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

March 5, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Mar-05 (PDF)

L053 - Thu 5 Mar 2015 / Jeu 5 mar 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 5 March 2015 Jeudi 5 mars 2015

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Protection of Public Participation Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection du droit à la participation aux affaires publiques

Introduction of Visitors

Use of props in the House

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Trucking safety

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Agriculture industry

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Public participation

By-election in Sudbury

By-election in Sudbury

Ring of Fire / Cercle de feu

Use of question period

Members’ Statements

Vesak Day

International Women’s Day

United Way

Municipalities

Mining industry

International Women’s Day

Private safety training

Brampton A’s

Trenton Memorial Hospital

Introduction of Bills

Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour une croissance intelligente de nos collectivités

Visitor

Petitions

Alzheimer’s disease

Hospital services

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Youth services

Forest industry

Water fluoridation

Winter road maintenance

Forest industry

Credit unions

Water fluoridation

Legal aid

Taxation

Hispanic Heritage Month

Private Members’ Public Business

Registered Retirement Savings Protection Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des régimes enregistrés d’épargne en vue de la retraite

Safe Roundabouts Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la sécurité des carrefours giratoires

Right to Care Act (Children 16 Years of Age and Older), 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le droit aux soins en ce qui concerne les enfants de 16 ans et plus

Registered Retirement Savings Protection Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des régimes enregistrés d’épargne en vue de la retraite

Safe Roundabouts Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la sécurité des carrefours giratoires

Right to Care Act (Children 16 Years of Age and Older), 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le droit aux soins en ce qui concerne les enfants de 16 ans et plus

Safe Roundabouts Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la sécurité des carrefours giratoires

Private members’ public business

Orders of the Day

Agriculture Insurance Act (Amending the Crop Insurance Act, 1996), 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur l’assurance agricole (modifiant la Loi de 1996 sur l’assurance-récolte)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Protection of Public Participation Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection du droit à la participation aux affaires publiques

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 10, 2014, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 52,

An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, the Libel and Slander Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act in order to protect expression on matters of public interest / Projet de loi 52, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires, la

Loi sur la diffamation et la

Loi sur l’exercice des compétences légales afin de protéger l’expression sur les affaires d’intérêt public.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When this item of business was last debated, the member from Dufferin–Caledon had the floor and has time remaining.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: It’s a pleasure to begin again what I began in December. That was, of course, talking about Bill 52, the anti-SLAPP legislation or Protection of Public Participation Act.

I want to recap some of what I had covered previously. Of course, Bill 52 stands for strategic litigation against public participation, which are lawsuits that are pursued for the sole purpose of silencing or punishing those with an opposing viewpoint. SLAPPs are also referred to as “litigation chill,” which we’re going to cover in a little more detail this morning. Part of what defines a SLAPP is the fact that it has a meritless case and is intended more to intimidate or to punish the defendant rather than seek justice for a wrong suffered by the plaintiff. Typically, SLAPPs are withdrawn shortly before trial.

However, the trial dates are often drawn out and by this time they’ve served their purpose as they’ve forced the defendant to go through an extended period of duress, often at great financial cost.

What Bill 52 proposes to do is to establish a new legal procedure that can be used if someone is sued for voicing their opinions on matters of public interest. If enacted, Bill 52 would allow the defendant in this situation to move a motion that would allow them the chance to prove to a judge in a timely manner—and I think that’s the important consideration here—that the legal proceedings brought against them arise from a communication they made regarding the public interest. If the judge was satisfied that this is the case, the legal proceeding would be dismissed. However, if the judge was not satisfied, the lawsuit would continue.

The judge would also be able to award compensation regarding costs on the motion if they deemed it appropriate. If the judge dismisses the legal proceeding due to the motion and finds that the suing party brought the proceeding in bad faith, the judge may award the defendant damages as the judge considers appropriate. If the suing party has proceedings before a trial, the defendant who has moved a motion under Bill 52 may also supply a copy of the motion that was filed to the court to a tribunal, and the tribunal proceedings shall be stayed until the motion is dealt with in court.

Bill 52 will also place a 60-day timeline on the hearing of the motion so that the matter may be dealt with in a timely manner. This is a key factor in limiting SLAPPs’ negative effect on the court system. It is also important for countering the effect of potentially having tribunal proceedings stayed while the motion is before the courts.

I think I want to focus in a little more detail on that 60-day concept, because this is not going to stop people who have actually libelled or slandered someone. What it’s going to do is it’s going to expedite the process and ensure that within that 60-day period a decision is made whether it should proceed.

In the way of an example, I would like to talk about one litigation chill that is near and dear to my heart and to the Progressive Conservative Party. That is a litigation chill letter that was sent, of course, by Kathleen Wynne to Tim Hudak, Lisa MacLeod and the PC Ontario Fund. The statement of defence all surrounded a couple of comments that were made by my then-leader, the member from Niagara West–Glanbrook, and my colleague from Nepean–Carleton.

They were issued litigation letters—we often call them lawyer’s chill letters—basically to tell them to cease and desist from speaking any further about a particular issue. Of course, that issue was the gas plants and the decisions made surrounding it.

The important part of why I’m bringing this particular example up is that this began in September 2011, and it’s still in process. So we’re now here, in March 2015, and Tim Hudak, Lisa MacLeod and the PC Ontario Party still have that legal proceeding, that threat of a legal process, continuing to hang over their heads.

“In September 2011, during the provincial general election campaign”—in the interest of full disclosure, this is a court document filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice—“the Ontario Liberal Party promised to cancel the construction of the Greenfield South power plant,” or the gas-fired plant, “in Mississauga ... a project formerly conceived and approved for construction in April 2005 by the Ontario Power Authority. The construction of the Mississauga gas plant was commenced in June 2011.

“On October 6, 2011, the Ontario Liberal Party won the provincial election, including the Mississauga ... seats in the vicinity of the Mississauga gas plant, and the government proceeded to take steps to stop the ongoing construction of the Mississauga gas plant.”

There are a number of details and dates that come forward. It makes reference to the Auditor General’s estimated cost of relocating the gas plant. It talks about September 10, the Ontario Power Authority awarding a contract; the city of Oakville opposing the building of the Oakville gas plant; and on and on we go.

In this case, “The plaintiff was the campaign co-chair of the 2011 Ontario Liberal Party campaign that made the decision to cancel the Mississauga gas plant. As a member of the executive council of Ontario, the plaintiff also signed the cabinet document that authorized the Liberal government to enter into arbitration with TransCanada over the cancellation....”

We can go into a lot more detail, but my point is that a litigation letter, a lawyer’s chill letter that said to cease and desist any further discussion about the process surrounding the Mississauga and Oakville gas plants cancellation, is a perfect and obvious example of Bill 52.

This process began, as I stated earlier, in 2011, and here we are in 2015 and it has gone no further in court. The court has not reviewed whether this is actually moving forward. Yet we’re talking four years later, and it’s still hanging over our heads.

If Bill 52 were passed in its current process, this would not still be on the courts. This would not be bogging up the system. This would not be part of continuing to be that threat that reminds my two colleagues and the party I belong to that they’re supposed to talk about what clearly was government policy of community and general interest. Bill 52 would have allowed us to have those very public, needed conversations without the worry of having any of their comments taken through a lawyer’s letter. So I just highlight this example as one reason why we need to move forward on Bill 52.

As many people in this chamber know, we’ve had a number of different examples—a couple of private members’ bills and at least one other government bill—where we have attempted to move forward on making changes to the current strategic litigation against public participation process, so we do need to continue with that idea.

The other thing—I’m not going to give a carte blanche that the entire legislation is great. There have been some concerns raised, without a doubt. The forestry industry in northern Ontario, of course, has gone through some terrible economic challenges in the last number of years, but they’re not all related to the economy; some of them are related to some very strategic and pointed opposition from certain groups.

One of the recommendations of amending Bill 52, which would be to ensure that when we are talking about protecting the public from public consultation, or the ability to participate, is that we ensure it’s not one large financially backed entity against a business or an individual or an industry. So perhaps we could look at some amendments that would—I’ll just read what the recommendation is: If the legislation could be amended to specifically “apply to volunteers and small community organizations with annual budgets of less than $100,000.” That was one recommendation made by the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities.

I would hope that when we are at the committee stage, we can look at those types of amendments that ensure this is, in fact, about protecting the individual’s right to participate and not an opportunity for large, financially backed organizations to be protected from saying whatever they want about whomever they want.

The act is also amended to establish qualified privileges that apply in respect to “an oral or written communication on a matter of public interest between two or more persons who have a direct interest in the matter” and “applies regardless of whether the communication is witnessed or reported on by media representatives or other” individuals. It’s actually an important amendment as far as completing the goal of Bill 52, actually protecting public participation. I think we all understand that the world is a very different place now with tweets and Facebook posts, and we can’t just be looking at the more mainstream, traditional forms of public participation, i.e. newspaper, radio and TV.

As it stands, there are currently privileges regarding oral or written communication that are possessed by individuals who have a direct interest in a matter, a public interest. What Bill 52 does is amend the Libel and Slander Act to extend these privileges to individuals, reporters recounting or repeating any discussions in the matter by those who do possess a direct interest in the matter.

This is important because if a journalist is writing a story on something an individual said at a public meeting, while that individual could have been discussing a matter they had a direct interest in and be fairly protected from legal action, the journalist would technically not be protected as they arguably do not possess a direct interest but, rather, an indirect one.

Journalism and reporting is a tenet of a healthy democracy. If we’re serious about protecting public participation, we absolutely must also protect the sanctity of the press to report on the news of the day and on the issues important to their local citizens.

Bill 52 is a necessary and much-needed improvement for dealing with SLAPP litigation. Just like I said in my previous discussion on Bill 52, in which I discussed examples of cases that could very well be considered SLAPP lawsuits, I would like to continue on that note.

There’s an example that, again, many of us are quite involved in or quite aware of, and that is a young woman named Esther Wrightman. Esther Wrightman lived in southwestern Ontario and was very publicly opposed to the siting of some industrial wind turbines in her community. It’s not unusual; we have many individuals across Ontario who have raised various concerns and various issues with the siting and placement of IWTs—industrial wind turbines—in their communities.

What makes Esther Wrightman’s example unique is, again, that she was sent a lawyer’s letter saying, “Cease and desist, we don’t want you to talk anymore about this project, and if you do, you will be sued accordingly,” and then there was a very large number, which was the threat: “If you continue, we’re going to sue you and basically take you for everything you have and then some.”

Unfortunately, it was effective in the case of Esther Wrightman. She ultimately ended up selling and moving out of the province. However, that lawyer’s letter, that litigation chill, is still on the books. The originators of it, the owners of the IWT proposal, have not removed that chill, that concern, that stress. While I have not personally been the victim of one of those letters, I can imagine what it did to Ms. Wrightman, her family and, quite frankly, anybody in the community who wanted to continue opposition to the industrial wind turbines. It’s a very, very effective tool to ensure that people stop talking about projects they are opposed to.

