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

March 20, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Mar-20 (PDF)

L025 - Tue 20 Mar 2012 / Mar 20 mar 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 20 March 2012 Mardi 20 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

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

ONTARIO ECONOMY

HOME CARE

HOME CARE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

MUNICIPALITIES

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

NUCLEAR ENERGY

MEDICAL RESEARCH

LICENCE PLATES

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

SKILLS TRAINING

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

HIGH-OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES

DEFERRED VOTES

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

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

JOHN NEWMAN

AGNES MACPHAIL DAY

NOWRUZ

FINES

CHILD CARE

BUY-LOCAL POLICIES

BRADY HESLIP

ONTARIO CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATION

TAXATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FRENCH LANGUAGE SERVICES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT LA LOI

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

LA FRANCOPHONIE

CO-OPERATIVES /

COOPÉRATIVES

LA FRANCOPHONIE

CO-OPERATIVES

LA FRANCOPHONIE

CO-OPERATIVES

PETITIONS

RENEWABLE ENERGY

SCHOOL FACILITIES

TAXATION

EDUCATION FUNDING

EMPLOYMENT RESOURCE CENTRE

WIND TURBINES

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

CELLULAR TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT

OPPOSITION DAY

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE /

SERVICE D’AMBULANCE AÉRIENNE

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 March 19, 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 from Lanark–Frontenac–Addington.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Lennox and Addington.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Lennox.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Thank you very much, Speaker. It’s my pleasure to speak to Bill 34 today. Of course, everybody in this chamber and everybody throughout Ontario recognizes the travesty and the injustice that happened back in Toronto during the G20 summit when this government passed a regulation in secret, when the House was not in session, which led to such a travesty of injustice due to the chaos and the complications of that regulation that was passed.

Although there was much hiding and running away from blame during that whole chaotic period of time, the Ombudsman did, I think, a very fine job in reviewing that travesty and providing a number of recommendations. I am very pleased to see that this government has indeed taken steps in their Bill 34 to minimize the opportunities for that sort of injustice to happen again.

Although they’ve taken steps in that direction, they have not gone far enough, in my view, Speaker. We know that, had the government of the day followed the rules of the day, the rules that regulations must be clear and unambiguous and that they ought to be done in openness and with transparency, we would not have seen the chaos and the injustice that followed during the G20 summit.

Now, I know there have been a number of recommendations by the Ombudsman. His recommendation 3 has not been addressed by this new bill in front of the House—and there’s actually no mention of it at all in the bill. The Ombudsman’s recommendation is that the ministry should develop a protocol that would call for public information campaigns when police powers are modified by subordinate legislation, particularly in protest situations. There’s not any mention of that and, again, I think all members of the House would recognize that that was indeed a significant failing of that G20 regulation.

So the Ombudsman’s recommendation that proper communication is put forward is silent in Bill 34. This bill still allows for regulations to be developed under Bill 34: for example, the creating of anybody—anybody—to be a peace officer with the authorities under Bill 34. It still allows that to be done through order in council and it allows it to be done without legislative oversight. Now, of course they’re supposed to follow the rules, but we saw during the G20 that the government of the day did not follow their own rules. Will they follow the rules under Bill 34? I’m not sure.

I don’t think anybody can be sure, because we’ve seen this is a real—the irony in this, Speaker, is that the laws are passed to punish lawbreakers. What happens when the lawmakers break their own laws? And that’s what happened with the G20: The government of the day did not provide a clear, unambiguous regulation. They hid from it and they didn’t tell anybody about it. We had the minister at the time, Minister Bartolucci; we had the chief of police; we’ve had the federal ministers—nobody knew what anybody was doing.

And in the process, over 1,000 innocent people were rounded up, had their freedoms removed, were incarcerated. There were a number of truly abusive situations that came forward, and a few, a handful of the hoodlums, did get caught. I don’t know how many more got away, but that’s what happens when you create a situation of chaos and confusion.

But once again, the lawmakers didn’t even follow their own rules, and I don’t believe anybody in this Legislature would believe that it was an oversight or it was misfortune that that regulation was done in the fashion it was done when it was introduced when the House was not in session; when it was gazetted in darkness; no public scrutiny at all. We knew that that G20 summit was coming long in advance. We knew that the regulation needed to be done up, but they waited until the House was out of session before that regulation was put forward.

Pieces of legislation that grant such authority are necessary, but what is also necessary is that safeguards are used judiciously, that they’re used cautiously and that they’re done in an open and transparent fashion so that we do not have thousands of innocent people incarcerated and the hoodlums who get away.

I think the Ombudsman’s report—he says here, “Generally, police authority is conferred through enactment of legislation, accompanied by the openness, transparency, and accountability inherent in the democratic system of government. There is a real and insidious danger associated with using subordinate legislation, passed behind closed doors.”

We still have that regulation-making authority within this act. I don’t know when this act might be used again, when that regulation may be used again, but we know from history now and from experience that some governments will not follow their own laws, will not follow their own rules, and we will not necessarily get that openness and transparency that the Ombudsman so purposely recommended in this legislation.

I would hope and expect that recommendation number 3 is thoroughly discussed at committee and that there are indeed substantial safeguards included in this legislation so that if another regulation has to be made under it, we have indeed legislative oversight and not another travesty, like what happened at the G20.

Speaker, this speaks back to the role of this Legislature and all regulations, the very limited opportunities we have as legislators and as members of this House to actually scrutinize the value of the regulations that are passed. I think it’s incumbent on all of us to ensure that there are indeed new mechanisms put in place that allow legislators to review all regulations here in this House, have them have a good airing so that we can see either the merit or the incompetence of regulations that are created by order in council and created behind closed doors, and we never get to see them in the light of day until a problem has already been foisted upon the people of Ontario.

There are some changes that could be done in the regulations and private bills committee to expand the scope of that committee that would have been able to look at this G20 regulation. I look forward that indeed all members of this Legislature see the value in this Legislature scrutinizing subordinate regulations. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Time for questions and comments. The member for Davenport.

Mr. Jonah Schein: I’m pleased to rise today because the question that we’re talking about here is amending a law that deeply offended Ontarians and deeply impacted the civil liberties of people in this province. Ultimately, this is an issue of credibility. You know, we need to make sure that we have the confidence of the people in this province, that one way or another people believe that there is a political system that is democratic and that is responsible.

During the G20, people were out on the streets because they had a severe lack of confidence about democracy around the globe, and we reinforced that concern on that day. At the time after that, back in 2010, the NDP did ask for a public inquiry and that’s the thing we still need to get to the bottom of here: Should this have ever even taken place on the streets of this city? Should Ontario ever have hosted this? My colleague yesterday spoke about the richness of an international conference that was preaching austerity around the world, yet we spent over $1 billion in security over that weekend.

I would like to have an inquiry about what we could have done with that billion dollars. Was that the best kind of economic stimulus that we needed in Ontario, or could we have put that into creating jobs in this province? We still never heard from this government.

Part of the credibility crisis here is that Ontarians look around, and they see two parties—the PCs and the Liberals—who speak as if they’re different, sometimes, but then they enact the same thing. So instead of taking responsibility for their Conservative cousins federally who brought this in, we throw it across to the Liberals provincially.

The truth is that Ontarians have lost confidence because they see Tweedledum and Tweedledee; it’s really the same parties here doing the same things. If we’re going to restore Ontarians’ faith in the democratic process, we need to make sure that there’s real accountability, real transparency, and that we actually have that public inquiry that gets to the bottom of this.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Yes, the House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I listened with interest to the comments from the member from Lennox—where are you from?

Interjection: Frontenac.

Hon. John Milloy: —Frontenac and Addington, as well as the NDP speaker.

I am impressed with the amount of power and authority that the opposition has given this government. We had 20 of the world’s leaders, including President Barack Obama and the Prime Minister of Britain. They all came to Toronto. We had the federal government spend $1 billion to welcome them here and gazebos and everything else. We had security from across the nation here. We had the federal government putting together this huge summit.

But Madam Speaker, it wasn’t the federal government, according to the opposition, even though it was an international summit, even though we welcomed these leaders from all around the world, and our Prime Minister was there, and the Governor General was there, and there was federal security and national security. According to the opposition, no, that had nothing to do with them; it was all the fault of the Ontario government.

We were one piece of a larger security puzzle, a puzzle which was under—as it should have been, appropriately—the umbrella of the federal government. This was an international summit. It demanded complex security matters; that was taken control of by the federal government. We played a small part.

Were there problems? Of course there were, Madam Speaker, which is why we asked Mr. Justice McMurtry, a former member of this Legislature, a former Attorney General of the province of Ontario and former chief justice, to take a look at it and to come forward with recommendations, which we put forward in this bill.

What happened at the G20 is something that will be debated, something that is being looked at. But at the end of the day, it was the federal government, it was the Prime Minister, it was the federal security people who came to Toronto and had a summit, a summit which, as I said, welcomed some of the most vulnerable leaders, shall we say, from a security point of view, and demanded security across the board. We should be looking to Ottawa when we talk about the G20.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comment?

Mr. John O’Toole: The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington—that’s probably the start for a very long name for a riding—makes a very good point. I recall he said, “Lawmakers don’t even follow their own rules,” and that’s really the substance of why we’re so upset on this side. In the climate that the previous member spoke about, yes, it was an important event for Toronto, the top city in Canada, and it was very kind of Harper to allow them to facilitate it, but what was left to the police forces in the province of Ontario, which come under the jurisdiction of the province, was to arrange the activity.

What Premier McGuinty and his cabinet did is really what’s at question here. In fact, they realized they’d made a mistake, not responding appropriately to the security that was required for these world leaders, and they had a secret meeting, which has been disclosed now. In that meeting, they invoked sort of like the Trudeau-style War Measures Act. They kind of overreacted.

Then the forces themselves were in contradiction with the chief of police, as well as—what he said at one time and what he said at another time were a contradiction in themselves. It was the individuals’ freedoms that were imperilled during the time—unfairly. There was no process to resolve those disputes. It’s people’s independence and freedom that really need to be stood up for.

Now, the government did admit they made an error because they called on Roy McMurtry, the former Chief Justice of Ontario, to look into the Public Works Protection Act, and his recommendation was quite—why didn’t they call Mr. McMurtry or someone else before the secret meeting or during the secret meeting? This is the type of government McGuinty, in a sort of arrogant way, has: forgo the freedoms and liberties of individuals and look for the cloak-and-dagger method. That’s simply not acceptable.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments and questions?

