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

February 29, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Feb-29 (PDF)

L018 - Wed 29 Feb 2012 / Mer 29 fév 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 29 February 2012 Mercredi 29 février 2012

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SECURITY FOR COURTS, ELECTRICITY

GENERATING FACILITIES

AND NUCLEAR FACILITIES ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

DES TRIBUNAUX, DES CENTRALES

ÉLECTRIQUES ET DES INSTALLATIONS

NUCLÉAIRES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

TAXATION

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

CHILD CARE

HEALTH CARE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

WORKPLACE SAFETY

JUSTICE SYSTEM

LONG-TERM CARE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

AIR QUALITY

CORRECTION OF RECORD

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

GREEN POWER GENERATION

NEW CHOICES PROGRAM

AGINCOURT COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

TEMISKAMING NORDIC SKI CLUB

AUTO21

INTERNATIONAL RARE DISEASE DAY

NATIONAL BRAIN AWARENESS MONTH

BARRHAVEN FOOD CUPBOARD

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

PETITIONS

RURAL SCHOOLS

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

EDUCATION FUNDING

WIND TURBINES

DOG OWNERSHIP

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

KIDNEY DISEASE

LONG-TERM CARE

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

SKILLED TRADES

KIDNEY DISEASE

WIND TURBINES

DOG OWNERSHIP

OPPOSITION DAY

TAXATION

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SECURITY FOR COURTS, ELECTRICITY

GENERATING FACILITIES

AND NUCLEAR FACILITIES ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

DES TRIBUNAUX, DES CENTRALES

ÉLECTRIQUES ET DES INSTALLATIONS

NUCLÉAIRES

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 28, 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?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’m pleased to stand in my place and join the debate here this morning on Bill 34. I’m going to begin my remarks today by pointing out that we in the Progressive Conservative caucus, on this side of the House, will be supporting this legislation and supporting its passage on second reading.

Before the members on the government side all stand and rise in rapturous applause, I want to caution them: That could be the last good thing I have to say in this hour about them. There are going to be lots of good things, but I won’t be singing their praises about bringing forth this legislation, because we’re going to get down to the bare bones, Speaker, about why we’re here debating this legislation before the House today.

The Public Works Protection Act—it’s almost a tongue twister, I know—was passed in 1939. There are only a couple or a few, maybe, members of this Legislature who were even born in 1939, and only one could have actually understood what might have been going on in 1939. That’s how long ago it was, Mr. Speaker. We have to put it into context about what was going on in 1939.

In September of that year, Hitler’s Nazis invaded Poland, and there began the Second World War. As an ally of Poland and one that had an agreement with them, it brought Britain into the war; and as a member of the Commonwealth, that brought Canada into the war.

However, the United States was not compelled at that time to join the war. The Canadian government passed the War Measures Act, and the Ontario government of the time passed the Public Works Protection Act as a defence mechanism to ensure that they could protect their infrastructure at a time of war or possible terrorist attack, and particularly, I suppose, because the Americans were not in the war with them—although for all practical purposes we all know that the Americans were part of that war from day one and financed a great part of it, until the attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941.

But even before that, you may recall, Speaker, that the ship Reuben James, an American ship that had acted as a protector for supply convoys going across the Atlantic, was destroyed by a Nazi U-boat prior to Pearl Harbour, and the history of the day will tell you that Hitler was extremely upset at the time because he was trying not to do anything to inflame the emotions of the Americans and bring them into that war sooner.

I just want to talk a little bit about what it was like at the time. We understand why—

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I wasn’t around. The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure was pointing out that I wasn’t around. No, I wasn’t around. In fact, I wasn’t born for many years after that.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I was close to being conceived.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I wasn’t even close; my parents weren’t yet married. But my father was a veteran of that war.

We have to understand what the mindset of the day was. If you look at this House—of course, there’s no one in this House today who would have served in the Second World War or the Korean war, but in my dad’s day, when he served in this House from 1963 to 1987, it was populated with many folks who had served in either of those wars. When he got here, maybe there was a veteran here from the First World War; I don’t know.

It gives people a better understanding, I think; the members of the Houses in those days, too, had a more collegial understanding of one another, particularly members of the House who did serve in the wars, because they had a tremendously life-changing experience that none of us can pretend to know about, not having actually experienced it ourselves. We can read the history books and we can talk to those people who did participate in those great events—and I don’t say that in a positive way, just in the magnitude of them in our history.

I know that my dad never talked about the war. I only found out, actually, from my younger brother, who—obviously, there are some Yakabuskis out there who are pretty smart. He studied at the Sorbonne in Paris. I never made it there. But my dad went over to visit him one time—and he’s very fluently bilingual, in both Quebecois and Parisian French, I might say. My dad went over there to visit him one time, and that was the time that Mark found out that dad fought in the battle of Caen—huge battles after the invasion of Normandy, when the allies thought that Caen would be a natural same-day victory.

It turned out to be a mess for months that resulted in many, many casualties on both sides. But as I say, he never talked about the war. I never got this information from him; I only found out about it from my brother. I suppose it should give me reason to want to research my own father’s military record in a more extensive way, because I think it behooves us all to understand the sacrifices that people who went to war in those days—and still do; those who defend our interests across the world in Afghanistan and other theatres of war—we owe them a great debt of gratitude.

But for my own part, I think it would behoove me, on a personal basis, to have a full compilation of what my own father’s war record was, because I can tell you, I didn’t get much from him. A lot of people who fought in that war were not really into talking about it: It wasn’t a good time of their lives. It was a good time from the point of view that if they had to do it over again, I know each and every one of them would have stood up for their country and did it again. But it wasn’t all fun and games as we enjoy the good life today, partly and substantially, I should say, on the efforts of those who came before us.

So I’m putting it into context a little bit. I’ve actually heard more about my dad’s wartime from a couple of folks. When I was campaigning in my riding in the different elections, I’ve run into people who actually served in the military in the Second World War with my dad who are still living. One of them, Hayden Francis, I see quite often. In fact, I saw Hayden a couple of weeks back—90 years old and he has got to be chasing 91 if he hasn’t turned already—walking down the street in Pembroke as I was driving to my constituency office, looking spry and as sharp as ever.

I just had a brief conversation with Hayden, and he has always given me some recollections of his time with my dad in the war. One of the things they did when they came back, Hayden Francis and my dad, was they actually volunteered to go to Japan after the war with Germany had ended, while that battle was still raging.

Another gentleman, George Skerkowski—I saw George last week—served with Dad in the war as well. And where did I see George? George is a resident now of the Quail Creek retirement home in Renfrew. I was in there singing during the intersession time for the residents, and I had a chat with George. But I also saw George just last week at the funeral of Charlie Lemenchick in Renfrew, another World War II veteran who has now left this world to the next. Charlie, of course, was one of the great athletes in the town of Renfrew’s history, and we all knew him well.

I’ve been a good friend of the family for many, many years. We’re certainly going to miss Charlie, as Renfrew will for sure. But again, I had a chance to talk to George, who is also 90 years old and doing very, very well.

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’m just bringing into context what it was like in those days and why the Public Works Protection Act was a necessary thing at the time. It was a necessary piece of legislation. In fact, Speaker, you may be aware that—just the mindset of what Canada was like during those times, and particularly in the early part of the war. Everything was going Hitler’s way. I mean, he started the war on his terms, on his time. Quite frankly, because of the wishes of the rest of the world that war would not actually happen, we were not prepared.

We were not prepared for the onslaught of the blitzkrieg that the Nazis waged across Europe in the early part of the war. There was a tremendous fear that encapsulated all countries and Canada as well, because we were so aligned with our mother country, Britain.

In fact, in February 1942, in the city of Winnipeg, you may recall they had what they call a what-if day. I sometimes say, “What if I had won the lottery instead of getting elected here.” I think when I got elected here—

Hon. John Gerretsen: You did win the lottery.

Mr. John Yakabuski: —I did win the lottery. I thought the member for Kingston and the Islands and the Attorney General was actually snoozing over there. No way. He’s listening closely to what I have to say.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Take that back.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I take it back. But yes, I did win the lottery when I got elected here, absolutely. And I almost got to that, but he was quicker than me.

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: No, that’s the real lottery. Yeah, you’re right, Jim.

Anyway, what-if day: In Winnipeg, on February 19, 1942, they had what they called a what-if day—you know how we do this; it’s actually very beneficial. You’ll see a hospital do a mock disaster, or the emergency response partners in a community—the paramedics, the hospitals, the police, the fire—will have a mock disaster, just so they can find out how their response people will perform in a simulated situation.

The reality is that we don’t really want these disasters to happen, but the only way we can test ourselves is if we—it’s hard to create a terrible situation in real life, because that’s not what we want to see. So they have these mock disasters, and it’s a great opportunity, in a simulated way, to see how our first responders conduct themselves and perform under pressure.

So on February 19, 1942, in the city of Winnipeg, they had a what-if day. And the “what if” was, what if the Nazis invaded?

Does everybody remember Orson Welles and the War of the Worlds, and what a panic went on across North America when that was aired? It was Halloween night, I believe, 1930-something—somebody can help me here. Halloween night, 1930-something. Maybe the member from Peterborough might remember. It just caused a great panic as it was broadcast over the airwaves of radio at that time.

So what-if day was, what if the Nazis invaded? People were being interned and were being arrested, and it was quite scary.

But the reason behind it was to get people to buy war bonds. In February 1942, the war had not yet turned. It had not yet turned. Hitler was still winning the war. They were beginning to show some cracks, but he was still winning the war. So that was to try to encourage people to buy war bonds so that the war effort could be supported, because you can’t win a war without money. It takes machines, it takes supplies, it takes munitions, and we were fighting a war halfway across the world. So it was very important to raise money.

That’s my context, Mr. Speaker, on what it was like. That’s my what-if day, 1939.

Now I’m going to get to the why, because that’s the question everybody asks when it comes to the handling of the G20 summit here in Toronto and the way—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Could the member from Durham take it down a couple of notches? I’m having trouble hearing the speaker. Thank you.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. That gives me a moment to have a pause—the pause that refreshes, as they say.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: And only 43 minutes left to go.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes.

Let’s get back to the order of the day, as they say. What is the mindset and what is the thinking that’s going on, or was going on, over there, and a little bit over here at that time, because we still had a government rump on this side of the House. The election of 2011 has taken care of the rump. We’re going after the shoulders and the arms in the next one. So the rump is gone. We’ve got a few more parts of the anatomy that we’ve got to take care of in the next go-round.

You have to ask yourself, what was the thinking of these people over there?

I heard the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services say yesterday that the police requested this, or something to that effect. I’ll paraphrase; I don’t have the quote in front of me: The police requested this. Well, I’m going to bet you dollars to doughnuts that Bill Blair and the Toronto police commission, or whoever she refers to when she uses the term “police,” did not request the enactment of a regulation under the Public Works Protection Act.

