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

October 9, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Oct-09 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 9 October 2008 Jeudi 9 octobre 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

CHILD CARE

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

ONTARIO ECONOMY

COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS

SKILLS TRAINING

SKILLS TRAINING

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

HEALTHY SCHOOLS

MUNICIPALITIES

POVERTY

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

BEER RETAILING AND DISTRIBUTION

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

SEXUAL REASSIGNMENT SURGERY

POPE JOHN PAUL II

BEER RETAILING AND DISTRIBUTION

FIREARMS CONTROL

SEXUAL REASSIGNMENT SURGERY

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE AND

SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING

CONFEDERATION PARKWAY BRIDGE

MUNICIPALITIES

LONG-TERM CARE

RIDING OF ETOBICOKE NORTH

ONTARIO ECONOMY

JONATHAN HOWARD

HUBERT SABOURIN

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AUDITOR GENERAL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE VÉRIFICATEUR GÉNÉRAL

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

MILK IN SCHOOLS

LEGISLATIVE CHANNEL

SKILLS TRAINING

MILK IN SCHOOLS

LEGISLATIVE CHANNEL

SKILLS TRAINING

The House met at 0900.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Please remain standing for the Lord's Prayer and the Buddhist prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 8, 2008, on the amendment to the amendment to the motion by Mr. McGuinty to acknowledge the economic challenges facing the province and continuing to implement an economic plan.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. Ted Arnott: It is with some considerable degree of caution that I begin my remarks this morning, hoping that the thoughts I will express to the House and to my constituents in Wellington–Halton Hills will give them reason for confidence and hope, but wondering if they will, such is the magnitude of the economic concern we are facing today in the province of Ontario.

"Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself...." I begin by quoting the greatest of all 20th-century American Presidents, Franklin Roosevelt, because a well-developed and well-defined sense of history can be a calming guide for us today. We know that today's crisis in the world's financial system originated in the United States. The current situation cries out for effective political leadership, but our American friends will have to wait some three months for new presidential leadership. Let us here in Ontario hope that we will not have to wait some three years for effective political leadership from across the aisle in this House.

The fallout of the disintegrating American economy is being felt here in Ontario, Canada. We feel it in the form of diminished consumer and business confidence, panic selling of shares on the Toronto Stock Exchange, depressing the prices of equities, falling real estate values, factory closures, uncertainty and anxiety. As I said yesterday in this House, my constituents in Wellington—Halton Hills are anxious about losing their retirement savings, their jobs, possibly even their homes. They rightly expect all governments to respond effectively with the strong leadership that these days require.

What do we see from the First Minister of the province of Ontario? A motion before this House which seeks to absolve the government of accountability for any bad economic news which might still be forthcoming and abdicate responsibility for any difficult decisions the government may decide to take and blame them on the Legislature as a whole.

Yesterday, the Premier claimed that he is "open to advice." Well, I have some advice: I feel he should start to listen. In response to the most recent provincial budget, which was tabled in this House on March 25, I responded in a press release. I quote from this press release from March 25: "The economy is slowing down, their overall spending is out of control, they have no margin for error, and their expectations for year-end savings are inflated. I think it's very likely that they won't be able to balance their budget at the end of 2008-09. That means a deficit is a real possibility."

My concern at the time when I read the budget papers that accompanied the budget speech was that the provincial government, having budgeted and planned for a very modest surplus of around $600 million and indicating expectations for in-year savings that were extremely optimistic—my belief, as I asserted at that time, was that the government may very well have been moving toward a deficit in this fiscal year.

At the time I thought we wouldn't know for sure that there was a deficit in the fiscal year 2008-09 until the final accounts were done, but judging by the language in the response from the Minister of Finance as well as the Premier in recent days, it appears that they're aware that we're on track for a deficit, although they haven't yet acknowledged it. Politically, apparently, they don't want to acknowledge it until after the federal election, and then perhaps we'll get a more accurate stating of the finances.

I was reading this morning's Globe and Mail before I came into House. I would call your attention to the

article which appeared in the Globe written by Murray Campbell. He talks about this resolution and this debate that we're participating in today. He refers to the resolution that the Premier presented yesterday as being "offensively partisan." He goes on to say, "In effect, he"—the Premier—"is asking the opposition to endorse Liberal economic policy, so it's no surprise that both rival parties say they won't vote for it."