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’d like to respond to the comments from the Minister of Community and Social Services. In fact, Justice McMurtry and the Ombudsman both kind of placed the blame not only on the federal government, but on the provincial government as well in the reports that we’ve seen. We know that there were 18 months of police infiltration around the G20, leading up to the summit. This was intentional and planned and an abuse of authority and power—and in violation of our rights, in violation of our freedoms, unconstitutional in every way.

It was the provincial government that actually passed regulation 233/10. It wasn’t the federal government; it was the provincial government. So both levels of government, the provincial and the federal, need to take responsibility.

To date, they’ve never apologized to the people of Ontario, and I think that they need to apologize to the people of Ontario, and we need to still have that public inquiry. I think that the people of Ontario would feel better to have that inquiry and to be able to come and make presentations. I know that John Pruyn, who I spoke about here I think last week or the week before, in my riding, who was arrested, who was disabled, who was an amputee and had his leg ripped off, would be more than happy to have an inquiry.

In fact, I had an email from him this week thanking me for raising this again in the House and asking me to continue to raise this issue until his concerns are addressed by this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Thank you. I’d like to thank the members from Davenport, Durham, Welland and, of course, the government House leader for their comments.

Clearly, the government House leader started building that complicated puzzle and still hasn’t finished it, and is still very puzzled about the work of the Legislature and what his role in it is.

Let me clarify, out of the standing orders of this House, what rules this government broke in the enacting of that regulation. The following principles are laid down to guide the committee in the examination of regulations: “Regulations should not contain provisions initiating new policy, but should be confined to details to give effect to the policy established by the statute....”

They “should be expressed in precise and unambiguous language.”

Now, take a look at that regulation. I challenge the member from Guelph, who was interjecting earlier, to actually read the regulation and see if it is precise and unambiguous. It is absolutely atrocious, Madam Speaker, that the member from Guelph, who hasn’t read anything, comes in and says that this regulation is good.

It is contrary to the standing orders of this House, that the regulation is not done in precise and unambiguous language, and there is still nothing in Bill 34 that would compel this government to follow through and protect the rights and freedoms of the citizens and residents of Ontario so that they are not dealt injustice from the hands of government, which is there to protect them.

I said that this bill takes some important steps. Let’s make sure that the steps are complete and the journey is complete—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. Further debate?

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): A point of order?

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I would like the record to reflect that what I said was that I had read the regulation, not that I had not.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): That’s not a point of order; thank you.

Further debate?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: The designation of the security zone as a public work was done in secret by the McGuinty cabinet on June 2, through an order in council. The change was posted to the government’s e-Laws website on June 16, but oddly, the designation did not appear in print until the July 3 issue of the government publication, the Ontario Gazette. The change to the little-known Public Works Protection Act came into effect on June 21, Speaker, four days before the G8/G20 summit, and it expired on June 28. This means the government had three weeks to inform the public and did not.

I was mayor of the city of North Bay at the time and a seven-year member of the police services board at the time, and I must say I was confused by the ambiguity. Speculation about what special powers had been granted to the police was swirling through the media, and yet the government did nothing to clarify the regulation. In fact, Speaker, the Ombudsman called it “a premeditated, conscious decision not to announce the existence of the regulation or the reviving of this wartime act.”

Speaker, I would like to read you, if I may, the February 22 Toronto Star story called “‘Secret’ G20 Law to be Scrapped,” which is what we’re talking about today. It’s written by Tanya Talaga and Robert Benzie of the Queen’s Park bureau, with contribution, it appears, by Rene Johnston from the Toronto Star. It says, “The Liberals are replacing the archaic ‘secret’ law police used” to place hundreds of people under arrest during the G20 summit in 2010.

“The Public Works Protection Act has been shelved in favour of a new bill that would apply only to securing power plants and courthouses, said Community Safety Minister Madeleine Meilleur.

“The legislation, introduced Wednesday, was created out of recommendations of the former Chief Justice Roy McMurtry in the wake of the G20 fiasco. It is far narrower in scope than the old law.

“‘It will be limited because we are following Judge McMurtry’s advice and, according to him, the Criminal Code covers the rest,’ Meilleur said Wednesday.

“The bill will allow people to be asked for identification and to be searched when they enter court buildings. It also allows for the use of reasonable force to remove a person where court proceedings are being conducted.

“It provides the power to arrest a person committing any of the offences listed in the bill, ‘without warrant and using reasonable force if necessary,’ the legislation states. A person convicted of any of the offences can be fined up to $2,000, face imprisonment of up to 60 days, or both.

“During the June 2010 Toronto G20 summit, the obscure 1939 Public Works Protection Act, enacted to secure against Nazi saboteurs early in World War II, was used to quietly pass a regulation giving police broad powers of arrest.

“That directive was merely supposed to clarify police powers within the secure summit site at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, but people were misled into believing it applied to an area five metres outside the cordoned-off zone.

“While only two of the 1,105 arrests made during the G20 related to the act, there was widespread outcry over the so-called secret law.

“‘This was an occasion for us to review legislation passed in the middle of the Second World War,’ said Meilleur, who did not offer an apology for what many civil liberties groups felt was an abuse of power.

“Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak said the Liberals ‘lost touch’ with the public by using a World War II-era law to round up people during the summit.

“‘Nobody forced them to bring in the secret law at the G20. Nobody forced their arm,’ said Hudak. ‘It was a major scandal for the province.’

“NDP leader Andrea Horwath said the new law is an ‘admission’ of failure on the part of the Liberal government.

“‘They made a big mistake when they were preparing for the G20 and they’re ignoring the fact that mistake trampled people’s civil rights, civil liberties,’ said Horwath.

“McMurtry’s 54-page report on the old law noted the ‘potential for abuse’ was ‘beyond troubling’ and said it was a ‘loaded weapon’ that threatened civil liberties.

“Under the act, police or private security guards do not have to justify their actions against citizens, he pointed out.”

Speaker, again, I served as mayor of the city of North Bay during that period, which should have been a spectacularly wonderful period in Ontario. Instead, it left a black mark, and it left a lot of questions. I served as vice-chair of our police board, and even at the time we questioned our own police authority, our own police services, “What does this possibly mean? What could this mean?” Even then, we could not get the right answers. We could not get answers, period. That ambiguity led to confusion, it led to mistrust, and it led to part of the problem that we saw here in the city of Toronto and elsewhere.

This act, Bill 34, will rectify part of the problem, but it still does not erase the history that we saw. So I would suggest that we continue the debate on this. I look forward to hearing the continued discussion on this, Speaker. I think that it’s incredibly important that the law be clear. There can never be ambiguity. When we look at what happened that day and the days leading up to the events, we do know that people didn’t understand what the law was. They weren’t told. Even though the law was indeed passed in secret by the McGuinty cabinet on June 2 through an order-in-council—

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Like Samsung.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Yes, to my fellow member, it was passed in secret, like Samsung. It was posted on June 16, but it did not appear until July 3 in the Gazette. There was obviously an intention here to keep this secret, and if not secret, at least to keep it ambiguous. I think that when you put this change into effect on June 21, four days before the summit, but don’t really explain to the public what this new law is—they didn’t even know there was a new law, but then people were being charged under a new law that they didn’t know existed. How can that be here in Ontario, Speaker? That doesn’t sound like the Ontario that I like to live in.

Again, the government had three weeks to inform the public and chose not to do that. What does that say about the government, and what does that say about our services? Speculation about what special powers had been granted to the police swirled through the media and through the crowds. It was that ambiguity that caused so much problem here during the G8 and G20, which should have been a real opportunity to showcase Ontario. We ended up showcasing a different side of Ontario, with 1,105 arrests being made under this law that people did not even know existed. Again, the government did absolutely nothing to clarify that regulation.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments or questions?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Thank you to the member from Nipissing for his comments. I would just correct one of them: There were 1,100 people detained—detained. Only two arrests were made. That’s a very strong indication of what went wrong on the G20 weekend.

I was there all three days. On the first day, on Saturday, I demonstrated with hundreds of Tibetans who were demonstrating the occupation of their country. They witnessed very similar kinds of policing to what was going on in Tibet at that time, set into place—and this is a fact that cannot be disputed—by regulation 233/10, put into place by the McGuinty government.

Again, is there blame to go around? Absolutely. Federal blame? Absolutely. Provincial blame? Also, absolutely. This has been well documented in two inquiries: one, Justice McMurtry’s, who slammed this government for their actions; and also, of course, the Ombudsman, who slammed them as well. In fact, his report was called Caught in the Act, referring to this government.

Again, these are all facts. They cannot be disputed. There’s no point in debating them because they’re truth. The question remains, however, with the passage of this bill, which we’re going to support, that there was never a public inquiry, which is what the New Democratic Party called for, so that we could actually question the cabinet and find out why, secretly, while this Legislature was in session, they passed a regulation no one knew about, and fewer understood, without bringing it to this assembly.

I would say that was a breach of privilege, a breach of the democratic rights of everyone in this assembly and everyone that we represent. They brought it in. They did not debate it. We didn’t know about it until well, well after. Again, that’s an undisputed fact. For that, I think, Madam Speaker, we should have an apology.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. Further comments?

Mr. Jeff Leal: Let me say I thought the member from Nipissing provided some very thoughtful commentary this morning on Bill 34. In fact, we all welcome that Bill 34 will be proceeding to have a thorough review at committee and clause-by-clause. There will be an opportunity for people to come in to make presentations.

Certainly, we welcome the report by the Ombudsman and the report done by Chief Justice McMurtry to help us put in place a new bill to deal with circumstances that perhaps will occur some time down the road, when another summit or international gathering would occur right here in the province of Ontario.

It is interesting, though, during a couple of situations—if you go back to the War Measures Act in 1970, at that particular time, because of police intelligence and other intelligence, there was an opportunity for people who were sworn in to the Privy Council of Canada so that that intelligence could be shared with them at that time. Perhaps at this particular time, there would have been an opportunity to swear in some people from the third party and the opposition, in terms of sharing any potential intelligence that was relevant in terms of the protection of people who were going to be assembled here in Toronto as a result of the G20 summit being held in this wonderful city.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. Further comment?

Mr. John O’Toole: I did listen closely to the member from Nipissing. With his experience that he has outlined, as a mayor of a municipality and as well being on the police services board, he was involved first-hand, if you will, at least in observing how the issue unfolded. I think he was right in his research. The report by the Toronto Star, I believe—the Toronto Star is often referred to as the “Liberal briefing notes.” That account was quite accusatory of the Liberals’ secret deal.