What the police may have asked for, Speaker, and rightfully so, is that we’ve got a major international event going on in this city that will be attended by the leaders of some of the most prosperous and successful and influential countries of the world—would we like to be able to ensure order? If I’m a police officer, if I’m the chief of police, if I’m the mayor of Toronto, you betcha, I want to ensure order. That’s important. We are a leading democracy in this world. We have to set an example and show an example that in this country we can have and do have and will have law and order—absolutely important.

However, the minister is trying to somehow—these folks over here have been here so long they’re almost like royalty. I call them the barons of blame, because they are never at fault. It is always someone else’s fault.

I see folks over here—my friend from Beaches–East York has been here a lot longer than me. He has seen it all.

Interjection: How long?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, I can’t tell you. I think 1998 or so.

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, 2001. He was the last mayor of East York. They’re going to do a—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): We seem to be taking it up a couple of decibels over here. I’d appreciate it if we cut it back. And I’d ask the member from Renfrew to speak through the Chair and not to the other members. Thank you.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you, Speaker. Honestly, I thought I was speaking through the Chair, but I may have lost myself for a moment.

What I was only referring to is, of course, the record of the former mayor from East York and—what was that show? Al Waxman was in it, King of Kensington—I have to wander around sometimes, keep my feet moving, Speaker, because if I stand in one place too long, sometimes I lose my balance and topple over. What was that show? King of Kensington? Al Waxman?

Interjection: Yes.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I think there’s going to be a sitcom someday called “The Last Mayor of East York.” I see it coming. Look, Hal Linden could have played you, but that’s another matter altogether.

We really need to stick to the matter at hand, and that is the absolute failure of this government when it came to managing its business in the interests of the people and democracy when it invoked regulation 233/10. Remember that one, Speaker: 233/10. That was the regulation that was done behind the closed doors of cabinet. I should say that more like—we should have Rod Serling here: behind the closed doors of cabinet.

It happened while this body, this Legislature that is elected on behalf of the people of Ontario, was sitting. It was sitting. It did not happen during a recess. It didn’t happen when there were bombs coming over. There was no emergency. There was a request on the part of the police to give them some assistance in ensuring that they could provide law and order during the summit. That was it. There was no imminent threat. This body—and you, Speaker, were here as a member of this body. You remember it well. We were here, prepared to stand on behalf of the people of Ontario.

We were here, prepared to debate any legislation brought before us. We were denied. We were denied, as the elected body, and 13 million Ontarians were denied. Why?

I’m going to be coming back, but you know, it just gets so upsetting sometimes, Speaker, I have to just shift a little bit.

But it’s kind of the way these folks operate. I’m getting nods. The heads are bowed over there. When you don’t want to hear about something, you put your head down. When you don’t want to respond to it, you put your head down. Like the young boy Johnny—it’s always Johnny. Have you ever noticed that, Speaker? When they’re making an example of the boy who has got in trouble, it’s always Johnny. Sometimes I wonder about that. I asked my dad sometimes, “Why Johnny?”

But have you ever noticed how Johnny knows he has been caught in the act? This is not a prop, Mr. Speaker. This is the report of the Ontario Ombudsman to this Legislature. Johnny got caught—no, it doesn’t say Johnny got caught in the act. It just says Caught in the Act. Well, you know, when Johnny gets caught in the act, his head goes down, and he doesn’t really know what to say. But you know what I’ve always found about Johnny? And I’ve been that Johnny on more than one occasion. I accept the blame. I know I’ve been caught. But I do better than just saying, “I’m not going to do it again.” I actually accept the punishment.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: He does the honourable thing.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I do the honourable thing. Has the honourable thing happened over there? “No,” they say. And you know why? Because, technically, nobody got fired over it.

Although, I may point out, Mr. Speaker, that on August 18, 2010—my daughter’s 21st birthday, by the way, a beautiful girl. Must be like her mother; I know.

Mr. Jeff Leal: You didn’t give me a chance to say that.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yeah, I know. I saw it coming, there, to the member from Peterborough. I saw it coming.

I’d fully admit that all of the best qualities that my children have inherited have come from their mother, my beautiful wife, Vicky.

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, she is just a saint of a person, as she would have to be, to be married to me. I know. I understand that.

On August 18, 2010, the former Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, in a very quiet cabinet shuffle, got shoistered out of his ministry, and the then Minister of the Environment, the member for St. Catharines, Mr. Bradley, became the minister.

They were under terrible pressure, because they’d messed it up so bad. The minister should have been fired, just as—and I’m going to just detour a little bit, but I am coming back, Speaker; I am coming back. How can we stand in this Legislature and be proud—on the government side, how can they be proud of what they’re doing when, each and every day, the scandal and the mess at Ornge grows deeper and more troubling to every single citizen of this province who has any objective view of anything?

When they read the horror stories about the stealing—that’s what it is—stealing by people at Ornge. It’s the taxpayers’ money. Unaccounted, $25 million—that’s just the unaccounted. We didn’t say the other $250 million was spent right. It’s a mess. But $25 million isn’t even accounted for. Think about that: $25 million is missing, and the minister stands up and she defends the people at Ornge.

We’re not talking about the front-line people. We’re not talking about the people who actually go there to assist that individual who is in trouble, whose health is threatened, whose life very well may be threatened. We’re not talking about them; we’re talking the people who are calling the shots. We’re talking about the people who manage that cesspool, because that’s what it’s become.

Mr. Michael Prue: Mismanaged it.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Mismanaged it; thank you very much. Their title is management; what they’re doing is a joke, and it’s a blight on this province. It’s a blight on this government, but every day the minister stands in her place and refuses to accept responsibility.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I would ask the member to return to the issue at hand. He seems to have stretched it a little bit. So if you could get back to what we’re debating, I’d appreciate it.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. You know me; I abide absolutely with your guidance, as you have been always kind to give it to me when I’m in need of it.

But I also, when I think of staying to the topic, I think—and I want to beg your indulgence on this one, Speaker—I am very much to the topic, because the reason we are here today is not because the government has enacted Bill 34, which will repeal the Public Works Protection Act. It is very much because—do you think we’d be here today repealing this act that was passed in 1939 if it wasn’t for what happened in June 2010? Of course we wouldn’t. Do you think some bureaucrat found this under a desk or behind an old Gestetner in one of the offices of one of the ministers, and said, “Oh, my goodness gracious, you know what? We have

an act here that was passed in 1939. This is a pressing piece of business for the government. We better write a new act. We better update this. Holy frijole, I’m glad I happened to be cleaning.”

No. That’s not why we’re here, Speaker. We’re here because they were caught in the act. That’s why we’re here. We’re not here because the government thought, “Oh, it’s a good time to review our legislation.” No, no, no. And what I’m trying to point out—and we have limited opportunity in this House, Speaker—is to talk about the mindset of those folks on the other side of the House, and particularly those people who sit in the cabinet, because everyone knows that’s where the real business is going on. Here, this is just practice; it’s just like training camp. But the real business is going on in the cabinet, and I see members of the cabinet over there. They don’t want to talk about it.

I have some notes here, and I’m going to start to refer to them. One thing about it is, we reached some times where we were—thank you very much. Oh, yes; okay. I just received a note because sometimes it is important to have the names.

So when this decision was made to pass, as I said—because you know me; I’m sticking to the issue. Doggedly, if I say so myself. I’m just looking for the date here, but the date of the passage of 233 is not absolutely important at this moment. But it is important to know that we were sitting as a Legislature. Not all my friends who are here now were here, but many of them were. A lot of the ones over there were. Some of them were in cabinet. Some of them may have been in this meeting that decided to circumvent, as André Marin said, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the invoking of regulation 233/10. Remember that number: 233/10.

Thank you very much, Marium. Marium, your name is in Hansard on the very day that I think we’re going to get to the bottom of this.

The whole cabinet was at the table for the passing of the regulation. Also at the table were the members for Peterborough, Ottawa Centre, Ottawa–Orléans, Mississauga–Streetsville, Willowdale, Bramalea–Gore–Malton, Ajax–Pickering and Algoma–Manitoulin. They all had seats at the table when this secret regulation, this G20 law, was stamped. So why didn’t one of them speak up? While it was becoming apparent that this was a sad event when the events of G20 were taking place, it’s interesting from July 9 to 26 when all of this was falling down like—I was going to say like rain, but no, it was like hail, or maybe I should say “hell.”

The Premier was on vacation—nowhere to be seen July 9 to 26. He’s the only groundhog that hibernates in the summertime.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Speaker, come on.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Renfrew might want to retract the “groundhog” comment.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Withdrawn, Speaker.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Just while we’re still in the month of Wiarton Willie, I just thought that I wanted to make some reference to an iconic symbol up in the Bruce Peninsula, Wiarton Willie. As you know, February 2 is Groundhog Day, and nothing personal was intended by that, Speaker, of course.

Let’s talk a little bit about André Marin. We all know André Marin.

Interjection: Great guy.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Good guy.

Mr. John Yakabuski: He’s the Ombudsman. Over there, they’re saying “great guy,” “good guy.” Well, I’m going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I was there when the debate was going on.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Speaker, he should be addressing you.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I am addressing the Speaker. I was there when the debate was going on. Those folks over there wanted to get rid of André Marin so bad, they were salivating at the opportunity. I was in some of those meetings.

Mr. Jeff Leal: We reappointed him.

Mr. John Yakabuski: They reappointed him because there was only one reason: because we were not going to let them get away with it. We were not going to let them get away with it. They wanted to dump Marin, who has been an unbelievably dogged Ombudsman.

You know, it’s interesting, Mr. Bradley said this about the Ombudsman’s report. It’s in here somewhere. Oh, yes.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Very thoughtful comments.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Oh, it was thoughtful, all right, but it was somewhat incomplete.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I’d better get Jim. He’s in the back.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yeah, bring him in. I’d love to hear from him.

“Hon. James J. Bradley: I would first of all note that the Ombudsman has stated in this report that the regulation, as passed by the government, had a ‘laudable purpose.’ The regulation had the purpose of ‘protecting participants ... either from terrorist enemies or from protestors.’” Those are the words of the Ombudsman, Hansard, December 8, 2010. This was after his report.

Well, one thing about André Marin, he is extremely thorough. He’s a fair man and he will say something nice about this government, even if it only uses up one paragraph on one page of a gazillion-page report here. It looks like about 120 pages. But let me read some of the other things that André Marin said in his report. You know the report I’m talking about: the report that was called Caught in the Act. That doesn’t sound like the title would lead you to believe that he’s going to be praising the government, does it, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Rob Leone: Can you judge a book by its cover, Yak?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Pardon me? Oh, yeah.

