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

March 1, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Mar-01 (PDF)

L019 - Thu 1 Mar 2012 / Jeu 1er mar 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 1 March 2012 Jeudi 1 er mars 2012

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SECURITY FOR COURTS, ELECTRICITY

GENERATING FACILITIES

AND NUCLEAR FACILITIES ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

DES TRIBUNAUX, DES CENTRALES

ÉLECTRIQUES ET DES INSTALLATIONS

NUCLÉAIRES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

WHISTLE-BLOWER PROTECTION

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

NURSES

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

YOUTH SERVICES

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

NURSE PRACTITIONERS

WATER QUALITY

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

VALLEYS 2000

RIDING OF LONDON–FANSHAWE

PETER ADAMS

RAIL ACCIDENT

FIRE SAFETY

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

PREMIER’S COMMENTS

CANCER COLORECTAL /

COLORECTAL CANCER

ACCOUNTABILITY

VISITORS

CORRECTION OF RECORD

VISITORS

PETITIONS

WIND TURBINES

KIDNEY DISEASE

WIND TURBINES

DOG OWNERSHIP

KIDNEY DISEASE

RURAL SCHOOLS

RENEWABLE ENERGY

KIDNEY DISEASE

RENEWABLE ENERGY

RENEWABLE ENERGY

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

KIDNEY DISEASE

RENEWABLE ENERGY

CORRECTION OF RECORD

MEMBER FOR OTTAWA CENTRE

VISITORS

COMMITTEE WITNESSES

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMITTEE WITNESSES

NORTHERN ONTARIO

REGISTERED HUMAN RESOURCES

PROFESSIONALS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LES PROFESSIONNELS

EN RESSOURCES HUMAINES INSCRITS

COMMITTEE WITNESSES

NORTHERN ONTARIO

REGISTERED HUMAN RESOURCES

PROFESSIONALS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LES PROFESSIONNELS

EN RESSOURCES HUMAINES INSCRITS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ATTRACTING INVESTMENT

AND CREATING JOBS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 VISANT

À ATTIRER LES INVESTISSEMENTS

ET À CRÉER DES EMPLOIS

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, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

DES TRIBUNAUX, DES CENTRALES

ÉLECTRIQUES ET DES INSTALLATIONS

NUCLÉAIRES

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 29, 2012, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 34,

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

Loi sur la protection des ouvrages publics, modifiant la

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

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate? The member for Essex.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With your indulgence, I’ll be splitting my time with the member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton.

I’m happy to debate the repeal of the Public Works Protection Act and the proposed amendments to the Police Services Act in relation to court security and new security for electricity generating facilities and nuclear facilities. I think it’s important to touch on some of the issues that came about during the application of the PWPA which are leading to its repeal. It’s also important to discuss what happened in 2010, because these amendments are meant to ensure that it never happens again and that government has learned its lesson.

This bill is a direct result of the issues that many citizens’ groups have raised and of the response of the government of Ontario during the G20 events in 2010. More than 1,100 arrests were made, the largest mass arrest in Canadian history. There was widespread denial of democratic rights and freedoms, and a secret law was enacted. There were less-than-transparent decision-making processes between government and law enforcement. As a result, six separate reviews took place around G20 security. Yet none had the mandate or the jurisdiction to ask the most fundamental questions or provide Ontarians with answers they were seeking.

Andrea Horwath introduced a private member’s bill, the G20 Public Inquiry Act. This bill would have established an independent commission that would have carried out a full public inquiry. Despite all the reviews that took place, a public inquiry is the missing and essential piece of the G20 puzzle. The public inquiry would have reported on the decisions and actions of the McGuinty government and law enforcement during the G20. It would have provided a fuller accounting of taxpayer dollars. However, this bill did not pass and Ontarians never got the answers that were owed to them from this failed security policy during the G20.

“The conditions for some of the policing problems that were experienced during the summit were set during the preparatory stage ... For example, the lack of transparency surrounding the designation of the security perimeter as a ‘public work’ led to misunderstandings as to the scope of search and seizure powers and, in our view, to an inappropriate use of the these powers. The large number of police officers during the week leading to the G20 generated both a suspicion of wasted resources and a sentiment of potential intimidation. June 26 represents a turning point.

Widespread property damage was committed by a cohort of vandals in the downtown of Toronto on that day. We condemn this criminal activity and acknowledge that it warranted a response by police. The response which police provided, however, was unprecedented, disproportionate and, at times, unconstitutional.”

From the many reports, it emerged that government had enacted regulations that increased the powers of police—except that nobody knew about them until people started getting arrested. CCLA asked for an apology from the government of Ontario on the way it handled G20 security, but that was never received.

As reports surfaced with their recommendations, it became clear that there was considerable reason for concern in the way that the government had handled the period before the G20 and the events itself. Stories circulated through the G20 weekend of citizens being stopped and searched at various locations in the downtown core only because they were wearing an item of black clothing. A number of people also reported that police cited the Public Works Protection Act as authority to conduct searches and require identification, despite the fact that they were nowhere near the security fence.

Most importantly, regulation 233/10, passed to enhance security during the G20 summit, was viewed by many as an issue in and of itself. Ombudsman André Marin stated, “Regulation 233/10, passed to enhance security during the G20 summit, should never have been enacted. It was likely unconstitutional. The effect of regulation 233/10, now expired, was to infringe on freedom of expression in ways that do not seem justifiable in a free and democratic society.

Specifically, the passage of the regulation triggered the extravagant police authority found in the Public Works Protection Act, including the power to arbitrarily arrest and detain people and to engage in unreasonable searches and seizures. Even apart from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the legality of regulation 233/10 is doubtful. The Public Works Protection Act under which it 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 Minister and Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services was to sponsor.

Having said that, let us just assume for a second that regulation 233/10 was indeed appropriate for the circumstances involved. Since the regulation significantly changes the rules of the game, it would only be appropriate that the government would have done whatever was in its power to publicize the fact that the rules had changed. Why would it not notify citizens and groups involved in the protest of the extra requirements?

Had they been properly notified, these groups would have known their rights and what was required of them. Their actions would have been different, and many of the police confrontations would not have occurred. The government failed in providing enough information, Mr. Speaker.

Of the notices that were placed in newspapers, none of them mentioned the PWPA. Full notification of citizens and groups involved in protests was not pursued by the ministry. Even worse, the police themselves were not fully briefed of the extended powers they really possessed. Minister Meilleur said it herself last week, that it was a problem of communication. Communication was definitely one of the major things that was severely wrong with the way the government dealt with G20 security, but it certainly was not the only issue.

Dave Vasey, a York University environmental science masters student, had probably never heard of the Public Works Protection Act before June 24, 2010. How could he, of course? It was a secret act. Curious about the fence, which isn’t a normal sight in downtown Toronto, Mr. Vasey stepped too close to it, to see what was on the inside. This was enough to make police officers suspicious and, armed with the rights that nobody knew about, they stopped Mr. Vasey and asked for identification.

Without knowing about the passing of regulation 233/10, Mr. Vasey refused to provide ID. He would have been well within his rights had the circumstances been different, but the situation was now changed and Mr. Vasey found himself under arrest by authority of the Public Works Protection Act. At least one other person was detained and charged under the act in connection with G20 summit security.

Like many of those stopped, Mr. Vasey was involved in peaceful protest, but the arrests were not confined to just protesters; they included people who were just walking by or who had legitimate business close to the security perimeter. The examples are many, like Rob Kittredge, a lawyer who worked just outside of the security perimeter, whose photographs were confiscated and who was banned from coming close to the security zone under this same act.

Nobody knew about the regulation until after Mr. Vasey was arrested, well after the protest had started. A number of complainants approached the Office of the Ombudsman afterwards. Over 1,000 people were arrested. These complaints gave first-hand accounts of the experiences with police officers during the G20 weekend.

A 57-year-old from Thorold, Ontario, who was an amputee, came down to participate in the labour march rally. After taking

part in the march, he rested at the designated speech area here at Queen’s Park. This was on Sunday, when the protest was winding down. A few minutes later, police arrived to disperse the crowd and yelled at him to move. Needing help to get up, this man was pushed to the floor by police. His prosthetic leg was removed from him, and he was dragged to the police van. I think we’ve all seen these pictures, Mr. Speaker.

Why would the ministry allow this important regulation to go under the radar and lead to so much chaos and uncertainty?

By Sunday, the ministry had issued a directive to police telling them that they did not actually have the powers they thought they had beyond the security perimeter of the fence. Even when it became evident that the rules had changed, and where it became evident that the officers did not have the rights that they thought they had, their course did not change.

On Sunday afternoon, Toronto police, acting on reports that criminals had infiltrated a group of protesters, surrounded and contained a crowd of up to 250 in a “kettling” manoeuvre at Queen Street and Spadina around 6 p.m. Over the course of the next few hours, protesters, journalists, casual observers and bystanders stood in the driving rain while some people were arrested, and we all watched these scenes on television. It was clear that by Sunday everything had wound down, but police were still using their excessive rights to target a group of bystanders who had absolutely no involvement in the protest and who had done nothing illegal.

The process used by the Ontario government to pass regulation 233/10 under the Public Works Protection Act included the absence of public debate, the absence of transparency and consultation, a major problem that led to the many violations during the G20.

Citizens were stripped of rights they possessed and police officers believed they had power they actually did not have, and the Ministry of Community Safety was left to try to mitigate the vacuum.

We’ve all seen what happened then. Now, how is this government proposing to prevent the issues from happening again? The proposed bill before us today contains three schedules that I will discuss in order.

Number one: The bill would repeal the Public Works Protection Act,

an act that was enacted in 1939, which gave police wartime powers. It should never have been used to deal with security during the G20 summit in 2010. It was

an act that was taken under extreme emergency measures and, quite frankly, belongs in 1939, not in 2010 in downtown Toronto.

Security or peace officers were given the kind of power and authority that would be expected during an emergency circumstance, which certainly stretches to the point of transgression of constitutional rights for citizens. The G20 certainly did not merit such a response.

It’s only normal that during an event of such importance as the G20, security concerns might go against civil liberties, but it should be about finding a balance. As the Ombudsman noted, regulation 233/10 worked to trip the powers of the Public Works Protection Act, thereby enabling the arrest and muting of protesters and others who had done nothing wrong. The impact of regulation 233/10 on freedom of expression was therefore almost certainly disproportionate. So we should all strive to ensure that there is no repeat of the trampling of civil rights that happened during the G20.