In fact, as has been mentioned even here this morning, again, the admission of failure by the McGuinty government was clearly—Roy McMurtry’s report was entitled Caught in the Act. He said clearly that it was a secret deal. What’s most troubling, as I said in my last remarks, and I think the member from Nipissing said as well, is that it’s the expunging or the infringement on civil rights of individuals—and that’s really what the government should be standing up for. I think the member from Nipissing used the term, “He had lost touch with the people of Ontario,” and I think it’s true.

In fact, I find it almost troubling when they introduced the HST, as an example, how it affected seniors. They’ve lost touch with their ability to pay. They’ve lost touch with respect to people’s individual rights and freedoms, and this is the most troubling part.

This bill, although it needed to be reformed, the question then—a competent government would say, “How do I deal with this challenge of world leaders being here?” and consult with the chiefs of police and the OPP and other experts, including Roy McMurtry, and they would have realized the bill was an inadequate tool to deal with the situation. That’s a lack of leadership. That’s fundamentally what the discussion’s about here. And then, on top of it, watching the TV, it’s clear—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. The member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I also had the opportunity to listen very carefully to some of the remarks made by the member from Nipissing, and I agree with the concern regarding laws being clear and not being ambiguous. If we tie this into the issue of secrecy, what creates great concern is, what is our government’s, in total—our approach to dissent? What is our approach to democracy? If we believe that dissent is a healthy part of democracy, then if we look at this bill and we look at the fact that the government passed these laws or these powers in secrecy, look at the two groups of effects.

One, it’s going to affect—there’s a security interest, which we’ll touch on in a moment, but there are either protesters or there are lay citizens. So this bill will affect those two components of society.

Now, by not making the law clear or not informing the public, it’s directly impacting those who are protesting and even those who are casually in that area. It’s directly affecting Ontario citizens, and it’s very concerning that, in light of the fact that this law will affect the citizens of Ontario, they weren’t consulted, nor were they even given the awareness of this law in the first place. It speaks to a lack of respect for dissent.

If we believe that a vibrant society should encourage dissent, should encourage people who don’t agree with what’s going on, raising their voice as a healthy part of a democracy, as a healthy part of society, then we should ensure that those people who wish to engage in that right have the right to do so—and are actually encouraged to do so—in a safe, secure manner; not in an ambiguous manner, not in a manner in which there is so much lack of clarity that people who are simply walking by an area just out of curiosity are caught up in this law or caught up and taken into custody, their rights being taken away.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The me mber for Nipissing has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I would like to thank the member from Parkdale–High Park, the member from Peterborough, the member from Durham and the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton for their thoughtful comments on this as well.

Speaker, I do want to quote some script from Hansard, where our leader, Tim Hudak, weighed in on this. He was speaking when this first came out. He was speaking here in the Legislature, and he commented:

“This was not a simple error. It was not a simple mistake. The Ombudsman said that this was a premeditated plan to keep the general public in the dark.

“Before the minister, there were cabinet meetings, including up to 14 ministers who could have put a stop to this extraordinary law and who could have said, ‘No, it is wrong to conspire to keep what’s equivalent to the War Measures Act secret from the general public.’ Not one had the courage to stand up and say that this was wrong. In fact, the emails the Ombudsman has uncovered show you actually put your minds to work on how to keep these illegal war measures a secret.”

Speaker, he went on to say:

“According to the Ombudsman ... the Premier’s office ... also had its fingerprints on the ... G20 regulation and the plot to keep it a secret. On page 57, the Ombudsman quotes from a Ministry of Community Safety email which states that the Premier’s office had also been consulted and ‘are fine with this moving forward.’”

Speaker, this in itself indicates the intent of the government on the G20 act, and we’re looking—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. Further debate?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s a pleasure to rise today to speak on this important legislation that is so necessary following what the citizens of Toronto experienced last year during the G20.

I also want to thank my colleagues who have spoken so graciously and eloquently on the matter before me.

It’s important that we make clear exactly what happened that week: The G20 meetings in 2010, an event to be a source of pride for all Ontarians and particularly for the world-class city of Toronto—yet its hopeless mismanagement ended up being a blot on our province’s otherwise shining record as a place of enormous respect for civilians’ civil liberties.

Madam Speaker, our party has often spoken about the crippling, confusing effect that excess regulation can have on Ontario business, costing our province billions and leaving business owners feeling helpless and disoriented. In the span of events running up to the G20 meetings, we found out just what a devastating effect misplaced regulation can have on our civil liberties.

It was this cabinet that invoked a muddled use of regulation 233/10 of the Public Works Protection Act and turned the perimeter of the G20 meetings into a massive public work. In the days and weeks that followed, rumour began to spread about secret police powers that had been granted to our police forces, allowing them to arrest any citizen caught protesting within a given zone around the meetings. It was a moment of concern for all that these rumours were allowed to spread with zero clarification from the Premier or the then minister in charge.

Our police services were suddenly viewed with suspicion in the eyes of the public. The government that occupies this very House was seen as totalitarian and completely without regard for the freedoms we all enjoy as Canadians. We know that is not the case. I think we all understand and Ontarians understand that there’s a time and a place when the public safety needs to be taken into account by means of extraordinary measures, where there is a threat of harm to innocent bystanders. Yet this act went too far in its implications and implementations, and the McMurtry report made that very clear.

It was a good thing, too, because clarity was not forthcoming from this government at a very confusing time.

It’s my belief, and one, I believe, shared by my colleagues, that the regulation invoked by the government at the time of the G20 meetings granted powers above and beyond the ability of the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services to dictate. It was a sobering moment for us all, yet not surprising to anyone on this side of the House, when Mr. McMurtry set out in his report a condemnation of the overreaching efforts taken by the government to address the challenge of security at the international summit.

I quote from the report, which said that the law had a “potential for abuse” that was “beyond troubling.” “Beyond troubling,” Madam Speaker—not words one would normally associate with a freedom-loving and respectful province such as Ontario. The report called it a “loaded weapon” that threatens civil liberties—again, Madam Speaker, yet another blot on the record of this government, who has shamefully refused to apologize for passing this legislation in the first place.

I believe this legislation is the correct thing to do. It’s the honourable thing to do after the honour of the province was so severely tarnished in the wake of this horrible mismanagement. It is with great pleasure that I support this effort, and I call upon the government to exercise the same discretion they have today in future, so that the need for such correctional legislation not rise again.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, just a couple of other points I’d like to make on this issue.

The outdated Public Works Protection Act included wartime powers for the protection of public works, but relied too much on the discretion of the minister. In addition, the former Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and the McGuinty cabinet used that discretion to secretly introduce special powers for police and fostered the widespread confusion that followed by abdicating any responsibility to clarify what the law said. This legislation removes the minister’s discretion to grant special powers of arrest, but it does not address the lack of sound judgment and the finger-pointing demonstrated during the G20 by the McGuinty government.

Just as a bit of background, Madam Speaker, I’d like to bring forth a couple of additional points. You know, in the lead-up to the 2010 G20 summit in Toronto, the McGuinty cabinet invoked regulation 233/10 under the Public Works Protection Act, making the G20 zone a public work from June 21 through to June 28. Media coverage leading up to the summit circulated around reports of police being granted special powers of arrest up to five metres on either side of the security fencing in the G20 zone, as requested by Toronto police chief Bill Blair.

There was widespread confusion leading up to and during the G20 summit about exactly where the special powers of arrest applied amongst the public and police and in the media. It was only after the summit was over that the government publicly acknowledged that the police were never granted powers of arrest five metres outside of the area designated a public work under the regulation. This suggested to many that the government deliberately misled the public to bluff protesters from occupying the area surrounding the G20 security zone.

So again, it is with great pleasure that I support this effort, and I call upon the government to exercise the same discretion that they have today in future, so that the need for such correctional legislation not rise again.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Comments and questions?

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d just like to commend the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex for a good presentation.

I think there’s a common element going on here in this House, Madam Speaker. We seem to believe that the party across the floor has a real problem with the words “I made a mistake. I’m sorry.” They don’t want to come forward and say it. I’m surprised that not one of the cabinet ministers, or even the Premier himself, simply could tell the people of Ontario, “We apologize for the G20 situation and we certainly are going to address it and make changes.” They are addressing it and making changes, but what concerns me is the arrogance.

When I was a small child or growing up, I was taught to say, “Sorry,” if I did something wrong. It’s not a big thing, but it’s a big thing to the people you represent.

They want to hear, you know, governments are not above them. Governments are for them and work for them, and they want them to be human, a human side to this building. I don’t think that goes on a lot around here. It’s very disappointing, Speaker, that people can’t take the path of forgiveness and ask for the people to consider that maybe they’re human and maybe they made a mistake. I think that’s what the problem is around here, that there should be more give-and-take and more working together as a group and taking responsibility for things that go wrong in this province.

Mind you, in the last eight years, a lot of things have gone wrong, and we find ourselves in a deficit position that’s never been done in this province before.

We certainly have to address these things. We have to come forward. We have to give good results to the people of Ontario. We have to show them that we can make mistakes, but we also can solve the mistakes. I don’t see a lot of that.

They have to work together, and that’s what I’d like to see more of around here, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. Jeff Leal: I did listen intently this morning to my good friend the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex. Hopefully, in the not-too-distant future—I know the former member had a private member’s bill to actually rename the riding to Chatham–Kent–Leamington because Leamington, of course, is that

section of Essex county that really is in this riding. I know there was great representation from the wonderful people from Leamington that were very supportive of the renaming of the riding to Chatham–Kent–Leamington to actually reflect the geographic area of that community, but we could have that debate another day.

I appreciate the member’s comments this morning. Bill 34 will be going to committee in the not-too-distant future. As the member has articulated, people get an opportunity to appear in front of committee as we go through clause-by-clause to make this piece of legislation as best as it can be and really putting in place a framework, if Toronto or some other Ontario city gets the opportunity to host another G20 summit or other significant international gathering in our wonderful province, where security will always be an issue, for how we can handle it for the future.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comment?

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m pleased to provide a couple of minutes of comments to the wonderful address from the member for Chatham–Kent–Essex.