“Regulation 233/10, passed”—this is his executive

summary—“to enhance security during the G20 summit, should never have been enacted.” We all know the meaning of that word, “never,” eh? “It was likely unconstitutional. The effect of regulation 233/10, now expired, was to infringe on freedom of expression in ways that do not seem justifiable in a free and democratic society. Specifically, the passage of the regulation triggered the extravagant police authority found in the Public Works Protection Act, including the power to arbitrarily arrest and detain people and to engage in unreasonable searches and seizures.

Even apart from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the legality of regulation 233/10 is doubtful. The Public Works Protection Act under which it was proclaimed authorizes regulations to be created to protect infrastructure, not to provide security to people during events. Regulation 233/10 was therefore probably invalid for having exceeded the authority of the enactment under which it was passed. These problems should have been apparent”—should have been apparent.

I asked you about the word “never”; you understand the meaning of “never.” Certainly you also understand the word “apparent.” It shouldn’t have been difficult to understand.

“And given the tremendous power regulation 233/10 conferred on the police, sober and considered reflection should have been given to whether it was appropriate to arm officers with such authority. This was not done. The decision of”—the decision of, I repeat, so we all know who’s at fault here—“the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services to sponsor the regulation was unreasonable.” That is paragraph or

section 1, or whatever we want to call it, of the executive

summary. It goes on to well over 122, 123, and each and every one of them is a scathing indictment of this government.

Number 9: Well, it goes more about the history, which I’ve talked about.

Number 10: “In fact, regulation 233/10 was of doubtful constitutional validity. By creating security zones to bar entry and by authorizing arrest, it imposed definite limits on freedom of expression. It was therefore in prima facie violation of the charter as a matter of law, likely in ways that are not constitutionally justifiable. Regulation 233/10 worked to trip the powers of the Public Works Protection Act, thereby enabling the arrest and muting of protesters and others who had done nothing wrong.

The impact of regulation 233/10 on freedom of expression was therefore almost certainly disproportionate.” We know the understanding and meaning of that word, too: “disproportionate.” “The government should have been wary of relying on a statute of doubtful constitutional validity in preference to dealing openly”—openly—“with the matter in the Legislature.”

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Could the members on the government side take their discussion outside? It’s getting a little loud over there. Thank you.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: Not any louder than you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I don’t need any additional comments. Thank you.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Speaker, am I being too loud for them over there? I heard a comment that I’m being too loud.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Well, I do believe you have the floor.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I thought I did. Are we putting a volume control in this place, now? Because you know, I try to speak softly and they don’t listen. I raise the volume and they don’t listen. I shout and they don’t listen. Maybe I will speak softly, because at least when I speak softly, tomorrow I’ll probably be able to speak. Today I might wear myself out.

But it gets so frustrating, Speaker. You know, you have to ask yourself: They hear what I’m saying, regardless of the volume, because I understand these little gadgets here. If I speak quietly, it sounds the same. They still hear me. If you’re watching on television, it’s technology. I could be just barely whispering, and on the television, we all sound the same. We all sound the same. But I’ll tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker: We might sound the same on the television, but we ain’t saying the same thing, whether we’re on the television or whether we’re in here.

I want to go back because I was—and you did the right thing, and I thank you for that, for quieting down that protest over there. But I want to go back to the final sentence of number 10 here in the executive

summary: “The government should have been wary of relying on a statute of doubtful constitutional validity in preference”—which means, of course, that they would rather do it that way than do it this way—“to dealing openly with the matter in the Legislature.” Right here, that’s where we are.

Listen, they can try to talk their way out of this thing a thousand ways to Sunday. There is no getting out of this. Are they enacting the legislation that was asked for by the Ombudsman? Yes. Are they following the recommendations of the McMurtry report? Yes. Sorry, the McMurtry report asked for the legislation; the Ombudsman’s recommendations are a little different, but they are abiding by them. Why? Because they were caught in the act. But where’s the penalty? Who has paid the price? Who has paid the price?

And then they—oh, this is a good one here. The minister’s response, oh, that contrite minister—where was that? I’ve got it here somewhere, Speaker. Oh, yes. The minister’s response: On November 1, 2010, the minister responded, agreeing that, “The ministry could have, and should have, handled the enactment of regulation 233/10 better” and noting that in future it would “take greater care to ensure that the Ontario public is given more adequate notice of regulation changes of this nature.”

God, if I had a dollar for every criminal who went to jail and said he was sorry, eh? But you know what, Mr. Speaker? They went to jail.

No jail, no time in the penalty box, no firing. Why? Because that is the mindset of McGuinty: Hide it, run, go on vacation, hope it goes away, and invent something yourself. Invent something to change the channel: a new story, smokescreens, cover-ups—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Two comments: You might want to withdraw that one part of that statement.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Withdrawn.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. And the other one: I will remind members that when they come into this chamber, they are to acknowledge the Chair when they come and go. I saw three members in a row just walk directly to their seats—unacceptable. Thank you.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You know, when our kids were young, and they were heading outside, and it was cold and windy, we always reminded them to cover up.

So what did go on over there? Why was this Legislature shut out? And by extension, the people of Ontario were shut out. It’s the disrespect shown to the people of Ontario.

I’m not worried what they think of me over there, Speaker. I know my honourable colleagues are not worried what the Premier thinks of them personally. But they’re here for a reason: to represent the good people of their ridings. So when you disrespect the members, you disrespect the people they represent. That’s got to stop.

But it’s always looking for a scapegoat. The Premier was out looking for scapegoats yesterday. You know, Mr. Speaker, we are in one heck of a mess here in this province.

Mr. Rob Leone: It’s terrible.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s a terrible mess, and so much of it has been brought on by the economic decisions of this government.

So yesterday—the Premier is now blaming Ontario’s mess on Alberta’s success. It’s always somebody else. When it was the G20, you know, “The police wanted this.” The police didn’t ask for this specifically. They asked for some help, and this is what they gave them.

There’s an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen. I have it in my notes here somewhere, but you know me; I’ll never find it. But here is the McGuinty formula for righting the Ontario economy: “Could we just get Canada to devalue our dollar? And everything will be fine.” That’s the economic policy of this Premier: Let’s devalue the dollar, and everything will be fine. And he blames the devalued dollar on Alberta’s success with oil extraction from the oil sands. This is how this mind thinks: “Let’s damn Alberta and hope that Ontario prospers.”

Do you know that there are far more jobs being created in Ontario as a result of the economic boom in Alberta than there ever will be with his green energy jobs, ever? And I’ll tell you one thing: Those jobs being created in Alberta? They don’t cost us jobs, unlike high hydro rates that cost us jobs. And what drives up hydro rates more than expensive energy experiments?

So this is his answer now, because you see, he’s so deeply aligned and there’s been so much—oh, there have been some favours too. Let’s face it, Mr. Speaker. “You scratch my back; I scratch yours. We have a fundraiser on such-and-such a day. Nice to see you there. Bring your chequebook”—

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Only $5,000.

Mr. John Yakabuski: —“$5,000 a head. Come and see the Premier. He’s going to pop up that day.” He’s like Whac-A-Mole: There he is; there he’s not. Today, the Premier shows his face, because there’s money on the table. Boink—gone.

So there’s a lot of money at stake. There’s a lot of money at stake in his Green Energy Act and his exorbitant FIT program, so he wants to make sure his friends are happy. So what does he do? He condemns the province of Alberta.

You know, when things are going on, when things are booming in Alberta, the manufacturing sector of Ontario benefits. In fact, there was a small positive blip in manufacturing last month, and you know what it’s due to? The Alberta economy. Their demands on our manufacturing have increased. But he is so myopic and so unbelievably—it’s just this is his way that he thinks, and that’s it. It doesn’t matter what’s right or wrong anymore. That he must condemn—he’s, like, killing the goose that lays the golden eggs because it doesn’t fit with his political philosophy. It doesn’t match his plans for his legacy.

This is what’s going on: Let’s dump on Alberta because we’re hurting. Man, oh, man; it’s so sad. It’s so sad.

I’ll tell you, the Ontario of old would never have stooped to that kind of rhetoric. It would have pulled itself up by the bootstraps. It would have enacted policies that bring this economy on the upswing. It would have done some things that make sure that this economy would continue to lead. It wouldn’t go whining. You know what they called him in the Ottawa Citizen? “The whiner of Confederation.” That’s what they called him, because now it’s, “Oh, look at me in Ontario. It’s not going good. It must be your fault.”

There are so many forces at play that have driven the Canadian dollar up. Number one is the weakness of the American dollar. Every dollar’s tied—did you ever notice that every currency in the world is pegged relative to the American dollar? They’re not pegged to one another. The value of every currency is pegged to the American dollar, so the weakness in the American dollar has caused our dollar to rise.

But you know what? I haven’t seen them in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Manitoba, British Columbia or anywhere else crying about Alberta. But that’s what we’ve sunk to here in Ontario under the leadership of this Premier, Dalton McGuinty. That’s what we’ve sunk to. It’s an embarrassment.

I know that I’m not speaking to the bill here, Speaker, and I know you’re giving me that eye. You know me; I always get back to the bill.

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: He never cried about Alberta’s success.

Mr. Jeff Leal: He criticized that budget.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Order. The member from Peterborough.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The member for Peterborough, he was one of those guys at the table. I think I read his name in there. The member for Peterborough was at that cabinet meeting. He’s sitting here in the House and he’s worried about what I’m saying about Alberta? Your mouth was shut. His mouth was shut when they passed 233/10. He should have opened his mouth then.

Mr. Jeff Leal: We just want to make sure the record’s right here.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): This will be my last warning to the member from Peterborough. Thank you.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I do have much to get in here yet and I’m running out of time. Unless there’s unanimous consent to allow me to go on, my time is going to run out here shortly.

You know me. I don’t take this place personally. I like the member for Peterborough, but if he’s going to sit there and be critical, then I think it’s time for him—we’re going to have questions and comments after this. You know how this place works, folks. After I speak, we have questions and comments. The member for Peterborough will have two minutes to stand up and make questions and comments.

This is on Bill 34. This is about 233/10. I stand here and I admonish him and I ask him: Stand in your place and you tell me and you tell 100,000 people in Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and you tell 13 million people in Ontario why you never said a word when you were there in the passing of that regulation. You want to stand up and talk about this bill? Say why you never said a word. There’s your opportunity.

Mr. Phil McNeely: This is bullying.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member for Orléans.

Mr. John Yakabuski: So, Mr. Speaker, let’s get back to the meat of the matter. It will always be what we need to talk about when we’re talking about this piece of legislation. Do you really think the backbench MPPs, those who weren’t at the meeting as members of the Management Board of Cabinet—do you think the backbench members of the Liberal government would have agreed to this? I say no.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: The member for Kingston and the Islands.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, he was there. Be careful.