Security during the G20 could have been handled under different legislation, Mr. Speaker. The PWPA only dealt with structures and not people. Calling on this particular act to address the issues related with the security of foreign heads of state does not make any sense. Just a simple quote from the PWPA is indicative of the scope and the historical reality that government was faced with in 1939. I quote: “We meet today under circumstances of the utmost gravity.

The possibility of war, in which we are now engaged, was fully realized and debated by you at the last session, when you passed unanimously a resolution calling, in such event, for the complete mobilization of all our resources.” Quite drastic, Mr. Speaker, even to the point of being draconian in some of its implications.

It’s that widespread concern of overarching rights, when it comes to policing powers and the trampling of civil liberties, that we did see during the G20—excessive powers that really put a black mark on certainly this province and this country.

I was thinking about this bill this morning and how really shameful it is—and it was, in light of our historical reputation as being peacekeepers, as being promoters of civil liberties and rights and freedoms.

Our charter: We hold it up; we are proud of it. But yet, when circumstances demand, when those who come into this country are given the red carpet rolled out, as we saw during the G20, the rules change and all measures are put forward to protect foreign nationals—multinationals—that come into our province. And at the expense of whom? At the expense of those who engaged in peaceful protest; at the expense of those who fight day in and day out to promote civil liberties in this country, who may not have been involved in the process, who may have been clear across the country but who saw those rights that they fight for each and every day trampled. What a shame it is.

We will discuss this bill today. I think it is certainly an attempt on the government’s part to make amends, to undo a wrong and to fix this issue. I certainly look forward to seeing it, in a complete way, through the process. But as I indicated in some of my opening statements, the biggest missing part of this debate is an apology, a sincere apology, something that comes from the government side that says, “We were wrong. We should not have done this, and we certainly should not have done it without consultation. We should not have done it under the cloak of secrecy, behind closed doors, and we realize that now.”

It seems as though this government relies solely on hindsight. On every measure, whether we’re talking about the G20 and the PWPA or Ornge helicopter, hindsight is 20/20 with this government, but their credibility is really zero when it comes to fixing the issue. I cringe at the thought that they would have a majority government. What would happen? Would these issues come to the light of day?

Mr. John Vanthof: Sweep it under the rug.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Gone under the rug. So here we are today with a balance and, I think, a clear perspective—a balance that brings about truth, and is fighting for truth, and respect for those citizens that were unjustly attacked or identified or arrested during the G20. We think that this will provide some remedy to that.

Mr. Speaker, security during the G20 could have been handled under different legislation. The PWPA only dealt with structures, not people. Calling on this particular act to address the issues related to security of foreign heads of state does not make any sense. Just a simple quote—I have already given you this quote.

Interjection: Do it again.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: You want it again? It is a quote from 1939, when the original act was enacted. Canadians were under the threat of war. Circumstances being as they were, you can’t blame them for wanting to protect their citizens from potentially unknown enemies. But I think to enact it today—I mean, who is the enemy? Right here, the enemy was the Nazis. In 1939, the enemy was the Nazis and Hitler. Who were the enemies when this was enacted? Who were you afraid of? Were you afraid of peaceful protest? Were you afraid of Ontarians? Were you afraid of a gentleman who was an amputee? Is that who you were afraid of? It’s quite pathetic.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: We couldn’t find Rick Bartolucci then. It was unbelievable.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: He may have been an agent provocateur, as they say.

“Legislation calculated to give effect to the determination then expressed will be immediately submitted to you. You will be asked to pass measures designed to increase agricultural and industrial productions, and for the protection of our vital public works”—referencing again the initial enactors, those legislators in 1939, who brought about this measure.

So even though other provinces have legislation that defines public works for other purposes besides security, no other province—no other province—has regulations such as the PWPA. So Ontario has relied on this emergency act that was enacted in 1939 during war.

It’s only normal that we would call such

an act into question and think twice before using it in the context of 2010. However, that’s precisely what the McGuinty government did in 2010. It used this act to deal with the security perimeter around the G20 area in downtown Toronto. It led to violations of civil rights, misunderstandings on the part of police as to the rights that were given by the act and ultimately, Ontario citizens’ democratic rights to protest were curtailed.

It begs the question: Was that the intent? Because you did it. It actually worked very well. You curtailed democratic rights, you curtailed peaceful protest, you muted the voice of those who had dissenting opinions and you did it in a way that really is unprecedented.

So we’ll see this act, we will agree that it is necessary, but again, I ask those across the way: an apology. We’re two years out of this event; there’s no statute of limitations on an apology. We’ll take one today on behalf of the government of Ontario to the people of Ontario, that their rights were infringed.

This act led to violations of civil rights, and protest is a democratic right. The citizens of Ontario were entitled to protest and should have been free of unreasonable arrest and arbitrary search during the G20 summit. Only members of the Toronto Police Service knew that the rules had changed. The ministry did not inform the public and did not ensure that police officers even knew what powers they were being given. More than 1,100 people were arrested as 20,000 police officers patrolled the streets during the G20 summit in 2010.

The Ontario government, in 2010, was giving police powers that were designated as a war measure. So were they waging war?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: One billion dollars was spent for that.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I mean, that’s a good chunk of change. If you were going to war, you would want, as we ask at the federal level; to provide our military men and women, our officers, with the appropriate resources, and spare no expense to ensure that they have the tools they need to wage war. It seems as though there was no expense spared on this measure: $2 billion, fake lakes, gazebos, sound cannons—what else did they have? This was an all-in event. Massive fences that were erected. You turned this downtown core area into a war zone.

Mr. Jonah Schein: Why did it happen in Toronto?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Why Toronto? Why not in the Muskokas? Why did you not bring that measure up to the Muskokas as well? They were safe in the gazebos, apparently. They were safe in the comfort of the gazebos. They were swimming in fake lakes and we’ll never get an answer.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: They were swimming in the fake lake? I don’t believe it.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Were they swimming? I don’t know. Well, they were reflecting by the fake lakes. Maybe they were reflecting on how much money they wasted, because we certainly were reflecting on it and continue to reflect on it.

Here was the Ontario government, in 2010, giving police powers that were designated as war measures. The powers under such legislation should not pre-emptively include all buildings. Instead, it should only protect necessary structures.

On top of everything, the PWPA does not have the authority to protect people or heads of state, as was the case during the G20. I’m sure that other legislation exists to this extent that would justify security measures such as a fence or a security perimeter around meetings of heads of state. I don’t think the PWPA was that measure, though. So the government’s intentions might have been good in principle, but are hard to justify in retrospect.

Therefore, it really is easy for us to support the repeal of the PWPA. Civil liberties groups have advocated for it. It was also one of the recommendations of the McMurtry report. André Marin expressed reservations about it. It’s hard to argue for the continuation of such

an act in general. The question then arises: If we are removing this act, do we have to replace it with something else?

Here is where the government is proposing amendments to the Police Services Act which bring me to the second point. The act would amend the Police Services Act, but it’s still aligned with the current powers granted to court security guards under the PWPA:

Require any person entering or inside a courthouse to produce identification and provide information to assess their security risk; give court security unnecessary powers that they do not need in their everyday job: There is no reason why court security should have the right to ask why a person is entering a court. What kinds of questions should be justifiable in assessing whether a person poses a security risk? The changes also call for searching a person who is entering, attempting to enter or in a courthouse, as well as the person’s vehicle and other property.

So does that mean that the parking lot of the courthouse is considered within the boundaries of such powers? What if you’re a visitor dropping someone else off at the court? Are you still subject to search by court security? Would these powers include the ability to search the car of a person entering the parking lot? What about groups or visitors to the courthouse? Would they be required to have ID with them while they’re touring the courthouse?

Search, without a warrant, any person, property or vehicle entering or attempting to enter premises where court proceedings are conducted.

Search, without a warrant and using reasonable force if necessary, any person who is in custody where court proceedings are conducted or who is being transported to or from such premises, or any property in the custody or care of that person.

Mr. Speaker, the range of police powers conferred by the act which remain, in the case of the courthouse guards, should also be considered specifically. Will guards and peace officers be able to offer conclusive testimony about the location of the security boundaries, as was the case during the PWPA?

The legislation should strive to identify and distinguish between the different powers given to courthouse staff. A power to search may be necessary but not the power to detain or arrest or ask for identification. Each of these powers might be justified with the individual functions of the building. Not all courthouses, for example, need that much security. Not all courthouses are under that much threat. It is better to give these powers as need arises, instead of having to take them away or rely on the good judgment of those using them.

If we learned anything from the G20, Mr. Speaker, it is that when extra police powers are given to police officers, they tend to use them. I think that here we are giving court security staff wartime powers on a daily basis. I do not see how all courthouses in Ontario are under constant terrorist threat. These measures would only be justified if the risk of injury is extreme, and that is certainly not the case for a lot of courthouses. The default assumption should be that these powers are not available, and any additional powers should be specifically granted, rather than the proposal that all powers be granted and then taken away by regulation. The powers should also be time-specific.

Any random search power should be accompanied by a protocol to ensure that searches are truly random: for example, that all people are searched, or that only one third are searched. Any extension of search, detention or demand-of-identification powers should be posed so that individuals are provided with sufficient notice of the allowable procedures, should they decide to enter the premises.

The most troubling part, however, remains the fact that I see this as extending those same rights police had under PWPA to everyday courthouses in Ontario. This is not necessary and does not seem right.

We can then talk about the repeal of PWPA, because it clearly lives on in this current amendment. This is certainly troubling.

The third part of this act, Mr. Speaker, is the enactment of the Security for Electricity Generating Facilities and Nuclear Facilities Act. It narrows the list of public works even further. Unlike PWPA, the new bill covers very limited categories of infrastructure, and prescribing any additional categories of infrastructure would require amendments to the act.

First off, what are we designating as an electricity generating facility? Is it a solar farm? Is it a wind farm? Is it a nuclear facility? What context do we give those facilities?

The act designates security personnel at these facilities with the power to: request any person who wishes to enter or is on the premises to produce identification and provide information for the purposes of assessing the person’s security risk; search, upon consent, any person, property or vehicle entering the premises; refuse to allow a person to enter or bring property into the premises and use reasonable force to prevent entry.

Guards could exercise the specific powers only on the premises, and these powers would not apply off the premises. Citizens are given the option to enter the premises or to leave. The powers outlined above no longer apply to the area approaching the facility. We certainly support that. We believe that people should be given the option to enter or to leave upon finding out what the requirements are for entry.