I remember back to the last sitting of the Legislature, in those days leading up to the secret law being passed by cabinet. The Tuesday—Tuesday, May 31—we all sat here; it was a late session into the evening, and we did tributes to retiring members. The Premier even sat in the chamber for the entire evening, and it was that wonderful moment at the last sitting where we seemed to be moving forward together. We had wonderful non-partisan tributes to all of our retiring members.

And then Wednesday, because the Speaker made a comment at the very end of the night that may have been seen as a bit of a jab to the Premier—the word started spreading the next day, on June 1, that we were going to prorogue, and we did that day. It was the next day, June 2, a day that we were scheduled to sit, that cabinet passed that secret law.

Again, I think many speakers today have talked about the arrogance of the government, the fact that it’s our role as elected officials to protect innocent citizens from being abused by the state. As MPPs, we had no chance to do that—

Interjections.

Mr. Steve Clark: Thanks for giving me the dates. I appreciate that. Thanks.

We’ve had no ability to stand up to those who were elected to serve us. We had no opportunity, and as the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington spoke about earlier this morning, it was a clear sign that this government has lost its way.

I can appreciate the member for Peterborough talking about committee hearings, but I think we have to address the issue, and I’m glad the member spoke this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Yes, the member for Welland.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I just wanted to speak a little bit to the bill:

section 138(1), about the requirement of a person who’s entering or attempting to enter a court proceedings; the requirement to provide identification; the requirement to provide information; and what kind of information that’s actually going to be.

It clearly doesn’t set out in this bill the kinds of questions that court officials are going to be able to ask people. The government, the week before last, talked about wanting to be more open and transparent with this legislation, but in fact pieces of it are very grey.

The kinds of questions that come to my mind that court officials might ask, and that might actually violate people’s human rights, are: What’s your political affiliation? Who’s your employer? What kind of work do you do? What is your ethnic background or your cultural background like? What is your economic status? What are your religious affiliations, or what are your family relationships? Do you have a criminal record, even a minor conviction, or does someone in your family? Those kinds of things concern me.

Yesterday, when I was out in the Toronto–Danforth area for the by-election, we had Canadian citizens actually turned away at the polls because they didn’t have the kind of information that the polling clerks wanted. People went with a passport, but they needed to have a driver’s licence. And on that note, I’d just like to congratulate Craig Scott on his win.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member has two minutes in which to respond.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Again, I’d like to thank the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, the member from Peterborough, the member from Leeds–Grenville and, of course, the member from Welland for speaking as well on this particular and all-important issue.

Madam Speaker, one of the things we need to be careful of is that we don’t turn things into what I would call a police state. You know, people have rights; they have civil rights.

I’d like to quote something from our leader, Tim Hudak. Tim made this comment in 2010. He said that the Liberals have “lost touch” with the public by using a World War II-era law to round up people during the summit.

I’ve found that when you push people, the natural tendency is for them to push back, and suddenly force gets bigger and gets stronger on both sides, and the next thing you know, you almost have a riotous state, which is not good.

“Nobody forced them to bring in the secret law at G20. Nobody forced their arm,” said our leader, Tim Hudak. “It was a major scandal for the province.”

I’d also like to quote the NDP leader, Andrea Horwath, who said that the new law is an “admission” of failure on the part of the Liberal government: “They made a big mistake when they were preparing for the G20, and they’re ignoring the fact that mistake trampled people’s civil rights, civil liberties.”

McMurtry’s 54-page report on the old law noted the potential for abuse was beyond troubling and said that it was “a loaded weapon” that threatened civil liberties.

Madam Speaker, we have not heard apologies from the opposite side, from the government, and I’m of the firm belief that when you mess up, you fess up.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Madame Meilleur has moved second reading of 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.

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: Absolutely not.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. No.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred until after question period today.

Second reading vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Orders of the day.

Hon. John Milloy: No further business, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): There being no further business, this House stands recessed until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1004 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’d like to introduce Maria Matias, who is my constituent in Etobicoke–Lakeshore. She’s here today to see her granddaughter, Emma Mogus, who is one of our pages.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to welcome the Camping in Ontario group here today. Specifically, I’m meeting later with Stéphane Deschênes and Roland Goreski. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: These are the family of our wonderful page Seph Burghardt. His grandparents are here, Ann Marshall and Richard Marshall Sr.; his parents, Madeline Burghardt and Richard Marshall; his brothers, Tonnan Marshall Burghardt and Raffi Marshall Burghardt. All welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to welcome two groups of great individuals visiting Queen’s Park today. One is from Camping in Ontario. I want to welcome Robert Trask, Alexandra Anderson, Guida Williamson, Stéphane Deschênes, Mike Tomaszewski, Lisa Veritis. As well, from the organization the Ontario Recreation Vehicle Dealers Association: Chris Stovold, Roland Goreski, Rick Allain, Andrew Thomson, Rob Edwards, Steve Meades and Larry Boyd.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I’d like to introduce Alexandra Anderson and Larry Boyd from Camping in Ontario. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’d like to introduce two guests in the gallery today: Mr. Michael Giroux, who’s the president of the Canadian Wood Council, and Marianne Berube, the Ontario executive director for Wood WORKS!. They were here for my launch of my private member’s bill.

Mr. Bill Walker: I would like to welcome Robert Trask, president of the Ontario camping association, and Steve Meades, president of Ontario RV association, both from my riding. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I’d like to introduce Maria Matias, the grandmother of our page Emma Mogus from Halton.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I want to welcome to the Legislature relatives of page Nicholas Peters on behalf of my colleague from Scarborough Southwest. Joining us today are: Joe Peters; Irene Makeeff; Lydia Makeeff; Winston and Nadia Shantora; and sister Olivia Peters, a former page of the Legislature. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Speaking of such, I would like to also introduce my other brother, Joe. Thanks for being here.

Sitting beside Joe is Mr. Steve Peters, the member from Elgin–Middlesex–London for the 37th, 38th, and 39th Parliaments and Speaker of the 39th Parliament. Welcome, Steve.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have to say this again: I hope that when I come back and visit, I’ll have the same reception. We’ll have to see what happens.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All right, stop the heckling.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): At this time, I would ask all of our members to join me in welcoming our new group of legislative pages. If they can assemble, please.

Our pages now are serving in their first session of the 40th Parliament: Hassan Alayche from Hamilton Mountain; Asha Ali from Etobicoke North; Lauren Barry from Prince Edward–Hastings; Emily Chalmers from Don Valley West; Sharmeila Cherla from Mississauga–Brampton South; Julia Cole from Beaches–East York; Liam Donnelly from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale; Alexander Forgay from St.

Paul’s; Abbigail Groskleg from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke; Teresa Han from Willowdale; Kyle Hendrikx from Sarnia–Lambton; Victoria Jagmohan from Scarborough–Rouge River; Ammaar Jan from Pickering–Scarborough East; Emma Lang from Kenora–Rainy River; Aylin Ma from Don Valley East; Seph Marshall Burghardt from Parkdale–High Park; Domenique Mastronardi from Chatham–Kent–Essex; Preston McInnis from Windsor–Tecumseh; Emma Mogus from Halton; Nicholas Peters from Scarborough Southwest; Alexander Ruddy from Niagara Falls; Felix Weber from Perth–Wellington.

Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. Premier, I want to return to our conversation yesterday about the high levels of debt in Ontario and its negative impact on job creation and investment. I’ll remind you that you’re on track to a $30-billion deficit and tripling Ontario’s provincial debt to some $400 billion.

Rating agencies and investment banks in New York City told me that governments that have high levels of debt won’t be able to afford lower taxes, won’t be able to invest in infrastructure to make their economies competitive. They know that tax increases are far more likely to occur under governments that cannot control their spending. These signals affect the economy, they chill investment and they slow economic growth.

Speaker, the problem is, the Premier has already indicated that he’s going to have higher taxes in his budget to finance further government spending.

Premier, do you believe that high debt and higher taxes create jobs or do they kill jobs in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I am pleased to entertain the question and to speak to what has happened to taxes in Ontario. With respect to corporate income taxes, my colleague will know that we have reduced those a few times already. He will know we’ve eliminated the capital tax. He will know that we have cut the small business income tax. He will know that we’ve eliminated the small business deduction surtax. He will know that we’ve adopted the HST.

I know my colleague is fond of recounting his experiences outside the country, but just recently the finance minister and myself had a good meeting in Toronto, and we heard there that a Canadian bank is now paying—for every dollar they earn in New York City, they pay 45 cents in tax. If that bank earns that dollar here in Toronto, Speaker, they’re paying 25 cents in tax.

We’re giving our businesses a decided competitive advantage in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, Speaker, I think only Premier McGuinty believes that taxes are lower in Ontario under his government. That’s certainly not what families and businesses say.

Premier, political leadership in 2012 is about reminding people why we need to reduce spending. Businesses won’t invest; they won’t create jobs in countries with a debt crisis. I ask the Premier to name a business that’s investing in Greece today.

In fact, Premier, high debt is inversely related to confidence in our economy. It’s inversely related to job creation and investment. Using new debt to pay for new spending may be politically expedient for you, but it is not political leadership in 2012.

Premier, for nine years—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question?

Mr. Tim Hudak: —you’ve kicked the can down the road. Will we see finally in this budget you’ll pick up the can and make tough decisions to rein in runaway spending?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, let’s try to move beyond the general and hone in on the specific. Let’s talk about a specific choice. In government, Speaker, we believe that there are better choices than financing the horse racing industry to the tune of $245 million on an annual basis. That’s a specific choice, Speaker.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague and his fellow Conservatives are struggling with this very straightforward choice. We believe it’s more important to use our precious dollars to support health care and education than to support the horse racing industry. We’re very clear when it comes to that specific kind of a choice, Speaker.

I’d encourage my colleague to tell us why it is he stands against a preference for health care and education over horse racing in Ontario.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: You know, sadly, Speaker, the Premier continues to engage in specious arguments that are effectively nothing more than tax grabs to finance further runaway spending.

Premier, what you fail to understand—and the lesson that’s being felt in countries around the world—is that governments create the conditions for economic growth when they get the fundamentals right. We believe to keep your fiscal house in order, to keep marginal tax rates low, to encourage workplace flexibility, to let markets work on their own—when you get those fundamentals right, Speaker, jobs follow, investment takes place and Ontario will be a leader in Canada again.