You know, we can get pretty specific here, talking about individual pieces of legislation, but the reality is that most of us understand that everyone deserves and has the right and should use it.

We as legislators often tell our community, our students and our municipalities to get involved: “If there’s something that is concerning you that’s happening in your neighbourhood, your town or your municipality, get engaged and get involved.” If we do not offer some legislative protection in the form of Bill 52, we’re sending mixed messages, because we are not protecting people who want to speak out publicly on items that are happening that impact their community and impact their ability to enjoy their property and their community.

I still think it’s a sad state of affairs that Ms. Wrightman was left with no choice, in her mind, but to sell her property and move out of the province so that she would not have that threat of litigation held over her head while she was attempting to get a remortgage or while she was attempting to make any expansions or changes to her business models. It’s all there in the public realm, where there is a very substantial claim against her, simply because she wanted to share in a very public forum why she did not support the siting of industrial wind turbines in her community.

It’s a sad state, here in Ontario, when people don’t have the opportunity to speak out against issues, whether it’s the cancellation of gas plants, as is the case with my colleagues from Niagara West–Glanbrook and Nepean–Carleton, or in the case of Ms. Wrightman with industrial turbines.

We need to make sure that our legislation is protecting an individual’s right to speak out. I understand that within this chamber, we are all very well protected. But that’s 107 members. It doesn’t compare to the responsibility we have to the other 13 million who live in the province of Ontario. It shouldn’t just be what we say in here that is protected. It should be the ability for everyone, regardless of where they are living in the province and what role they play—whether it’s public or private or in business—they should also be protected.

It is a fine line. Nobody wants to get to a stage where “I can say anything about anyone” and be above the law. There has to be the opportunity for people to protect their good name, their business’s good name.

With Bill 52, with that 60-day opportunity, it would be reviewed and it would be decided in a very process-systemic way: Is this actually chill? Is this actually slander? If it is, absolutely go through the courts, take it through the process. But if it isn’t, shut it down.

We wouldn’t then have these lawyers’ letters and litigation from—what did I say?—2011 still sitting in a court docket, clogging up our very challenged court system in March of 2015. Make no mistake: This is not about any intention of Ms. Wynne to bring Tim Hudak, Lisa MacLeod and the PC Ontario Fund to court. This is all about saying, “You keep talking about the Mississauga gas plants, and we’re going after you.” It was a very—to coin the phrase—strategic opportunity for them to threaten and to scare people out of talking about the process behind the Mississauga gas plant.

Mercifully, we have been able to ignore that threat, I think probably because my colleagues are MPPs and understand how the law works. But it doesn’t make it any more—it’s not right that that is still sitting there from 2011 and here we are four or five years later.

With that, I’m going to wrap up, but thank you for your time.

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

M me France Gélinas: It was quite interesting to listen to the member from Dufferin–Caledon. I was actually also in the House when she did the first 40 minutes of her lead. That was before Christmas. As she started to go through, a lot of what she had said sort of came back to me.

Bill 52,

An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, the Libel and Slander Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act in order to protect expression on matters of public interest, certainly has a

long title, but it’s basically what people refer to as anti-SLAPP. She has given examples from her riding of people they had taken freedom of speech away from. This bill is an effort from this Legislature to bring a little bit more balance between the right of an individual to speak up if they see something that they are opposed to, and the right of the person who is being spoken against to defend their good name.

Right now, the balance is tilted through a judicial process that is so cumbersome and lengthy that it really precludes people from speaking up, because they receive those lawyers’ letters and they feel quite intimidated, afraid as to how much it will cost them to defend themselves. The bill is an effort to bring a little bit more balance between the two.

Ça m’a fait plaisir d’écouter la députée de Dufferin–Caledon. Elle avait commencé ses commentaires avant Noël, avant la pause parlementaire, et les a finis ce matin. C’est quand même intéressant. Ce que le projet de loi essaie de faire, c’est vraiment de prévenir les instances qui limitent la liberté d’expression sur les affaires d’intérêt public. On appelle ça des poursuites-bâillons, où les gens reçoivent une lettre d’un avocat ou d’une firme et se sentent mal à l’aise de continuer à prendre leur revendication.

Je vous remercie, monsieur le Président.

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

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration—sorry, Tourism, Culture and Sport and Pan/Parapan.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Which one?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): My apologies.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s an honour to speak on Bill 52 today and to respond to the member from Dufferin–Caledon and the member from Nickel Belt. I think this is an important piece of legislation. The Protection of Public Participation Act, the anti-SLAPP legislation, is an important piece of legislation that was brought forward in 2013 by our government as Bill 83. I remember the previous Attorney General did bring it forward.

Really, this bill has one intention, and it’s to fast-track any request that is brought forward to dismiss a case that’s considered when people are using any form of intimidation to stop people from expressing themselves. I think this piece of legislation is important, because it does one really important thing: It strengthens our justice system and allows people to express themselves and to take a position on an issue without the fear of being dragged through the courts for years and ending up with a massive legal bill. Taking those 60 days to hear a case, to figure out if someone is misusing the justice system, I think is a great step in the right direction for the province of Ontario.

There are other jurisdictions in different parts of Canada and Quebec that have similar legislation, and there are different parts of the United States where they have similar legislation. I’m proud that our government has taken this step to move forward on this, because at the end of the day we want to build a society where people can freely get out there, bring up concerns and talk about important issues and not fear big corporations dragging them through the court system for years.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s a pleasure to make comments on my colleague from Dufferin–Caledon’s speech, which was split between today and the last time this bill was debated.

As my colleague said and as the minister said, this legislation has been around since 2013. You have to ask yourself, you have to question the commitment of a government that is taking this long to get a bill through this House. However, we’re going to do what we can to help them, because they can’t seem to get this thing figured out by themselves.

I want to say, Bill 52 is a bill that we’re going to support. It’s not without the reservations of some out there. There are a lot of people who are concerned about this bill. But I understand the principle of trying to protect the little guy from the big guy. That’s part of the bedrock of our society. That’s why we have democracies. Democracies were formed in order to protect the little guy.

But I have to ask myself—maybe this government has to ask themselves why they’ve gone so far to protect the big guy over the little guy when it comes to their industrial wind turbine policies and how impossible it is for someone to have a fair chance of winning against one of those groups, because, you see, those companies, their pockets have been filled—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I would ask the member to tie it in to the comments.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It is tied in to the bill, Speaker. Thank you very much. It is tied in from the fact that if you’ve got a principle of protecting the little guy, you’ve got to look at your own record here. You’ve protected these big, gigantic wind farm developers so they’re bankrupting people who bring a legal action against them. You know why? Because you made sure of it. In the way that you passed this law, the Green Energy Act, you made sure that the little guy would not be protected. Shame on you.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I just want to put a couple of things on the record in response to the comments made by the honourable member.

I think the legitimate issue here is that in a democratic society, people have the right to oppose or propose. In the particular case of development, there is always somebody who is opposed to a development of some type. That, to the consternation of the developer, is a real problem—economically being able to move forward with the project. Certainly, we see that in forestry. There’s a real sense on the part of the forest industry that there are people who actually have it as a goal for them not to be able to do the business that they’re in.

Clearly, Ontario is in the forestry business and clearly, there are ways of being able to that; we’ve done it for years under sustainable development. I think the industry accepts that there are going to be people who are opposed, but you have to have a system in place that doesn’t allow them to basically hold them to ransom when it comes to the market that they’re trying to penetrate.

Because a large part of what happens in the forest industry is being able to sell your product, like any other business, and unfortunately at times there are those who try to picture the forest industry in a way that it really is not in the market that they’re trying to sell their wood in. So they’re worried about legislation like this and what it would mean to them should people continue down the road that some people have started on when it comes to trying to picture the forest industry for what it’s not.

On the other side, there are people who have some legitimate concerns.

I think the real test in this bill is going to be, when we get to committee, does this bill find the medium between those two sides? Because clearly, the public has the right to express its views; and clearly, they have the right to say what it is they feel; and clearly, industry has got to be in a position where, when this is done, there’s some sort of mechanism that allows you to deal with, how do you mitigate that in court or how do you not have it mitigated in court, depending on the situation? I think the real test will be when we hear from those at committee who speak to that issue.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Dufferin–Caledon, you have two minutes.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Thanks, Speaker. I really appreciated those last comments from the member from Timmins–James Bay because I think it really is a balance. I think we need to ensure that public participation is an active part of the democratic process, whether it’s in committee where we’re hearing from witnesses and getting suggestions on amendments, or, quite frankly, after government decisions and policies have been made. People have the right to voice their opinions. We’ve seen both examples very recently.

I will say that there aren’t a lot of SLAPP litigation processes that are happening right now in Ontario. I think that’s a good thing. But the ones that are out there are very disturbing and are there for a very strategic reason: that is, to end the debate and end the discussion. As my colleague said, we’ve seen it with the cancellation of the gas plants; we’ve seen it with the industrial wind turbines.

In my own community, we had an example with a water-taking permit, where the adjacent surrounding neighbours were all issued cease-and-desist letters from the company’s lawyers. So it can be a very draconian, nasty, nasty way to do business and silence your opponents. If Bill 52 is properly amended and properly brought in, I think we have an opportunity here to improve the system to ensure that that public participation continues in a measured and reasonable way across all of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I am very pleased to join in the debate on Bill 52, the anti-SLAPP legislation. Before I begin, I want to make it very clear that the New Democratic Party absolutely supports this legislation. In fact, our leader brought forward anti-SLAPP legislation years and years ago, approximately in 2010, and we have been committed to the idea of public participation. So we’re absolutely supportive of this initiative and we would have loved to see this bill move along faster.

I actually remember, when I first spoke on this bill, that I implored the government to do two things. One, I said that there were a number of other bills that received priority; this bill did not receive the priority it deserved in the previous sitting of this Legislature. I had asked the government to prioritize this bill.

Secondly, I said that once you prioritize this bill, you need to move along with this bill in a manner that’s expedient, because this is something that doesn’t cost the government anything but it enshrines and protects a fundamental principle in our democracy; that is, the right to dissent, the right to participate and the right to get up and say, “I don’t like what’s going on.” It’s a very fundamental right and something that’s absolutely critical for us here as legislators to protect.

When we are talking about the concept of public participation, literally the idea is that anyone in this province should be able to speak on any issue in a respectful manner, but in a forceful manner, should be able to get up and say, “Listen, I don’t like the development in this particular community. I don’t like the way this project is going about. I think there’s an environmental risk that outweighs the benefit of this particular project.”