This was certainly not the case during the G20, when citizens were still required to provide ID, even after deciding they no longer wanted to enter. They were still arrested for wanting to do that. We’re glad to see that provision go.

We do still have concerns about extending powers to security personnel at nuclear and electricity facilities. I repeat again that these are not police officers; they are privately trained security personnel. It’s only normal that we should question and debate the extension of such powers given to them.

We look forward to seeing if the idea of the approach to a public works building is removed from the new act. It should not be left up to peace officers to determine what the approach to a building is.

While police have common law authority to conduct warrantless searches in specific situations, when warrantless searches are to be carried out on a regular basis, there should be specific statutory authority provided to give such powers.

Citizens were required to identify themselves and explain why they wanted to enter the security perimeter. Even if they changed their mind and no longer wanted to enter, they still had to provide ID and could be arrested or jailed.

The PWPA was enacted to protect public property and should not have been used to enact regulations to protect people, as was the case during the G20.

Other issues were at stake during the G20 beyond the outdated act. When the act was passed, the ministry had meant it to apply to an internal area around the security fence. The police understood it as applying to the entire area around the security fence. As a matter of fact, they exercised the powers granted by the PWPA way beyond the security fence, even after the misinterpretation had been corrected. This certainly is a testament to the idea that police were granted powers that went beyond what was justifiable for the event.

Tempers flare as the situation escalates on both sides. The situation put more emphasis on the fact that government needs to be cautious of the curtailment of civil rights and of the powers it gives to police officers. It should be careful so that it can justify such powers. This was not the case during the G20.

Since Minister Meilleur herself admitted that it was an issue of miscommunication, I would look forward to seeing the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services develop a protocol that would call for public information campaigns when police powers are extended. I would also like to see written notices at the entrance of courthouses and nuclear facilities listing the possible requirements for entry and the consequence of disobeying those requirements.

There also needs to be an accountability mechanism in those instances where things do not go as planned. Security guards and police forces need to fully understand what they can and cannot do. They also need to know the consequences that their actions could elicit.

To conclude, during the G20, the government failed to weigh the security associated with protecting heads of state against the constitutional rights of the citizens of Ontario. A vague law means that individuals are not given sufficient guidance as to what behaviour a law prohibits. It also means that police officers are not given sufficient direction on how to enforce this law, which inevitably leads to inconsistent enforcement.

We support the repeal of the PWPA but have reservations as to the extra powers that are being given to court security and security at electricity generators. Wartime powers are being extended to security within our courts and around our electricity and nuclear generators. We need to look closely at what effects this will have on civil rights and those wishing to enter courthouses as simple observers.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Let’s be clear when speaking on Bill 34: At its heart, it’s an attempt of this government to rectify a mistake that this government made. Now, this mistake wasn’t simply a mistake involving an omission; this was a commission. This was a clear choice made by this government to use the public works act to give special powers to police officers during the G20. These special powers were kept secret and were not disclosed to the public.

As protectors and caretakers of this province, it is incumbent on the government to provide the citizens of this province with the knowledge so that they can engage in their democratic rights. What right? The right to dissent. This is a fundamental part of the fabric of society of all free societies. We need this right to engage our community, to ensure that there’s oversight, to ensure that the public has a say on the actions of the government.

During G20, concerned citizens wanted to raise their voice. Some citizens simply were curious to see what was going on. Curious citizens, citizens who had a stake and individuals who wanted to raise their voice were all caught up in one of the largest mass arrests in the history of this country and the history of this province. Over 1,000 citizens—1,000 Canadians—were arrested, and the vast majority of these Canadians were not held on any charges, were kept in custody, civil rights abrogated, violated, and released days later with no charge. This is a disgrace. This is a black mark on the face of a democratic and free society. This was a heinous violation of civil rights.

Now, I support the repeal of the public works act. That is an outdated law which was simply abused and which provided the government with unfettered rights to war-measure-type powers at any time. This was an example of a state repressing its people, and the strong language is necessary to hold the government accountable for their actions. It’s important to note that the powers granted by the PWPA were simply one piece to the puzzle, simply one component to the reason why there were mass civil rights violations.

We also have to look at the fact that police officers were not properly trained. There is still not proper police officer accountability. In terms of a culture, we must recognize and respect the right to dissent, and our officers must also be trained accordingly to respect citizens who wish to engage in that right and provide them with the dignity and a safe space to do so, not to present themselves as an obstacle to dissent but to present themselves as facilitators, or people who would assist in democracy.

Now, when this government chose to do the right thing, which was to correct this mistake, I applauded the government for taking that step. But in correcting one mistake, let’s not make another mistake. In repealing the public works act, that’s a positive step, but now what we’re doing with the proposed amendment is providing the police, through the Police Services Act and the act governing the facilities which produce electricity, permanent powers that extend beyond what a police officer has and which are clearly in violation of our Charter of Rights,

section 8, which guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

What does that mean? That’s a fundamental part of our society, that we are guaranteed these rights. This gives us the peace of mind that we can exist in this society, that we can flourish in this society, knowing that there won’t be an unreasonable encroachment upon our privacy interests; there won’t be an unreasonable search of our privacy, property or of our space.

We can break down the proposed enactment into two particular areas: courthouses and facilities that produce electricity. Beginning with the courthouse: Now, this government should be put on notice. They made a heinous mistake during the G20. They violated the citizens of this province’s rights, so they should be particularly aware and sensitive to protecting these rights. When they enacted this new law they should have taken the precaution to ensure that there wasn’t any future potential to breach civil rights and that there wasn’t any future potential to violate the rights of their citizens.

Now, if you look at the components of the bill that relate to courthouses, and the concept of a courthouse: In a free and democratic society, it is essential that we have public hearings and that we have public participation in the form of spectators who can attend a courthouse, who can observe, who can engage in and see the justice system unfold, who can observe as unofficial checks and balances on the system. There are many examples when the public has an interest in attending a court.

If there is a protest and a colleague, an activist, a professor who speaks out on an issue is arrested unfairly, his or her colleagues may want to attend the court to show their solidarity and show their support. Other members of society, other citizens, may want to attend the court to see the proceedings to ensure that it’s fair, to ensure that their colleague’s rights are being protected, that their colleague is not being mistreated. That is an essential part of society when we have open and free courthouses. We want to engage the public.

We want to make sure that the public feels welcome, feels that they can access these courts.

If we recognize that this is an important part of a free and democratic society and we recognize that we need to have public courthouses so the public can be spectators, can act as an unofficial check and balance, then we must acknowledge that a court should be kept in that fashion, should be kept in a fashion where the public can openly and easily access it and engage in it. This law provides security at the courthouse with the power to deny entry on a number of criteria. The most troubling is that they’re able to ask questions to assess the security threat, which is an open discretion; there’s no clear set of questions they can ask.

The security officer is given certain rights. They can search the person entering—there’s a reasonable level to that, so that’s acceptable. They can search the car of the person. What’s the connection between a person attempting to enter a courthouse and then providing the court security officer the right to have a warrantless search of his or her vehicle? There is no connection there, and that’s simply a violation of our

section 8 rights.

Furthermore, this bill also allows security personnel to search the vehicle if an individual is a passenger in the vehicle. What’s the connection to a friend of mine dropping me off at the courthouse, giving the court security the right to then search my friend’s vehicle? Again, another violation of our

section 8 rights.

What’s the most troubling is that this bill provides court security with the right to ask questions to assess the security risk of an individual. What does that really mean? On the face of it, it seems quite simple and maybe not very troubling. But if we analyze this one step further and look at it with a critical lens, what does this mean? Security personnel can say, “Why are you coming?” and any series of questions beyond that to assess their security risk. “What are your political beliefs?

Do you believe that police are doing their job properly or not?” What if the person indicates that, “I’m here because I’m concerned with police powers, I’m concerned that there should be an independent body reviewing the police and I’d like to see if there is a case study to be made.”

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Kick them out right away.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: They might get kicked out immediately, then.

What’s even more troubling is if a citizen wants to exercise his or her right to question society, to question whether or not the police are using their powers appropriately—and many officers are using their powers appropriately, but there are some that are not—if an individual wants to create this case study just to engage in their rights, wants to observe as a silent observer, as a spectator, and they provide this information that, “I’m here to do so,” and they’re asked to leave.

This individual wants to defend democracy, defend their ability to engage in the democratic system, to assess the qualities of the police or their powers, and says, “No, I want to do my duty as a citizen. I want to sit silently in the courtroom and watch and see what happens.” They can be arrested. They can be charged and arrested simply for wanting to come into a courthouse to engage in this process, to be a spectator. That’s offensive.

What’s more troubling is, the same government that has been criticized for violating civil rights is opening the door wide to future civil right violations, and not just any type of civil right violations, but permanent, because they are giving permanent powers to court security personnel and electricity producing facilities to have permanent carte blanche power to deny entry based on security threat or risk assessment questions.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Perhaps it’s unintentional. I don’t know.

Interjection: Maybe they just didn’t think about it.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: But committee hearings might deal with that, right? That’s what I think.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I think there’s going to be a lot of work that needs to be done in committee hearings on this issue.

Whether it’s a government, whether it’s media personnel, as soon as the word “security” is used, as soon as there’s a threat to security, it immediately creates a response of “Give away all your rights.” If security is involved, then rights no longer matter. That’s simply the wrong approach. In fact, as soon as we see the word “security,” we should be extra mindful that rights aren’t taken away. We should be extra mindful that this is not simply an excuse to violate our civil rights.

When it comes to our civil rights, we must cherish them and protect them because they are very fragile. Slow encroachments on these rights will eventually result in an eradication of rights that we’ve worked so hard to ensure that we have in a democratic and free society.

As Ontarians and as Canadians, we should lead in civil rights. We should not be falling behind. We should be the example of what it means to be in a free and democratic society, not the example when people point out what not to do.

As soon as we see the word “security” being used, and if this government says, “There’s a security risk and we need to ensure that security is protected at courthouses. We need to ensure that security is protected at electricity producing facilities,” then at that point we must be even more cognizant that each and every letter of the law does not encroach on our rights, that each and every

section and

article does not limit the rights of individuals to dissent, to engage in democracy, to question, to participate or to protest. These are fundamental aspects of our society, and security does not trump them. Security may require us to be more sensitive. Security may require us to be sometimes more aware, but it does not mean we step away from our civil rights, that we limit them, that we abrogate them.