Premier, which of those fundamentals do you disagree with? Because the last 166 days from the campaign, all we’ve heard about is further tax increases to finance more unaffordable spending.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Lots of speculation here, Speaker; lots of inferences based on fantasy, but again, I want to return to a very specific issue. I’m asking, again, my honourable colleague: Why is it that he feels that supporting horse racing in Ontario is of greater value to the people of Ontario than financing their schools and their health care, Speaker? To me that’s a very clear choice. It speaks to the right kind of choices and the wrong kind of choices. But I think, more importantly, it speaks to our values. I think we value health care and education more than we do horse racing, Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It’s about making, as my honourable colleague says—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To me, Speaker, it’s a pretty straightforward choice.

In our budget we’ll continue; we’ll lay out a number of those straightforward choices, where we take the next step in an important plan to eliminate the deficit. It’s a five-year plan, Speaker. We’ll do it in a way that protects our schools, protects our health care and continues to build a strong foundation for growth and prosperity.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: Premier, this is far from speculation and inferences. These are programs that you or your finance minister has announced. Pretty well any announcement you’ve made in the last 166 days has been about revenue increases and new unaffordable spending.

Premier, when I was in New York City last week, one of the things I was relieved to hear is a sense of growing optimism, albeit just starting out, when it comes to the global economy. And the view, Speaker, is more optimism about the country of Canada as a whole. But the concern I heard that was saddening and troubling is the growing concern and more questions being asked about the state of finances here in Ontario.

Premier, people can invest anywhere in the world, but if they don’t think a government has its spending under control, they won’t invest in Ontario, and you’re pursuing policies that are making Ontario increasingly uncompetitive. While other countries, Speaker, are opening their doors for investment in their resources, they brought in the Far North Act and punishing energy rates. Premier, why are you punishing the resource sector in Ontario while other—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I gather my honourable colleague has visited New York City and, while there, he got a lesson in Economics 101. I’m glad he’s had that opportunity.

I’d encourage him to take a look at the RBC Provincial Outlook just put out. It says, among other things, that Ontario will be experiencing “a modest rebound in growth in the province to 2.5% in 2012 from an estimated 1.9% in 2011.”

Now 2.5% is not 5%, 6%, 7%, 8% or 9% that they’re experiencing in places like China and India, but I think in the grand scheme of things it’s a good foundation. We’re clearly moving in the right direction. The way we’re going to harden that momentum is through a thoughtful budget that is responsible, that makes the right kinds of choices.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Premier boasts about a modest rebound. That’s the whole problem. Ontario should be the leader in Canada. We should be number one. We should be the best place in all of North America to find investment, to create jobs. That’s what the Ontario PC Party believes in.

Premier, while you celebrate mediocrity, we want to see Ontario leading Canada again. We believe we should let markets work, let entrepreneurs, businesses and consumers be the ones who help markets grow. Cloud computing was not the result of some government grant. Apple did not become Apple because of government handouts.

Focus on the cost of regulation. Don’t follow the European or American examples by overregulating the economy: another lesson clearly learned—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question.

Mr. Tim Hudak: On Tuesday, will we see a change of course to get out of the way of business, get behind them and help them create jobs in the province of Ontario, and make us be number one again?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I say to my honourable colleague with the greatest respect that it’s going to take more than that. He’s talked about Apple. He’s talked about cloud computing. He’s talked about the regulatory environment. He’s talked about the tax environment. But when confronted with a very sharply delineated choice—are we or are we not going to support the horse racing industry in the province of Ontario?—he struggles with that.

To me, it’s a very, very clear choice. They’re going to cloak it with every possible negative. The fact of the matter is, you knock on Ontario doors and ask families whether their choice is health care and education over horse racing, and they’ll tell you 100 out of 100 times that they want good schools and good health care. That’s the foundation for a good quality of life.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: The lesson the Premier has failed to learn for nine years is that not every solution involves a tax increase here in the province of Ontario.

One of the other lessons that has been clear internationally—business leaders from New York to Toronto and North Bay will tell you how important it is to get the fundamentals right, like affordable and reliable energy, to make sure we can compete in the global economy. Energy development came up in almost every meeting I had in New York City, just like it does here, but not a single person sang the praises of massive taxpayer subsidies for solar panels or electric cars.

The Premier referenced Economics 101 a while ago. I was in Economics 101 back around the time that the FIT energy program was invented in Germany in 1991. It’s outdated; it’s expensive. It’s a failed experiment—the kind of European-style subsidies even the Europeans have moved away from.

Premier, will you reverse course and focus—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: On the matter of energy, again, we’re making a very clear choice. We’re not going to burn coal in Ontario. We’ve made that choice. Clearly, it is less expensive to buy coal from elsewhere, shovel it into a furnace in Ontario and create electricity that way. It is less expensive. That’s their approach. That’s not our approach.

Instead, we’re going to be at the front of the curve. We know where the world is going. We know that, over time, the price of oil and gas will keep going up and up and up. The price of an—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I am at the point of having difficulty hearing the response, but I will say that the noise is coming from both sides. I would appreciate the questions in silence and the answers in silence. Thank you.

Premier, finish.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, in addition to the clear choice we’re making not to burn coal in Ontario, and to accelerate a program that is building us an exciting new energy, we’ve also indicated that, as a choice, we’re prepared to invest in full-day kindergarten, because that benefits all of our children today and it benefits our economy tomorrow.

HOME CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, in response to my questions on home care, your Minister of Health insisted that more people are receiving more care. If that’s true, why are community care access centres telling us that they’re cutting back hours and they are telling patients that they’re going to be losing service?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think the facts speak for themselves, Speaker: We have increased funding by 69% to community care access centres, an increase of close to 70% since we were elected in 2003. That’s $2.1 billion a year more now than when we were first elected. We have invested tremendously in home care, but we do think there’s more we need to do, because we do know that we still have people in hospitals who could be better served at home if they had stronger supports in the community. So as we move forward, as we implement our action plan, a big focus is going to be on further strengthening home care for the people of this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, I think that’s the saddest response I’ve heard. They’re plowing more money in, but the home care system is getting worse and worse and worse in Ontario.

You know, the government loves to make good-news announcements, and with the scandal at Ornge and the looming sunshine list that’s going to be coming out tomorrow, shedding the light on big CEO salaries getting their pay hikes, I suppose that these announcements are going to come even more fast and more furious to cover up what’s really going on. I suspect that that’s going to happen; we saw it again today.

But for families who are more concerned about the real issues that they’re facing—issues like the fact that they need to have home care so that they can avoid going into the hospital—the question is a very simple one: Why are community care access centres telling us that they’re cutting back hours and telling patients that they’re going to lose services?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, what I can tell you is that there is significant demand for home care. That is why we are making the choices we are making when it comes to improving health care. A very important part of our transformation plan, our action plan for health care, is about strengthening home care. It is about providing more care for more people. We are already serving close to 200,000 more people every year than when we took office. There are more people receiving more care—more hours of care as well.

In fact, there are wonderful stories about people who were in long-term care who are now coming home with more robust supports than they would have had before. Our Home First program is proving to be a tremendous success as people in hospitals are coming home with those supports.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We know very well that smart investments in home care are a key way to prepare our health care system for the future. More importantly, they’re a lifeline for people who want to stay in their homes, and can stay in their homes with just a little bit of support, a little bit of help. Now, the government knows this, too. So the question is, why does this government insist on sticking with a system that just is not working and still leaves people scrambling with missed visits, missed appointments, reduced hours and cancelled time?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: You know, Speaker, the member opposite and our government are on exactly the same page when it comes to this issue. We believe that there is more we can do to support more people in their homes. When we have someone in hospital who does not need to be in hospital but can’t go home because there aren’t supports, we know that we’re not providing the best possible care, and we also know we’re spending more money than we need to. So we are aggressively moving forward on expanding Home First, which is showing nothing short of wonderful results for people, and we welcome the support of the party opposite as we continue to strengthen home care.

HOME CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Michael Marsh lives in northeastern Ontario and needs considerable personal care. His mother is his primary caregiver, but she’s also a working woman who has to leave the house every day to go to work if she’s going to be able to pay the bills.

Michael and his mother were recently told that their home care hours would be cut in half. The minister claims that more people are receiving more care. Can the Premier explain why this is happening to Michael and his family?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It is exactly stories like that story that drive us in our determination to do more to keep people in their homes, and there is significant support for our approach. Let me read a quote from the Ontario Home Care Association after I introduced our action plan: “The Ontario Home Care Association welcomes Ontario’s action plan for health care. Presented by” the Minister of Health “today ... the plan sets an ambitious goal of making Ontario ‘the healthiest place in North America’. Underpinning the goal is a commitment to relentlessly working to ensuring quality and accountability in health care.”

People in the health community know that we’re on the right track. We are moving forward as quickly as we can to strengthen supports in home care.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: A senior citizen in the northeast shared with us a very similar situation: She recently had a heart attack and is unable to get up and down her own stairs at home. Home care ensures that she can actually live in her home and get to her medical appointments. Her care has been cut from 13 hours down to two hours. Now, if this continues, she says she’s going to have no option: She’s either got to go to a nursing home or into the hospital.

If the government is investing more in home care, as they claim, why are families who rely on it telling us very clearly that they’re going to be forced into hospitals because their support is being cut from underneath them?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, it’s not that we’re claiming we’re spending more. We are spending significantly more because we believe that we can care for people in their own homes. That is the best for them and it is the best for our system, because very often it is the lowest-cost service available, certainly less expensive than hospital and less expensive than long-term care. That is why we are relentless in our determination to strengthen home care.

We need to continue to invest. We need to get the best possible value for our health care dollars. Our health care system depends on us taking the action that we are proposing, because our future actually is dependent upon our success in this initiative.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, it seems to me this is a classic Liberal government way of delivering health care in our system: You spend a heck of a lot more, but you get a heck of a lot less.

Everyday families know that home care is a smart investment, and they know that it’s going to improve our system and will improve people’s lives. But after years and years and years of empty promises, we’re hearing from family after family that is receiving less support, not more, and when they’re forced into hospitals, we’re all going to end up paying more.

Will the government commit right now to making the changes required in our home care system to make sure that it actually works for people? Or are they going to continue with the status quo that leaves people stranded, waiting for care or forced into hospitals?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I cannot support the approach of the member opposite more. I believe—our government believes—that our big focus now has to be on home care, and that’s why we’re making difficult decisions in other parts of the health care system.