They would not have because they would have looked at this and they would have asked themselves: “How can we, as members of this Legislature—we’re the defenders of democracy. That’s why we’re here. We’re here to speak for the people. How could we possibly support what they did?”

And I know that the members on this side of the House and my friends in the third party—by the way, there’s nine more members of the third party. Is it nine new members of the third party? That should say something to the government on the other side. There are 16 new members in our party and there are nine new members in the third party.

But even in 2010, I am absolutely certain that the members of the third party would not have supported this. And I guarantee you that the members of this party would not have supported it. So the government the way it is, the way it whips its members, the way they’re given their speaking notes and told what to say, the way they have no freedom—they walk into this House and it’s like they slip the disk in the back and that’s their comments for the day, because they’re told exactly what to do by the cabinet.

So it probably still would have passed. But you know what? No, it wouldn’t have passed, because then the light of day would have been shone on it. Then the press—even though the press likes those guys, they don’t like what they did there—would have said no. The people who represent people in this province who don’t sit here would have stood up and said no. The legal community would have said no.

I have a thing from a lawyer here—comments from a lawyer. Boy, she just ripped them on it. But I am running out of time. I can’t believe how fast the time goes. Have you sped up the clock here? Anyway, members of the legal community would have gone AWOL. They would have gone—what’s that word they use now with this YouTube stuff? Viral. It would have gone viral. It would not have passed.

So my question is, if you believe that something would not pass the judgment of the people in front of the door, why would you pass it behind the door? If it was wrong behind the door, it’s wrong in front of the door, behind the door, beside the door, and it’s wrong in the basement.

This never should have happened. It is an absolutely disgrace. The Ombudsman’s report is an indictment of this government. Resignations should have taken place. It is not good enough to have a report months later that says we should have done better. People need to pay the price. The people of Ontario deserve better.

Now, I’ve got to calm down before I get a call from my cardiologist. You know, holy jumping. But, you know, it’s hard. Listen, I look at the faces over there, and they’re people I chat with at lunch and I meet them in the hall. They’re good people. Why did you let yourselves get led down the garden path by your leadership? Why did you do it? I just don’t understand it.

We can do better. We are better. We can do better; we must do better; we will do better. Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: I rise to commend the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. He, for an hour, kept us all captivated. He started out by giving a historical analysis—which, I must admit, I was wondering why he was talking about the Second World War, about the sacrifices, about Hitler marching into Poland and everything else. But he drew it all together. He drew it all together when he started to talk about this legislation and why it’s before this House. And he’s absolutely right: It is before this House because the cabinet was culpable.

The cabinet and the hangers-on who sat around that table could have stood up for the civil liberties of the people of Ontario, but did not. The cabinet and the hangers-on could have done the right thing, but they did not voice it. They kept it secret.

This member is absolutely right when he talks about the place for this to have been debated was in the Legislature. It was not, and the people of Ontario and the people in this Legislature had no idea what was going to happen. We know that hundreds and hundreds of people were arrested. We know that for almost all of them, the charges have been dismissed. We know what Roy McMurtry and what the Ombudsman had to say and everything else. And you know, there it is: What he said was true.

I listened to him with great intent. I have to tell you that he gave a glimmer of hope to the people of Toronto as well when he talked about the amalgamation, when he talked about maybe one day giving us back our city, when he talked about maybe undoing what was wrong and getting East York back, as well as, I’m sure, York, Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke as well. So I thank him for his speech and for his contribution to this debate.

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

Hon. John Gerretsen: It’s always very entertaining to listen to the member from Renfrew, and he sure wakes everybody up first thing in the morning.

But you know, Speaker, we know that the situation, the way it developed in that particular summer, leaves a lot to be desired. As a result of that, a number of reports were done and a number of recommendations were made by the Ombudsman and by Mr. McMurtry. It’s as a result of that that changes are being made. We’re taking an old law that was passed many, many years ago, before the Second World War, and we’re modernizing it.

If you look at the law itself—it’s amazing how he didn’t really talk about the act that is being implemented here. We think it’s extremely important, I’m sure they would agree as well, that our courtrooms, our court facilities and our nuclear facilities are as secure as they possibly can be: courtrooms because our whole democratic system of justice depends on that, and nuclear facilities obviously speak to the tremendous dangers that are there if they are not adequately protected.

You know, I listened with great interest and with some humour to what he had to say about a whole variety of things, and the one thing I always come back to is that each and every one of us is elected here from our own constituency, and we all bring something new to the table here. I listened with great interest to a lot of the maiden speeches this year and the enthusiasm that people have about what they want to bring to this place. They’re going to succeed in some places, and they’re not going to succeed in other places.

But the reality is, we all bring the best of intentions and goodwill to this place to make sure that Ontario remains the great place that it is, with the great quality of life that we all enjoy.

Speaker, this bill is required. We need to modernize it, and it’s all about making those facilities that we depend on more secure.

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

Mr. Rob Leone: I am pleased to stand here. I actually was watching the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke in my office, and I thought I can’t, for the life of me, miss this. This is the greatest entertainment that I think Ontario has seen in a long, long time. He spoke passionately, he was animated, and he was right, I think, for the most part.

Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that I want to address the bill for a moment. I was a university professor during the G20 summit, when that happened. Certainly, a lot of students had a lot of concerns about the security and the overuse of power, and they questioned the legitimacy. I was teaching a political science class on the legitimate use of power that governments have, and a lot of my students were talking about a very current event at the time. I was at McMaster teaching the course. The one thing that they struggled with was this question of legitimacy and legitimate use of power.

So I’m wondering if, in the two minutes that the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke has when he replies to our questions and comments, he could touch on some of the aspects of what he considers and how he would define the legitimate use of power, or the lack of the legitimacy in this case, on the part of that government. It’s certainly something that a lot of students were concerned about at the time, and certainly a lot of citizens in the province of Ontario have a lot of concern for it as well.

I hope the member, in his two minutes of closing, can touch on those points, because I think the legitimate use of power and the question of legitimacy on that is a very important question that hasn’t been addressed yet.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I want to thank the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for his intervention this morning, his entertainment. Might I suggest that after his career in this place, he consider becoming a professional entertainer in the comedy realm? He’s so funny. I would suggest the name of your facility could be Yak Yak’s, and I’ll invest in it. It will be tremendous.

But, aside from the humour, he brings up so many relevant points—the historical perspective. He talks about his family and how his wife is a saint and has to be to put up with him, and that’s of course how we all feel.

One of the things that I picked up on in his comments the most was the what-if scenario that played out in Manitoba, I believe he had said. It conjures up some ideas about what if the Liberals, what if the government had done the right thing when it came to protecting citizens and protecting civil liberties? What if they had not gone behind closed doors, had not gone under a cloak of secrecy, to ensure that the laws were transparent, to ensure that those who were enforcing security understood their responsibilities, were not given a free rein to abuse, or actually understood the parameters of this bill?

I think there was a lot of miscommunication, and I think it may have been actually designed that way. It was chaotic, undoubtedly, and put a black mark and a stain on this city and this province. It is hopeful that this bill will remedy some of the effects.

I want to thank the member again for shining a whole lot of light on this subject, and I appreciate his comments this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke has two minutes to respond.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank the member for Beaches–East York, the Attorney General, the member for Cambridge and the member for Essex for their comments. I noticed the member for Cambridge was asking me—he must think I’m the minister; he was asking me a question.

One thing I will say about the Ombudsman report—that he did question as to why this law would have been needed at all to protect the perimeter. The Public Works Protection Act, the original design of it and the reason, was to protect infrastructure. It wasn’t about crowd control. It wasn’t about protests. It was about protecting infrastructure under the possibility of attack. The Ombudsman questioned—and I won’t find it here in my two minutes—the appropriateness of actually invoking a regulation under this act for this purpose.

There’s enough legislation in place today, without having invoked this act, to have given the authorities the necessary tools to work with. They may have had to enforce it in a more stringent way. But the fact of this five-metre—it was never really part of what the act was intended to do, and that was controlling the activities of your own citizens.

Again, the question is the judgment of the government, as to why they would have gone down that road when there were more appropriate statutes on the books—and still are. This hasn’t changed anything. What the new bill has done is changed the parameters of which they can invoke this act. It’s more restricted, but it doesn’t change the fact that the government still has and had the power to control people.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Being close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Happy Pink Shirt Day. I see all of our colleagues are in the spirit today. It’s great to be here. It’s obviously a big bullying day, but it’s really great to have a lot of Ontario principals in attendance here today in the gallery.

On behalf of all members of the assembly, I’d like to recognize the following members of the Ontario Principals’ Council who are joining us today: of course, our principal in name and our Speaker, Mr. Levac, you were a principal; Vicki Shannon is here today; John Hamilton; Anne Presley; Richard Pincombe; Sharon Bowes; and Laura Hyde. They are here today to meet with members of the assembly as Ontario principals.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’d like to welcome Michele Gallant, who’s visiting here from Halifax today, and to also acknowledge all of the Ontario principals who are here today to meet with us to talk about the important issues in education.

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, I’d like to welcome two young people to the Legislature today, both grade 12 students at Newmarket High School: Kelsey Chisamore Johnston and her friend Connor Buott. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Michael Coteau: I’d like to welcome Gwen Chapman and the Canadian Black Caucus, who are here today for their annual Inspiring Youth political Black History Month event.

I wish to recognize some of the schools that are participating here at the Legislative Assembly today: C.E. Webster public school, Westview Centennial Secondary, Shiloh Christian Institute and the Crawford Adventist Academy.

The event is sponsored by Dr. Anthony Sterling, Scotiabank, Diners Corner, the ONE Initiative and Lawrence Kerr Photography. The event today is being held in room 230, but the students will be walking around the Legislative Assembly. I invite all members to say hello and visit room 230 to wish them all the best.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Please join me in welcoming Donna and Jeremy Williams, who are here to monitor their son, Patrick, who is the page captain today.

Mr. John O’Toole: I would like to welcome the students from Greenbank public school, grades 4, 5 and 6, and one of their teachers, Simone Clarkson. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’d like to welcome the family of Ryan Haley, one of our pages: his mother, Joanne Haley, and some of his family. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I’d like to welcome a number of our guests who are members of the Ontario Principals’ Council on this their Queen’s Park day. Please join me in welcoming Ian McFarlane, Naeem Siddiq, Ken Arnott, Susan Ferguson, Bob Pratt and Peggy Sweeny. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Frank Klees: I want to extend a special welcome to Ken Arnott, who is the principal at Northern Lights Public School in Aurora. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I would like to welcome to Queen’s Park the students and teachers from C.E. Webster elementary school, from the great riding of York South–Weston. They are here for the Inspiring Youth Black History Month event.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I’m very pleased to introduce today Mr. Sean Hebel and his son Ryan, who is a student at Rockway Mennonite school. They’re going to be joining us for a tour and lunch in this session.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’d like to introduce Susan Ferguson, who is a principal at North Lambton Secondary School in Lambton–Kent–Middlesex. Welcome, Susan.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is for the Premier. For years, Premier, you have stood in this House and acknowledged that business tax cuts create jobs and are good for the economy, yet you’ve decided to hike taxes on the very people who Ontario depends on to get us out of this recession: job creators. Premier, will you today do the right thing and vote with the Ontario PC caucus to stop your tax hike on job creators?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the member is right: We have in fact cut corporate taxes quite dramatically. We have eliminated the capital tax—and they voted against all those tax cuts. We’ve taken the general corporate rate from 14% to 11.5% and the manufacturing process from 12% to 10%. And I remember the last Conservative budget here in Ontario, when the then Minister of Finance raised corporate taxes, Mr. Speaker.