We have offered, through the last five years, constructive and positive suggestions as to what the government should be doing with respect to the province's finances. Most recently, in the lead-up to the provincial budget this spring, the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs conducted its normal round of pre-budget hearings, and as a member of that committee, along with the member for Haldimand—Norfolk and the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook, I participated in those hearings.

We listened to the people of Ontario who had an interest in coming forward to give us their advice and their best suggestions as to what ought to happen in terms of the next provincial budget. I would just like to refer to some of the suggestions that we brought forward as part of our dissenting report on the prebudget consultations.

We pointed out the fact that if current trends at that time were to hold, Ontario was going to be moving toward a have-not status within Confederation. We pointed out the fact that Ontario, under the McGuinty government, had become one of the slowest-growing provinces in the country. We indicated that Ontario's growth in 2007 was the slowest in Canada for the first time since the 1991 recession. We also pointed out the fact that four out of five major banks ranked Ontario ninth out of 10 provinces in terms of economic growth for 2008 in terms of their projections.

We indicated that the provincial government should undertake an immediate plan to reduce the tax burden on business and new business investment. We asked the government to fully eliminate capital taxes in Ontario immediately. We asked that the government reduce taxes on small business in particular, because, as you know very well, small business is the greatest generator of job growth in our economy. Over the years, 80% of new job creation tends to be in the small business sector.

We called upon the government to begin a serious push to address the very real concerns about future energy supply in Ontario and uncompetitive prices relative to our competing jurisdictions. We urged the government to fix the roads, bridges and waterways on which our trade depends, eliminating once and for all the ballooning infrastructure deficit. Those were some of the points we made.

As our report continued, we quoted Warren Jestin, the chief economist at Scotiabank. His quote was, "Ontario will be, at best, flat and" possibly "on a negative trend with respect to interprovincial migration." That supported the fact that we had put forward that Ontario was in the midst of the biggest out-migration in history. In other words, huge numbers of Ontarians, many thousands, were leaving the province to pursue and seek opportunities in other parts of the country. We offered these suggestions, this advice, in good faith to the provincial government and we were ignored.

My constituents who are listening to this debate today I'm sure are asking a number of questions. One of the questions might be: "Why had the government introduced this motion yesterday, and called it for debate?" Clearly, the government would say that they are responding to the state of Ontario's economy and they're concerned that new action has to be taken to protect and strengthen the economy. Because of the stock market crash, we've seen in the last number of days a dramatic devaluation of the stock markets, both in Canada and Ontario. The TSX has gone down a considerable number of points.

The New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ have experienced the same kind of turmoil, as have stock markets around the world. In fact, I've read that almost three years of increases in the stock markets have been wiped out in a number of days.

We have seen a tightening of the financial system in the United States and Europe. We have seen Wall Street investment banks that have weathered all the storms of the last 150 years—even going back to the Civil War—fail and go bankrupt. We've seen massive intervention in the financial system in the United States try and shore it up. Yesterday in Great Britain, the Labour government of Gordon Brown announced that they were going to buy preferred shares in many of the British banks, so as to ensure their solvency and prevent their failure.

We have seen the loss of manufacturing jobs in the province of Ontario—something that I've talked about in this House going back to 2005, calling upon the provincial government to come up with a plan to enhance our competitiveness, to save these jobs and make Ontario a magnet for new job-creating investment. I introduced a private member's resolution in 2005 calling upon the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs to conduct hearings into the competitiveness of our manufacturing industries. Eventually, the resolution was debated and passed by this House.

I also had an opportunity to bring a motion to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, asking that we pursue these hearings as soon as possible. That motion was passed. Unfortunately, the government has not seen fit to allow those hearings to take place.

I would submit that if those hearings had taken place and if we had had a broad public discussion about the issues facing the competitiveness of our manufacturing industries, involving business leaders, involving academic experts and involving organized labour, we could have, as a standing committee, come up with an action plan which we could have tabled in the House and again encouraged the government to take appropriate action to fix what is wrong in terms of the competitiveness of our industry.

I would submit that if we had done that starting in 2005, recognizing the challenges that we knew were on the horizon—or at least that some of us identified, if the government could not or didn't—we could have saved some of those jobs, and we could be in a stronger economic position today as a province.