We’re in an era where we have to make trade-offs. A 1% increase in what we spend on physicians, for example, can buy 30,000 home care visits. So we’re making tough decisions because we know that home care is where we can get the best value for money and the highest quality of care for people.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Minister of Health. The minister’s responses to our questions regarding the Ornge scandal have not been very encouraging, neither to us nor the public, and certainly not to the front-line staff at Ornge. We can only draw one of two conclusions: Either the minister has had a convenient lapse of memory, or she really did not know what was going on in her ministry.

But there was one response—and it was on March 1—that is encouraging, in response to my question as to whether the minister would support the striking of a select committee. The minister responded, “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.”

Speaker, I’d like to know from the minister: Will she be present this afternoon when we debate that motion to strike that select committee and will she vote in support of striking that committee?

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Community and Social Services, Speaker.

Hon. John Milloy: We’re going to have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to—

Interjections.

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

House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

We’ll have an opportunity to discuss and debate the honourable member’s motion this afternoon, but it seems, Mr. Speaker, that the opposition can’t take yes for an answer. They’ve asked for hearings by a committee of this Legislature, and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has agreed that on March 28, April 4 and April 18 they will have hearings into the Auditor General’s report on Ornge. The committee meets on Wednesdays at 9 a.m. and 1 o’clock until routine proceedings, in committee room 1. There is an opportunity for that member and members across the way to go and to conduct the type of committee hearings and inquiries that they’re asking for.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: That has to be so embarrassing to the members of the government caucus. I can tell you, Speaker, my question was to the Minister of Health, and I asked if she would be in the House to debate that motion to strike a committee that she agreed she would support, and I specifically asked if she would vote in support of it.

We’re all familiar with what the standing committee will do and the auditor’s report, and we’re also familiar with the police investigation. That’s not the issue. We want a select committee so that employees, former employees and stakeholders of Ornge can come forward and tell us their story and tell us how we can restore confidence in Ontario’s air ambulance service. That’s what it’s all about.

Interjections.

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

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, if it’s embarrassing to anyone, I’d say it’s embarrassing to the member’s neighbour there, the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka, who is the Chair of the public accounts committee of this Legislature.

The public accounts committee is charged with reviewing the Auditor General’s report. We’ll be hearing from the Auditor General tomorrow. On March 28, April 4 and April 18, the public accounts committee, a committee of this Legislature, will have an opportunity to look into aspects of the Ornge situation.

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the member asking the question is not a member of the public accounts committee, and far be it from me to interfere in their organizational aspect, but I’m sure if he asks the whip of the Conservative Party, he’ll allow him to sub in for those hearings.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

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

Beginning in 2009, Chris Mazza and other executives at Ornge, well, their salaries disappeared from the sunshine list. It turns out they were hiding sky-high salaries—over $1 million, Mr. Speaker—and the government was letting them do it.

My question is simple. On Friday, they will release the sunshine list. Will Ontarians see the salaries and the bonuses that were paid to the executives at Ornge for 2011?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, you know, the issue around Ornge is of course a very serious issue and one that is of deep concern to me and to members of this government. When we entrust people with a responsibility to deliver service to the people of this province, when we entrust them with taxpayer dollars, we expect them to live up to the responsibility that has been entrusted in them. In the case of Ornge, Speaker, we have been enormously disappointed with the leadership at Ornge. That is why we have taken the actions that we have taken to clean up the situation at Ornge.

We have taken decisive action. There is completely new leadership. There has been significant oversight and investigation of those parts at Ornge—

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

M me France Gélinas: Well, that was not the answer I wanted. I wanted a yes or a no: Will they be there or not?

But anyway, in 2010 the NDP filed a freedom of access to information request. We wanted an explanation: Why was it that the executives of Ornge were not on the sunshine list anymore? We got a response from the ministry that said that they would not release the 32 records explaining the hidden salaries.

While the government used Friday’s sunshine list release to spell out the salaries at Ornge—I’m hoping that we will see the salaries for 2011, but will we also see the previous years? And will you finally release those 32 records that we requested in our freedom of access to information?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I think members of this House are unanimous in their determination to understand what happened at Ornge and what we need to do so that it never does happen again. That is why we have taken the steps we have done.

Ornge did create for-profit entities. There was nothing in the performance agreement that gave us the power to prevent that, Speaker. That will change under the new legislation that I will be introducing shortly. I will include a component that will require ministry approval for the creation of new corporate entities.

We have lessons to learn from Ornge, Speaker, and we are learning those lessons and we are acting on those lessons.

MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Grant Crack: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

There’s constant discussion in my riding and across the province regarding the relationship our government has worked to form with our cities and towns since coming to government. I know that our government understands that, just like other governments around the world, Ontario municipalities currently have to make difficult decisions about costs and services for their residents, and these decisions aren’t made any easier by the extra costs that have been downloaded onto municipalities by other governments.

Mr. Speaker, could the minister please tell us what our government is doing to support our municipalities as we all face the harsh reality of difficult economic times to ensure that all Ontarians still have access to the municipal services that they currently enjoy?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to thank my colleague for his question. He’s got a lot of experience in municipal governance and he knows how important that provincial-municipal relationship is.

One of the first orders of business for us when we were elected, Mr. Speaker, was to work to repair damage done by the previous government to that relationship between the province and our cities and towns. The province’s relationship with the municipalities has greatly improved since the days of forced amalgamation and downloading, and our government entered into a landmark agreement with municipalities. As a result, we’ve uploaded $2.7 billion of services from Ontario’s cities and towns, which takes a huge burden off municipalities across Ontario.

Despite the province’s economic challenges, we remain committed to the upload of municipal costs in accordance with the timetable agreed to through the Provincial-Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review. We understand how important it is. Social assistance cost $1.2 billion in 2012.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you, Minister. I’m sure we can all agree that this is good news: that our government has made a firm pledge both to the province’s municipalities and the uploading process. However, the government is committed to eliminating the deficit by 2017-18, and we all know that we have to make some difficult decisions.

Mr. Speaker, with this in mind, my question to the minister is: What is our government doing to ensure that the carrying out of these agreements the minister has referenced in her answer happens in the agreed-upon time frame?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What we did when we entered into these agreements, Mr. Speaker, was we put a very clear and defined timeline in place, and so that allows municipalities to know what to expect and to be able to better plan. I mentioned that $1.2 billion in social assistance benefit program costs for 2012. We’re going to continue to upload court security costs, to the tune of $125 million. We’ve worked hard to ensure that our relationship is in good shape and is positive with the municipalities.

At the ROMA/OGRA conference in February, the Premier once again reaffirmed our government’s commitment to our municipal partners, and we will continue to meet the promised upload of $1.5 billion per year in social service and court security costs by 2018.

We have put that timeline in place, Mr. Speaker. We will continue to upload, because we know that that’s a critical component of our positive relationship with municipalities.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is to the Minister of Health. As you know, the Auditor General’s mandate is to review the value for the money you handed over to Ornge, and of course, the mandate of the OPP is to review any criminal activity at Ornge. However, neither is looking exclusively at the systemic operational failures or the concerns that have been brought forward by front-line staff about their personal safety and the safety of patients. This is why a select committee is necessary. There are critical questions to be asked and answered. It is absolutely essential that we restore public confidence, because that has been eroded every time the minister says that she doesn’t know.

I ask the minister today: Will you show leadership? Will you be here for the vote in favour of a select committee?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I look forward to the debate this afternoon. I know that many members are interested in the outcome of the debate today. But I do want to underline that we’ve got a lot of activity going on right now. There is a forensic audit under way. The Auditor General, of course, will be releasing his report, and his report will be considered by standing committees. The OPP are conducting an investigation. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, as we’ve heard from the House leader, will be looking very closely at the issue at Ornge.

Speaker, I will be introducing now legislation. I know that when that new legislation is introduced, if it is passed, in fact it will go to committee for examination. There will be ample opportunity to discuss all of the issues that are important to all members of this Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Mr. Speaker, to the minister again: The minister knows that complaints about Ornge’s operating practices have gone unheeded at the Ministry of Health, despite the fact that many concerns about patient safety have been raised by hospitals, nurses, paramedics and pilots since 2006. We also know that the Ontario Air Transport Association called for a review because they were concerned about the long waits for ambulances and the fact that that was compromising patient care.

So I ask the minister today: Are you prepared to show leadership, leadership as the Minister of Health, and vote to put patients and front-line workers first and ensure that patient safety is never again compromised by Ornge?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, in my humble opinion, I have shown tremendous leadership on this file. We have new leadership in place. Their instructions were to put patient safety first. Patient safety is the number one issue, Speaker. It is the most important thing, and that is why we are going to be introducing a quality improvement plan at Ornge. We are seeing the result that that approach is having at hospitals. When you measure patient safety, you can drive results to improve patient safety. That is why under the new legislation and under the new performance agreement, patient safety will be paramount.

I am focused on improving air ambulance service. I’m focused on improving accountability for public dollars. We’re—

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

The member from Toronto–Danforth.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question to the Minister of Energy: Given the continued problems with the refurbishment of Bruce A nuclear—repeated delays, billions of dollars of cost overruns, radioactive leaks—will the minister make public the cost of refurbishing the Darlington nuclear reactors before committing billions of dollars to a project that we may not even need?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I thank the member for the question. We have had a long history in the province of Ontario with nuclear energy. I know the third party was in power when the Darlington facility was completed and opened. In fact, Tom Mitchell of Ontario Power Generation led the international effort to deal with safety issues that arose as a result of the devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan.

We have approached the refurbishment of Darlington—it’s necessary, mid-life maintenance that’s very extensive—in a slightly different way to make sure that we get better price protection for Ontario taxpayers and ratepayers and we get a better sense of what costs are before we actually incur them. That’s why the first stage of the contract was for extensive planning and design of the first of about seven parts of it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Minister, your answer is a red herring—a glow-in-the-dark red herring. You either don’t know or won’t tell the cost of that refurbishment. Why are you setting up Ontario families for another huge hike in their hydro rates?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: It’s actually the opposite. We don’t want the refurbishments to end up with the cost overruns or the time extensions that we’ve seen in the past around the world, so there’s a fundamentally different approach.

The experience from around the world has told us that the more you do up front in terms of planning design, the better price certainty you get. You can estimate whatever you like for the price right now, but until they actually plan it out, in this case to 30-minute intervals, you don’t get as much price certainty. When you get better price certainty, you have others bid for the best price on the next parts of the contract. It’s a different approach—better protection for taxpayers, more certainty for both price and time.

MEDICAL RESEARCH

Mr. David Zimmer: Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Innovation, and I ask this question as a former president of the Alzheimer Society of Canada.