Anyone, any citizen, should be able to get up, any resident should be able to get up and say, “Listen, I don’t like what’s going on. I don’t appreciate the government’s actions in terms of the way they’re proceeding with a particular initiative. I don’t agree with it.” They can get together with a number of other citizens and say, “Listen, together we don’t agree with what’s going on.”

When it comes to greenbelt initiatives, protecting the greenbelt or whether it comes to developments in rural or urban settings where they don’t want a particular business to develop in a certain community because it might ruin the other existing infrastructure, the existing businesses, people should be able to say, “We don’t like it.”

What we’ve seen time and time again is when community members come together and raise their voice, when they come together and say, “Listen, we have a problem with what’s going on,” they’ve been strategically silenced: SLAPPs have been used as a tool. SLAPPs have been used as a tool to strategically commence a lawsuit against someone to discourage them from participating in a particular—whether it’s raising a concern, whether it’s a form of dissent, whether it’s a protest, whether it’s a coalition of people, this is a type of lawsuit that’s been used time and time again to silence people.

There has been a number of examples in the province of Ontario. We have the Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller, and he writes in his annual report 2008-09, “The public’s right to participate in decision-making over matters of public interest is a cornerstone of our democratic” process. “Efforts aimed at suppressing this right should be discouraged by the Ontario Legislature and other public agencies. The ECO sees a need for provincial legislation that would put both sides of development disputes on equal footing. Such legislation could serve to halt SLAPP suits in their tracks.”

This is absolutely correct. The Environmental Commissioner raises a very important point. This is literally a cornerstone of our democracy: the right to dissent, the ability to get up and protest, the ability to say, “I don’t like what’s going on.” This is something we need to protect.

As parliamentarians, we are the ambassadors for democracy in this province. It’s incumbent upon us to make sure we do whatever we can to protect people’s rights. One of their essential rights is that; the essential right in a democracy is—if you look across other countries, people don’t have the right to criticize their government. People don’t have the right to criticize what’s going on in their communities. That is what sets free nations apart from those that don’t enjoy freedom.

That’s what sets nations that enjoy liberties and enjoy human rights apart from countries that don’t enjoy those rights and those liberties. That’s what makes us unique and that’s something that we need to protect.

This law is certainly a step in the right direction. It is certainly a law that will protect public participation. It is a law that would legislate the protection of a democratic value. So for that reason, it’s certainly an excellent step forward.

In fact, the advisory panel that was struck was made up of a number of very skilled and talented lawyers: the chair, Mayo Moran, was a dean of the faculty of law; Brian MacLeod Rogers, a very well-respected entertainment and libel and defamation lawyer; as well, Peter Downard, who was at Fasken Martineau and also very well-versed and experienced in defamation law.

Just to give you some examples: the feeling people have when they get together, let’s say, in downtown Toronto, if we use an example. People in an urban setting have a vibrant community. Perhaps a big-box store decides to purchase and buy out a number of other small stores and says, “We want to put in our big-box store right here in the middle of the community.”

Folks in the community get together and say, “Listen, this would disrupt the fabric of the community that we’ve built, the community that we’re a part of, that we enjoy. We like the uniqueness of the way we have developed this community. We have unique stores and shops. We like the way it’s set up. A big-box store would come in and disrupt that and it would change the fabric of this community in a way that we don’t want to see happen.”

So they get together and say, “Listen, we’re opposed to this happening. When this issue goes before the OMB, we’re saying, ‘We don’t want this to happen.’” They create a coalition and say, “Listen, this is unacceptable. This will change the fabric of our community. This will not improve it. In fact, this will ruin the way we enjoy this area, so we’re against it,” and they get together and start protesting.

Now, if those folks are protesting, all of a sudden the big company that wants to develop this big-box store sends them a letter and wants to initiate a lawsuit. They receive the letter. Imagine the feeling: You receive a letter and it says, “So-and-so company is suing you for $4 million for defamation because you got up and said that this big-box store, or this company, is going to ruin your community. That’s defamation. You’re saying that this store is bad. You’re attacking the company.” You receive this letter in the mail and it says, “You’re being sued for $4 million.”

The chilling effect of that, receiving that letter, reading that, those words, being sued for $4 million—it has such a chilling effect. It’s such a discouraging thing to see. In fact, people become very afraid. They are afraid that they could lose their entire life savings, that they could lose their home. They are not thinking about continuing their public participation. They are not thinking about continuing the discourse or about continuing to raise the concerns that their community has.

They’re thinking, “Listen, we’ve got to stop, because we don’t want to get sued for this $4 million.” So they stop talking about the issue. They’re discouraged from talking. Some people—and I don’t fault them for doing that—are so afraid that they absolutely stop. They don’t talk about the issue anymore, and they move on their way.

Some brave souls continue to fight, and they end up being sued and they end up being brought before the courts. In the courts, they have to fight to clear their name. Often you have citizens, members of the community, that don’t have deep pockets. They don’t have a lot of resources. They’re regular folks, everyday folks, with bills to pay, and they are up against companies that have deep pockets, that have lawyers on retainer, that have millions of dollars to throw and hundreds of thousands of dollars to throw at any sort of lawsuit that they want.

What happens is you have this disparity, this imbalance. This imbalance discourages everyday folks from raising their concerns and encourages companies to silence the voices of those people who might have a problem with their projects. That’s the unfairness of this: that it’s not a level playing field. You have people who have deep pockets and resources and experts and lawyers, and you have everyday folks who don’t have those same resources. They feel compelled, then, to no longer participate. That’s not what we want to see in our society. That’s not what we want to encourage.

In fact, we want the exact opposite to happen. We want people to be able to get up and say what they feel. We want people to come together as communities and voice their concerns. We want to encourage that. As it stands, without having protection through an anti-SLAPP legislation, we don’t have that protection right now.

What does this law essentially do? To put it in simple terms, it allows the person who is being sued a quick way to point out that this lawsuit is actually just a way to silence them, and to have the lawsuit dismissed. That’s what this legislation proposes to do. Essentially, that component of the early dismissal, the ending of a lawsuit that’s unfair, pointing out that the lawsuit is strictly designed, or strategically designed, to silence them, to silence public participation, and showing that to a judge, that, “This is why I’m being sued, and that’s why I’m asking to you to dismiss this case outright”—that’s the purpose of this legislation, and that’s an excellent purpose.

The mechanism of the way this is done is something quite unique, because it changes hundreds of years of defamation law and libel law. It’s always a touchy thing when you change hundreds of years of jurisprudence. However, it’s something that’s appropriate and that’s necessary for us to do.

So what is the mechanism, how does it play out, and where do we need to really look at what this law is doing?

One of the things that is important is that it allows for a time limit. What happens often is, if you are involved in the court system—and as a criminal defence lawyer, I’ve experienced this time and time again—the court systems often move very slowly. It’s something that we need to improve. It’s a question of access to justice. People sometimes wait years and years for a matter to be settled in court.

Really, if we talk about the rule of law being the bedrock of a free and democratic society—that it’s law-based in terms of the decisions, not by force, not by might; it’s by the rule of law, and the law is applied equally to the citizens, to the residents of that community—that gives us some faith that we live in a system that we can reply upon, that’s going to be treating everyone fairly.

The problem is that, in a system of the rule of law, in a system of law, if it takes years and years to get any settlement, to get any decision in a court, it erodes some of the trust we have in that system. If we want to rely on the system to be able to get us a fair decision, but it takes years and years for that decision to happen, it takes away some of our faith in the fact that the system is actually going to protect our interests.

Well, that’s even more true in cases where someone is being sued in a defamation lawsuit. In those cases, we have examples of people who wait years and years, they have to fight for years and years, to actually get the case dismissed. That is absolutely discouraging. Having the weight of a multi-million-dollar lawsuit hanging over you impacts everything: It impacts your day-to-day life, impacts your ability to go to work, impacts your relationships, and impacts your participation in the community. It has a severe impact on you.

We need to ensure that there’s a way to limit that time so that people don’t have this lawsuit hanging over their head for years. We want a way to dismiss this in an expedient manner, in a quick manner. There’s a 60-day time limit that’s applied here, and that’s absolutely essential and fundamental. It’s so important to have this, because that allows the lawsuit to be dismissed in a quick way. So, 60 days, two months; your motion is heard and you can show that this lawsuit is strategically being used to silence you—there are certain criteria—the lawsuit is then dismissed and you can move on with your life. That is absolutely what we need to see, and that’s very encouraging.

The grounds: The way the law is going to work is that the law lays out some fundamental principles, and these principles are exactly what we’d like to see in this bill. Let’s talk about those principles. The law is defined by these four components, and these four components are found in

section 137.1. Clause (

a) reads, “to encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest.” That’s exactly what we want to see. We want people to feel encouraged to participate, to express their concerns, particularly where it’s something about public interest. If the public has an interest, people should be able to get up and say: “This is how I feel about this issue. These are my concerns. This is what I like; this is what I don’t like.” We want to see that happen. We want to encourage that.

Clause (

b) reads, “to promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest.” The idea that people should be able to debate matters of public interest, to discuss it amongst each other and amongst community members, that’s something we want to see happen. And this bill lays that out as one of the purposes of the bill, and that’s also very encouraging.

Clause (

c) reads, “to discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest.” That’s exactly what some of these cases of lawsuits that are used to silence people—that’s exactly what they’re being used for. The litigation that we want to discourage is litigation that purposely limits expressions on matters of public interest. If people are talking about matters of public interest and there’s a lawsuit that’s designed to limit that expression, that’s exactly what we want to discourage. We want to discourage that type of litigation.

Finally, clause (

d) reads, “to reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action.” This is really the final point in terms of the actual purpose, and (

d) is very purposely the last component of what this law is all about, because of the fear that people have of legal action. People have this fear embedded in them. If they receive a letter from a lawyer outlining the potential that they will be sued, that has such a chilling effect, such a discouraging effect; it instills so much fear that people no longer want to participate. That’s what we want to get rid of. We don’t want people to fear legal action against them for participating in something that has a public interest. That’s what we want to discourage. That’s the type of litigation we want to end, and that’s what this law seeks to do.

It’s very encouraging that those four components of the purpose of the law have been laid out. It really informs the rest of the bill, and it informs what we’re trying to do. This is what Andrea Horwath, as the leader of the New Democratic Party in Ontario, also tried to do in her private member’s bill that was first introduced about four years ago. This is a core principle of the New Democratic Party, something we strongly support and stand for. I just want to read out—just to get a sense of what people feel when they’re being faced with a lawsuit—some of the concerns and some of the personal emotions that go through one’s mind when you’re faced with a lawsuit.

There was a case of a SLAPP, a strategic lawsuit against public participation, in the case of Geranium Corporation v. the Innisfil District Association. In this case, Geranium was a developer and they were proposing a Big Bay Point mega-marina and resort on Lake Simcoe. As a result of this development, a number of individuals wanted to raise their concerns.