The government would also point to the anxiety that exists in our communities over declining real estate values. As you know, the Municipal Property Assessment Corp.—or, as we know it, MPAC—has recently sent out notices of reassessment for properties across the province. Over a period of time, I suppose every property owner in Ontario will receive their notice of reassessment. This is something that had been put off by the government until after the election, and now we are looking at about three years of catch-up.

Certainly people in my riding are opening these assessment notices, and they are shocked by the increase in MPAC's assessment of the value of their property. They believe—and quite properly believe—that this may very well lead to a whopping property tax increase.

People are also very concerned about the retirement savings. Many of us who have had the opportunity to save for our retirement through the vehicle that Canadians most properly use, the registered retirement savings plan, have investments in the stock market, through mutual funds perhaps. Many of us have investments in bond funds as well, which may very well be of concern. Not everybody puts their retirement funds in the mattress or under the bed or in a sock.

The fact is those investments are of concern to people today, and when they receive their statements from their mutual fund companies, I'm sure there is going to be, again, a great deal of shock because of the reduced value of the stock market.

For people who have been fortunate enough to have a public sector pension fund like, for example the teachers' pension fund or the Ontario Public Service Employees pension fund, those pension funds are heavily invested in the stock market as well, and they will have experienced massive devaluations as a result of the stock market crash, which of course puts the retirement savings of people, through their pension funds, to some degree in question.

But we also have to point out that the political motive of the government in bringing forward this motion yesterday is to continue its practice of playing a blame game. This government is talented in many ways, and one of its most well-developed talents is to point the finger of blame at anybody and everybody when something goes wrong, rather than accepting government responsibility and accountability for the mistakes they make.

For a number of years, they've put a great deal of effort into blaming the federal government for everything that's wrong in the province of Ontario; in many cases, for things they could have some direct influence over if they took an appropriate change in policy. They've blamed the opposition. When they took office, they blamed the opposition for a deficit that quite frankly wouldn't have existed if we had been re-elected. When you think back to the last year of the Ernie Eves government, in the first quarter we experienced a significant number of economic challenges: SARS, mad cow disease, the hydro blackout.

All of that happened within the first few months of that fiscal year, being 2003-04.

Of course, we had a provincial election in October 2003, more than halfway through the fiscal year, when unfortunately the Conservative government was defeated, and the new Liberal government came in and had a political interest in inflating the deficit as high as they possibly could so as to blame the outgoing government for any challenges they were going to face in that first year. Clearly, if we had formed the government again in 2003, we would have tried to balance the budget—I believe we would have. The fact is, the provincial government needs to accept responsibility for at least half of the fiscal year 2003-04 and will have to accept responsibility for inflating that deficit number.

The text of this motion, as we know, says that the government is planning to make adjustments where necessary. We have to question what the government has in mind in that regard. Certainly I listened to the Premier yesterday. I'm sure there will be other speeches today by government members. We don't know exactly what the government is thinking in terms of making adjustments where necessary. Does that mean higher provincial income taxes at a time when the economy is struggling? Does that mean they're going to run a deficit? Does that mean spending reductions in non-priority areas they might identify that we don't know about yet?

Certainly there are huge expectations out there among interest groups that exist in the province of Ontario. The government spent a lot of time addressing the poverty issue, as they saw fit to do, having promised to do something about it. We don't hear too much about that from the government at the moment. There are a number of other areas, whether it be infrastructure in my riding or new hospitals that need to be built. We just don't know what the government has in mind when it says, "make adjustments as necessary."

The second question my constituents are asking relative to this debate is: What is the government's record on managing the economy? As we know, the government has now been in office for five years. I talked earlier about the deficit they claimed they inherited in 2003, which in fact was grossly inflated to suit the political purposes of the government of the day. We need to talk about the out-of-control spending that the provincial government has pursued in the last five years. Their spending is up 50% in five years, which is something that the Leader of the Opposition pointed out eloquently yesterday.

We need to point out the tax increases this government raised—in its very first budget, the biggest tax increase in history—even though the Premier promised not to raise taxes. We need to talk about over 200,000 manufacturing jobs lost, going back to 2005. I talked about that, as well as my resolution in the Legislature that I wish the government had listened to.