It’s estimated that brain disease and brain disorder cost our province $39 billion annually, and the annual international market for diagnostics and therapeutics is estimated to be about $130 billion—and that’s growing every year.

Minister, what is Ontario doing to promote brain disease and disorder research and development in this area? It’s a good opportunity for our economy and, more importantly, it’s a good chance to offer hope to Ontarians who suffer from brain disorder and brain disease.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to thank the member for the question. I can absolutely assure him that this province remains on the leading edge when it comes to research in brain disease and disorders.

Earlier this month, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and myself joined Joe Rotman and Dr. Donald Stuss at the launch of the Ontario Brain Institute’s first of three research projects to be carried out at facilities across this province. The OBI’s research projects will create and sustain over 80 research jobs in institutions across the province. Combining the talents of these professionals and the findings of their research, Ontario expects to reap even more economic benefit from the commercialization of the discoveries related to these projects.

Through the Ontario Brain Institute’s research, we’ll find better therapies for our children and our youth who are impacted by brain disorders and help them reach their full potential.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. David Zimmer: It’s clear that Ontario is, in fact, the leader in life research and is recognized as a key player in neuroscience research globally, and that’s due in large part to the Ontario Brain Institute.

Minister, you said the Ontario Brain Institute was focusing on three research projects; you announced those earlier in the month. Will you tell me and this House and the people of Ontario what the details of those projects are and how the projects are actually going to be executed?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m pleased to share with the member and this House a little bit of detail on these projects. Dr. Darcy Fehlings and a team of 27 researchers from the University of Toronto will be working out of the Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital. They’re going to be using technology similar to video games, where researchers will help children with cerebral palsy strengthen their weakened limbs and improve their quality of life.

The second project has the Province of Ontario Neurodevelopmental Disorders Network working with 27 researchers from Sick Kids, Holland Bloorview and McMaster University working with children who have a number of disorders, like autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, among others.

Finally, Doctors Burnham and Burneo will be leading 26 researchers from Western, McMaster and the University of Ottawa. They’ll be working on the Epilepsy Discovery Project. Lots of exciting things going on in Ontario.

LICENCE PLATES

Mr. Todd Smith: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, last week you announced a car tax. You couched it as a fee hike, but we all know that it’s a tax. It’s a way for this government to balance its incredibly poorly managed books on the backs of Ontario working families. This amounts to a 30% tax hike on every licence plate in the province of Ontario.

Just weeks after the Premier ruled out new taxes to pay for his big-spending ways, you come out and give us a tax with a slightly different name—the same tricks this government has played here since day number one.

Minister, will you, today, back away from your new plan to raise this car tax on every driver in Ontario?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this in the Legislature today. First of all, the member should be aware of the fact that in New Brunswick, the fee to renew a licence plate is $172; in BC, the fee to renew a licence plate is $142; in Quebec, the fee to renew is $104. In Ontario, it is currently $74, and over three years it will going up to $98. That will be about the average that exists in all of the provinces.

The commercial rate has not been increased in 24 years. The automobile rates have not been increased for 15 years. This is extremely reasonable. It’s being brought in over a period of three years and it’s going to contribute to our having safer roads and bridges in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: So it is a car tax. It is a car tax, and the car tax appears to be okay, and this appears to fly in the face of what the Premier said just a few weeks ago: that he wasn’t going to raise taxes in the province.

You know, when you brought in this new car tax, I went into some meetings with local small businesses—family delivery and trucking companies, and some taxi services—and those business owners told me last week during the spring break, when you popped this on them, that your new tax was going to drastically increase their cost of doing business and, in some cases, they even said they were going to have to scale back or reduce their fleets.

Minister, if you cost a single Ontarian their job, you should lose yours. I ask again: Will you renounce this tax-raising, job-killing policy and get your hand out of the pocket of Ontario drivers by getting rid of this car tax today?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Once again, I’m pleased to respond. We’re the party that’s putting health care ahead of horse racing subsidies. There are some tough choices that lie ahead, but unlike the opposition, we don’t think that subsidizing permits for dirt bikes and snowmobiles is necessarily a priority.

We, on the other hand, think it’s important to continue to eliminate the deficit and invest in our highways, roads and bridges, and that’s why fees must more closely reflect the actual cost of providing various services.

The increases that have been announced are still very significantly less than cost recovery, which the provincial auditor is telling us we should be moving towards. So they should be thanking us for going modestly. The people of Ontario are being well served by these modest increases, which will provide money for our budgets that will help keep our roads safe.

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Premier, in your letter to AMO President Gary McNamara six days before the budget, you promised more support for municipal infrastructure. I quote the Premier: “Ontario Liberals agree that there needs to be more predictability and accountability in our relationship with municipalities—and we are going to create a predictable and permanent fund specifically for municipal roads and bridges.”

Now we hear that the province is cutting infrastructure support. Which infrastructure projects is the government planning on cutting, and how many jobs will this cost communities?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: You know, I think I just answered a question from one of my colleagues about the good work that we’ve been doing building our relationships with municipalities—

Interjection: Uploading.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —and the uploading that we’ve been doing, taking those services, those costs, off the books of the municipalities, the towns and the communities and uploading them onto the provincial books: some $2.7 billion, and we continue to upload another $1.5 billion this year, 2012, of social costs coming onto the province’s books.

We have been very, very clear, and we have made huge investments in infrastructure. My colleague the Minister of Infrastructure may want to comment on this, but we’ve made more investments in infrastructure since we’ve been in office than in a generation.

We will continue to make those investments, but the reality is that the uploading that we’re doing gives municipalities more room to make these services available in their communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Mr. Speaker, a new casino built in downtown Toronto doesn’t count as a comprehensive infrastructure plan.

The Conference Board of Canada estimates that each dollar on infrastructure spending in Ontario adds $1.11 to the province’s real GDP. It’s a good way to create good jobs and boost long-term growth. In last year’s budget, the Premier promised infrastructure aimed at protecting 300,000 jobs. How many jobs will be lost from the government’s plan to cut infrastructure funding this year, and which communities will be finding it harder to pay for roads, bridges and transit systems come April 1?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m just going to take a look at some of the investments that we have made. Let’s look:

—Arnprior: upgraded water and pollution control centre—$5.3 million;

—Perth: revitalized Algonquin College local campus—$4.8 million;

—Norfolk county: rehabilitated County Road 42—$2.8 million;

—Grimsby: new west Niagara YMCA—$6 million;

—Pelham: reconstructed a two-kilometre stretch of Haist Street—$1.8 million;

—Milton: new arts and cultural centre library—$8.1 million;

—Sarnia: built Lambton College Fire and Emergency Response Training Centre—$4.9 million;

—East Ferris: East Ferris Community Centre—$1.2 million;

—Newmarket: revitalized Newmarket’s historic downtown—$2 million.

Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on. Add on top of that the $2.5 billion a year that we have invested in highways, roads and bridges—

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

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Constituents in my riding of Peterborough have been inquiring about the different programs that are available to help them increase their ability to find a good job. Most of them are adult learners who want to improve their literacy and numeracy skills so they can work toward their goal of a higher education and find a suitable job that will help them pay for their day-to-day expenses.

Speaker, these are hardworking Peterborough families. They are committed to supporting their families and communities. Our local economy thrives when these Ontarians have an education, a safe house and a good-paying job. In these uncertain times, our government needs to continue to help displaced workers and affected communities get back on their feet as soon as possible.

Speaker, through you to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities: How is the minister going to ensure that constituents in Peterborough riding have the basic skills training to qualify for better and rewarding—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank my friend from Peterborough for the question. In the 2011 Ontario budget, we added $44 million in literacy and basic skills programs over three years. This was a remarkable investment. Being mindful and being prudent with the public purse, we deliver this through 223 agencies at 341 sites. We use existing organizations, community-based service providers, colleges and school boards. This allows us to deliver programs without additional administrative costs and to deliver those programs in almost every small rural community across Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Leal: Through you, Speaker, thank you for that very comprehensive answer, and I will pass this information to my constituents in Peterborough on how they can access the government’s literacy and basic skills program to improve their reading and writing, math and basic work skills.

These programs help Ontarians learn what employers want in an employee, and help Ontarians identify those transferable skills that help them feel confident about themselves, which results in increasing their chances for re-entering the workforce.

Students in these kinds of programs will have an opportunity in classrooms to be a team player and feel more close with their class and their teachers. These students will return to the workforce with motivation and encouragement and passion. This will empower them to go the extra mile.

Speaker, through you to my friend the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities: How is the minister going to ensure that the federal government continues to invest in the program—

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: It’s interesting, because our partnership with school boards and with colleges and the not-for-profit sector continues, but we have lost our largest partner, the federal government.

My predecessor, the member from Kitchener, wrote two letters to Minister Finley, without an answer. I have also written Minister Finley and have not received an answer. We now know that the federal government is withdrawing all of its funding from these programs and will be leaving us on our own with our community partners.

Right now, we have about 63,000 Ontarians in literacy programs. We understand that basic literacy is not only important to jobs and to participation in the economy, but as one person said to me, “When I learned how to read, at age 52, I read my granddaughter a bedtime story for the first time.”

We know this is profoundly important to people’s family lives, and I want to thank my predecessor for his leadership—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I do remind all members to sit down when I ask you to.

New question.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Hanover Raceway is halfway to completion of a $9-million expansion project, the Carriage Hall convention and banquet centre. The Hanover, Bentinck and Brant Agricultural Society, owners of the raceway, had made this investment in consultation with the OLG, which is under your realm, Minister, and with certainty that funding from the slots-at-racetracks program would remain. With no warning, you ended the agreement and thus their ability to fund this project. As many as 220 jobs are now at stake. You’re decimating our local economy; you’re killing jobs.

Minister, will you immediately advise the Hanover, Bentinck and Brant Agricultural Society of your decision so that they can continue with this important community project and save rural jobs?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Given our current deficit situation, this government has to establish priorities. We have chosen to invest in full-day learning in your riding. We’ve chosen to hire more nurses in your riding. We’ve chosen to train more doctors who can practise in your riding. We had a full two-year—a full six-month consultation on this. We are no longer going to support the horse racing industry with $345 million a year.

A variety of groups were consulted—more than 50. It was well documented. As difficult as these choices are, our priority is with education, our priority is with health care and our priority is to get the budget balanced again. We simply cannot afford to subsidize the horse racing industry to that—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary? The member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Finance. My riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock and our neighbour riding of Peterborough have been hard hit by higher-than-average unemployment rates. The loss of Kawartha Downs would have a devastating impact on this part of Ontario, where hundreds of people would lose their jobs.