We’ve seen what has happened in society when we look at security. Just in the panic of assessing security risks, we give away all our rights. We’ve seen the Patriot Act in the United States and the civil liberty violations that occur due to information being disseminated and gathered.

We’ve seen very recently in Canada that Minister Vic Toews wanted to present a law that was essentially going to violate all sorts of Internet privacy and give police unfettered access to our personal information when we surf the Net. In fact, the language that was used was a simplistic dichotomy of, “You’re either with us or against us. You’re either with the people who want to protect society or you’re with those who are criminals.” That’s not how simple this matter is. It’s a nuanced issue, and those who want to simplify this are seeking to invade and to violate our civil rights.

Those who are prepared to stand up for civil rights, stand up for our democratic freedoms, must approach this in a nuanced manner and not be scared into a panic.

We’ve seen that the community rose up in rejection of the minister’s bill and that through the democratic process of dissent, through individuals expressing their concern, their rejection of this bill, rejection of this notion of giving police unfettered powers to invade our privacy, now the minister has taken a step back from that position. But it’s important that we don’t commit the same mistake here in Ontario.

The G20 opened our eyes. It opened our eyes to the fact that when we look at countries across the world and see there’s no freedom in Egypt—when people try to protest, they’re attacked and put into prisons. There’s no freedom in the Arab Spring countries. There’s no freedom in Latin American countries when people try to dissent. It became very shameful that we turned our faces, looked at our own homes and saw that there was not freedom here in Toronto. There was not freedom here in the streets of Toronto. When innocent protestors tried to raise their voices and concerns about global issues, they were placed into custody. They were arrested and their rights were taken away.

The impact of that summer didn’t end that summer, it didn’t end a year later and it’s not over today. The injury and the harm that was a result of what happened during that summer will stay in the minds of people for their entire lives.

Many people spoke out and said, “We thought this was not the face of Canada. This is not the Canada we wanted to live in. This is not the Toronto that we grew up in, and we’re deeply saddened and disgraced.”

Interjection: It was a war zone.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: It was a war zone; the member’s absolutely correct. It was a war zone, and it was a war zone on our own citizens, our own people. It wasn’t a foreign invader; it was our own people. We treated our own people with disrespect, with disgrace. It was inhuman. The treatment of individuals, the way they were kept in temporary holding cells, in temporary holding facilities, was simply unacceptable. It was shameful.

And that’s why I highlight that concern: Because we have another G20 brewing if this bill passes without any regulations or without any committee hearing amendments. We have another G20 brewing if there is a controversial court case that may involve any number of issues, whether criminal, whether an environmental lawsuit, whether a lawsuit of concerned farmers. If these individuals want to protest, want to rally, and they go to the courthouse to show their solidarity, a G20 can occur again, because we have here in this bill a wide set of powers granted that would limit the ability of citizens to engage in this process, whether it’s at a courthouse or at an electricity producing facility.

Let’s turn our minds now to a power plant, for example. We’ve seen an example of this very recently, here in Mississauga. Citizens were concerned about a power plant being built in their backyard, a power plant that this government footed the bill for, spent millions of dollars on and now has backtracked on, but it was because of the people, who were not initially properly given an opportunity for assessment and for their input. What they did, the citizens of Mississauga—and I applaud them, first, for engaging in their rights, for protesting, for exercising their democratic freedoms.

They were upset about the building of a power plant and they protested, and that’s their right. They put up a fight. They stood together in solidarity and they said, “We don’t want this in our backyard.” By doing so, their voices were heard, and this government listened to their citizens for once, listened to their residents, and said, “Okay, we’ll stop.”

Now, if this bill existed, if this power existed, what would happen with those people rallying? They would all be asked, depending on the definition of entry into this power plant—if they were at the front of it and they were standing in the parking lot, perhaps a parking lot would meet the definition of entry. If they were in the parking lot and they were asked by power plant personnel, “Why are you here?” and they said, “We’re here because we don’t want this power plant built,” that might have satisfied their minds that this was a security risk, because “They don’t want it to be built.

They may be a security risk. Let’s ask them to leave.” The residents are saying, “Hey, this is our backyard. We’re here to protest. We don’t want to leave. We want to protest, because we don’t want this built.” They’re arrested and taken into custody. Another G20 occurs, another violation of the rights of citizens who want to protest, who want to raise their voice.

Mr. Speaker, that’s unacceptable. I won’t let that happen. I will fight for that, and I’m sure my colleagues will. I know my colleagues across the way will as well. We want to ensure that this is a free and democratic province; that people can protest; that people like the residents in Mississauga who protested against that power plant are able to do so, are not limited from doing so, are not placed in custody, are not arrested for doing so; that individuals who want to protest—actually, another great example: People who were improperly arrested in G20 are still going through the court process, are still currently involved in their trials.

Now, perhaps their colleagues want to show their solidarity and say, “Listen, this was completely unacceptable. My friend, my sister, my brother, my colleague was arrested while they were peacefully protesting. I want to be in the courtroom to show my solidarity, to show my support of my friend, to give them some courage, to show them that I care.” Now, if they want to attend the court and there’s this new bill enacted, and they indicate that, “Hey, I was there with my friend in G20, and I was against what happened.

The police were wrong for what they did,” and if the security personnel says, “Hey, they were in G20. They must be some sort of radical that needs to be prevented from coming into the courthouse,” then they’ve precluded this individual. What if they want to be there? What if they really want to show their support? Again, we have another opportunity that our civil rights will be violated, and this is unacceptable.

In closing, repealing the first part of the bill—I applaud the government for taking the right step. But let’s not forget: It’s this very same government that made the mistake in the first place, so they’re simply correcting their own mistake. That’s good, but it doesn’t deserve applause. That’s simply correcting a mistake.

But what’s very troubling is that we have to keep in mind that when they are correcting their mistake—which is good; you have to do that—let’s not make another mistake. Let’s have some foresight now. You’ve had it before you. You’ve seen what happens when you make mistakes. Let’s now be a little bit more cognizant of civil rights, be supportive of democracy, be supporters and caretakers of freedom and ensure that your bill does not create more civil rights violations. Let’s have that foresight now.

With respect to repealing the Public Works Protection Act, I completely support that, and I will vote in favour of that. That’s very important. But when it comes to courthouse security and electricity-producing-facility security, those are two areas that need to be looked at very carefully.

I urge all members of the House to contact stakeholders who are civil liberty individuals who are aware of these rights and freedoms and consult with them—

Interjection: Who care about democracy.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Who care about democracy. Let’s ensure that they’re consulted properly because our charter rights are essential. People who are aware of the charter rights, perhaps some lawyers, can assess and we can have their input. It’s important that we protect these rights.

This is no laughing matter, no joking matter. This is a serious matter because I believe in these freedoms, and I believe everyone in the House should and does. Let’s ensure that we protect our freedoms moving forward and ensure that people are able to engage in the political process and keep our public courthouses free and open so that the community can observe as spectators. Let’s keep our power plants accessible to our communities so that they can raise their voices and their concerns if they see it so. Let’s ensure that we have a society that encourages democracy instead of stifling it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: This wasn’t the annual general meeting of the Camp Fire Girls going on in downtown Toronto. This was almost every vulnerable head of state with the highest vulnerability to terrorist attacks, bombings and assassinations ever in Canada. We saw what happened in Quebec City. We saw what happened in Seattle. We saw innocent people blown up in subways in London. We saw a government fall in Spain over the mishandling of bombings and terrorism. We saw 9/11. It was in that context.

The members opposite asked who the enemy was. They were terrorists, murderers and an international effort to undermine democracy. You want to see real problems with civil liberties? Look at the Patriot Act: rendition and racial profiling. The US has almost suspended amendment 4 of its own Constitution.

This was the worst-organized international event by the federal government. I was mayor of a city when we had War Child, 37 heads of state and the Pan Am Games—and the Tories are laughing. No government, I can say, was more incompetent. In Winnipeg, with the Pan Am Games and with the War Child International UN conference, we had a year of security planning.

I will tell you, as a mayor of a large city, there are things you don’t do. You do not put major international conferences in the downtown of cities like Toronto after the experiences of Spain and London, where there was no conference. Why? There’s more conduits and subways. There are more portholes in high buildings. If you wanted the perfect environment for terrorism, you had downtown Toronto. The mayor of the day said, if you’re going to host it in the city, why not put it over by the Ex where the water and the freeway exclude it?

I will tell you, having been briefed by CSIS and by security people: This was lunacy. It was forced upon the city and the province and a mayor who, I thought, showed great courage, and a police chief who scrambled for 60 days to make sure President Obama wasn’t shot.

I am still fighting for civil liberties rights for my constituents because this happened in my neighbourhood, where police officers, with no control of this government, arrested a woman who left her children at home when she was going to pick up milk because she didn’t have ID.

We don’t need lectures from the opposition on this. Where were you? For 50 years of other parties in power, this legislation was on the books. This government was asked to act, and we were the party who brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Conservatives took away the charter challenges act.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: I’ll try to tone down the rhetoric a bit, because I find that is quite inflammatory. This minister of the McGuinty government is an embarrassment.

I’m responding to the two members from the NDP: the member from Essex and the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton. What I’m trying to say is, they brought a couple of very good points. They emphasized the civil liberties parts of it. I thought they did a respectable job. But let’s face it: The report is in response to both the Ombudsman’s report as well as the work done by a former Attorney General for the province of Ontario, Solicitor General Roy McMurtry, a very highly respected person.

I think all of these things are being implemented as a result of

an act that was in place, the Public Works Protection Act, as was said by the speakers, in 1939. We’re, in a general sense, very supportive of that. But what I heard being said was blaming someone else for everything. It’s a typical response from a McGuinty—especially from the leadership team. They blame somebody else for everything.

When I look at Ontario, and when you talked about security around power plants, in my riding, there are two nuclear plants in Durham: Pickering and Darlington. It’s a very important issue. We support the idea of improved security and security processes and procedures. We commend the government for looking at that and updating the legislation. This is not about blaming.

But here is what they did with power plants: During the election, and basically just before it, to prime the area for their members, they cancelled two power plants in Mississauga. Those Mississauga plants saved a seat. We call them seat-saver decisions.

