, these grants included $1 million given to a distillery even though their project didn’t create a single new job. Over $6 million went to two companies that had almost completed their building projects on their own.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of the Environment, second time.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: This is the worst type of picking winners and losers. Competitors had no idea the grants even existed and couldn’t apply. They were reviewed by a panel whose membership isn’t public and then approved by you personally.

Premier, at any time during this process of hand-picking, did it occur to you that it was wrong to do it this way?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite has made a couple of allegations. If he’s talking about McLaren’s Distillery, that was a grant that was made through the Local Food Fund. If he’s talking about Hiram Walker and Sons, $1 million, that actually did create 10 new jobs. Hiram Walker currently supports Ontario’s agriculture sector by purchasing 4.2 million bushels—

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The folks who work at Hiram Walker think that’s pretty good. The people who work at St-Albert Cheese Cooperative think that’s pretty good, too, that they will be able to create 10 new jobs. The people at Thomas Canning, with the $3-million investment creating 40 new jobs—the people who have those jobs and those companies think that it’s a very good thing that they have a government that works with them and is in ongoing conversation with the sector to find those companies that need the support to help them to grow. They think that’s a good idea, and I do, too.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question is to the Premier.

In their rush to put casinos in communities that don’t even want them, the Liberal government dealt a blow to the horse racing families in Fort Erie and across the province.

The Auditor General’s report found that the Liberal government’s OLG privatization plan didn’t have a clear business case, and they failed to consult communities. The report also points out that the OLG’s net profits are down over $600 million from previous years and that the government doesn’t really know what effects cancelling the Slots at Racetracks Program will have on the industry.

Do you continue to stand by your misguided OLG privatization plan that decreased profits, threatened to put casinos in municipalities that didn’t want them, and almost destroyed the horse racing industry?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: When I came into this job I made it clear that I was very concerned about the fate of the horse racing industry. The member opposite knows that the Fort Erie Live Racing Consortium has signed a three-year agreement. This is great news for Fort Erie. Jim Thibert said it was a brilliant move.

We have made it clear that investing $500 million over the next five years to put the horse racing industry on a solid and stable track to sustainability—that is what we will do.

I know that the member opposite really understands that the decisions that were made about Fort Erie were the right ones, that the community was very eager to make sure that these agreements were put in place. They have been, and I’m very pleased that the horse racing industry has a season this year and in the mid- and the long-term will have those seasons.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Wayne Gates: The horse is out of the barn when it comes to the failed Liberal plan for OLG, and horse racing families are stuck with empty stalls on farms across the province. Even the Auditor General says the government’s modernization plan nearly put down the horse racing industry.

Is the government finally ready to apologize to the horse people in Fort Erie and guarantee a long-term future for our historic track?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Exactly what the member opposite is talking about is what I have been working on since we came into office. Since I came into this office, I said that we needed to take a second look at what was happening with the horse racing industry. My predecessor had set up a panel of Elmer Buchanan, John Snobelen and John Wilkinson. We took those recommendations. That’s what the $500 million is about.

I want the horse racing industry to have a bright future. I want the integration of horse racing with gaming in this province. I know that that is a challenging process, but I want the member opposite to know that I am on it. I am working to make sure that integration happens, because that’s what will ensure the long-term success of the horse racing industry, if gaming and horse racing can be integrated. You know that’s the case and you know that’s the way forward.

EDUCATION

Mr. John Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education. We know that Ontario’s publicly funded education system stands as one of the best in the world. The progress that we’ve made is the result of the dedicated work and vision of our government working hand in hand with the education community to create a world-class system.

Recently, the minister engaged with my constituents and many others across the province to reach a consensus on a vision that will carry our province forward. The result of these consultations was recently released in the Renewed Vision document. Can the minister please update this House on the renewed vision?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Thank you to the member from Ottawa South. Speaker, we do have a lot to be proud of when we look at our accomplishments in education. Over the past 10 years, we’ve been able to raise the graduation rate from 68% to 83%, and 71% of our children in grades 3 and 6 are meeting the provincial standard. That’s up from 54% 10 years ago.

But we know that building on that success—there’s more to do. We need to move our system from great to excellent. That is why, on April 9, we released a renewed vision for education in Ontario entitled Achieving Excellence: A Renewed Vision for Education in Ontario.

The document outlines our four renewed goals for education: achieving excellence, ensuring equity, student well-being and enhancing public confidence. As the member mentioned, we travelled all over the province and found—

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

Mr. John Fraser: Thank you to the minister for bringing us up to speed on the renewed vision.

It is important for us to continue to look forward on how we can take our system from great to excellent. Excellence is preparing our students to be personally successful, economically productive and actively engaged as global citizens.

This renewed vision is about the next 10 years and beyond. We have an opportunity to seize on the progress we have made and build on it to create a brighter future for our children.

Technology has changed the classroom tremendously, impacting the way the students learn and teachers deliver their lessons—directly impacting their job prospects as they graduate.

Mr. Speaker, through you: Can the minister update us on what our government is doing to support the renewed vision in creating a modern, innovative and responsive system?

Hon. Liz Sandals: One of the things we heard in our consultations when we talked to business, post-secondary, not-for-profit agencies and communities was a common theme: the impact technology is playing in our classrooms, especially with younger, digitally native students. So when we looked at our vision, we knew that we had to look at technology—the use of technology.

I was pleased to announce our support for the renewed vision by investing over $150 million over three years to give learners and educators access to new technology in the classroom. This funding will support improved student achievement through innovative teaching and learning practices. It will help us to take best practice on how to use technology effectively and spread it throughout the province. These—

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

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, the Ontario Energy Board reported tomorrow’s hydro rate hike is because of renewables coming on the grid over the next 12 months. Renewable energy producers—including wind, solar and biomass—provide 10% of the total supply of electricity, yet receive 31% of the subsidies that ratepayers must provide in the form of the global adjustment. The total bill for the average customer will be nearly double the Bank of Canada’s core inflation forecast.