This uncertainty you’ve created is causing problems now. The breeding industry is falling apart now. Veterinarians are losing their jobs now. Grooms, drivers, trainers and farmers don’t know what their future will hold. I met a driver on the weekend who was turned down by his bank for a home mortgage because he was employed in the horse racing industry.

The member from Peterborough won’t ask the question, so I will: Will you assure the people of my riding, the people of Peterborough and across the province that you will reverse this ill-thought-out policy which has created uncertainty for a key industry in the communities across Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, we’ve announced portions of the land-based gaming review. We’ll have more to say about that as Paul Godfrey—members opposite will know Mr. Godfrey; he’s a well-known Ontarian, a supporter of their parties. We’ll have more to say about new investments, Mr. Speaker. I know the member from Peterborough has been working very hard on some of those investments.

I regret that you’re opposing this plan right now. I think you’ll probably regret that fairly soon, because what we’re doing is we’re creating 2,000 new jobs.

That party, who two weeks ago said you shouldn’t subsidize businesses, wants to keep subsidizing an industry with $345 million.

We’re fixing it. We’ll be making investments in rural—

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

HIGH-OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Taxis represent one component in a strategy to reduce traffic. They provide an alternative to taking one’s car. When used with other forms of transportation, they can ease congestion.

Taxi drivers have raised a concern that when they use high-occupancy vehicle lanes, they are able to use them when they have a passenger but when they don’t they often get stuck in traffic. My constituents have approached me, indicating the members of this government have committed to expanding HOV lanes to allow taxi drivers to use them. However, many of these promises were made on the eve of the election.

So my question to the minister is, through you, Speaker, will the minister actually commit to expanding the HOV lanes, allowing taxi drivers to use them and addressing the concerns of my constituents and taxi drivers across the GTA?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member for the question. Indeed, I have heard from representatives of the taxi industry, both in the GTA and in the Ottawa area. I have heard them out on a number of occasions. I have raised this issue with people in my ministry, and certainly, as we look at creating more HOV lanes across the province and looking at existing HOV lanes, there is serious consideration being given to that particular request.

I assure the taxi drivers and the taxi industry across the province that they are being given full attention by my ministry on this issue.

DEFERRED VOTES

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

Deferred vote 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): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1138 to 1143.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Take your seats, please. I would ask that the members take their seats, please.

The Sergeant-at-Arms is doing his job.

Thank you.

Madame Meilleur has moved second reading of 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. All those in favour of the motion please rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

Albanese, Laura

Armstrong, Teresa J.

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Balkissoon, Bas

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Berardinetti, Lorenzo

Best, Margarett

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Campbell, Sarah

Cansfield, Donna H.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Steve

Colle, Mike

Coteau, Michael

Crack, Grant

Craitor, Kim

Delaney, Bob

Dickson, Joe

DiNovo, Cheri

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Elliott, Christine

Fedeli, Victor

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Forster, Cindy

Gélinas, France

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael

Hillier, Randy

Horwath, Andrea

Hoskins, Eric

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Rod

Jaczek, Helena

Jeffrey, Linda

Jones, Sylvia

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Leal, Jeff

Leone, Rob

MacCharles, Tracy

MacLaren, Jack

MacLeod, Lisa

Mangat, Amrit

Mantha, Michael

Marchese, Rosario

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McDonell, Jim

McGuinty, Dalton

McKenna, Jane

McMeekin, Ted

McNaughton, Monte

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Miller, Paul

Milligan, Rob E.

Milloy, John

Moridi, Reza

Munro, Julia

Murray, Glen R.

Naqvi, Yasir

Natyshak, Taras

Nicholls, Rick

O’Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Pettapiece, Randy

Piruzza, Teresa

Prue, Michael

Qaadri, Shafiq

Sandals, Liz

Schein, Jonah

Scott, Laurie

Shurman, Peter

Singh, Jagmeet

Smith, Todd

Sorbara, Greg

Sousa, Charles

Tabuns, Peter

Takhar, Harinder S.

Taylor, Monique

Thompson, Lisa M.

Vanthof, John

Walker, Bill

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wong, Soo

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

Yurek, Jeff

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All those opposed?

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 99; the nays are 0.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I declare the motion carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Minister.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I would ask that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): So ordered.

There being no further business, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1148 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I’m delighted today to introduce representatives from the Ontario Co-operative Association, also known as On Co-Op. They are located in my wonderful riding of Guelph. In the gallery we have Mark Ventry, the new executive director—congratulations; and Peter Cameron. They will be holding a reception starting at 5 in rooms 228 and 230, and they would love to see everybody come and visit them. While you’re waiting for the 5:50 vote, you have something to do now.

Mr. Steve Clark: There’s been an Ottawa senator sighting here in the building today. Although he isn’t in the chamber right now, he was in this chamber for 29 years. My predecessor, now-Senator Bob Runciman, is here today with Todd Smith, the member for Prince Edward–Hastings.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

JOHN NEWMAN

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It is my privilege today to stand in honour of my constituent from Nepean–Carleton, John Newman of North Gower. On June 10, Mr. Newman will be inducted into the Ontario Agricultural Hall of Fame, a distinction that he is very deserving of.

John began to make his mark in farming when he and his lovely wife, Marion, purchased Jomar Farms in 1966. Just a year and a half ago, they celebrated a very important milestone. I actually caught them at a Michael Bublé concert and it was really nice to see. Of course, I was very excited to be there myself, because it was Michael Bublé.

Since then, their farm has been recognized for its excellence, including being recognized by both Kemptville college and the University of Guelph, which use their farm to teach students. John and Marion were further recognized with Master Feed awards for top stocker quality and an OSCIA certificate for soil management and crop production.

John has offered more than just excellent farming in Ontario and Canada. Through the years, Mr. Newman has also taken on extraordinary leadership and communication roles within the beef industry. He served for several years on the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association board and was integral in the process of restructuring the organization and implementing its new strategic plan.

In 2000, Mr. Newman became a founding director of the Canadian Cattle Identification Agency. When the BSE crisis hit the Canadian beef industry in 2003, Mr. Newman became a key spokesperson for Ontario beef. At that time, he became the chair of the Beef Information Centre, and his leadership over the next four years helped maintain Canadian consumers’ confidence in Ontario beef. For that I am so grateful, as we all are in this chamber.

I know John and his wife are watching at home. On behalf of this chamber, John, we want to say: We salute you. We’re proud of you. Thank you and congratulations.

AGNES MACPHAIL DAY

Mr. Michael Prue: Every year on March 24, the community of East York celebrates Agnes Macphail Day in honour of the first woman to be elected to the House of Commons in Ottawa and the first woman, also, to take her seat here in this Legislature.

This year will be the 19th anniversary of our celebration, and it will take place on March 24 between 7 and 9 o’clock at the East York Civic Centre. We will have wonderful entertainment from the East York Choir, now known as VOCA. The Agnes Macphail speaking contest winner, Haris Babar, will be giving her speech; she’s a grade seven student. There will be an address by Jane Gibson and Barry Penhale.

Of course, the highlight of the evening is the award presentation. This year’s winner is Alice Carriman. She is known in our community as the grandmother of Thorncliffe Park. She is a nurse, a mother, and throughout her entire life has spent time on education issues, health care, seniors and tenants.

Here are just a few of her accomplishments over the last number of years. She started the first breakfast club. She has planted gardens in the school courtyards. She crochets for homeless people. She started a Scrabble club to teach literacy to young people. She raises funds to subsidize field trips for those students who cannot go on them. She has after-school programs—the East York spelling bee was started by her. The tenants’ association, Neighbourhood Watch, intergenerational programs and Scouts Canada—all from one remarkable woman whom we will recognize and honour on the 24th.

NOWRUZ

Mr. Reza Moridi: Today is a very special day. Today is Nowruz. Nowruz is the celebration of the spring equinox and usually occurs on March 21 or the previous or following day, depending on where it is observed.

Nowruz is commonly perceived as the most Iranian of all celebrations. Nowruz is widely celebrated in various Asian countries. It’s also the official new year and the start of the calendar year in Iran, Azerbaijan and Afghanistan.

Mr. Speaker, Nowruz has been celebrated for at least 3,000 years and is deeply rooted in the traditions of the Zoroastrian belief system. The year 2012 marks 3,750 years since Asho Zarathushtra propounded his teachings to humanity. The core of his teachings, compiled in the Gathas, have brought us the earliest encouragements to strive for peace, social justice and the attainment of righteousness. These have been summarized in three phrases: good thoughts, good words and good deeds.

About 250,000 Ontarians from various ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds, such as Iranians, Afghans, Azeris, Kurds, Zoroastrians, Baha’is and Ismailis, celebrate Nowruz every year.

Nowruz is also the rebirth of nature and can easily be celebrated by all the people in the world. I wish all Ontarians a happy Nowruz. May this Nowruz bring harmony, peace and prosperity to everyone around the world.

Remarks in Persian.

FINES

Mr. John O’Toole: I rise to inform Ontarians that we have a problem in Ontario with unpaid fines, much like the Premier has a problem with spending. This government has ignored the issue to the tune of $1 billion each year. That’s right; according to the Ontario Association of Police Service Boards, unpaid fines already total over $1 billion. This number is growing each and every year.

Speaker, this problem undermines public safety, the rule of law and, in fact, accountability. It tells me that this government has chosen not to enforce the law. More tools and resources are needed for our local municipalities who administer much of the Provincial Offences Act. We need a proper information database so that one ministry of the government and another can cross-reference and make references to these fines. You would think in the 21st century, with computers and automation, that the government could get on with solving this problem. We need more carrots and more sticks.

Let’s give an example: Why not provide some incentives here, like a discount for fines that are paid early? Or double the costs of fines that are paid late? The government must work co-operatively with their partners and the municipalities and the police around the province to get the job done.

I put it to you this way: Unless the Liberal government sets out to solve this problem in some deliberate way, it is doing nothing more than downloading to our municipalities.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, next week, here in this chamber, we’ll be receiving the budget from the McGuinty government. All over Ontario, families are waiting to see if their child care centres will get the funding they need to survive. Failure on the part of this government to put in place a good transition plan for us to go into all-day kindergarten has meant financial crisis for many child care centres. We face the closure of those centres.

For many single pare