What happened in this case is, in responding to multiple lawsuits and an unprecedented claim for $3.2 million in OMB costs against the Innisfil District Association and its lawyers, one defendant swore in an affidavit to OMB—these were the feelings that people had.

They challenged this development, and the lawyer who was representing the Innisfil District Association that was concerned about this development said, “Listen, we don’t agree with it; we don’t like the way it’s being developed.” They indicated, “I feel threatened, harassed, and intimidated by Geranium’s legal claims, and fear exposure to lawsuits and the costs associated with defending them.”

Another quotation from another individual who was the subject of a lawsuit said, “I do not write letters to the town, county, province or local papers in fear of repercussions from the Big Bay Point developers, Kimvar Enterprises Inc., and Mr. Earl Rumm.” “From fear of being implicated in a lawsuit myself, I would not write a letter or voice my personal opinions about the project in any way whatsoever.”

Finally, another quote from someone who was sued: “I do not have the funds or means to defend myself in a lawsuit, which increases my fear of publicly speaking out as an individual.” “I would not testify at an OMB hearing with the lawsuits pending and the threat of new legal actions. I would not be able to defend myself financially from such a wealthy developer.”

This really captures the feelings and the emotions that people have. This is a legitimate concern. People in the community want to say, “We don’t like the way this development is proceeding”—something that I can imagine myself doing. If something happened in my community and I didn’t like the particular development—maybe I didn’t like the way it was designed; maybe I thought it wasn’t incorporating the community in a way that was positive; maybe it was taking away from the character of that area; whatever it was—and I wanted to say, “Listen, let’s get together and talk about this issue.

Let’s have a public debate on this,” and I organized a public debate. I say, “Let’s get together and talk about the pros and cons of this,” and I get up and say, “Listen, there are a number of cons. I think this is going to be deleterious or negative for our community for a number of reasons,” and I list those reasons. And the next day I see in registered mail at my door that I’m being sued because I got up and said that there were some cons to this development. That is absolutely unacceptable. The thought that someone could be sued simply for getting up in a community and saying, “Hey, I don’t agree with this.

I don’t think this is a good idea because it could hurt our community”—simply by saying it could hurt a community, the developer could then turn around and sue me and say, “We’re going to commence a lawsuit against you for millions of dollars because you’re jeopardizing our project”—and they could. They’re within their right to do so. That’s a problem. We don’t want that to happen. We don’t want people to fear legal actions, and that fear of legal action discourages them from participating and from voicing their concerns and having an opinion and laying out their concerns. It shouldn’t be the case.

That’s why we absolutely support this piece of legislation.

Normally, when we speak about legislation, we like to look at other examples: Has there been another jurisdiction where this has been implemented and how has it worked out? This is something I really want to stress, and I hope that when we take this to committee—I ask the Attorney General to also consider this as well.

We have a great leader in terms of another province that has implemented first-of-its-kind-in-Canada anti-SLAPP legislation in Quebec. I’m sure the Attorney General is well aware of this, but we need to look at their experience. I was just reading up on some of their experience. They’ve implemented it for a number of years and they’ve been able to look at some of the pros and cons and how it’s worked. So though they’ve noted that it has discouraged some strategic lawsuits against public participation—it has discouraged some SLAPPs—and it has allowed for the speedy dismissal of some of the SLAPPs, there is still a significant number. I’ll give one example.

This law was introduced in Quebec in 2009, approximately, and on January 19, 2011, there was a company, Petrolia, a Quebec oil and gas company, that sued Le Soleil, which is a newspaper, and Ugo Lapointe, who, at the time, was head of a mining watchdog group called the Coalition Québec meilleure mine. Though there was anti-SLAPP legislation that was implemented—which was good and which is something we’d like to see here—these two individuals for the newspaper were writing about the developer and some of the activities they were engaging in were not something the community wanted to see.

The mining watchdog group was raising concerns, and Mr. Lapointe was also raising concerns about it. They were still hit with a strategic lawsuit. We need to look at their case studies and how the law has played out in Quebec, to make sure we don’t get caught up in the same problems, that we can improve off of where they’ve seen that maybe there are some shortcomings in their legislation.

We need to make sure that, in our deputations, if possible, we encourage perhaps even the staff of the equivalent of the Attorney General in Quebec to perhaps speak about their experiences and how they would improve a law in its infancy, because we have a great opportunity now: the law is being crafted, and, in committee, we could potentially improve some things.

If we look at other jurisdictions, particularly a very similar jurisdiction—though Quebec has a civil law system which is somewhat different—it would still be very informative for us to look at what’s going on there and to see how we could improve our legislation. So I ask that, certainly in committee, we consider hearing from Quebec and from some representatives in Quebec who could talk about their experience there.

Other examples of SLAPPs being used here in Ontario: SLAPPs are commonly used against environmental activists, people who are concerned about the environment, and against people who are concerned about developments in their communities, and here’s another example. The example is the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition. They were opposing the dumping of untested fill at the Burlington Airpark. When they cited government documents that supported their criticism of the dumping of the fill, two members of the coalition were slapped with a $100,000 defamation suit each.

SLAPPs are still being used. It’s something that’s still going on. Sometimes we think we don’t know of examples. There are still a number of examples around the province, so it’s important for us to keep that in mind.

One of the areas where I had indicated that this is changing the way defamation and the way the law has been for hundreds of years: I want to touch on that just briefly and talk about how it’s being changed. While I think it’s appropriate that we need the change, I think we also need to be sensitive to some areas that we might want to look at.

One of the areas of concern—this was raised by a number of very experienced lawyers who had argued defamation cases, and some of the most important defamation cases here in Ontario. The issue that was raised by these lawyers was that we need to be very careful about the implications of these changes that we’re proposing here.

While I agree with the changes and while they flow from the recommendation of the anti-SLAPP legislation panel that was struck—and members of the panel are, of course, very skilled lawyers—one of the things we need to look at is that there is a changing of the onus, and that changing of the onus could open up certain people to more exposure to defamation. We need to be aware of that.

The portion of the law that talks about when you can dismiss a case is under subsection 137.1(3). The way the order to dismiss works is: “On motion by a person against whom a proceeding is brought, a judge shall, subject to subsection (4), dismiss the proceeding against the person if the person satisfies the judge that the proceeding arises from an expression made by the person that relates to a matter of public interest.”

There are a number of grounds that the judge has to be satisfied by. The judge has a look at the case and say, “Listen, if these things are present, then I will not dismiss the case, and if they are not present, then I can move ahead with the motion.”

The areas are the following:

—“the proceeding has substantial merit.” If you can show that the proceeding has substantial merit, that’s one of the grounds you need to show so that you can continue with the defamation;

—“the moving party has no valid defence in the proceeding.” If there’s no defence of the proceeding at all, then you can continue with the defamation claim;

—“the harm likely to be or have been suffered by the responding party as a result of the moving party’s expression is sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.” This is the area where we have a balancing. The balancing is important, but what it does is—we have to understand that there are certain people who always satisfy the test of being in the public interest.

If someone decides to make defamatory comments against, for example, an elected official, one could always argue that it’s in the public interest to raise concerns about elected officials because elected officials are in the public and they represent the public. One could argue that it’s always in the public interest for someone to get up and say, “I have a concern with this member who’s an elected official.” They could say things that are negative about that elected official. We have to be careful that if defamatory comments are used against people who are in a position of some public importance, they are now potentially open to more defamatory comments with less remedy.

The example that was given to me was the example of Scientology v. Hill. In that case, it was a prosecutor, someone who worked for the Ministry of the Attorney General—a provincial crown prosecutor. That prosecutor was involved in search warrants surrounding the Church of Scientology. Long story short, the issue was that some of the actions of this prosecutor resulted in the Church of Scientology suing Mr. Hill, a very respected prosecutor, for defamation. Eventually, Mr. Hill won the case and was able to show that there were no grounds for the defamation, but if we apply this current legislation to Mr.

Hill’s scenario, Mr. Hill would potentially not be able to dismiss the defamation against him because the new laws have changed the onus somewhat.

It’s something to keep in mind. In the Hill example, it was absolutely unfair what happened to Mr. Hill; and the thought that something like that would not be caught, or that Mr. Hill would not be protected and in fact would potentially be in a more difficult position because of this law, is something that we need to consider. That’s something that would balance our concerns somewhat.

Again, we absolutely need to have protection of public participation. It’s just something for us to look at—that there might be cases where we are now exposing people who are in the public or who satisfy the public interest to more exposure and perhaps more lawsuits, and not really giving them a defence. It’s something to consider.

We have another very recent example of SLAPP suits being used just a couple of years ago. People raised some significant concerns about Marineland and the treatment of animals in Marineland. We can all think about the animals that we kind of fondly remember, whether it’s in commercials or whether it’s going to water parks in the past. We look at the whales and the—

Interjection: Dolphins.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: —dolphins and the seals and we think, “These animals are cute,” and they inspire a lot of affection in us. So it would make sense that if someone, if trainers working at Marineland realized that there was mistreatment of these animals, they would want to come forward and say, “Hey, listen, what’s going on at Marineland? They’re not treating these animals right. They’re not being treated in an appropriate manner.” So they raised their concerns. It seems like something that would be reasonable to do.

There was, in fact, a coalition of folks who cared about these animals and were concerned about their treatment. They received information from trainers saying that there were some problems. Right now, Dylan Powell of Marineland Animal Defense is facing a $1.5-million SLAPP, and this was launched when he decided to shine light on Marineland’s operations. He discussed some of the issues around the way the animals were treated. In 2012, the Toronto Star broke a story that Marineland was burying animals on-site in mass graves without permits. A $1.5-million claim was filed against Dylan and the Marineland Animal Defense. It changed the media focus on the mass animal graves to a mass lawsuit.

So, one, it changed the story. It took attention off Marineland, and the story became this massive lawsuit, but it also discourages people who want to raise concerns. That story hit the media. People know that there was this massive lawsuit. The impact of it is that people know that if they raise their concerns, they might suffer a potential lawsuit—they might be threatened with a lawsuit and they might face a lawsuit.

People get discouraged when they hear that. It’s a real issue. It’s a real fear that people have. So we really need to look at what we can do to protect those folks. It’s a real issue. We have people across this province who are facing lawsuits, and it’s not just environmentalists; it’s not just people who are concerned about the welfare of animals. It’s people that—something as simple as developments in their own communities.

I gave that example. It’s important for us to really put our minds to scenarios. People can just talk. Even public debate has resulted in cases where people were threatened with lawsuits. If you organize public debate currently and you organize debate on a potential development or a potential action of a major corporation, you, right now, are susceptible to a potential lawsuit. It’s a real fear. It’s a real concern. People talk about it all the time. The fact that simply receiving a letter in the mail has such an impact, such a fear associated with that, just the threat of a lawsuit, is another area that we need to talk about.