We will look at this in the context of the entire budget and make the right choices that are balanced for all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: I find it amazing that the finance minister congratulates his government for the great job that they’re doing when their own economist says that the deficit is going to $30 billion by 2017-18.

You have spent months dodging even the most basic questions about business tax cuts, and in that time Ontario has lost far too many businesses that have moved out of our province to create jobs somewhere else. You cannot dodge much longer. Later today you will finally have to put your money, as it were, where your mouth is. Business leaders everywhere will be interested in seeing if you really will take the disastrous step of raising taxes on Ontario businesses.

Minister, will you actually be at the vote this afternoon? Will the Premier be there? Or are you both too embarrassed at your climb-down on business taxes to even show up?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’d like to read from Hansard a quote from Janet Ecker, the then Conservative finance minister, dated June 17, 2002—and I know you were there, you were there, you were there, you were there and you were there. Here’s what she said:

“In the meantime, because of our short-term fiscal situation, I will introduce legislation to delay ... the current planned reductions in personal and corporate income tax and the next step of the equity in education tax credit.”

Mr. Speaker, we have to make a variety of choices to continue to build on this great province’s future. It’s about good education; it’s about good health care; it’s about a competitive tax system, which we have now, Mr. Speaker.

We welcome their bluster. We want to hear their motion. I know all the members will cast their votes, free to vote the way they choose. They will make those choices. We’re proud of our members and proud of this great province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary

Mr. Peter Shurman: Great, great speech-making, Minister, but I could spend all day reminding you of your own commitment to cut taxes to create jobs: another commitment you are backtracking on. Since I don’t have all day, we will save discussing your complete reversal for the next election campaign, when, thanks to your tax hikes on job creators, we will no doubt still be in a jobs crisis.

Minister, you may not have any intention of running in the next election or you may. You might even want to be leader in the next election; we don’t know what your Premier is going to do. But some of the folks on that side of the House are going to be there. How are they going to look their local business leaders in the face after you once again have turned your back on the small business community?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, they’ll look at the small business community and say, “We cut your taxes, we made your environment more competitive, and my Conservative opponent voted against that.” That’s what they’ll say.

They’ll speak of integrity. They’ll ask whether or not full-day learning should be a priority over the horse racing industry. They’ll ask whether or not corporate tax cuts, when we now have a low and competitive rate, should have greater importance than—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Bring it down, please.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, they will ask why that party would see further corporate tax cuts as a priority over class size.

Those are important priorities. That’s what the budget process is about. We’re being clear with our priorities; they’re saying corporate tax cuts are more important than education. We simply don’t share that point of view.

TAXATION

Mr. Peter Shurman: Back to the Premier, Speaker: Premier, the NDP have been wrong on business tax cuts ever since there was a business to tax. While the Ontario PC caucus disagrees with the NDP on that, we at least respect the NDP for being principled.

That same thing cannot be said about your government. You and your government have a track record as reliable as the sunrise of breaking promises and backing away from your commitments.

Premier, you have a chance to break that pattern today. The question is, will you? Will you do what is right? Will you keep your commitment and vote with the Ontario PC caucus to reduce taxes on job creators?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member opposite thought that his own finance minister lacked principles when she made the choices she made—and that was the first budget after the Taxpayer Protection Act, which they put into place, and then the first thing they do is vote against their own legislation. I thought that was a principled stand in a difficult time.

I regret that you would accuse your colleagues in your own caucus, your former finance minister, your former Premier of being unprincipled. I think they are principled people. I disagreed with them on many issues. It’s a shame that they tie principle and integrity into this debate. Principle and integrity are very important in public policy and very important in politics.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: This finance minister talks about principle while this province sustains an unemployment rate of 8.1%.

You spent the last election campaign attacking the NDP as job killers and incompetent on the economy, but if you vote against the Ontario PC motion today, you yourself will kill more jobs and prove yourself incompetent on the economy. You will lose what little credibility you had left with business leaders in Ontario.

Perhaps it’s time for a new finance minister, and maybe you can take the health minister with you. Go home. Go home with a shred of integrity intact. Vote for the Ontario PC motion today. I ask you again, will you commit to doing that?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I would like to quote from one Jim Flaherty in 2003, and I know members opposite have a lot of connections with Mr. Flaherty. Here’s what he said in response to when the Tories delayed their planned tax cut: “The delay was created by a financial downturn related to ... ‘extraordinary circumstances’....”

I think Mr. Flaherty has principle and integrity. I think your colleagues there have principle and integrity. I may not agree with them. I think principle and integrity are important to politics. And I can assure you, not only am I and the Minister of Health staying here, we’re going to fight for a better Ontario for our kids and for the rest of the people of this great province.

Applause.

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Peter Shurman: As far as I’m concerned and our party’s concerned, they’ve just given a round of applause to a finance minister who has presided over a deficit that’s larger than all other provinces’ combined.

Speaker, Ontarians elected 16 new Ontario PC caucus members. Ontarians want us—want us—to fight for the jobs that are fleeing this province. We are going to spend each and every day of this Legislature doing exactly that.

If you hike taxes on job creators, Ontarians will not let you forget it. We on this side of the House will not let you forget it. Every time a business closes its doors, we will remind you. Every day that Ontario falls further behind the rest of Canada, we will remind you. And every day of the next election campaign, we will remind you.

It is not too late. Premier, finance minister: Will you do what’s right? Will you vote with us today?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, there is one government in Canada that has a larger deficit than Ontario. That’s the federal Conservative government in Ottawa, and we worked with them to stimulate the economy.

Interjections.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The members opposite want to laugh. I don’t think it’s a laughing matter any more than I think that the tactics of the president of the PC Party with respect to Irwin Cotler are a laughing matter.

If you want to speak to integrity and principle in politics, I wonder, given what the Speaker said about those tactics—here is what the Speaker of the federal House said: “Attempting to sow confusion in the minds of voters as to whether or not their member was about to resign was a reprehensible tactic….”

Mr. Speaker, let’s hear what they have to say about integrity in politics. Let’s find out where they really stand on integrity.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Last December, the Minister of Finance voted to defeat my private member’s motion cancelling the corporate tax giveaways planned for this year and next. A motion on the same topic, as we’ve just heard, is scheduled for later today, but with the opposite intention in mind.

Can the Premier say how he plans to vote on this afternoon’s motion?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It’s good to be wanted, Speaker. It’s good to be wanted. I get the sense, though, that we’re getting conflicting advice on this particular issue.

We will do everything that we need to do to continue to be informed by the values that shape us as Ontarians. We want a strong economy, we want great schools, and we want great health care. We want our kids—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: This is unfair, Speaker. This is unfair.

We’ll continue to bring a balanced and thoughtful approach to the choices that we make.

I know that we have—in 2008, we cut capital taxes. We raised the small business tax exemption. In 2009, we enhanced tax credits for businesses to hire apprentices and the like.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, during the last election campaign, New Democrats argued that Stephen-Harper-style corporate tax giveaways were not working in Ontario. The minister and the Premier said the sky was going to fall without them.

Is the Premier ready to admit that the Liberal election rhetoric about the importance of these corporate tax giveaways was wrong, or will he be voting with the Conservatives in favour of their motion this afternoon?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We look forward to the debate to be held in this very chamber this afternoon, and we look forward to the results that come from that.

What I can say is that we have moved aggressively in the past with respect to improving the competitiveness of the tax environment here in Ontario for our businesses. As I was saying, in 2008, we cut the capital tax rate by 21%. That was retroactive to January 1. We subsequently eliminated all capital taxes. In 2008, we raised the small business tax exemption 25%. In 2009, we enhanced tax credits for businesses that hire apprentices. Also in 2009, we extended the Ontario innovation tax credit. In 2010, we adopted the HST. In 2010, we cut the corporate income tax rate from 14% to 12%.

So I think we have done a great deal here on this side of the House to ensure we have a competitive tax environment in Ontario.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier has spoken previously about difficult choices, but in this situation, I think it’s pretty much a no-brainer, and it really shows how out of touch the government is with the challenges that are facing everyday families.

But you know what? This is only one example. Beginning in 2015, this government is going to start allowing Ontario’s richest corporations to write off expenses like entertainment, like travel, like gasoline. This is yet another drain on a treasury that simply cannot afford it.

Does the Premier plan to defend this giveaway as well?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, they can already do those things.

I’d also remind my colleague, as she tries to pigeonhole various political leaders, to take a look at what President Obama just did. He made a commitment to further cut their corporate taxes, and I will say that even if those commitments are ultimately honoured by the various Houses down there through their process, our taxes will still be more competitive.

Speaker, I remind my honourable colleague of something I said just earlier today, informed in part by advice that she offered during the course of the campaign. At a time when we’ve got to make important choices and difficult choices, I think we’ve got to look at the corporate tax measures that are available through boxes at entertainment events and sporting events. I think it’s something we’ve got to take a very close look at.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Minister of Health. The minister has insisted that she has had no power to look into Ornge’s strange financial schemes, but

schedule K of the performance agreement between the province and Ornge makes it clear that Ornge had to submit a budget to the ministry every July, an audited statement every July and quarterly expenditure reports. Did none of these many reports twig the minister that something might be amiss?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question. As the member opposite well knows, there have been serious irregularities at Ornge. That is why we have taken the action we have to fix the problems that exist now and to ensure that these problems do not happen again.

I can assure the member opposite that my ministry officials exercised as much power as they had to try to get answers from Ornge on a range of issues. I can tell you also that those requests for information were not met with the kind of collaboration and respect that one would expect from a partner delivering care.

It was not just the ministry that had trouble accessing information. The Auditor General of Ontario was unable to get the information he needed. That is why we have taken the action we have, and that is why we are moving forward with new leadership.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It begs the question, who the heck is running the ship in Ontario with that kind of response?