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: No, but the fact is, this was brought up. Their decision about power today is another example of a government that is ruining the electricity system of Ontario. Energy is doubling in price for people who can hardly afford it. This is the real issue about this government, and I pay attention to what they say.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Trinity–Spadina.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I was fascinated by the response from the member from Toronto Centre. He, in some ways, is correct in terms of attacking the federal government. He didn’t talk about the billion-dollar expenditure which he got away with. He didn’t talk about that, but he talked about a few other things. To some extent, I’m in agreement. But he takes absolutely no responsibility for his own government and deflects attention from himself and them, and then points the finger and says, “Where were you?” I just don’t understand that. That was a fascinating pointing of fingers.

There was not one mention of what his government had done. It appears as if there is absolutely no remorse for the worst violation of human and civil rights here in Ontario committed by this government. There was not one mention of that and not one mention of the potential violation of civil rights that the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton raises, along with the member from Essex, in terms of what this bill could do in the future. There was not one mention of that.

I anticipate that other members who are paying attention might speak to it—I don’t know—but they will have an opportunity, when this bill goes into committee and while we have public hearings, to hear from people who might be concerned. Amendments will be introduced, because we will certainly have amendments, and hopefully this bill will be improved and can correct the injustices that the citizens of Ontario suffered but a mere two years ago.

I congratulate my friends from Essex and Bramalea–Gore–Malton for their critique of this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Peterborough.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I did appreciate the thoughtful comments—and I want to recognize them as very thoughtful comments—from the members from Essex and Bramalea–Gore–Malton.

I just want to take the opportunity for a moment. I’ve had the opportunity to visit the three nuclear facilities in Ontario: Bruce at Kincardine, Pickering and Darlington. The Darlington site is about 50 kilometres from my riding in Peterborough. Obviously, this bill will go to committee. So I do hope that the committee would take the time to perhaps visit all of those three communities, or one or two of those communities, to seek the opinion of those individuals who are in those particular communities where we have nuclear facilities: Darlington, Pickering and indeed Bruce.

It was my information, when I took the opportunity to do it—I remember that actually the member from Trinity–Spadina toured Darlington with me as part of a committee on a piece of legislation.

Hon. James J. Bradley: He’s a good man.

Mr. Jeff Leal: He is a good man, and I recall that that day OPG security were there, and they certainly indicated to us the potential threats that we might have to our nuclear facilities in the province of Ontario. I could spend my time this morning talking about a litany of what those security risks might be.

But I think it would behoove us all, when this bill goes to committee, to really take the opportunity to visit those communities, to understand what’s going on in those communities and to really get an accurate risk and threat assessment when it comes to those three communities in the province of Ontario and, indeed, the communities that surround those three sites. That’s what I believe the advantage of a minority government is. The committee can go there, and we can hear first-hand what the challenges are and, as we improve this bill, hear what those communities are saying.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Response?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I would like to acknowledge who spoke in response and continue this debate. Thank you for your input and for your responses.

Some of the remarks that were made—I think it’s important to get community input, and so I acknowledge the member’s remarks with respect to that. It’s very important; it’s essential. In a democracy, we need to hear from the communities that are affected, and they should be consulted. So that’s vital.

Another issue that was raised—and I want to spend some time speaking on this issue—is, when I spoke of the word “security” and the fact that security is a word that’s used to substantiate and to justify violations of civil rights, another word is also used for that, and that’s “terrorist.” Immediately, just by invoking that word, it somehow justifies civil rights violation; it does not. Using the word “terrorist” does not mean that you can arrest innocent people. Using the word “terrorist” does not mean that you can violate civil rights. It’s not acceptable.

There are real threats that exist, and they should be analyzed in a rational, reasonable way, not with fear-mongering, not with panic, not with an abrogation of rights. That’s not the appropriate approach, and that’s not the approach that should be taken in this House and that’s not the approach that we should take as legislators.

We should be reasonable, we should be rational, and we should engage our critical thinking when any issue arises, particularly when it involves the rights of our citizens. There should be no catchphrases that can be utilized to justify giving away our rights, whether it’s “security” or whether it’s “terrorism.”

Again, I urge all members in the House to be very cognizant of the effect of every letter of every law in this House and assess whether or not it protects democracy or if it rejects, denies or suppresses democracy, because we stand here for freedom.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The time for the morning debate has come to an end.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): This House stands recessed till 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: A lot of you folks may know that my beautiful granddaughter Rachel is a page here. Today she’s a page captain, and she’s joined in the members’ gallery by her dad, Derek Rynard; her sisters, Karley and Madison Rynard; her mom, Jill; and my beautiful wife, Jane Dunlop.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We all know that the member is not old enough to be a grandfather.

Introduction of guests?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am delighted that the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario is joining us in the Legislature today. We’re joined by Doris Grinspun, the executive director; David McNeil, the president of RNAO; and president-elect Rhonda Seidman-Carlson. Let’s give them all a big welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Jim McDonell: It’s with great pride that we have the opportunity to have, from our riding, page captain for the day Ryan Haley. To witness this, his parents, Joanne and Bob, are here today, along with his brother Derek and his cousin Andrew Stang. We welcome them to the Legislature.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today Mr. Dave Fletcher. He’s the general manager of Holcim, and also the chairman of CASIA, a local environmental association of industry and resident associations. With him today is Sherry Fletcher. She’s an attorney in the state of Georgia, and also a student of politics who pays great interest to parliamentary procedure. Welcome to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I’d ask all of you to join me in welcoming Marianne Cochrane, who’s a strong advocate of the faith and the nursing community, here to Queen’s Park today.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I want to introduce some relatives of page Marium who are here. Her grandparents Syed and Zahida Murtaza are in the gallery. Her sister Laila Vahed and her two cousins Sakeena and Manaal Syed are in the gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’d also like to welcome a constituent, Jill Staples, who’s down here today with the RNAO.

M me France Gélinas: J’aimerais souhaiter la bienvenue à M. Paul-André Gauthier, qui vient de Sudbury et de Nickel Belt, et qui est ici dans le cadre de la RNAO. Ça me fait plaisir de lui souhaiter la bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like to very much welcome to the Legislature some family friends: Dave Johnson—he’ll be joined by his wife, Erin, and Erin’s dad, Hugh. Dave had a life-threatening accident last September. He was airlifted by Ornge from Huntsville to St. Mike’s hospital. He received superb care and is now receiving rehab at Royal Vic in Barrie.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Certainly, I want to join in the very warm welcome of Mr. David McNeil, the president of RNAO; also, of course, Dr. Doris Grinspun, the executive director; and the many, many dedicated, hard-working nurses who are here today on the RNAO’s 13th annual Queen’s Park day. We look forward to meeting with you today.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I also want to introduce some members of RNAO from Ottawa, who are visiting Queen’s Park today: Una Ferguson, Andrea Jewell and Cécile Diby. I look forward to attending their breakfast next Friday in Ottawa. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions?

If I have this right, on behalf of the member from Mississauga–Streetsville, we have grandmothers Zubeda Vahed and Zahida Murtaza; grandfather Syed Murtaza; uncle Ziyaad Vahed; sister Laila Vahed; and cousins Sakeena Syed and Manaal Syed. They will be here in the members’ gallery supporting the page. Welcome.

It is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Health: The minister insists that she has acted decisively by requesting a police investigation into financial irregularities at Ornge, even though she ignored our warnings for months. She boasts of installing new leadership at Ornge, and yet the two key individuals who were responsible for decisions that compromised patient safety and wasted millions of public health care dollars are still in charge today of day-to-day operations.

Can the minister tell us: Are Mr. Rick Potter and Mr. Steve Farquhar still employed at Ornge today, and if so, why?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member for the question.

What I can tell you, Speaker, is that we found some very serious problems at Ornge. When those problems came to light, we took decisive action. What have we done? We have replaced the leadership at Ornge. We have a new CEO in place: Deputy Minister Ron McKerlie. We have a very strong new board in place, headed by Ian Delaney. We have sent in a forensic audit team, who put in a very large team to comb through the books at Ornge. The results of that audit led us to having to take the very significant step of referring this matter to the OPP for further investigation.

We are moving forward on changes at Ornge—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: Well, Speaker, this is the very reason why front-line staff at Ornge have lost all confidence in this minister. They know the role that Mr. Potter played in destroying the reputation of our air ambulance service, and they also know what the minister knows now: namely, that in addition to his disastrous operational decisions, Mr. Potter falsified his own credentials and repeatedly lied about them. They heard the minister say that she was appalled by Mr. Potter’s representations and that she was hopeful that they would be acted on.

I ask the minister, how can she expect front-line staff to have confidence in her leadership when she stands by and allows Mr. Potter to remain in his very key role on the front line of operations at Ornge?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I have every confidence in the new leadership at Ornge. They are taking decisive steps that are making a real difference on the front lines.

I have now visited three Ornge bases. I have had wonderful conversations with front-line staff, who are telling me what it was like and telling me what it is like now. They are seeing the results of the changes that we have made at Ornge. The new leadership is doing its work.

What I can tell you is, the front-line staff, after my having visited three bases and spoken to many of those front-line staff, are very, very pleased with the changes that I have made in the leadership at Ornge.

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

Mr. Frank Klees: It’s precisely this kind of hands-off attitude that got us into the mess that we’re in today. The reality is that those front-line people that the minister is meeting with have lost confidence in her because she is afraid to make a decision about things like Mr. Potter.

Yesterday, the minister was asked this question during the scrum following question period: “What would happen if this happened in your office, if someone in your office misrepresented their credentials?” The minister’s response was this, and I quote from the transcript: “Uh, I would fire them.”

I ask the minister: If Mr. Potter would be fired from her office for lying, why is he not fired from Ornge?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have every confidence in the new leadership team that has come forward to serve the people of Ontario. The new board, which the minister opposite called a very strong board and a big important step forward when they were first announced—he is now determined to undermine the integrity of those very people who have come forward to resolve the challenges at Ornge. I stand by the board. They are doing their work. They are being very diligent and they are being very proactive.

I have the deepest confidence in the leadership of the board, including Ian Delaney, Charles Harnick, Patricia Lang, Barry McLellan, Maneesh Mehta, Patrice Merrin, and Patricia Volker. These are very fine individuals who are determined to do what the people of Ontario have asked them to do.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, it’s the same story over and again. The minister had confidence in the last board until she had to fire them all because she refused to take action. But that’s why this Legislature has to take a leadership role.

This morning, at a joint press conference, the member from Nickel Belt and I called on this Legislature to strike an all-party select committee through which the Legislature would be empowered to conduct hearings into the circumstances that led to the scandal at Ornge.