While this law will certainly address the concerns raised by lawsuits when they are actually commenced and dismissing those lawsuits, what about the scenario where you just receive a letter in the mail? I benefit from having legal training. I understand that a letter by itself isn’t a lawsuit. A letter by itself has to be followed up by additional steps for it to become a legal action. A letter doesn’t actually commence legal action. It’s just a threat to commence a legal action.

But we also need to understand that there is often a lack of education about what those letters imply. So if I receive a letter in the mail and I don’t know about the law system to a great extent—I receive a letter and I’m a layperson—I might think that that letter itself is the lawsuit. If I receive a letter, there’s no lawsuit commenced, but that letter in and of itself could discourage me from talking about the issue.

This legislation doesn’t do anything to address that letter. We need to consider, perhaps, a number of different ways to address this, but one of the ways is, people need to know more about the system in general.

When it comes to protecting public participation, which is the essential ingredient of this law, we also need to look at the ways that public participation is silenced or discouraged without the actual commencing of a lawsuit, that those letters in and of themselves can discourage people, and at what we can do to ensure that those folks who are silenced through simply a letter in the mail—what we can do to encourage them to, one, know their rights, know that a letter in itself should not cause you to fear, should not cause you to feel that you have to be silent. So that’s something we need to consider as well.

When we look at other examples of strategic lawsuits to silence public participation, we also need to look at the climate and the priority that this government has given this bill. We have to look at some of the history.

Now, the government claims that there was an election that deterred this bill from being brought forward, but we have to actually roll back the clock a little bit further. This law has been introduced a number of times in the previous session. Even before the election was called, this law had been introduced. It was not given the time, it was not given the priority, and it was not given the importance that it deserved.

Again, this is a law that doesn’t cost any money. This is not going to, in any way, impact the budget. This is not a law that’s going to require any extra resources. This is simply a law that protects public participation. So it makes absolutely no sense that this law was not given the priority that it should have.

In the previous session I spoke about the fact that there were a number of other laws that were pushed in and they were given priority over this law. It made no sense at the time, and I want to reiterate that now you have an opportunity. The law is now being debated at second reading. Please give this law the priority it deserves. It is something of fundamental importance to our society and it’s now the government’s responsibility to make sure that this law goes through in a timely manner.

We want to ensure that people are protected, and having legislation come forward, debated and then never brought into third reading, never passed, will not actually offer that protection. I know a number of stakeholders who have said, “Listen, this law had been brought forward; the government hadn’t really given it any time—now it died on the order paper and it’s being reintroduced again.” We need to make sure that the government follows through on this and that it’s not simply satisfying people’s concerns by just bringing the bill forward. We need to satisfy their concerns by actually implementing it into law. Again, I encourage the government to do so.

We need to make sure that we get this bill right the first time. When it comes to committee hearings, we need to have significant committee hearings and make sure we hear from all the experts. Let’s not ram this bill through committee. Make sure the committee hearing is thoughtful, that we have proponents of the bill come forward and that we also have people who are concerned about the scope of the bill come forward so that we can craft the best bill possible. I think that’s essential. That’s absolutely important.

One of the things that’s very encouraging is that the panel that was struck came up with a number of recommendations. We’ve seen this government hear recommendations in the past and then never implement them. I can think of an example when it comes to the Special Investigations Unit here in Ontario. The Ontario Ombudsman came forward with a number of very, very clear recommendations—legislation that needed to be changed to improve the SIU—that could have been implemented by this government, and that report was provided and has been shelved, and none of those recommendations have been implemented.

We’ve seen, time and time again, important reports—reports that have been very informative—being brought forward and not implemented. In this case, though, I have to say that this is one of the rare examples where I looked through the report provided by the anti-SLAPP panel and all of the major recommendations have been put forward in this bill; they’ve been addressed, and that’s very encouraging.

Using this as an example, I know you can do it. We’ve seen in this bill that the recommendations provided by the panel have been implemented into this law. Since I know you can do it, I ask you to do it as well in other areas.

When it comes to police accountability—it’s an important issue, and we have recommendations by an objective, independent third party, someone who is well respected, André Marin, who talks about concerns that he has with the ability of the SIU to do its job, concerns about the Ministry of the Attorney General not encouraging the SIU or not allowing the SIU or creating barriers for the SIU to do its job. These are concerns raised by the independent watchdog for Ontario. Those recommendations weren’t implemented.

There are recommendations for child and youth services that we’ve seen tabled before and not implemented. Now that we know that you can actually implement recommendations, and you’ve done so in this bill—and I applaud you for it. We’d like to see you implement other recommendations that have been submitted by other panels and by other reports.

One of the issues that comes to mind, when we’re talking about the idea of protecting public participation, is the lack of awareness and lack of education in terms of what the community knows about their rights. If we’re talking about the idea of public participation, hand in hand with that is making sure that the community is aware of what their rights are in terms of public participation.

I want to take this opportunity to discuss what the government can do to ensure that there’s a climate in this government, in this province, that supports public participation. If we’re talking about legislating the protection of public participation, if we’re talking about legislating protection so that people don’t fear engaging in democracy, this is what this bill is about.

We also have to look at the climate that’s being created here in Ontario. One of the things that I want to talk about is the concept of the right to dissent. People don’t know what their rights are and often are misinformed—I understand that we’re close to—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you very much.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to announce some visitors from the Leamington area, who are here today in the gallery: Andrea Cassidy, Jacqueline Galy, Kimberly DeYong, Sandra Dick, Heidi Omstead, Kim Johnston and Natalie Mehra. It’s about the obstetric services in the Leamington hospital.

M. Gilles Bisson: J’aimerais introduire à l’Assemblée législative quatre étudiants du comté de Timmins–Baie James qui sont ici pour le Parlement des jeunes : Francis Létourneau de Hearst, avec Renée-Anne Pitre de Hearst; on a, de l’École secondaire Thériault de Timmins, Josée Lavoie; et, intéressant, de l’École Renaissance, Maël Bisson. Je n’ai aucune idée s’il est de la parenté, mais je vais le savoir parce qu’on s’en va dîner aujourd’hui à 11 h 35. So, on va avoir la chance de voir si Maël est apparenté avec le M. Bisson de l’Assemblée.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve had that problem in the past with my family, not knowing my relatives.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s my pleasure to welcome ward 1 Councillor Greg Beros of Richmond Hill and also Mr. Mike Ostafichuk from Richmond Hill Branch 778 Banshee Squadron and a comrade of the Richmond Hill Legion. Welcome to the Legislature.

M. John Vanthof: J’aimerais introduire, avec le Parlement jeunesse, Lionel Lemieux, Jessy Côté, Mélissa-Lyne Roy, Toni-Aliane Hacquard, Samuel Harvey et Brittany Pépin. Ils viennent de la circonscription de Timiskaming–Cochrane. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

M. Grant Crack: C’est un grand plaisir pour moi ce matin de souhaiter la bienvenue à tous les participants de la neuvième édition du Parlement jeunesse qui sont ici ce matin. Un bonjour très spécial pour les participants de ma circonscription de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell : Camille Sigouin, Jean-Sebastien Boyer, Jérémie Racine, Zoé Lavergne, Marielle Racette, et aussi Éric Dubois, Geneviève Latour, Éric Marcotte, Marie-Christine Castonguay et Étienne Camirand. Bienvenue, tout le monde.

M me France Gélinas: Moi aussi, ça me fait extrêmement plaisir d’accueillir les jeunes du Parlement jeunesse francophone, plus spécifiquement deux jeunes hommes de mon comté : M. Olivier Bélanger et M. Chad Savard.

I would also like to take this opportunity, while I’m up, to welcome two physicians from the Mood Disorders Centre of Ottawa. Dr. Anne Duffy and Dr. Paul Grof are here with us at Queen’s Park. Welcome to Queen’s Park. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

M me Marie-France Lalonde: C’est avec grand honneur que je veux souhaiter la bienvenue au Parlement des jeunes francophones que j’ai eu le plaisir de rencontrer hier soir, et particulièrement certains membres de ma circonscription : Gabriel Cyr, Jenna Rossi, Mackenzie Wall, Mélissa-Samuele Anthonin, Laurianne Mbuluku, Réginald-Yves Lundi. Et un grand merci à Camille Sigouin qui est étudiante dans mon bureau de circonscription. Je vous souhaite une belle session.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It gives me great pleasure to rise today to welcome Andrea Cassidy, Jacqueline Galy and Kimberly DeYong. They’re here today with Save OB Leamington, the Essex County Health Coalition, the Ontario Health Coalition and residents of Essex county to save the obstetrics and gynecology services at Leamington District Memorial. They’re not in the gallery yet; they were doing a press conference. They should be up soon.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am delighted to welcome Peter Killorn, who is visiting us from Halifax, and Tess Killorn, his sister. They are the brother and sister of the wonderful Bill Killorn, who is the director of issues management in the Premier’s office. Welcome, and enjoy watching your brother work today.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I want to welcome Sandra Dick, Heidi Omstead, Kim Johnston and Natalie Mehra. If members are wondering where they got the cute little baby bonnets, they are courtesy of these folks, who are here to raise awareness about the closure of the OB unit at Leamington District Memorial Hospital.

Mr. Bob Delaney: On behalf of the member for Eglinton–Lawrence and page Arlyne James, I’m pleased to welcome Arlyne’s mother, Sheliagh Flynn James; her brother, Conall James; her uncle, Brian Flynn; and her cousin, Devlan Flynn. They’ll be in the members’ gallery this morning. Would members please offer them a welcome.

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

Sergeant-at-Arms?

Associate Minister of Finance.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I’d like to welcome the family of our page captain Fardin today. His mother, father and brother are in the gallery. We’d like to welcome Farzana Huq, Khairul Islam and Farhan Islam. They are my wonderful constituents. Please welcome them.

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Je voudrais souhaiter la bienvenue aux jeunes d’Ottawa qui participent au Parlement jeunesse francophone, de l’École secondaire De La Salle et de Samuel-Genest, les deux meilleures écoles secondaires de l’Ontario.

Hon. David Orazietti: I want to welcome Nathan Salituri, who is here from Sault Ste. Marie as part of the francophone model Parliament.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Also in the members’ gallery, we have Dr. Robert Brown, a retired professor from the University of Waterloo and president of the International Actuarial Association. We have Jim Keohane, the president and CEO of the Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan and member of our technical advisory group on retirement security. We also have Victoria Hubbell, who is a senior vice-president, strategy and stakeholder relations, at HOOPP. They’re here today providing briefing sessions on the findings from Dr. Brown’s report, A Case Against Shifting Public Sector Defined Benefits Plans to Defined Contributions.