In December 2010, New Democrat MPPs raised issues about Ornge in committee. The minister said she would get to the bottom of it. By December 2011, she should have seen four quarterly reports, an annual report and an audited statement. Did none of these many reports lead the minister to believe that something might be wrong at Ornge?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The answer to that is yes, and that is why we have taken the action we have. We have gone through the appropriate steps. We eventually got to the point where we had to take what is almost unprecedented action. We sent in a forensic audit team. We fired the CEO and replaced the CEO with a new interim CEO. We fired the board and have replaced them with a very highly competent board.

We are developing a new performance agreement that will have embedded in it the measures that I think the people of this province expect us to have in terms of oversight at Ornge. I will be introducing legislation shortly that will bring the force of law to those elements of the performance agreement.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Another

schedule to the agreement, which—she obviously failed in the first place in terms of preparation of the original one. But in that original one, it states that the ministry had a right to enter Ornge’s offices to view and copy financial records, invoices and documents and to conduct an audit.

In 2010, the minister insisted she was going to get to the bottom and get answers to the questions about Ornge. Months later—months later—when she was asked about Ornge in this House, she made the same reply and promises again: that she would get to the bottom of it.

Can the minister explain how it is that she was stonewalled for over a year, even though she had the power to walk into Ornge offices, order an audit and look at any financial documentation she wanted to?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The people of this province expect me to fix the problems as we found them. We found serious problems at Ornge. That is why we have taken the quite extraordinary actions that we have taken.

We are moving forward with a new performance agreement because the old one simply does not reflect the degree of transparency and accountability that I and my government feel is appropriate. We are moving forward with the new board. I told the new board to focus, first, on patient safety. That was the most important thing. The second most important thing was to address the financial irregularities, and that work is under way right now.

The other piece that the new board is responsible for is for winding down all the for-profit entities that were created under the previous management that clearly was not up to the job.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. The minister boasts of a new leadership team at Ornge, and yet the two individuals who were responsible for implementing the very policies that undermined patient care at Ornge are still there. Yesterday, I asked the minister how these two have managed to negotiate their immunity. Now that she’s had an opportunity to look into this, I wonder if the minister could enlighten us as to how and why Mr. Rick Potter and Mr. Steve Farquhar are still there?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the responsibility that I take very, very seriously is to put in place a new board of directors who are exercising the authority that they have been entrusted with in a very energetic and deliberate way.

The new chair of the board is Ian Delaney, a former chair of Sherritt International, a highly respected Canadian and international business person. Charles Harnick, a former member of this Legislature, is on the board. Patricia Lang, the former president of Confederation College; Dr. Barry McLellan, the CEO at Sunnybrook Hospital—impeccable credentials. Maneesh Mehta, the co-founder of the Black Box Institute, a member of the local health integration network, is on this board; Patrice Merrin; Patricia Volker—these are very highly skilled individuals who have volunteered to come to the aid—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: Well, perhaps we can help the minister. A background check of the new board reveals some interesting relationships. I have a media release dated May 26, 2010, announcing a $250,000 donation to Confederation College by none other than Dr. Chris Mazza. The cheque was accepted by Patricia Lang, who was then president of Confederation College and is now one of the new board members. And no doubt, it’s just a coincidence that Mr. Rick Potter happened to be employed by Confederation College.

Could it be possible that Mr. Potter still has his job because of those relationships?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the member opposite has impugned the integrity of some very impressive people. The reputation of the board of directors of Ornge should not be questioned by the member opposite. If he wants to throw mud, he can throw it in my direction. Do not throw it at the people who have come to get Ornge back on track. Do not throw mud at the front-line staff who are working so hard to deliver air service in this province. Shame on the member opposite.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Order. I appreciate the fact that you have come to order as quickly as I asked. I appreciate that. I would also appreciate not having to have me stand in the first place. That would be very helpful. It is a difficult situation, and I do want to hear everyone, so it’s fair that everyone be heard. So I’d ask again, don’t make me respond, by allowing the questions and answers to be given. Thank you so much.

Mr. Frank Klees: On a point of order, Speaker: Will the minister resign?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member knows that’s not a point of order, and it has not been helpful right when we were complimenting you for not inflaming the situation. I would ask that the minister finish her answer—thank you.

New question.

TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Finance. The minister recently wrote a letter to Jim Flaherty, stating: “It is not clear that taxpayers should be subsidizing certain business expenses ... such as private boxes and corporate seats at sporting events.”

But the HST agreement the minister signed with Ottawa will allow large corporations to get a sales tax rebate on those very expenses in the coming years. How come the minister wasn’t concerned about these reckless giveaways when he signed the HST agreement in the first place?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is probably aware that he’s speaking about two different things. He’s talking about deductions for income tax purposes versus input tax credits. The input tax credits have been shown to increase business productivity, to help manage the cost of doing business in this great province.

I did write Mr. Flaherty—I think we do share some common ground on these kinds of issues. I point out to him that that is one item I raised with Mr. Flaherty: the number of things that, co-operating with the federal government, we can do to help improve the fiscal situation both for Canada and for Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: Here’s what Ontario’s finance minister said when New Democrats proposed an end to the HST write-off on box seats during the election campaign, and I’m quoting here from the Toronto Star of September 13, 2011: “It represents killing a huge job creation initiative.”

Does that remain the minister’s position? And if not, why is the province proceeding with plans to let corporations get a sales tax rebate on box seats and expensive restaurants?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, again I want to point out to the member opposite that in fact there are two spots where this happens. One is on income tax and one will be, I think six years from now, on HST input tax credits. So I think we share some common ground on these issues. I look forward to the points of view put forward by the third party and I welcome the points of view put forward by the official opposition.

We’ll continue to work to keep Ontario’s tax system fair as we lay out a budget plan that will protect the best education system and best health care system in the world.

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, as you know, today is Pink Shirt Day. Pink Shirt Day began in Nova Scotia when a grade 9 boy wore a pink shirt to school and he was mercilessly bullied by schoolmates for looking gay.

Minister, as we all know, words can hurt. Two thirds of kids who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender feel unsafe at school. Almost three quarters of kids report hearing homosexual slurs at schools every day.

Bullying in our schools is a serious problem with devastating results. I know this is an issue that is important to all members in the House. Minister, can you please tell this House what the government is doing to combat this awful problem?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I want to thank the member for Ottawa Centre for his leadership, and I want to acknowledge the leadership right around the House today. I look across and I see more than 30 pink shirts and pink outfits today, and I think that exemplifies the root of what Pink Shirt Day is about.

Pink Shirt Day is about a community coming together to fight against bigotry and racism and homophobia, to say that we will fight that in a collective effort together. I certainly hope—when I look around the Legislature today, I can feel comfort that this Legislature will come together on this very important issue and continue to stand up for Ontario’s kids in all their great diversities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, we are proud of all students who take a stand and work hard to end bullying in our schools.

In order to combat bullying in schools across this province, we need to change the culture in all of our schools. We need to make bullying socially unacceptable in our schools. There have recently been very tragic incidents of young people taking their lives because of the fact that they were bullied in schools, and we have spoken about that in this Legislature.

I know that the Minister of Education agrees that this is completely unacceptable. Will the minister tell this House about legislation that she has introduced in order to stop bullying in our schools?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Again, today we take a step to show that we all, across this Legislature, care about this very important issue.

There’s another opportunity coming ahead. Bill 13, the Accepting Schools Act, if passed, would create legal obligations for boards to address bullying prevention and early intervention, progressive discipline, and equity and inclusive education. It’s an opportunity for us to tell all kids in Ontario that not only will it get better, but we will make it better.

I look forward to all of those in this Legislature coming together to have an opportunity to pass the Accepting Schools Act, which speaks so clearly to the fact that we want every student in every school in every part of this province to be safe and accepted every day when they come into their school and their classrooms. Together, we can make that a reality.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Health.

Every flight of every air ambulance service in Canada and in the United States can be tracked on several websites across the continent. Can the minister tell us why Ornge has made the decision to block Ornge’s Ontario air ambulance flights from these public tracking systems? Minister, what is Ornge trying to hide?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member for the question. What I can tell you is that we have very strong, new leadership in place that is focused on three particular issues.

They are focused on patient safety, and they have taken steps to ensure that the patients who are transported by Ornge get the care they need when they need it.

They are focused on the financial situation at Ornge. There have been financial irregularities identified, and they are very focused on addressing those issues.

We are focused on bringing much more transparency and accountability to the work that goes on at Ornge.

We’re also working on winding down the for-profits, and we are focused completely on providing care to the people of this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, we now know that the Thunder Bay helicopters have been out of service for a total of 46,716 minutes so far this year. That equals 32 days with no pilot or paramedic available. And because Ornge is not willing to station a full complement of staff in Sioux Lookout, we have discovered that they are using air ambulances hidden from tracking systems to shuttle paramedics to and from Thunder Bay.

Minister, we’re not getting any answers. You seem to be doing this on the fly, but now people’s lives are at stake. Will you please step down?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would be very happy to share with this House some information about Ornge that is actually based in fact.

Yesterday, Ornge pilots flew for 94 hours; they covered over 20,000 statute miles. They arrived on the scene in two situations; they transferred 57 patients. Between November and January, they travelled more than 1.3 million statute miles.

The people at Ornge are doing their job. I have every confidence in the new leadership. Were there problems at Ornge? Absolutely. Are they being addressed? Absolutely. Are we seeing progress? Yes. Are the front-line staff seeing the difference that the new management is bringing? Yes.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question to the Minister of Education: What does the minister suggest members of this House tell parents who come to them with the information that their child care centre is being closed because of the poor implementation of all-day kindergarten?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m pleased to stand and talk about the single largest investment that we’re making in early learning. All-day kindergarten, when fully invested, will be $1.5 billion. Each year, we respond to families who ask us, “When can my child be in all-day kindergarten?”

Despite challenging fiscal times, we’ve made a determination that we will move forward with all-day kindergarten because it is in the best interest of all of our children to gain that early learning. I can tell you that I’ve had a chance to speak to the member opposite about the work that we’re doing to make sure that we modernize and transform child care to reflect a new reality that our four and five-year-olds will be in school. They will no longer be in child care.

So I invite the member to bring forward solutions to work with those families, as I am, and to find a new pathway forward for child care in Ontario, one that puts our earliest learners first and continues to invest in them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I have to tell you, I don’t think parents are going to warm to that answer. Hundreds—hundreds—of child care centres in communities across Ontario have closed since 2007. Hundreds more are at risk of closing as four- and five-year-olds transition into full-day kindergarten. The minister has made it clear that investments in early learning are a priority and that full-day kindergarten will not be cut. So be it. Not a bad idea. Will she also assure parents of younger children that their child care centres will be there for them?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Speaker, I think it’s important, as we talk about the investments that this government has made to improve the lives of children, that we focus on the fact that our government, since 2003, has increased child care funding from $532 million to $869 million, a 63% increase. When the federal Conservative government stepped away from child care, we stepped forward and we invested an additional $63.5 million. So I can tell you, we have been focused on child care. We have been focused on looking for solutions, and we invite all members of this House to work with our government and with families in this province to acknowledge what will be a new reality come 2014.