Following her February 17 press conference on Ornge, the minister gave her commitment that she would co-operate if the Legislature wanted to strike a committee to investigate Ornge. Will the minister honour that commitment today and express her support for the all-party select committee that we called for this morning?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am fully supportive of any decision this Legislature makes. If it’s the will of this Legislature that that happen, I will, of course, be totally supportive of that.

I can tell you, however, that I’m focused on making changes now. For me, what’s important is that we continue to build a stronger Ornge. We are fixing the problems that existed and we are taking steps to ensure this does not happen again. We are developing a new performance agreement that will have much stronger oversight, that will have whistle-blower protection. It will allow us, the government, to appoint members to the board and it will give us much more oversight.

We will be bringing the force of legislation. I will be introducing legislation in fairly short order to entrench that sense of responsibility and transparency in law.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, we welcome the minister’s agreement here in this chamber this morning to support the striking of an all-party select committee. Thank you. We look forward to that.

The reason, Speaker, that that is so important is that we continue to hear from front-line people—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from St. Catharines will come to order.

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, the member for St. Catharines has just stated that I have misinterpreted the minister’s remarks. In that case, I will ask the minister one more time and I will ask for clarification: Will the minister support our call for an all-party select committee on Ornge?

Applause.

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

Minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me repeat: I support the will of this Legislature, and if it is the will of this Legislature, then I will be supportive. There will be committees that will have ample opportunity; public accounts will look at the Auditor General’s report, for example.

I just want to be clear that I have been in conversation with the Auditor General and I have exercised

section 17 of the Auditor General Act. I have asked the Auditor General to report back on this audit as quickly as possible.

We need to get all of the information. We need to move forward on cleaning up what was going on at Ornge, and the support of the Auditor General is a key part of that.

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

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, I will not presume on the vote in this Legislature, but I can tell you this: There will come a time very soon when this Legislature will be voting to strike an all-party select committee of the Legislature, and unless I have miscounted, I believe that even if not one member of the Liberal caucus votes in favour of that, it will be the will of the Legislature that that all-party committee will be struck.

We look forward to the work of that committee, because under the terms of reference of that committee, employees both past and future will be able to come forward and tell their stories about the mismanagement and abuse, and they will have the protection of the terms of reference of that committee.

We look forward to holding this government accountable for their lack of oversight and their lack of accountability on this issue.

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m not sure I heard a question there, but let me reassure the member that we will fully participate. The will of the Legislature rules supreme, and I will not presume to predict the will of this Legislature.

Speaker, we’ve taken a lot of steps to get to the bottom of this—in fact, the rather extraordinary step of calling in the Ontario Provincial Police.

I’m still waiting for the member opposite to actually give me advice on what to do that I have not already done. The only advice he has offered is to maybe paint the helicopters a different colour and change the name.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. Ontarians want to see their government confront the challenges that they’re facing. In tough times, they want to see their priorities at the top of the government’s list. What message are they hearing when they read in the news that executives at Ornge were paid seven-figure salaries to run an air ambulance service that often can’t get helicopters into the air?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, I think the member opposite knows that it was when that salary figure was revealed—that is what triggered a series of events.

I think the people opposite know that we were trying very hard to get access to those salary figures. We were stonewalled. The Auditor General of the province of Ontario was stonewalled. The Auditor General was stonewalled.

It was then that I took action. I called the senior leadership of Ornge into my office. I told them that I fully expected them to co-operate with the requests from my ministry and from the Auditor General. It was then that things started to become very clear that there were deeper problems at Ornge than simply egregious salaries.

That matter is now in the hands of the OPP.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, families should be surprised by this scandal, but the sad thing is, many aren’t surprised. They watch an out-of-touch government that, year after year after year, asks them to pay more and expect less. They see well-connected insiders getting lucrative tax giveaways and sky-high salaries or, in the case of Ornge, they see widespread abuse of money that could have been put into hiring nurses, easing wait times and helping patients.

What does this Minister of Health have to say to those people?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What I can tell you is that the people of this province want us to move forward on the elements of the action plan that I released just a few weeks ago. At the heart of that action plan is providing better care for our elderly people. There are too many people, many of them elderly, who are not getting the best possible care. That’s why we need to reorganize our health care system so that it works from the perspective of the patient.

Our plan is to put significantly more resources into home care, into community care, to build the continuum of supports so that people get all the care they need and they get the best possible care in a far more coordinated manner.

I’m looking forward to implementing the action plan. It’s what the people of Ontario want me to do.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, this minister is asking Ontario families to accept some tough choices in the budget, along with her finance minister colleague and the Premier of this province. That’s what that group is doing. They’re telling people there’s going to be tough choices ahead.

Do you know what? The people of the province, I believe, are actually ready to step up to the plate. But when they’re asked to pay higher user fees and unfair new taxes while at the same time they watch emergency rooms close, they watch wait-lists grow for things like long-term care, so that health dollars in this province can be spent on luxury hotels and executive chefs, their goodwill starts to go out the window, and rightfully so.

Is this government—is this Premier—ready to tell this minister that it’s time for her to leave this post because she has made one heck of a mess out of it?

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

Applause.

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

Interjections.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: She thinks it’s funny.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton, come to order, please. Thank you.

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, let me tell you that, no, I am not going to resign, and I am absolutely focused on the issues that matter to the people of this province. People in Ontario are receiving far better health care than they did when we took office.

The RNAO is here today. They remember the days when the other party was in charge, when 10,000 nurses left Ontario for jobs in the US. We have reversed that, Speaker; we are now hiring 14,000. We’ve got 14,000 more nurses than we had when we took office. We’ve got 3,400 more doctors working in this province. We’ve got more than 1,000 more nurse practitioners. We’ve cut wait times in half.

But I can tell you there is more to do, and that is what our action plan is all about. It’s about strengthening supports for people in their community, in their home, so they get the care they—

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, in this week’s chapter—I’m sorry; this is back to the Minister of Health—of the Ornge saga, we learn that the government cannot account for $25 million of public money.

For over a year, the government ducked and dodged tough questions about Ornge, and now they expect families to believe that they’re going to actually clean up the mess.

My question is a simple one: Where are the consequences when these kinds of messes occur?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I do want to clarify that that $25 million has been accounted for. This whole matter is in the hands of the Ontario Provincial Police. That is where this matter belongs. I want to respect their investigation, and I will not get into any details about that investigation because I, Speaker, want justice to be done.

I can tell you that I am moving forward. The people on the front line are seeing the difference that the new management is bringing to Ornge. People are getting the care—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —and that’s what the people of this province expect.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, at the very least, Premier McGuinty and his health minister turned the other way as executives at Ornge frittered away tens of millions of public dollars on for-profit private schemes.

Health care professionals, many of whom are in the room right now, deserve an apology for the squandering of resources that could have funded vital public health care programs across our province.

Do you know who else needs an apology? The public deserve an apology. The public, who are told to expect longer wait times, fewer nurses and higher user fees, deserve much better than what they’re getting from this health minister.

Do you know what? The Premier was ready to actually show that there were some consequences when the eHealth scandal broke. Why are there no consequences this time?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, I would say there have been pretty significant consequences for the former leadership at Ornge: They no longer work there.

What I can tell you is that we did uncover a very problematic situation at Ornge, so we took decisive action. We took what is a very unusual step of sending in a forensic audit team. You will recall they were there for several weeks, a team of over 30 people. They did their work, and it got to the point where it was time to turn it over, because the people of this province should expect the highest possible value for the money they spend on health care. They were not getting the best value at Ornge, and that is why we have taken very strong steps to make sure that Ornge is able to provide the vital, life-saving services that it provides.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, for over a year, the Minister of Health has avoided tough questions on Ornge. At every turn she has avoided the tough questions. Now, at a time when the government is asking families to accept health care changes that could lead to layoffs, ER closures and longer wait times, the Premier all of a sudden wants the same minister to lead the change. The people of Ontario, Speaker, are hungry for change that actually makes their lives better. Instead, the Premier has offered them change that hands a well-connected insider a seven-figure salary.

If the Premier really wanted to show change around here, he would show that there are real consequences by actually changing up the cabinet. That’s what the Premier should do. Are they ready to change up the cabinet on that side of the House?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I completely reject the prognosis of the member opposite. We are looking to improve the quality of care and continue to make progress on wait times.

I don’t know where she’s coming up with the idea of user fees, but they are not in our plan. Our plan is clear: Let’s get better value with the money that we are spending on health care.

No one will say we are getting best value. Everyone says we can get much better value with the money that we are spending, and no one knows that better than the nurses that are here with us today. They know if we focus on prevention, they know if we focus on stronger primary care, they know if we focus on evidence, we can get much better care and better value for our money.

WHISTLE-BLOWER PROTECTION

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Back to the Minister of Health: When Ron McKerlie threatened Ornge staff with jail time for anyone speaking out, it sent a very strong message that someone is more interested in suppressing information than shedding light on Ornge.

After that threat, we received an email from a former employee that states: “Given the

article in the Star, I am reluctant to come to Queen’s Park to meet.” As a result, I’ve tabled a resolution that will be debated this afternoon calling on the Legislative Assembly committee to strengthen whistle-blower legislation to ensure that current and past employees are protected when they appear before committees.

Minister, will you support my resolution?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I think members of this House know that people appearing before committee do have immunity. They have the same exemption that we in this House have.

I do support whistle-blower legislation. In fact, that is why we will be incorporating whistle-blower protection in our new performance agreement as we go forward. We think it’s important that people in organizations do have a voice, and we want to protect those whistle-blowers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Minister, we’re tired of waiting for you to act. Ethical Ornge employees who saw what was happening and quit in disgust were forced to sign confidentiality agreements, effectively muzzling them. Now, current employees are being threatened with jail time simply because they want to share what the problems are. Clearly, someone doesn’t want these individuals to reveal the truth at Ornge.

Will you stand with the NDP and PC caucuses and reassure whistle-blowers that they will be protected when they speak up?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I’m disappointed that once again the members opposite are giving us only part of the information. What is important is that Ron McKerlie, the CEO of Ornge, did have a conversation with employees when the OPP investigation began. He wanted employees to understand that there was an OPP investigation under way and that they had a responsibility to co-operate with the OPP and not to jeopardize the investigation.

I support whistle-blower protection. We are going to be having whistle-blower protection in our new agreement with Ornge.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Taras Natyshak: To the Minister of Health: Transport Canada records show that helicopters operated by Ornge are owned by a numbered corporation, 7506406 Canada Inc. Bankruptcy records show that’s a for-profit company. Why is a for-profit company still operating?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the member opposite, I’m sure, knows that one of the instructions that I gave to the new board was to wind down the for-profit entities that had been created under the previous legislation. That is a process that is under way. It cannot be done all at once. You can imagine there are significant legal, accounting—various things that have to happen in order for that to be done in a responsible way that respects taxpayer dollars.