I’d like to congratulate HOOPP on being one of the pension companies internationally recognized for their earnings. Congratulations.

M me Sophie Kiwala: Je veux dire une grande bienvenue aux étudiants qui viennent de Kingston et les Îles au « model Parliament » des jeunes francophones : Isaac Goggin, Sébastien Gravel, Vincent Bélanger et Nathan Feuillat. Bienvenue.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I’d like to ask all members to join me in welcoming grade 5 students from Father F.X. O’Reilly school in Tottenham. Welcome to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): With us in the Speaker’s gallery today is a former member from Carleton East in the 33rd, 34th, 35th and 36th Parliament, Monsieur Gilles Morin. Welcome.

Use of props in the House

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As I have done before—

Interjections.

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

As I have done before, I noticed an item that could be considered and classified—and it is by me—as a prop. The disappointing part about this is that advice was already provided to those who put it on the desks. That they still did it anyway is not impressive to me, and I’m not happy.

I also suggest to you that House leaders must agree to these issues, and normally, what is done is they are found on the outside galleries or in the lobbies, and with the approval of all three House leaders, they do unanimous consent.

So I am not happy that this is happening, just as I was not happy the last time I had to speak to this regarding a separate issue with almost the same intent, to use it as a prop.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Acting Premier. On December 11, a particular federal MP stood up to address the Canadian House of Commons and made statements like “New Democrats have,” “New Democrats support” and “New Democrats also feel.” That was your new member from Sudbury. Those words were spoken on the afternoon of December 11, the same afternoon the Premier claims to have told Andrew Olivier she was appointing Mr. Thibeault.

Acting Premier, if your Premier had already decided to appoint Mr. Thibeault as the Liberal candidate on December 11, do you really think it’s appropriate that he was passing himself off as a New Democrat and collecting his federal paycheque until your operatives could sway Mr. Olivier with an alleged bribe?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have to say that Glenn Thibeault is an excellent addition to our caucus, to our government. He is a very strong advocate for the people of Sudbury and we welcome him here on the government side.

Throughout his career, Glenn has shown an unwavering commitment to the people of Sudbury. I’ve had a chance to speak to this before and I will speak to it again. He has fought tirelessly for supports for persons with developmental disabilities, and I know that’s an issue that’s important to you and other members of your caucus. He has fought tirelessly for quality services for families struggling with autism. He was a director of the United Way. He led many successful campaigns in support of community development. He was a proud volunteer with Big Brothers Big Sisters and he coached minor hockey and football. He’s helped empower Sudbury youth to achieve their full potential.

We are delighted that Glenn Thibeault has chosen the Liberal Party—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: You’re not here to promote Glenn Thibeault.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the Acting Premier: The Premier said she made the decision to appoint Mr. Thibeault on November 30. She allegedly told Mr. Olivier on December 11. Pat Sorbara offered Mr. Olivier an appointment to step aside on December 12. Mr. Thibeault made his announcement public on December 17. Confusingly enough, on December 17, many residents in Sudbury opened their mailboxes to find a taxpayer-funded mail-out from the federal NDP member on Sudbury’s parliamentary budget.

Acting Premier, do you think it’s appropriate for the member to send out a mailer if, as you claim, the Premier made the decision to appoint him in November?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. I will be extremely tight in my expectation of bringing attention when I stand. If it continues, we’ll get straight to naming.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let’s speak about the track record of the member from Sudbury. While he was in Ottawa, he advocated for greater retirement security, enhanced consumer protection and significant investments in the Ring of Fire. These are all issues and expertise that he brings to Ontario. As an MPP, he’s been appointed the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, where he’ll work on the defining issue of our generation. Yesterday he was in attendance at the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada conference, advocating for Sudbury’s mineral exploration and development industry.

He is a very, very strong voice for Sudbury, and that’s why the people of Sudbury sent him to Queen’s Park.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: Back again to the Acting Premier: If Mr. Thibeault knew on November 30 that he was running for you, as the Premier has said over and over and over again—if that’s true, it’s absolutely unethical, an abuse of his parliamentary budget and taxpayers’ dollars to promote himself that close to stepping down and running at a different level.

Acting Premier, do you support Mr. Thibeault’s use of taxpayers’ money to promote himself if he was already your candidate?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

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

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, this morning, I had a little glimmer of hope that things were changing in the PC Party, because the member from Whitby–Oshawa said, “For too long, our party has been out of touch with everyday Ontarians.” I agree with the member from Whitby–Oshawa. She said, “For too long, we focused on identifying problems instead of providing solutions.” I agree with the member from Whitby–Oshawa.

This is what gave me hope. This is what she said: “Well that changes today. Today is a new day. Today, all of us here, this team, we have a new attitude and a new plan.”

I was hoping for new questions, Speaker.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. I remind all members: When I stand, everyone sits. I also remind the government side that when I ask you to be seated, you are to be seated.

New question.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Acting Premier. Yesterday, the government caucus voted against our motion asking for the simple recognition that the Premier’s office must be above suspicion, and a commitment that we preserve the integrity of Ontario’s highest political office.

It’s shameful that the Liberal government continues to protect Liberal fundraiser Gerry Lougheed Jr. and the Premier’s deputy chief of staff, Pat Sorbara, in the face of serious allegations that they offered bribes to convince someone not to run for office.

Acting Premier, despite precedents and expectations that these individuals be stripped of their taxpayer-paid positions until the accusations are resolved, you and your government and your Premier continue to refuse to take the honourable and right action. Your refusal to even acknowledge the dark cloud cast on democracy begs the question: What are you trying to hide?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Premier and our entire caucus take this matter very seriously, and the Premier has spoken to that repeatedly.

The investigation is independent of this House. The investigation is being conducted by competent people who actually know how to conduct investigations. Elections Ontario determined that the allegations against the Premier and the member from Sudbury were baseless. However, we will continue to co-operate fully, Speaker.

I actually agree with the PC House leader when he said, “Stop interfering in an ongoing investigation, and let it run its course.”

When asked about charges laid against a PC staff member this week, the PC member from Whitby–Oshawa said, “I really don’t have a comment ... on this because it’s before the courts.”

Even this morning, when she was asked about that, she said, “I’m leaving it in the hands of the police and the justice system to continue their investigation and I’m confident that they will reach”—

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: When something wrong happens on this side of the House, we suspend the member. The member steps aside. In this case, that staff member stepped aside.

Why don’t you learn? When I was Minister of Health, I stepped aside for 10 weeks when someone on my staff said something stupid to a Globe and Mail reporter. There was absolutely no accusation of criminal wrongdoing. There was no breach of the Election Act.

You’ve got an OPP officer who swore in an affidavit that you broke the law in trying to bribe Mr. Olivier. You’ve got the Chief Electoral Officer going as far as he—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I can’t accept that. I’d ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Carry on.

Mr. Jim Wilson: —allegation that you broke the law: I think the OPP officer deserves some respect. She wouldn’t have sworn on an affidavit if she didn’t have reason to believe that the law has been breached; ditto with the Chief Electoral Officer. As you know, he has gone as far as he can in his powers. He is recommending that the OPP look at this, and that’s exactly what they’re doing.

Do the right thing, and step aside. Tell us today you’re going to do the right thing.

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, if we want to talk about the member’s record, let’s go back to 1998, when former NDP MPP Floyd Laughren resigned his seat to become chair of the Ontario Energy Board. Let me quote from the Hamilton Spectator: “Veteran MPP Floyd Laughren, the former New Democrat finance minister, is calling it quits to accept a $120,000 a year government appointment.” Who was energy minister? Who appointed that member? None other than the current interim leader of the official opposition. If we want to talk about your record, let’s talk about your record.

To make it worse, the Leader of the Opposition was asked to explain how this could have happened, and his answer was, “If you’re looking for logic in this business, you’re in the wrong place.”

Well, we are looking for logic, Speaker, and we are looking to let the investigation happen outside this House.

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

Interjections.

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

I would ask the member from Renfrew to let me do that job, whether I sit up or stand up, whatever. I’ll do it.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I wanted a government appointment as their choreographer.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not prepared to engage anyone in a conversation.

Final supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: They mention the case of Floyd Laughren—back to the Acting Premier: I think you owe Mr. Laughren an apology. The chronology in that case was, Mr. Laughren had stepped down from office. He was eminently qualified to be chair of the Ontario Energy Board, and he was appointed some months later, after he stepped down from office and voluntarily left this place. You owe him an apology. And I hate to admit it, but he actually did a really good job as chair of the Ontario Energy Board, and we were all very proud of him, even though he wasn’t much of a Treasurer.

When Greg Sorbara stepped down for simply being named in a warrant, he said this: “A rather serious mistake has been made, but the interests of our government are greater than the interests of my personal career as finance minister.” Now, I didn’t always agree with Mr. Sorbara, but that’s a class act. Why don’t you show some class, dismiss these individuals—

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

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Perhaps you could turn around and speak to the woman behind you, the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, who resigned her seat in 2009 and accepted a paid position on the same day. The Sudbury Star reported, “Scott Trades Seat for Head Office Job.” PC “Laurie Scott was given the job Friday of getting the opposition ready for the next election in exchange for giving up her seat in the Ontario Legislature.”

We have no idea who had conversations with whom. She may very well have stepped down voluntarily. But would she have been willing to do that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville, the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and the member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order—second time.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I know we can’t always trust PC math, but we’ve seen the numbers, and we wonder, who is stepping down for Patrick Brown?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

New question.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Deputy Premier. The Liberals are trying to rewrite history. Yesterday, the Premier insisted it was common knowledge that she was going to appoint Glenn Thibeault in November. Horse feathers, Speaker. On December 12, Gerry Lougheed said to Andrew Olivier, “The Premier up to now, has always said to me, she’s in favour” of nomination races. “So I want to make that really clear, she’s never said to me, ‘I want to appoint him’,” and, “to be fair to Glenn, Glenn has never said, ‘I want to be appointed.’” This isn’t rhetoric or spin. It’s the Premier’s Liberal kingmaker on tape.

When will the Liberals start telling the truth about the Sudbury bribery scandal?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As the Premier has said time and time and time again, she made the decision when she met Glenn Thibeault that he was going to be the candidate.

You know what? She wasn’t the only one who thought that Glenn Thibeault would be an excellent candidate. Let me read the editorial from Northern Life. This is what they had to say:

“We say elect Glenn Thibeault. He’s a seasoned politician with deep roots in the community, whose skills put him head and shoulders above the other candidates. He has been a very effective constituency man, an articulate member of the opposition and past executive director of United Way.

“Thibeault will be working for the government in power, and we believe he’ll make a difference.... Sudbury is the mining capital of the world and we need to be plugged into government to maximize our economic growth and sustainability.”