Four- and five-year-olds will be in all-day kindergarten. That’s where they should be. Will we continue to support child care in this province? Will we continue to invest in it? Of course we could. I’ve invited the member opposite to give me his advice. I look forward to that advice.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Bob Delaney: This question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, there are two big challenges that we need to face right now in health care. The first challenge is fiscal: Ontario has a $16-billion budget shortfall and health care is 42% of the budget.

The second challenge is demographic. The first of the baby boom generation turned 65 last year. Our generation will put ever-increasing pressure on health care. The status quo will lead to a health care system that simply can’t meet patient needs. Minister, how will Ontario address this challenge facing health care?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’d like to thank the member from Mississauga–Streetsville for this very thoughtful, astute question.

I tell you, the solution to the challenges that he has identified are vital to the future health of this province and of health care in Ontario. We have launched an action plan that builds on the progress that we have made over the past eight years. It focuses on improving the quality of patient care. It focuses on improving access, particularly primary care. It focuses on looking forward so that we shift spending from those investments that do not improve patient outcomes to those things that do. We are committed to maintaining our investment in health care, but the fiscal circumstances demand that we get smarter about how we spend our health care dollars—

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

Mr. Bob Delaney: Minister, despite the challenging economic times, Ontario must deliver, protect and strengthen the health care services that we all need. Our parents’ and grandparents’ generations showed the courage and the compassion to create our uniquely Canadian universal health care system.

In neighbourhoods like Lisgar, Meadowvale and Streetsville in Mississauga, we need more options for seniors to get the care they need outside hospitals and long-term care. Every new dollar into the system must first, last and always improve the health of patients. Minister, what specific measures will Ontario take to achieve this?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We are shifting our focus to the patient by taking several steps that make our system much more patient-focused and patient-friendly than it currently is. We will create faster access to primary health care by expanding after-hours care. That will have a corresponding decrease in the pressure on our emergency departments. Bringing doctors, primary care physicians, into local planning will expand access again. Resources will be shifted into the community because we know we can provide excellent care at home, again taking pressure off our hospitals and off our long-term-care homes.

By moving routine procedures from hospitals into stand-alone, not-for-profit clinics, we can again take pressure off hospitals and provide excellent care and excellent value for the taxpayer dollars—

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. John O’Toole: My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, for weeks, questions have been swirling around regarding the Ornge organization’s neglect and mismanagement. Speaker, I have documents here from 2009 from your MPP from Durham inquiring about procurement practices at Ornge, specifically with regard to aircraft and medically designed interiors.

In a letter from 2009, the Minister of Health thanked Mr. Leal for his comments and brushed off his inquiry. Mr. Speaker, it is becoming crystal clear every day that this government was advised of growing problems and yet has failed to act. Minister, members of your own caucus were warning you of these problems from back in 2009. You knew there were business problems. You knew there were procurement problems. You knew there were patient service problems. You knew that Ornge was a rogue organization from the start.

Minister, will you accept responsibility and—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I can tell you, Speaker, that we are moving forward with changes in governance to Ornge that will ensure the patients of this province get access to the highest quality air transportation and land ambulance transportation. The people of this province deserve and expect the very best, and that is why we are making the changes we have done.

As I have said, Speaker, I will shortly be introducing legislation that will have several components to it. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of that. It will entrench in law that the ministry has a full ability to review the finances of Ornge. It will bring a patient advocate to Ornge the way our hospitals do. It will require Ornge to have quality improvement plans, just as we have done in hospitals.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: Mr. Speaker, they’re closing the barn door after the horses are gone. Mr. Speaker, in the letter I have from the member from Peterborough, the former president of Ornge stated, “We have developed a rigorous procurement process that is used to acquire high-quality goods and services at a cost-effective price.” This could only be true if “rigorous process” meant their pockets were being lined with taxpayers’ money under your watch.

Minister, rather than take any meaningful action to investigate these problems, you’ve simply looked the other way. Mr. Speaker, where there’s smoke, there’s fire, and there seems to be a lot of smoke coming from this minister.

So I’m asking you today, Minister, with the Premier listening: You’re responsible; will you take responsibility and resign your job today? Hand in the keys.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I take my instructions from the people of this province, and what they’re telling me is that they want to know that when they need air ambulance care, or when someone they love does, that that service is there for them. They also want to know that their tax dollars are being spent in the most effective manner possible. That is why I have taken the steps I have done that have involved bringing in a forensic audit team and ultimately referring the matter to the Ontario Provincial Police.

Now, I might say that the member opposite might not think that those are important and decisive steps, but I can tell you, the people of Ontario respect the changes that are happening at Ornge. They welcome the changes in Ontario, Speaker, and I continue to drive those changes.

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

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Mr. Michael Mantha: My question is to the Premier. Jordan Fram and Jason Chenier died on the evening of June 8, 2011, when an uncontrolled torrent of wet ore material burst out of the number 7 ore pass at Vale Inco’s Stobie mine and buried them. Steelworkers Local 6500 members had complained for weeks about problems in the number 7 ore pass, but the issues were not adequately addressed by management.

Will the Premier direct the Minister of Labour to conduct a full and public investigation into the causes of these fatalities so that tragedies like this one won’t happen again to any family?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I want to thank the member for the question. I know the Minister of Labour will want to respond in the supplemental, but obviously, I think, we offer our sympathies to the Chenier family and to the Fram family. We know that one workplace death is one death too many, and we have to ensure that we do everything within our power to ensure our workplace is safe.

We know that Vale has done an investigation and offered some recommendations. Today, we hear that the United Steelworkers have done an investigation and offered recommendations. We know that the Ministry of Labour is undergoing an investigation at this point in time.

At the end of the day, we have to ensure we have the safest possible workplaces.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: The question is back to the Premier. We wanted to know if a full public investigation was going to take place. We got no answer.

Now, miners, mining companies and the Ministry of Labour—everybody involved with health and safety—have long recognized that issues associated with ore passes are some of the most hazardous conditions in underground mining, which is already a dangerous environment. An ore pass, Premier, is what allows miners to move the ore from the upper level of the mine to the bottom so it can be brought back to surface.

The tragedy of those two deaths is that the mining companies know how to prevent those incidents from becoming accidents; it’s a matter of taking action. So will the Premier, on behalf of Jordan Fram’s mother and sister, who are here with us today; on behalf of Jason Chenier’s widow and family, ask the Attorney General and his assistant deputy Attorney General responsible for criminal law to lay charges under the Westray provisions of the Criminal Code?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I too would like to offer my condolences to the families and their co-workers who were killed in this tragic incident. No one in our province should be able to go to work unsure that they will return safely at the end of the day. That’s why my ministry is committed to improving health and safety in Ontario mines and workplaces across Ontario.

The Ministry of Labour’s investigation is ongoing. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the specifics of this case. What I can say is that our investigators have been working on this case since day one, and their investigation will be thorough and comprehensive. It’s what the family members of the deceased would want and expect, and that’s what we are going to do.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question is for the Attorney General. Minister, in 2008, your ministry launched the Justice on Target program, aimed at reducing delays in the criminal justice system. I understand that every year, for nearly 20 years, the number of appearances it took to resolve a criminal case went up. By 2008, the number of court appearances and the duration it took to resolve a criminal matter had increased considerably. I understand that every criminal court of the Ontario justice system is identifying, implementing and sustaining initiatives to tackle this delay.

Minister, after four years of work, can you tell this House what progress has been made with the Justice on Target system to reduce the trend of criminal court—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question?

Attorney General.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Well, thank you very much, Speaker. First of all, I thank the member for the question. Yes, the strategy is working, and as a result of the action we took and my predecessor took some four years ago, we have reversed the trend and the number of court appearances are indeed down. We’ve set aggressive goals, and those goals inspired aggressive innovation in each and every courthouse. In fact, the number of appearances to resolve a criminal case is almost 25% lower than it would have been if we had taken no action at all.

Two thirds of Ontario’s criminal courts have reduced the average number of appearances since the strategy has come into effect, and 16 sites—16 courts—have achieved double-digit reductions.

There have been nearly half a million fewer court appearances since JOT began, but it requires the collaboration of everyone that’s involved in the court system, from the judges to the crown attorneys to the defence counsel and, indeed, to all the other support workers.

It is working. There’s more work to be done, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Thank you, Minister. Good to hear that we’re making progress.

Many people at the local level are involved in working towards local targets, and they should be commended. My constituents in Scarborough–Rouge River are interested in what this means for them on the ground at the local level and at their local courthouses.

I understand that for the first time ever, criminal court statistics dating back to 2000 are made publicly available so that Ontarians can follow the progress of courts in their local community towards reaching their targets.

Minister, can you provide me with some examples as to how this benefits everyday Ontarians accessing our justice system?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I thank you for the supplementary as well.

I can highlight an example from a courthouse where people who come to the court for the first time and have questions are handed a sheet as to what actions they should take. This didn’t always happen before that.

Last week, I attended the Etobicoke courthouse, in which over 22,000 charges are being dealt with on an annual basis right here in Toronto. I saw the JOT team in action, and I can tell you that those folks are doing some great work.

I’m very proud of JOT. There’s still a lot of work to be done. We can do better. The goals that were set were more aggressive than what we have achieved so far.

But I can also tell you that it requires the collaboration of everyone involved in the court system. We’ve had great co-operation from the judges, from the JPs, from the crown prosecutors as well as the defence bar.

Speaker, we’re heading the right way. The number of appearances in the criminal cases in Ontario is going down, and that’s exactly what JOT had in mind when it started.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Health. Back in 2009, with the co-operation of the Sisters of St. Joseph, 30 interim long-term-care beds were opened at the Marguerite Centre in Pembroke. This was done to alleviate the pressure on the Pembroke Regional Hospital with the number of alternative-level-of-care beds. The plan worked. The hospital achieved its goal, and patients became residents at the Marguerite Centre.

Without warning, in December, you decided to close those 30 beds. This has been a great cause of concern in my community. My question is twofold: With already-long waiting lists for LTC beds, why would you close these interim beds? And will that not just ensure that the Pembroke Regional Hospital will again be converting expensive acute care beds to alternative-level-of-care beds?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member opposite for this question. This is an important question because it demonstrates the change that is happening in the way we care for our elderly people.

These interim beds were created. They were called interim beds because it was always intended to be a short-term situation as we built community capacity to be able to care for people in their own homes whenever possible.

So these are interim beds. They will be closing gradually. Everyone who is a resident there now will be placed in the long-term-care home of their choice. We are doing this in a thoughtful way. At the same time, we are ramping up the services that will permit people to have the supports they need to stay home as long as possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Minister, the issue in the community is that there continues to be a lack of placements available. There’s a lack of capacity in long-term care for these residents.