The government has, of course, what they call a five-point plan. I find it interesting to observe the Premier during question period when he talks about his five-point plan. He normally makes reference to his notes when he recites the five-point plan. It would appear that he doesn't have the five-point plan in his head.

The five-point plan is in the 2008 budget, the most recent provincial budget. Just quickly, what the government says they're planning to do is a five-point plan to strengthen the economy. The budget says that the government will make investments in the skills and education of our people, the government will accelerate investments in infrastructure, the government will support innovation, the government will lower business costs and the government will strengthen key partnerships to maximize future potential. That's the five-point plan. It's completely motherhood.

Any government in the history of Ontario would say they are trying to do all these things. To suggest that this is an effective government strategy or plan to deal with the economy is overstating it in the extreme.

We know that on October 22 the government will release its fall economic statement. We have been calling upon the government, going back to June, to bring forward an economic statement with up-to-date and current assumptions for growth, because we know that the growth assumptions that were used in this budget, when it was released in March, are completely out of date and need to be calibrated downwards based on the new realities. It would appear that the government doesn't want to release its economic statement until after the federal election.

I assume they don't want to negatively impact on the fortunes of their fellow Liberal candidates who might be in tight races on October 14, next week. Clearly, that would suggest that we are in for some pretty bad news on October 22. It would appear that the government hopes to pass this resolution before the October 22 statement and use it as a pretext and excuse, perhaps, to raise taxes, run a deficit or cut spending.

The third question I believe my constituents are asking with respect to this debate is, where is the leadership that Ontario needs today? The leadership that Ontario needs today is on this side of the House, and I would hope that the government will finally begin to listen, as the Premier indicated that he would. We have called upon the government to bring forward an economic update immediately. We've called upon the government to bring forward a complete financial statement. We've called upon the government to help people who've lost their jobs.

We've called upon the government to put out the welcome mat for investment, and address the issues of taxes and regulation. We've called upon the government to bring forward some public sector restraint. And we've called upon the government to work in co-operation with all levels of government. I would urge the government members to listen to what is coming forward in this debate from the opposition parties, because we have been raising these issues now for five years. Listen and learn, and let's work together to address this serious economic situation that we are in.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. Paul Miller: I would like to start off by saying that I was very disappointed yesterday. The Premier and his party brought forward their discussion on economics in the province and were looking for input from the opposition party and the third party. We sat listening to his delivery and then, when it came to the opposition's turn, Mr. McGuinty and most of his cabinet left, and also did not even listen to our, the third party's, presentation. So if you want to discuss economics and you want to be concerned about the party, that doesn't show a lot of respect for our opinion. I was very disappointed.

Now, getting into jobs and the economy, this resolution finally acknowledges that Ontario is facing a serious crisis. The McGuinty government has ignored the threat of recession for some time now. Last December, when delivering his fall economic statement, the finance minister said, "The fundamentals of our economy are vital and strong"—December 13, 2007. Then last spring, when the asset-backed commercial paper mess was beginning to unravel and bank economists were lowering their expectations, the finance minister stated, "The economy is fundamentally strong and resilient"—March 18, 2008.

The McGuinty government chose to ignore these looming problems and instead chose to use terms like "resilient" and "fundamentally strong" to get around debating what could be done to reverse the course. Speaking of debating, I don't know why this resolution was brought forward at this time—it might have something to do with an election; I'm not sure—but this should have been done before, not after.

Manufacturing and resource sector workers in this province have been witnessing a recession for years now. They know the economies in their communities have not been "fundamentally strong." There's a jobs crisis in the Ontario manufacturing and forestry heartlands. Since July 2004, almost 230,000 Ontarians in the manufacturing sector have lost their jobs. This list could go on, but here are some examples that are more recent: 430 jobs, 80% of the workforce at DDM Plastics in Tillsonburg. In Niagara last month, 800 jobs lost were at John Deere in Welland and the temporary layoff of 480 at AbitibiBowater.

Lost, since June 2004, were 100,000 manufacturing jobs in Toronto and 25,000 in Hamilton. Can you imagine the impact on my city, where we're from? That's 25,000 jobs and a population of just under 500,000. Can you imagine how many other people that impacts, as well as small businesses? Thunder Bay's manufacturing jobs: half of them gone. In addition, 230,000 jobs lost in manufacturing; more than 9,000 direct jobs in the forest products industry and about 35,000 indirect jobs have been lost.