So it wasn’t just the Premier who thought he would be the best candidate. The people of Sudbury made that decision.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday, the Premier stood up and insisted that she’s been answering questions for weeks. It’s true that the Premier has stood up and she has talked, but she hasn’t actually answered a single thing. This is a really important question. There’s no spin. There is nothing complicated. It isn’t a trick question. The question is pretty straight up: Who told Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed to offer Andrew Olivier a job?

Gerry Lougheed says it was the Premier. I’m asking the Deputy Premier now: Who was it?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The leader of the NDP knows full well that it’s not appropriate to comment on a police investigation. In fact, on December 11 last year, the leader of the NDP held a press conference at the media studio right here at Queen’s Park. She was questioned then on criminal allegations against an NDP candidate. Allow me to read to you what the leader of the third party said during this press conference:

“Right now, this is a matter that’s in front of the police.... I can’t talk about the details at this point because the police are investigating.” The member was asked question after question, many by Richard Brennan, but refused to answer. She was asked 14 times, and then what did she say? She said, “I’m not going to talk about this any longer. I’ve said to you what I need to say. The police are investigating the matter.”

The NDP keep asking, week after week, questions about a matter before the police. I think the leader—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I am disgusted that the Deputy Premier—

Interjections.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I am disgusted that the Deputy Premier would actually raise an issue of a woman who complained about sexual harassment and try to get me to talk about someone’s personal sexual harassment case. That’s what that was all about. Shame on you, as the Deputy Premier, to raise that in this House. Shame on you.

We all know that the Premier—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No. It’s from all sides. Order, please. Thank you.

Finish, please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We all know that not her chief of staff, her campaign director, her Sudbury kingmaker, Sudbury’s former riding association president, Andrew Olivier, Glenn Thibeault, the OPP, Elections Ontario or any of the other evidence we’ve seen backs up the Premier’s story. Can the confidante of the Premier, the Deputy Premier, actually back up this story of the Premier’s version of events?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like to point out that I was not the one who mentioned anything to do with the allegation other than to say that the leader of the third party was asked repeatedly about a matter that was under police investigation, and she repeatedly refused to answer the question because it was under police investigation. It is exactly what they have been subjecting the Premier to week after week.

Let me quote again—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It goes both ways.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It’s not helpful when I stand and it continues.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Don’t we have a committee going on right now on sexual harassment?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. Order, please. Wrap up, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me remind you what the leader of the third party said about a matter that was in front of the police: “Right now this is a matter that’s in front of the police ... I can’t talk about the details ... because the police”—

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

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Deputy Premier. There are taped calls. There are police warrants. There are letters and an independent report from Elections Ontario. They all say that Andrew Olivier was offered a bribe. Instead of answering plain questions, Ontarians get the same response, day after day, and yet today, another new low by the Liberals in terms of this discussion.

I ask the Deputy Premier, the Premier’s closest confidante: When was the Deputy Premier told; when was she told that there would be no nomination meeting? Was it before or after the bribery attempts were made?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I, for one, am delighted that Glenn Thibeault decided to leave the NDP and join the Liberal Party. He made a very good decision, and the people of Sudbury made the decision to send him to Queen’s Park. There are many reasons that they did that.

I think that the Northern Life editorial says it best: “He’s a seasoned politician with deep roots in the community, whose skills put him head and shoulders above the other candidates. He has been a very effective constituency man, an articulate member of the opposition and past executive director of United Way.

“Thibeault will be working for the government in power ... we believe he’ll make a difference ... Sudbury is the mining capital of the world and we need to be plugged into government to maximize our economic growth and sustainability.”

The people of Sudbury spoke.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontarians deserve to know who gave the order to offer Andrew Olivier a job. The Liberals have been asked this question 50 times, and we have 50 responses but zero answers.

It’s not complicated: Who was making the decisions in the Sudbury bribery scandal?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Economic Development, come to order. Thank you.

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I know that this will get the leader of the third party angry, but do you know what? I have to go back and quote her own words back to her: “I can’t talk about the details at this point because the police are investigating.”

She was pushed. She was pushed hard. Fourteen times she was asked the question, and finally she said—she said; the Premier has not said this—“I’m not going to talk about this any longer. I’ve said to you what I need to say. The police are investigating the matter,” and shut down the conversation.

Speaker, she knows full well that when an issue is before the police, then comments are not appropriate.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Premier, this is the third week that we’ve been trying to get answers about the bribery scandal that happened in Sudbury. Instead, Ontarians see the Premier and the Deputy Premier playing games, slinging muck, refusing to answer questions.

Somebody was making the decisions in the Sudbury bribery scandal. The Deputy Premier was aware of the conversations that the Premier had with her soul. Was she aware of any conversations the Premier had with anyone else about a nomination meeting being cancelled in Sudbury?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m tempted to ask the leader of the third party why she didn’t respond to the questions that were asked to her about a criminal investigation. I would also like to know why they are not asking questions about poverty. Why are they not asking questions about homelessness? Why are they not asking questions about insurance? Why are they not asking questions about economic growth? Why are they not asking questions about health care? There are many, many issues.

On this side of the House, we’re working hard to address the needs of the people of this province. I think it would be refreshing to have a real policy question instead of another—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —question, Speaker.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Acting Premier. Just like the gas plants scandal, it’s the deputy chief of staff at the centre of OPP allegations. This time, it’s allegations in the Sudbury bribery scandal, and it’s her words that will be your Premier’s undoing.

The Premier stated that she made the decision to appoint the Sudbury candidate in late November, but in December, Pat Sorbara said “She’s”—meaning the Premier—“gonna”—that’s a future tense, and that’s very critical. “She’s gonna have to make a decision around the appointment.” The tape doesn’t lie. On December 12, she hadn’t yet made her decision.

Acting Premier, will you admit that the Premier’s version and the version found on the tape are quite different?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I appreciate the question, but as I said earlier, I was really, really hoping that the members of the PC caucus would listen to one of their own, the member from Whitby–Oshawa, who said this morning, “For too long, our party has been out of touch with everyday Ontarians.” Would we agree? I think we would agree with that. “For too long, we focused on identifying problems instead of providing solutions.” Then she said, and this is what gave me hope—the member who you, I believe, are supporting for leader said, “Well, that changes today. Today is a new day.

Today, all of us here, this team, we have a new attitude and a new plan.” I thought we might see that reflected in question period today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Again to the Acting Premier: Just because she’s talking doesn’t mean she’s answering. This is just like the gas plants scandal all over, where Liberal operatives said one thing, but recovered emails previously deleted clearly laid out the truth. This time, it’s your operatives’ words which were caught on tape.

Gerry Lougheed went through a hypothetical scenario with Andrew Olivier on December 11—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I’m going to continue to ask for decorum. I will continue to ask all members to race to the top.

Finish your question, please.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaking as if he were Olivier, Lougheed says on the tape, “What are you giving me ... to step down...? Otherwise ... I’m gonna go sell memberships and see what my chances are.” Mr. Olivier would not be told that he could still sell memberships if a decision had already been made in December, like the Premier claims. She’s been snared by her own story, which is opposite the tape’s.

Deputy Premier, will you admit the Premier misled this House?

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

Mr. Todd Smith: Same old story.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings, second time.

Please withdraw.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Deputy Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I can tell the member opposite that the Premier of this province, the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, is a woman of enormous integrity. She is telling the absolute truth. In fact, she is a woman who thought through very clearly what she needed to do.

She is a woman who is building a strong government. She wanted a voice from Sudbury in government. She wanted Glenn Thibeault on this side of the House, working for the people of Sudbury. What she did is, when she met him in Sudbury, she said, “This is the man I know I want in my caucus.” She decided at that time that he would be the candidate, and then he went on to become the member.

Interjection.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It was a hard-fought election. I’m sorry the PC Party lost their deposit, but that’s how it goes sometimes. But he’s a strong candidate, and he is a strong member.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings, withdraw.

Mr. Todd Smith: Withdraw.

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

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Integrity? She broke the law, Speaker. I don’t see integrity in that.

Anyway, my question is to the Acting Premier. Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed are on tape offering Andrew Olivier anything he wants in order to get out of the way, offering him what the OPP and Elections Ontario have described as a bribe. But it doesn’t stop there. Pat Sorbara told Andrew Olivier that he’s the third person the Premier has called in order to push aside a potential candidate.

Can the Deputy Premier tell this House who else the Premier has pushed aside and what rewards the Premier offered them?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I hate to go back to Scarborough–Guildwood, but I think we have to go back to Scarborough–Guildwood. You might remember there was a by-election there in 2013. The NDP had a very fine candidate who wanted the nomination, Amarjeet Kaur Chhabra—

Mr. Paul Miller: The NDP had a nomination meeting. No comparison.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, come to order.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —a very highly respected person in that community, and who the leader of the third party decided she wanted to run there was Adam Giambrone. So instead of having a clean appointment, she chose to run what—I’m not going to say this, but others do. The president of the NDP Scarborough–Guildwood riding association, Viresh Raghubeer, said to the Toronto Star, “I am very disappointed. We are confident that things need to be investigated further and we needed further proof as to what happened at the nomination meeting. Whenever you try to speak about democracy in the party”—

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It was called a nomination, and Adam Giambrone did the work that you do as a candidate seeking nomination. He got more votes. That was the story. But my question back—

Interjections.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Throw them all out.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There are some people I can start with. Thank you.

Please finish.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The Deputy Premier can try to deflect as much as she wants. After offering Andrew Olivier anything he wanted so he’d get out of the way and Glenn Thibeault could have an uncontested nomination that the Premier wanted, Pat Sorbara told Andrew Olivier, “By the way ... you’re ... the third person I’ve ever heard” the Premier “even ask this of.”

I ask you again: Who are those people and what did she offer?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let’s go back to 2013, the Scarborough–Guildwood by-election and the candidate, Amarjeet Kaur Chhabra. According to media reports, an independent probe into this nomination was overruled by the central party, leading the president of the NDP Scarborough–Guildwood riding association to say—and let me repeat— “I am very disappointed. We are confident that things need to be investigated further and we needed further proof as to what happened in the nomination meeting. Whenever you try to speak about democracy (in the party) you are demonized.”

Viresh Raghubeer, the president of the riding association, is saying that speaking about democracy makes you demonized in the Ontario New Democratic Party.

Trucking safety

Ms. Harinder Malhi: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Last fall, there were some concerns raised regarding the testing and training of those who drive commercial vehicles. While I understand that safety is our government’s number one priority, those living in Brampton–Springdale want to know what measures are in place to ensure that truck drivers are being properly trained.

Can the Minister of Transportation please confirm whether our government is committed to developing the mandatory truck driver training?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to begin by thanking my colleague the member from Brampton–Springdale for the leadership that she is showing in her community. This is an example of that kind of leadership.