Would it not make sense to keep these beds open until the numbers on the waiting list drop? We all know that the most expensive and inappropriate care is the care they’ll be getting if they end up in an ALC bed in a hospital.

My first request is that you suspend this plan until such time as a better alternative solution can be found. Failing that, can you give the people of Pembroke, and particularly the current residents of Marguerite Centre and their families, the assurance that not a single one of them will be moved out without being transferred to the long-term-care home of their choice?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I can’t give the member opposite the assurance that all current residents will be moved to a long-term-care home of their choice. This is a good example of a community working together. The Champlain LHIN has been working with partners in Pembroke, including Marianhill, Pembroke Regional Hospital and the Champlain CCAC to ensure a smooth transition for the very people that the member opposite is speaking on behalf of.

So I look forward to the completion of this transition, and I very much look forward to the doubling in funding that will be focused on the assess-and-restore beds to get people back home, because you know what? That’s where people want to be, if at all possible.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. Today is repetitive strain injury awareness day, and this morning there are injured workers at Queen’s Park looking to this government for action. RSIs or musculoskeletal disorders, MSDs, account for 50% of all lost-time days and are the most common lost-time claim under the WSIB. The cost to our health care system is staggering, and so are the personal costs. Will the minister listen to these workers and finally implement the needed ergonomic regulations?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I thank the member for the question. Over the last few months, as a relatively new Minister of Labour, I have been fortunate enough to have the opportunity to hear from injured workers first-hand, and I was proud to speak with them and to share with them our commitment to treating injured workers with dignity and respect. In fact, we spoke about the fact that we’ve increased injured workers’ benefits every year from 2007 to 2012, and on January 1, 2011, we increased benefits again. On January 1, 2012, benefits will increase again by 0.5%. That’s a total increase of 9% since mid-2007.

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board is conducting comprehensive funding reviews to ensure that the board has long-term financial stability, and we’ve asked that the review include options for new benefit indexation to replace the modified Friedland formula and to support fairness for injured workers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: The minister’s concerns are commendable, but what Ontario workers need is better mandatory protection. For years, this government has hoped that voluntary measures and awareness would be enough to reverse the epidemic of RSIs. Well, today, all these workers are here to tell you that it is not. They need strong regulations. I ask the minister again: Will she commit to bringing forward these essential changes today?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: Mr. Speaker, the health and the safety of Ontario workers is a top priority of this government, and we continue to work with the WSIB to make significant improvements that benefit both the workers and the employers. The WSIB has committed to the introduction of a new workplace integration program, which hired 200 new staff and repatriated thousands of cases formerly managed by private sector providers, with extremely positive outcomes in 2011. The re-employment has increased under the new program to 74% from 35% under the old program. The average length of return-to-work plans is now five months versus 19 months under the old program.

Clearly, one injury is one too many. We want to make sure that people get back to work, that we help injured workers, that we make sure there are fewer injuries in the future. Prevention is part of our mandate, and the new prevention officer, the chief prevention officer, will make that a mandate going forward.

AIR QUALITY

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Protecting the quality of the air we breathe is a fundamental concern for all Ontarians. Smog, airborne toxins and other forms of outdoor air pollution are affecting the health of thousands of individuals every year.

Speaker, through you, would the Minister of the Environment please share with us what our government is doing to help improve air quality for all Ontario residents?

Hon. James J. Bradley: An excellent question, I can tell the member. We’re replacing dirty coal-fired plants with cleaner, more renewable energy in the province. In fact, Ontario’s phase-out of coal-fired electricity generation by the end of 2014 is the single largest greenhouse gas reduction initiative in all of Canada.

Since 2005, replacing coal with clean energy has resulted in $4.4 billion in avoided health care and environmental costs, 668 fewer premature deaths per year and 928 fewer hospital admissions per year.

In 2005, our government introduced the local air quality regulation known as regulation 419, which sets standards for substances that have human health or environmental impacts.

Since 2005, 68 new or updated air standards have been introduced for substances which are linked to health effects—

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

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: Thank you, Speaker. I know my constituents, along with the rest of Ontario, will be pleased to hear the good work our government is doing to reduce air pollution.

Another initiative our government has been steadily improving is Ontario’s Drive Clean program. Drive Clean plays an important role in protecting the quality of the air we breathe. Vehicles are a serious polluter, creating smog-causing emissions that can have a significant impact on the health of Ontarians.

Speaker, through you, could the Minister of the Environment explain the recent improvements our government has made to the Drive Clean program?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Since the beginning of the program, Drive Clean has reduced smog-causing pollutants by 260,000 tonnes.

But even the most sophisticated equipment can still become a serious polluter—any of these vehicles could—if their emission systems are not properly maintained. That is why, in January of this year, our government phased in a more accurate testing technology that is expected to reduce emissions from on-road vehicles by an additional 20% over what can be achieved under the current test.

It’s also important to note that there will be no additional costs to consumers. The testing fee will remain the same. All vehicles—cars, trucks and buses—less than seven years old no longer need to be tested when the registration is renewed. All vehicles—

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

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Mr. John O’Toole: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Earlier today, in my question to the Minister of Health, I misspoke by referring in my supplementary to the riding—I should have said Peterborough and I said Durham. I’d like to correct my record.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On the point of order, the member does have a point of order, and he is allowed to correct his own record. I thank you for that.

There are no deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 3 p.m.

The House recessed from 1138 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I am thrilled to have two former staffers here, one from the official opposition and one from the government; two people who worked really hard behind the scenes here. One was my former chief of staff; the other was an aide to former member Michael Bryant when he was House leader. I’d like to welcome to this place, back again on that side, Rod Elliott and Megan Boyle, and they have a friend here whose name is—

Interjection.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: —Simon. Simon is here. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We do welcome our guests.

Mr. John O’Toole: Today I had the privilege of meeting one of my constituents—I expect him to be here shortly. The constituent is Jack Fonseca, who is from Campaign Life, talking to me on a number of issues. I highly respect the work they do, and I’d like to welcome him to Queen’s Park today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? Yes, member from—

Ms. Soo Wong: Scarborough–Agincourt.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): —Scarborough–Agincourt.

Ms. Soo Wong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I would like to recognize two recent accomplishments at Agincourt Collegiate Institute, a high school in my riding. Joining us today is the principal of the school, Louie Papathanasakis. Last night, Mr. Papathanasakis was honoured as one of Canada’s outstanding principals in 2012 by the Learning Partnership. Great principals are the foundation to great schools, and they devote themselves to the success of their students. One of the former students of Mr. Papathanasakis, Gabriel Lee, stated that one of the reasons he went into teaching was because of “who Louie was and how he conducted himself.”

Also here today are two Agincourt students, Matthew Ho and Assad Muhammad, as well as their family members: Sabana Perveen, Sobia Zulfi, David Ho and Sue Quan.

You may recognize Matthew’s and Assad’s names. This past month, they launched a Lego-man wielding the Canadian flag into near space. Videos and photos of the Lego-man’s journey have gone viral on the Internet. Stories about the experiment have received international attention—

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

I welcome our guests. I would also remind all of our members that this is a way of introducing people and possibly just saying what they do. After that, it does not become a statement. I would appreciate that very much.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: You didn’t like my five-minute statement on staffers?

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

Further introductions? There being no further introductions, I would like to bring to your attention that we have with us in the Speaker’s gallery today a member of the National Assembly of Cuba, Mr. Agustin Lage Davila. He is accompanied by the Consul General of Cuba at Toronto, Mr. Jorge Soberon. We welcome them to the House today. Mucho gusto.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

GREEN POWER GENERATION

Mr. Monte McNaughton: The issue of industrial wind turbines and the failed Green Energy Act is something that is of great concern to my constituents. To date, nearly 100 municipalities have passed resolutions calling for a moratorium on further turbine development. The most recent of these is, of course, the municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc in my riding.

I proudly support these local municipalities, but by ignoring these concerns, the McGuinty Liberals has sent the message that rural Ontario doesn’t matter. Speaker, the people of Ontario have been silenced for long enough, and that is why, on March 12 at 7 p.m., at Amy’s Place restaurant in Strathroy, I will be hosting a public wind turbine and green energy town hall meeting.

To date, several MPPs, including our PC energy critic, Vic Fedeli, and MPPs Bailey, Thompson and Nicholls, have confirmed their attendance. I have also extended an invitation to the Minister of Energy, the Honourable Chris Bentley, who I hope will attend.

I’m happy to invite members of the public to attend this important meeting and look forward to hearing from our communities across Lambton–Kent–Middlesex.

NEW CHOICES PROGRAM

Miss Monique Taylor: The New Choices program provides a valuable service to the Hamilton community. It’s a program that offers new mothers with substance use concerns a full range of services in one location. It allows them to focus on developing the ability to combat addiction while enhancing their parenting skills, maintain or regain custody of their children and return to work or school.

The program focuses on mothers who want a chance to change the paths of their lives that have led them astray. They want to have the ability to be good parents, but they simply don’t have the tools.

The New Choices program has been running for 14 years without secured funding, and it’s now at risk. It’s the kind of program that allows a family a better way to a healthy future, and in doing so, saves millions of dollars from other areas of health care and social services systems.

Allow me to quote one of the New Choice clients: “As a result of attending the New Choices program, I am now almost four years free and clean from a decade-long addiction to crack cocaine and other drugs. Children’s aid closed my family’s file over two years ago, and in 2010, I earned my diploma with honours at the top of my class for addictions and community services.” This is just one of the many successful stories from the New Choices program.

I stand here today realizing the financial insecurities that we are facing, so I ask this government to please recognize the social and financial benefits that the New Choices program brings to my community.

AGINCOURT COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE

Ms. Soo Wong: I apologize to the House for my enthusiasm earlier about the visitors.

Anyway, it’s a great pleasure to introduce my colleagues and my friends who are here from Scarborough–Agincourt. First, I want to recognize Mr. Louie Papathanasakis, who has been recognized as one of 40 new outstanding principals of 2012. He’s a great principal for Agincourt Collegiate Institute, so thank you, Louie.

The other two guests here are two Agincourt Collegiate students: Matthew Ho and Assad Muhammad. The parents are finally here: Sabana Perveen, as well as Sobia Zulfi, David Ho and Sue Quan. These two young men have shown us what entrepreneurship as well as leadership is all about, in terms of science and technology. I want to welcome them as well as acknowledge their accomplishments.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Rod Jackson: I had the pleasure to attend the Canadian International AutoShow produced by the Toronto Automobile Dealers Association last week with many of my colleagues.

TADA represents dealers from Ontario’s number one industry: automotive. These dealerships bring thousands of j