I shouldn't have to tell the members opposite how important manufacturing and resource jobs are to this province. These jobs are not just important because manufacturing jobs pay an average of $2.50 per hour more than an average hourly wage in this province. These jobs are not just important because, in addition to paying better, these jobs come with good pensions and good benefits. Workers who have lost good jobs over the past few years would be stunned to know that it is only now that the McGuinty government is proposing a resolution acknowledging that the province faces significant economic challenges.

It's shocking, frankly, that it has taken the McGuinty government so long to come to this conclusion. Dalton McGuinty has pretended that the current jobs crisis is limited only to manufacturing and forestry, but anyone who knows anything about the Ontario economy knows that manufacturing and resources represent the foundation upon which Ontario's service economy rests.

The second quarter economic accounts released by the Minister of Finance last week showed that the output for the manufacturing sector continues to decline. But the real news is that when you combine reports from the first two quarters of this year, it becomes clear that the rest of the economy is no longer picking up the slack, and we are ending up with declining output in many sectors of the broader economy. In other words, job losses in previously untouched sectors—retail and financial services, for example—may very well be on the immediate horizon.

The TD Economics report yesterday forecasts a negative employment growth in 2009. The report reads: "Real GDP growth in Ontario is expected to barely advance in 2008-09, placing it last"—last, Speaker—"amongst its peers. The lagging nature of employment in reflecting economic conditions leaves significant downside risks to the job market, especially since the manufacturing sector is expected to continue to bleed jobs and this will disproportionately hit this province" hard.

The McGuinty government has heard from unemployed workers, seen the bad statistics and read report after report forecasting job losses, and they now acknowledge that trouble is on the horizon. So what do they do about it? They table a resolution reaffirming that their so-called five-point plan is working. Confusing, to say the least. When confronted with real evidence that the plan isn't, in fact, working, the McGuinty government's strategy is to proclaim in this House that it actually is working—220,000 manufacturing jobs lost in five years. The plan is working, they say.

The forestry sector decline is wiping out towns in northern Ontario. It's working, they say, the plan is working. Reports showing falling growth and serious job losses looming in all sectors? The plan is working? I'm not sure.

This resolution is a declaration of inaction. The NDP has always been the party that puts families first. We believe in a good job for everyone, because a job is the best way to make sure that working women and men share in Ontario's prosperity. The NDP believes that government has to play an active role in protecting good-paying jobs, and when those jobs can't be saved, making sure that workers who have committed a lifetime to an employer are treated fairly and are given every opportunity to return to the labour force in comparable jobs, and not be retrained to go work in Alberta or Saskatchewan.

The McGuinty government doesn't believe in an activist government. Mr. McGuinty has stood on the sidelines showing absolutely no leadership, while factories and mills downsize and close all over our province, costing hundreds of thousands of jobs. I repeat: 230,000 manufacturing jobs and tens of thousands of jobs in the forestry sector.

Dalton McGuinty's watch has not been good, quite frankly. The Liberals think that the market must always be the final arbiter of what jobs survive and what jobs disappear. Well, I'm here to tell you that the NDP doesn't see things that way.

We believe that sometimes the market works and sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't—and this is one of those times in Ontario's economic history when the market definitely isn't working—the government must step in on behalf of hard-working men and women and set things right. There are fundamental changes in the economy taking place that require innovative, activist government action now. Instead of putting real proposals on the table, the McGuinty government tables a resolution in this House saying he isn't prepared to act to protect jobs in this province.

He says that his five-point plan will support Ontario workers through the gloomy economic forecasts we hear about every day. But this five-point plan has failed to sustain manufacturing and resource jobs, so it sure won't do a thing to sustain jobs in other sectors that may get hit.