Minister, the people of Ontario, as well as hospitals, curling clubs, and Royal Canadian Legions, to name a few, cannot afford higher energy rates simply because you refuse to acknowledge your mismanagement of our electricity system. Why are you doing nothing to ensure that Ontarians are able to pay their energy bills and prevent future rate hikes?

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I do have some numbers on electricity rates in the province of Ontario. As I’ve indicated previously, Quebec Hydro annually does a survey in North American cities of electricity prices. At the end of 2013, the last year that they have compiled it—I’ll give you the rates: the rate per kilowatt hour in Ottawa, 12.39 cents; Toronto, 12.48 cents; Edmonton, 13.9 cents; Calgary, 14.8 cents; Halifax 15.45 cents.

They often refer to US jurisdictions as having much better competitive rates than we do. In Detroit, it’s 15.54 cents, in Boston it’s 16.5 cents, and in New York it’s 21.75 cents. Our rates are competitive.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Clearly, the big Liberal wheel keeps on turning or, more appropriately, spinning. But we need to be serious for a minute.

Back to the minister. On April—

Interjections.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Listen. On April 27—

Interjections.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Listen. On April 27, a small airplane crashed on the site of NextEra Energy’s South Dakota Wind Energy Centre, killing all four passengers. This is very, very serious. Four people were killed because they crashed into NextEra’s wind project in South Dakota. An Associated Press report notes that one of the wind turbines was in fact damaged. Turbines have been ordered to be taken down around Chatham airport, but nothing has happened. Samsung is throwing money around and wanting to change approaches to the Kincardine airport, yet my letters of concern are not satisfactorily addressed.

Collingwood airport is threatened by industrial wind turbines as well, and Peterborough airport has stated that wind turbines are threatening the safety of pilots.

When, Minister, are you going to admit that the siting of industrial wind turbines has not been properly done?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Our renewable process—the Ontario Power Authority has a process. Contracts are awarded, and they go through a process including the REA, or environmental assessment, process. There’s an opportunity for all objectors to come before the Ministry of the Environment to review that. Even after that, there’s an appeal, and even after that there’s a judicial review that’s possible.

You know what? There are huge developments that take place across this province for buildings, for real estate developments. They have an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. They can go to judicial review. The same legal rights that exist for all these other types of developments exist for wind. It’s fair, and it’s reasonable.

They plan on cancelling 250 contracts. They’re going to put the province at risk to $20 billion in legal claims.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The member from Chatham–Kent–Essex will come to order.

New question.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. Every time this Liberal government fails to deliver for Ontarians, they just make more announcements and empty promises. Today in London, they are doing it again on transit. The Premier has promised Londoners high-speed rail, but it’s hard to take her seriously because her own ministers can’t get their stories straight. The transportation minister has boasted publicly about bullet trains travelling at 320 kilometres per hour, but the education minister says it certainly won’t be bullet trains and she honestly doesn’t know what her colleague was referring to.

Speaker, will the Premier level with the people of London and let us know which Liberal cabinet minister we should believe?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Here is the thing. What we know is that there needs to be better transportation in this province. We know there needs to be transit in all parts of the province, including the corridor from Toronto to London. So the announcement that the minister is making today is a very important one. I know that the connection between Toronto and Kitchener-Waterloo, the high-tech hub where OpenText is bringing all those jobs, and then between Kitchener-Waterloo and London—we know that that is a very important corridor for business in this province. So we are making the investment.

We are going to work with the private sector. We are going to work with the communities to make sure that those connections are put in place.

What I would like is, I would very much like to be able to have a conversation with the leader of the third party about what parts of the budget, what parts of transit investment, what parts of infrastructure investment she might be willing to support. I haven’t been able to have that conversation, but I’m very much looking forward to it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member for London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: As much as the people of the London community want to believe they will get high-speed rail, they can’t seem to trust this Liberal government. Like all Ontarians, they know that empty Liberal promises don’t create jobs or provide transit relief. They know that if the Premier was serious about her latest scheme, she would have told us the cost and timeline.

It’s time for the government to stop playing games with people’s lives in London and start providing real transit relief to families and businesses. When will the Premier admit that she has no idea how much high-speed rail will cost and has no plan to make it happen in London?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have to say, coming from a party that has no plan on building transit, it’s pretty rich. If the leader of the—

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What I would suggest to the member opposite is that she look at the projects that are under way if she wants to look at our reliability in terms of delivering. I would suggest that she go to the Eglinton Crosstown and look at what the boring machine is doing there, look at the progress; look at the progress on the Union-Pearson rail line; that she look at the York-University line, that she go to Ottawa and look at the work that’s being done there, because there is building happening in this province because of our commitments to transit. We will follow through. They don’t have a plan. We will make those trains run.

Interjections.

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

New question.

ANIMAL PROTECTION

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Residents in my community of Scarborough Southwest, including myself, are glad to know that our government is committed to protecting our pets and animals from abuse and neglect. Our government created the strongest animal welfare legislation in all of Canada that increased OSPCA agents’ ability to inspect and enforce the law. The government also strengthened penalties, including jail up to two years, fines up to $60,000 and a potential lifetime ownership ban for animal cruelty.

But some of my constituents are concerned that cases of animal cruelty may be going unreported. Can the minister tell us more of what the government is doing to make sure our pets and animals are being protected?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: As the proud owner of a dog named Bella, a husky and German shepherd mix—she’ll be happy that she’s mentioned in Hansard now—I thank the member from Scarborough Southwest for asking a very important question. I want thank my predecessor, the Minister of the Attorney General, for all he