I’ll remind the Attorney General again, the Federation of Ontario Law Associations called the Premier’s comments a “juvenile misapprehension.” He has placed two former staffers on the committee to advance a political agenda in our courts.

The Advocates’ Society has sent the Premier a letter saying that his approach poses “a substantial threat to the independence of ... judges” and “the administration of justice” here in the province of Ontario. They may not like it, but that’s what they’re saying.

Speaker, back to the Attorney General again: He must make clear right here and right now, is he going to move forward on this, or will he show some integrity and condemn the Premier’s comments?

Interjections.

Interjections.

I’m going to shift here a little. I’d like to get some clarity on the questions that I asked yesterday. After getting caught giving misleading testimony to the Integrity Commissioner under oath, the Premier’s former policy adviser and his former Minister for Public and Business Service Delivery both changed their testimony before resigning.

To the Premier, my question is, has Mr. Sackville or any other official in the Premier’s office changed their testimony to the Integrity Commissioner?

So back to the Premier: How can people trust this government when top staff in the Premier’s office are repeatedly giving conflicting information about the greenbelt under oath, and what will the Premier do about it?

Speaker, I’m very pleased to stand today. I want to thank the Attorney General for being here because I feel honoured that he’s here and that a minister’s here, so I really do appreciate it.

On auto: I do want to remind members on the other side that their party voted against the bailout in 2009, so I wouldn’t chirp too loud about anybody’s record on auto.

So, why are we here? Why am I here? Why are we here at the late, late, late show? Because the Premier, when asked about some appointments to the board that help us choose judges or help the minister choose judges, said that he wanted “like-minded people,” that he didn’t want Liberal or NDP judges. Well, just saying that is the wrong thing to do. Our courts are supposed to be independent. They need to be independent.

Look, I’m 100% opposed to the politicization of the courts. I think most people in here would be. I don’t want a Conservative judge, a New Democratic judge or a Liberal judge. I want independent, non-partisan judges who bring nothing more than and nothing less than good legal judgment to bear on the issues before them without fear or favour or loyalty to any political party or any political philosophy.

Let’s all be really honest here. For all of us, as politicians, it’s hard to inspire confidence in people. They don’t have confidence in us, and there’s no doubt that we all bear some responsibility in this. What the Premier is suggesting is infecting the courts with the same virus that now makes public trust in our elected representatives, in us, so weak. So bringing politics into our courts will inevitably mean the public will start to lose trust in the incredibly important work being done there. People will second-guess their judges for the same reason they second-guess all of us: because they can’t stand the politics.

It’s an incredibly bad and dumb idea to turn independent judges into judges who toe a political line or “think like us.” As a society, we can tolerate low levels in all of us here. We understand that. We kind of created that, right? But we can’t accept anything less than the highest levels of trust in our courts. I know that the Attorney General knows that, too. It’s one thing to lose confidence in politicians, but when people start to lose confidence in the courts, you start to slide towards anarchy. You don’t have to look very far south to see where that’s happening, and that was my point.

The right answer to the question would have been, “I appointed two people. They’re good people. They have good judgment. They are going to help us make good choices, so we’ll have good, independent, strong people on the bench.” That’s the right answer to the question. The Premier gave a political answer to the question, and that’s not good. It’s not good, because just uttering those sentences starts to undermine people’s confidence in the judicial system.

The other reason that the judicial system is important is that it underpins our democracy. It makes sure that when we make decisions here, we are doing them in accordance with the laws of Canada. And we also have a system where we actually look—and the Attorney General will know—at the judgments that judges make. We have systems of appeal. We have checks and balances. An independent judiciary is an incredibly important check and balance in democracy, and that’s the point I’m trying to make.

So the Premier has to do something to restore confidence in whatever he eroded by saying what he said. And look, with all the things that have gone on—with the secret sole-source deals; with the criminal investigation of the $8.3-billion backroom deal—for the leader whose government is subject to that criminal investigation to suggest that he wants like-minded judges, I don’t think that’s a really good look. I’m just saying.

The Attorney General to respond.

The House adjourned at 1828.