I can reiterate that all for-profits are being wound down, but they’re being wound down in a responsible, respectful way.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Transport Canada says that as of yesterday, 7506406 Canada Inc. owns Ornge helicopters. Why is Dr. Chris Mazza still listed as a board director on the numbered company? Does Mazza stay or does Mazza go?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I can tell you that Dr. Chris Mazza is no longer affiliated with Ornge. I can also reiterate that we are winding down the for-profits. But I think the people of this province expect us to do that in a way that respects the value of their tax dollars. The new leadership at Ornge is moving to wind down those for-profits. Some have already been wound down and gone into bankruptcy. Chris Mazza is no longer affiliated with Ornge.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, as a member with Carleton University in my riding of Ottawa Centre and three other post-secondary institutions in Ottawa, I know that the bright young innovators who will pass through our universities and colleges are key to Ontario’s future prosperity in a globally competitive and increasingly knowledge-based economy.

As we reposition Ontario’s economy to leverage this new reality, Ontario’s post-secondary institutions must play a role in fostering an environment of innovation and provide tools for students to take ideas and turn them into exciting new products. If you put the skills and knowledge that our system is equipping these young people with to work, we will see the next generation of homegrown innovators ready to take the world by storm.

Would the minister tell us how the government is helping to position post-secondary institutions to help our young people?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: In addition to adding 260,000 places in our universities and colleges and introducing the 30% tuition reduction, we realized that we had to do more.

My friend from Ottawa Centre has been leading something called the Ottawa Young Entrepreneurs initiative, which is a $2-million initiative into Algonquin, La Cité and other post-secondary institutions. This is a program that hooks up business leaders as mentors and attaches young, promising students to them to create jobs. This is responsible right now—4% of our businesses, which are our start-ups, are often being set up by young students coming out of high school with a company already started. They’re creating over 40% of the new jobs in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thanks, Minister, for sharing a very good example from my riding and the post-secondary institutions in Ottawa.

Being an entrepreneur is tough but rewarding, and it’s the ideas and innovations developed in this type of environment that can lead to creating the next high-growth company, like OneChip Photonics in Ottawa.

Speaker, through you to the minister, can he tell us how we are supporting these successful hubs at our institutions and how they are creating the next generation of jobs in Ontario?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank the member for Ottawa Centre. I also want to acknowledge the member for Cambridge, who also recently visited the Digital Media Zone at Ryerson, and I think complimented President Levy on it.

The Digital Media Zone is where students are graduating with their incorporation papers for their new business and their certificate at the same time, their graduation diploma. It has attracted major capital from the United States, from Silicon Valley, and has led to a series of spinoffs.

One of the graduates from the University of Ottawa and one of the graduates from the University of Waterloo, in both those members’ areas, recently—less than five years ago—started a company called Xtreme Labs. Now, that was before there were iPhones, before there was Twitter and before there were Android phones. This company now employs 700 people in Ontario and is one of hundreds of new businesses generating some of our highest job growth in years.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question also is to the Minister of Health. On Tuesday, you were caught unaware of the fact that Ornge helicopters do not have FAA clearance to enter the United States. That the minister was unaware of a public safety issue of that magnitude was shocking. However, my question today is: Now that that information has become public, does the minister agree that the public has the right to know about a public safety issue of this magnitude?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: When the member opposite had a document she revealed in this House earlier this week, it was a document that had not received signoff at the ADM level. It had not come to my office. So the fact that I was unaware of a document that had not come to my office—the member opposite, having been a former Minister of Health, would know that I would not be expected to have that information.

But I did get that information very quickly. What I have learned is that it is true that 10 new AgustaWestland helicopters do have Transport Canada approval. They are in the process of getting FAA approval. All of the other fleets can move into the States. The fixed-wing airplanes can fly into the States. The old Sikorsky planes that serve in the north can go into the States. This is a process that is under way, and contingency plans have been put in place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Mr. Speaker, again to the Minister of Health: That acknowledgment of the fact that you didn’t know is an indication of your lack of ability to provide the oversight that is necessary.

However, I want to address an issue—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Member?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I want to address the consequence of raising that issue. We have become aware that in the two days since the issue was raised—in fact, everybody in the public service knows this now—there has been a witch hunt launched to find the person responsible for informing us and, by extension, the public. I want to ask you, Minister, can you tell this House who authorized the witch hunt?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What I can tell you is that I did get the information that the member opposite raised. She might be interested to know that of the 19,000 patient transports that Ornge performed last year, one was a helicopter trip to the United States. We take this seriously. We take the issue seriously. We take patient safety seriously.

It’s important that the people of this province—like Dave, my friend in the gallery, who got the care he needed when an emergency struck.

We are determined to make things stronger at Ornge. That work is under way, and I’m proud of the progress that’s being made.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question. The member from Nickel Belt.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Look, the yelling back and forth doesn’t help me. It doesn’t help anyone who needs to hear the question or the answer. Bring it down, please.

Member from Nickel Belt.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée.

Transport Canada records show that helicopters operated by Ornge are owned by a numbered company—7506406 Canada, if you’re interested. According to information from Industry Canada, Chris Mazza is listed on the board of directors of that corporation. Can the minister tell us: Is Mr. Mazza still profiting from Ornge?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m not sure how different that was, Speaker, from the question that was already asked by the party opposite. Nonetheless, Ornge is winding down the for-profit companies that were established under the previous leadership. We think it’s important to have a not-for-profit service at Ornge that is focused on air and land transportation of critically ill patients. The people of this province want that to be a not-for-profit entity, and that’s what we are working towards.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: My question was specific as to: Is Mr. Mazza still profiting, making money, off of Ornge? The minister stood up in this House many, many times and told us that those for-profits are being wound down. But from this side of the House, it looks like they’re being wound down at a speed to make sure that Mr. Mazza maximizes his profit rather than to serve the patients of Ontario. Can the minister answer: How much longer will Mr. Mazza benefit pecuniarily from Ornge?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I can provide this Legislature and the people of this province of Ontario that Dr. Mazza is no longer on the board. He is no longer affiliated with Ornge. Speaker, that has been done; that work has been done.

The new management at Ornge continues with their focus on patient safety, on winding down the for-profits and addressing the financial issues that have been raised in the audit. The work at Ornge is under way; it is moving forward.

The people of this province expect us to do that work, but they also expect us to do other things in the health care system to provide better care. That’s why we’re strengthening the work of Health Quality Ontario: so we get better value for the money we spend. It’s why we’re building the continuum of care in the community: so people can get the care they need outside hospitals.

NURSES

Mr. Grant Crack: My question also is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Today is a great day. Today is the 13th annual Registered Nurses Association of Ontario Day at Queen’s Park. Welcome. I know that nurses do such remarkable work, and I’m proud to be part of a government who holds such high value for everything they do.

Interjection: They’re not hula-hoop workers.

Mr. Grant Crack: No.

I also know that this government has taken steps to ensure that there are more nurses in places where they’re needed. Minister, could you tell this House how the Ontario government is supporting the excellent work that nurses across this province are doing?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Every year, I look forward to the RNAO Take Your MPP to Work Day. I always learn about the work that nurses do in different parts of our health care system. Today the nurses are here—today is “take your nurse to work” day for me, and I’m sure they’re enjoying that today in the Legislature.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Ontario’s nurses. Ontario’s nurses are the best nurses in the world. They are providing excellent care in this province, but their influence also goes beyond the borders of this province. In the mid-1990s, 10,000 nurses left Ontario to work elsewhere. We now have 14,000 more nurses working in this province than when we took office, because we value nurses, we value the work they do, and we want them to do even more.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for a supplementary.

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you, Minister; thank you, Speaker; and also, thank you to the nurses who are here today for all the hard work they do to support our patients across this great province of Ontario.

Minister, I know this government has taken a number of steps to improve access and quality of health care, but there’s still much to do. The government’s action plan for health care will make sure that patients get the right care at the right time and in the right place.

Speaker, I would like to ask what the government is doing to work with our nurses, going forward, to help achieve these goals and ensure the best possible care for Ontarians.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We have partnered with the nurses and RNAO on several initiatives, and I’m very happy to share with this House some news that I shared with the nurses this morning. Our government is partnering with the RNAO in funding an initiative called the NQuIRE Initiative. NQuIRE will establish a central database of nursing-sensitive indicators for RNAO’s clinical best practice guidelines. These guidelines have been translated into multiple languages and are improving care right around this planet.

This new program, NQuIRE, will play a significant role in understanding the full impact of RNAO’s best practice guideline program on quality of care for the people of Ontario.

Speaker, we are very, very proud to work with our nurses. They are very strong partners with us and we welcome the partnership—

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, on Monday, you said, “the Auditor General—is advocating for a much stronger new performance agreement.” Minister, you’re clearly referring to something the auditor says in his special report on Ornge, a report that has yet to be tabled. I have a very simple, clear question for the minister: Will she follow the correct parliamentary protocol and table the Auditor General’s report so we can get to the bottom of this scandal?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What I have done is I have spoken to the Auditor General. I have sent the Auditor General a letter. I have asked them to table his report as soon as he deems it ready to be tabled. That is his choice. He will table that report. I’ve asked him to do it as quickly as possible because, like all members in this House, I want all of the information related to Ornge available to us so we can continue to make the changes that are necessary there.

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Mr. Speaker, the minister’s slip-up on Monday clearly indicates that she has been given drafts of the Auditor General’s report. She has been rehearsing all her answers. That’s precisely why we need an all-party select committee to get to the answers on Ornge so we can ask the questions and get honest, unrehearsed answers that will allow us to get to the bottom of this scandal.

Will the minister acknowledge the will of the two opposition parties who hold the majority of the seats in this Legislature and agree to set up a select committee?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I will not presume the will of this body. I will let this Legislature do its work and I will support any decision this Legislature makes. We are moving forward on making the changes at Ornge that the people of this province expect us to make. I have met with front-line staff. They are pleased with the progress that they are seeing, but they have lots of ideas about more that needs to be done. We need to get on with making those changes. If the will of the Legislature decides they want to undertake this exercise, of course, I will support that. But my focus is on moving forward.

YOUTH SERVICES

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. The provincial—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from St. Catharines, withdraw.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Come to order, please. Member?

Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you. The Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth released a report on the need and economic benefit of modernizing the extended care and maintenance program for the former children in care. The personal stories illustrating this need are heart-wrenching and compelling. More than half of Ontarians aged 20 to 24 still live at home with their parents, yet the youth who face the greatest turmoil are left without any support at the age of 21.

Speaker, we’ve been calling for a change to ECM for years. Will the minister finally meet the needs of the youth and immediately extend the ECM to 25?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for raising this important issue. I know she’s working hard on it, and it’s an issue, as it should be, that’s important to her party as well. I want to first thank the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth for this report and for the hard work that he is doing each day on behalf of vulnerable children and youth in this province. I want to state that our government is, of course, committed to providing children and youth, particularly those who are receiving support and protection through our children’s aid societies, with every opportunity to reach their full potential.

I will review the provincial advocate’s report and its recommendations, and I look forward to receiving the final report as well from the Youth Leaving Care hearings that took place last fall and will be presented to the Legislature in the spring.

I welcome the opportunity to continue to work closely with the advocate, as I have done, on issues that are of mutual and important concern.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: This morning’s report lays out a cost-benefit analysis that we can’t afford to ignore. For every dollar that the province spends on caring for a youth on ECM, $1.36 would be earned over that person’s lifetime. This translates into millions of dollars of savings.

Providing these youth with the tools that they need to succeed is simply the right thing to do. This is one small change that can be made today. Will the minister commit to modernizing the ECM?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Again, I’m grateful for receiving the question. Both the advocate and my ministry are committed to helping children and youth to be safe and to reach their full potential.

We know particularly that our crown wards face specific and challenging obstacles as they transition into adult life and into being full members of our societies, and that they require specific supports in order to do that.

Changes that came into effect by this government just last September, for example, allow 16- and 17-year-olds who were formerly crown wards, who have left the care of the children’s aid societies and of the province, to actually come back and receive care from the ages of 18 to 21, including extended care and maintenance support and other financial support.

We have also provided the equivalent of the Ontario child benefit, actually, which we make available through the children’s aid societies for the support of our crown wards.

So we continue to work hard on this issue. I look forward—

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

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Minister, there’s a whole lot of concern here in Ontario about the federal government’s recent introduction of its omnibus crime bill, Bill C-10. In fact, this week, the federal Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the bill is going to have significant financial consequences for all provinces in Canada, including Ontario.

I’ve heard from lots of residents in Willowdale. They are very concerned about these big costs being downloaded by the federal government with no discussion, no financial support, at a time when Ontario is trying to manage its heavy cost structure.

Minister, what are the financial impacts of Bill C-10? What’s it going to cost us? What’s it going to cost us to allow the federal government to get away with this unilateral action?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I want to thank the member from Willowdale for his very important question.

Ontario supports initiatives to make communities safer and to protect our children and families from crime. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has released a report which says that the federal Bill C-10 will cost the provinces an extra $137 million per year. We know that this report does not factor in the costs of a new prison, which would be $900 million to build and $60 million per year to operate.

Our analysis shows that Bill C-10 may cost Ontario taxpayers more than $1 billion and may add as many as 1,500 additional inmates to provincial prisons, which may require a new facility to be built.

Ontario families cannot be expected to pay the cost for federal anti-crime initiatives when the federal government won’t even discuss—

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

Mr. David Zimmer: The facts are, the federal Conservatives are forcing this legislation on Ontarians, who don’t have a say in the matter, and then they’re forcing Ontario families to foot the bill. That’s not fair. That’s how federalism should not work.

Minister, what are you going to do to push back and get the federal government to do the right thing, to cover the cost of their own promises? Members of this Legislature want to help you in this pushback, Minister. What can we do, as a member of this party? What can the other parties do to help you push back and get a fair deal for Ontario?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: At the recent meeting of the federal, provincial and territorial justice ministers in Prince Edward Island, all provinces and territories called on the federal government to enter a discussion. We have received no response from the federal government.

On February 21, I wrote a letter to the Senate telling them Ontario’s families cannot afford the $1 billion as a result of Bill C-10. Ontario supervises more than 50,000 individuals each day. We estimate this would increase by 1,000 under Bill C-10, increasing caseloads for probation and parole officers. Additional inmates to provincial prisons may require a new, costly facility to be built.

Ontario families want the Conservatives and the NDP to stand up to Harper and tell him we cannot afford this bill.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mrs. Jane McKenna: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. On Friday, February 17, just before the Legislature returned, you were quoted in media saying, “If the Legislature wants to strike committees to look at Ornge, then I will of course co-operate.”

The Ontario PC and NDP caucuses have taken you at your word. This morning we came to the table with the terms of reference for an all-party select committee whose sole mandate is to get to the bottom of the problems at Ornge that we all want to fix.

You’ve had time to consider your answer. Mr. Speaker, will the minister step up to the plate and do the right thing and support an all-party committee for Ornge?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, my viewpoint has not changed in the 10 minutes since I was last asked the very same question. If it is the will of this Legislature that a select committee be struck, I will be supportive of that. I will be supportive of this Legislature exercising its authority to look at whatever it looks at.

So, yes, of course I will support that if indeed it is the will of the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary question?

Mrs. Jane McKenna: Mr. Speaker, the minister’s remarks to media were not the only time she said she would advocate for a select committee if the majority of the House wanted it. A week later, she said in the chamber: “If it is the will of the Legislature that they look at Ornge, I will be nothing but supportive of that decision.”

The NDP and PC caucuses have presented you with terms of reference for an all-party committee to get to the bottom of the problems at Ornge. Now is the time for the minister to get back to her word. Minister, again I ask you: Will you support our call for an all-party select committee to be formed to get to the bottom of what needs to be done at Ornge?

Applause.

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

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, my opinion has not changed in the one minute since I answered the last question, and that is, if it is the will of this Legislature that a select committee be struck, I will be nothing but supportive.

My focus is on moving forward. My focus is on making the changes at Ornge so that it is as strong as it can be, providing the best care and the best value to the people of this province.

NURSE PRACTITIONERS

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. This morning we are joined by 150 nurses and nursing students. Many of them are in the galleries with us today.

Nurses understand the need for innovation and the need for excellence in primary care. Nurse-practitioner-led clinics have both of those, and much, much more. Yet today, nurse-practitioner-led clinics are unable to work to their full potential because the ministry has failed to properly support this model. What is the ministry’s plan for addressing the ongoing structural issues in nurse-practitioner-led clinics so that they can best meet the needs of their communities and the needs of their clients?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Ontario’s nurse-practitioner-led clinics are the envy of the rest of Canada. In fact, other health ministers come to me and ask me, “What are you doing? How can we learn from what you have done?” I am enormously proud of the nurse-practitioner-led clinics that are opening up right across this province, the very first one in Sudbury. We now have another 20 open and more opening that will take us to 26 nurse-practitioner-led clinics.

This is a new model of care, a promising model of care. I can tell you that the patients at nurse-practitioner-led clinics are very supportive of this model of primary care. It’s another option for the people of Ontario. We will continue to strengthen the nurse-practitioner-led model of care.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: I would like the minister to answer this question. The minister knows that nurse-practitioner-led clinics need a collaborative physician. Yet so far, she has refused to address the ongoing issue with physicians’ collaboration and supporting the interdisciplinary care. These are serious issues, and they impact the ability of nurses to deliver top-quality care. The ministry must make sure that nurse-practitioner-led clinics are structured to be able to work to their full potential.

Will the minister agree to finally address those structural problems so that the model is strengthened, the health of Ontario is improved and the collaboration with physicians is settled?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I can absolutely undertake to work with RNAO and with the Nurse Practitioners’ Association of Ontario, as we have done in the past, to continue the work to strengthen this new model of care.

As I say, this is a new model of care in the province. We are still in the process of opening these new nurse-practitioner-led models. But Speaker, from Thunder Bay to the shores of Lake Erie, right across this province, patients are benefiting from the care provided by nurse practitioners.

Will we need to continue to improve that model? Absolutely, Speaker. Are we enthusiastic partners? We sure are.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: My question today is for the Minister of the Environment. My question is with respect to water, which we all know is fundamental to life and to health for all our communities.

In Ontario, we have the privilege of being co-stewards of the largest supply of fresh water in the world: the Great Lakes and their tributary rivers. Being from Windsor, I’m very familiar with that waterfront, as I drive by it every day when I’m home. Protecting this resource has been a key priority of this government for the past eight years.

Speaker, through you, would the Minister of the Environment share with the House what steps our government has taken to protect our drinking water and preserve our Great Lakes?

Hon. James J. Bradley: You will know that in the throne speech, it was indicated that the government wishes to pass a Great Lakes protection act if the Legislature deems that appropriate. I have actually contacted the critics from the Progressive Conservative Party and the NDP to ask them to submit any ideas they might have—or other members of the Legislature—in this regard.

Even though there has been some considerable progress made in terms of the environmental condition of the Great Lakes, there are still some challenges that are there like invasive species; for instance, the blue algae that we see.

At the recent meeting of the rural municipalities of Ontario, many of them talked about the work that they are doing at the present time with their source protection committees. I want to commend them, and I want to commend all of the organizations that have been involved in this, bringing forward the recommendations which we wish to see implemented—

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

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: Thank you, Speaker. Again, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. I’d like to thank the minister for providing the House with an update on all the hard work this government has done to protect our Great Lakes. I know that there’s a lot of great research and good work being done in our communities through our universities and through the University of Windsor as well. I know my constituents, along with the rest of Ontario, will be pleased to hear these results.

Access to safe drinking water plays an important role in our quality of life. Communities need to be aware of any and all potential risks to local water supplies. According to Justice Dennis O’Connor’s findings in the 2002 Walkerton report, “The first barrier to the contamination of drinking water involves protecting the sources of drinking water.” Minister, would you be able to elaborate on what our government is doing to protect our drinking water sources so that Ontarians can continue having access to clean drinking water?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Well, I can tell the member that we allocated some $653 million to waste water infrastructure upgrades in the Great Lakes basin since March 2007. I think that’s a very appropriate investment.

But people in the environmental community and people in the various organizations that are involved with municipalities will tell us that source protection is exceedingly important. That’s why I’m so pleased that members of the farming community, individual municipalities, environmental groups and those involved with natural resources have gotten together to try to identify the problems that are there and the best possible solutions to them. They have come to me and said that there has been considerable progress made. What we have to do now is implement each and every one of the recommen