Thank goodness I’ve got a real question on a transportation issue. Let me first mention that we’ve actually seen the number of fatalities and collisions involving large trucks decline by 41% between 2002 and 2011. This is a remarkable statistic, but we know there is always more that can be done to improve road safety. That’s why both myself and the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities made a commitment last fall to develop a system that ensures mandatory truck driver training is in place.

We’ve already taken tangible steps towards that goal. On February 18, MTO led the first official consultations on mandatory truck driver training, and on February 25 I was pleased to attend a round table with the Truck Training Schools Association of Ontario. We are committed to moving forward with this mandatory truck driver training, and we are putting in the work to make sure it happens.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Harinder Malhi: I want to thank the minister for his response. I’m very happy to hear that our government is committed to developing a mandatory truck driver training regime.

The minister mentioned that our government has already taken tangible steps forward on this important issue. Those living in my constituency of Brampton–Springdale will be pleased to hear that our government has been consulting with industry leaders, but I’m certain that they would want to hear more about the details of these consultations.

Mr. Speaker, can I ask the minister to please tell members of the House more about the consultations that have been conducted to develop mandatory truck driver training in Ontario?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I want to thank the member from Brampton–Springdale for the supplementary. I was very pleased to attend the Truck Training Schools Association of Ontario round table last week. Over 100 individuals representing enforcement, municipal and industry organizations were in attendance at that event.

Interjection.

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

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Our government is committed to working together to develop a system that will give Ontarians the confidence to know that commercial drivers are getting the training they need to succeed on our roads. We will get the best results by hearing directly from those working on the front lines, whether it’s carriers, instructors or insurance providers. That’s why round tables like the one I attended are so incredibly important. Together, we can and we will deliver a robust program to measure competency and administer mandatory training for commercial truck drivers.

We will work to get it right, and we’ll find a standard that keeps us at the forefront of road and highway safety in North America.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Acting Premier. On September 25, your leader and the cabinet made a trip to the great city of Sudbury. On that same trip, Gerry Lougheed Jr. hosted a $1,750-a-plate fundraiser for you and your cabinet ministers. Was anything promised to Mr. Lougheed in return for his loyalty to the Ontario Liberal Party?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think it’s important that the member from Simcoe–Grey probably wants to correct his record, Speaker. I have a Broadcast News release here from Wednesday, January 28, 1998. It says: “Former NDP Treasurer Floyd Laughren has been appointed to chair the Ontario Energy Board effective March 1. Energy Minister Jim Wilson made the announcement today. Laughren is the current longest-serving member of Queen’s Park.”

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. I listened very carefully. Truthfully, I’m trying to allow this weaving in and out. I need to have this woven into an answer.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m just wanting the member to correct his record, but I can do that a little bit later, Speaker.

The leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, the Premier of Ontario, made a decision to appoint Glenn Thibeault to be our candidate in the Sudbury by-election. The people of Sudbury endorsed that decision and elected him, and we are delighted that he is here.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Let’s get back to the question that was asked. We all understand the importance of loyalty, but there comes a point when integrity must trump all. Staff and people are loyal because they do exactly what is asked of them. Is that the real reason your leader is so loyal to Pat Sorbara and Gerry Lougheed, because they did exactly what she asked them to do when they spoke to Mr. Olivier on her behalf?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the innuendo and the—it’s beneath the dignity of this House that people would impugn the integrity of someone. I think it’s also important to remind people that the police are investigating, so the Premier and others have to leave that investigation to those experts outside this House who are conducting the investigation.

I think the member opposite would be interested to know that Mr. Lougheed has also donated—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Dufferin–Caledon, come to order; a second time, and you asked the question.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —and again in 2011—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Dufferin–Caledon is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Gerry Lougheed is a very generous person. I think people in Sudbury—I bet even the member from Nickel Belt would acknowledge that he is a community leader and very generous. His generosity extends to the Conservative Party with donations to the Conservative Party. I don’t think you’re looking for anything from him either.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Acting Premier. Pat Sorbara is on tape telling Andrew Olivier that the Premier has pushed aside other people in the past and potentially offered them incentives. Has Pat Sorbara been instructed to tell the police who these people are?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the member is a lawyer. The member knows exactly what can be said and what cannot be said. The member opposite knows that the police investigation must be conducted outside of this House. It is not just the leader of the third party who knows that when a matter is before the police, there are limits to comments you can make; the member from Brampton also knows it.

The leader said, “I am not going to talk about this any longer. I’ve said to you what I need to say. The police are investigating this matter.” Speaker, they know that these questions are inappropriate, and I would welcome a question on auto insurance.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I think members in this House know full well that the job of the opposition is to hold the government to account, and that is what we will do.

The Premier has pushed aside at least two other people in the past. She has dealt with these other two people the same way she’s dealt with Mr. Olivier. At least, that’s what Pat Sorbara told Andrew Olivier in the taped phone call that we have.

Has Pat Sorbara been told to tell investigators exactly who these people are and what they were offered?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I have said many times, this investigation is independent of this government and of this House. We would welcome, we are begging for, questions on policy issues that matter to the people of this province. There are people here from Leamington who, I know, have questions for the Minister of Health.

We’re begging you, pleading with you, to please ask a substantive question that relates to government policy.

Agriculture industry

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Speaker, my question, through you, is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, the people in this province are interested in and excited about the government’s local food strategy. In my riding of Northumberland–Quinte West, there are great opportunities to support local producers and promote local food, like the Cobourg Farmers’ Market. We know that more consumption of local food is better for our health and supportive of our local agricultural community and economy. I know that through the Local Food Act, our government continues to promote the good things that are grown and harvested across the province.

Speaker, would the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs please provide an update on proclamations under the Local Food Act?

Hon. Jeff Leal: Speaker, let me tell you, that was an outstanding question from the member for Northumberland–Quinte West on a very important policy in terms of local food.

We know that buying local food supports our communities. It helps dollars circulate locally, creates jobs and helps our agri-food sector. That’s why we introduced the Local Food Act. I want to pay tribute to the member from Sarnia–Lambton on the tax credit to donate to local food banks. That has been a great success.

I know the member from Northumberland–Quinte West, along with Diane, goes to the farmers’ market in Cobourg every Saturday with their grandkids—a great event for them.

But, Mr. Speaker, I’m happy to say that a number of our supply management groups are now helping food banks in Ontario. The Chicken Farmers of Ontario has set an annual donation target of 100,000 chickens per year. The Dairy Farmers of Ontario, the Ontario Dairy Council and the Ontario Milk Transport Association contribute over one billion litres of milk every year. And my good friends the Egg Farmers of Ontario, through a new program, will provide 12,000 dozen eggs—

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

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

The food donation tax credit is an integral part of our government’s commitment to support farmers, increase access to nutritious locally grown food and promote the good things that are grown right across the province.

But minister, with more local food available, it’s important that Ontarians understand how and when to access this great food. Part of the Local Food Act requires the government to set aspirational food literacy goals and targets. Not only will food literacy support local food, but it will also promote growth and build opportunities for our agri-food sector.

Speaker, can the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs please update the House on the status of these targets?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank my good friend from Northumberland–Quinte West for the supplementary. You sense his excitement when he is going to the Cobourg Farmers’ Market every Saturday.

This has allowed us to develop a closer relationship, understanding our local food. That is why, under the Local Food Act, we recently announced a set of targets to encourage and increase food literacy across this wonderful province. We want to increase the number of Ontarians who (1) know what local foods are available, (2) know how and where to obtain local foods, (3) prepare local food meals for family and friends—even meals for the opposition and new friends. They want to make local food more available through food service providers.

We all win when food literacy improves. Mr. Speaker, setting these goals is a very exciting step forward. It’s healthy for Ontarians. And see the member at the Cobourg Farmers’ Market this Saturday.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I am hanging in. I am going to ask and remind members that it is not convention to use people’s names. Quite frankly, it doesn’t elevate the debate; it lowers it. Please refer to members by either their titles or their ridings.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Gerry Lougheed has been described as a kingmaker, as a renowned fundraiser and as a long-time Liberal Party operative. It is apparent he has the ear of your Premier and her inner circle. As such, he had the prerogative to offer appointments, jobs or whatever entitlements to Mr. Olivier.

Deputy Premier, outside of this case, and Andrew Olivier not included, has Gerry Lougheed Jr. ever approached any other individual about a legal appointment on behalf of the Premier?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member for Beaches–East York: second time.

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I said earlier, Gerry Lougheed Jr. is an outstanding member of the Sudbury community. He is extraordinarily generous personally, and he has also spearheaded fundraising campaigns for many causes, including the hospital there. Even the member from Timmins–James Bay says he’s a great guy.

I just want to go back to the situation when Floyd Laughren resigned his seat to become chair of the Ontario Energy Board. We heard from the former Minister of Energy, the member from Simcoe–Grey, that he resigned his seat before he was appointed, and, actually, history does not bear that out.

This news release I started to read said he “has been appointed chair effective March 1. Jim Wilson made the announcement today. He is expected to announce his resignation from the Legislature later today in Sudbury.” So I am sure the member opposite will want to correct his record.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: Again to the Deputy Premier: There is no doubt Gerry Lougheed Jr. is well connected in Sudbury. That fact stands. And as the Deputy Premier just said, Mr. Lougheed felt—he is very generous, but not with provincial appointments. But he felt he could make calls to individuals on behalf of the Premier. There is no indication the Premier herself did or said anything to stop or deny him that entitlement.

Separate from this ongoing bribery investigation case, has the Premier ever before acted on the recommendation of friend Gerry Lougheed Jr. in appointing individuals to one of the province’s agencies, boards or commissions?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, as I said before, Gerry Lougheed Jr. is an outstanding member of the community in Sudbury. He has been supportive not just of the Liberal Party, but the Conservative Party as well.

I do want to go back to the question of who is going to step down for Patrick Brown. There is a history of members resigning their seats for a new leader. David Tilson—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. As I’ve tried to indicate to members on a constant basis, I am truly trying to listen carefully to all of the responses and questions. I’m also going to indicate to you that it does get bothersome and tiresome that people are trying to tell me how to do the job.

Most of all, for the sake of all of you, I think we need to move the level up, for me to hear. I’m hearing these interjections on an ongoing basis back and forth, even when persons are trying to put a question. You’re not helping me at all, and I wouldn’t mind your help.

I’m going to ask the member to again focus on the answer. Thank you.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, this is an issue that has been discussed to the exclusion of every other issue in the province of Ontario for the past three weeks. I find it interesting that the member opposite isn’t asking about his hospital in Markdale. I’m surprised he isn’t asking for an update on that terrific announcement that the Minister of Health made, an issue that affects every person in his community.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Deputy Premier. The Liberal government is now fac