Contrary to Mr. McGuinty's do-nothing approach, the NDP has been putting real policies on the table for the past couple of years. Here's what we've been fighting for:

—a five-year guarantee of the industrial hydro rate;

—a jobs protection commissioner to help at-risk companies overcome financial difficulties;

—a Buy Ontario policy;

—tougher plant closure legislation that could ensure that everything is done to prevent a profitable plant or mill from closing in addition and enhanced mandate severances. Bill 6, which I brought forward last year, is still sitting on the books. It was passed for show on second reading in the House, it got to committee and the Liberals shot it down. Not only did they shoot it down, they didn't even read it—unbelievable;

—expansion of severance eligibility and increase of advance notice in mass-layoff situations;

—pension and wage protection that would make sure that workers get every penny they are owed from their employer when they close or leave the country, including not only severance, but holiday pay and money owed for hours worked; and finally,

—the refundable manufacturing resource investment tax, which seems to have worked well in Manitoba. Yes, their economy is slightly different, but it seems to be having a major impact on saving jobs.

These are just some of the constructive ideas we've put forward in the past few years to deal with Ontario's job crisis and every last one of them has been rejected.

I'd like to move an amendment to this resolution calling on the government to adopt this proposal—we've already done that; sorry. I will give another chance for the government to accept it.

For the New Democrats, politics is about people. It's about a fair deal for the people who have built and continue to build this province. It's heart-wrenching to attend union meetings across this province where proud, strong, middle-aged workers break down while telling their story of how their jobs were lost, how they can't pay their mortgage, can't put food on the table, are facing bleak futures and few job possibilities, and can't send their kids to college or university.

Not only are these families facing a loss of income due to job loss, but to add insult to injury, there is no protection to their severances, benefits and hard-earned pension plans. If we want to talk about the real causes of poverty in this province, let's look at the manufacturing and resource job losses in the province and the poor treatment of workers in their time of need. They spent a lifetime paying their taxes and helped build their community and their province, but when they needed help, the government was nowhere to be seen.

That's not right, it's not fair, and I can guarantee you that the NDP caucus at Queen's Park will do everything we can to make sure that working men and women of this province are fairly rewarded for their hard work and put as much pressure on the folks across the way as possible to ensure that provincial government is there to lend a helping hand when Ontarians need it.

This is even more important when facing a job crisis that in all likelihood will extend to other sectors of our economy. Seventeen years ago, the Legislature was debating what the government should do, faced with a deep recession. Here is one quote from that debate: "This House heard the disturbing news from the treasury yesterday regarding our province's economy and the devastating impact the recession is having on employment....

"I urge this government, I implore this government to develop and implement a program immediately to address the very real and specific needs of those affected by loss of employment." That was Dalton McGuinty, March 19, 1991.

The financial crisis and regulation: Ontarians are looking at the stock market with a sense of angst. Yes, stock markets go up and down, but this is different. It seems that every day, the world central banks take extraordinary actions to prevent our financial system from completely collapsing. The Federal Reserve and the Bank of Canada have been pouring dollars into the banking system to keep it afloat. The United States and the European countries have committed hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars to nationalize financial institutions in a desperate attempt to turn things around.

The stock market swings—wild, unpredictable and seemingly irrational—worry people. Ontarians' savings are tied up in the stock market, pensions, mutual funds, RRSPs and so on. Ontarians are worried about their financial future and want their savings protected from these wild swings.

They are also concerned about their jobs. Stock market crashes and job losses tend to go hand in hand. We've already seen 230,000 jobs leave this province in the last five years, but Ontarians are concerned that the worst is yet to come. The financial and retail sectors have so far been left relatively unscathed by lower growth. In the United States, this hasn't been the case; retailers and banks are laying off workers all over the country.

When Ontarians look to newspapers and television for reasons why the stock market has been acting this way, they are inundated with terms like "asset-backed commercial paper," "toxic mortgages" and "default credit swaps." It's a complicated problem, but all signs point to a lack of regulation and oversight that allows speculators to take excessive risks, and every day, taxpayers and citizens are paying the consequences of their bad bets.

Ontario has jurisdiction over securities regulation. We have argued through the debate that Ontario needs to take a more active approach in protecting and sustaining jobs in our province. But Ontario also needs to take immediate steps to strengthen securities regulation. We need to prevent this from happening again. We'd like to offer some real solutions on security reform:

—The creation of a financial products safety commission just like we have for consumer goods, as recommended by one prominent economist, would address the invention of new financial products not intended to manage risk but to create risk.

—Ensure that regulators oversee areas of finance that are now unregulated; to quote another financial expert, "If it quacks like a bank, regulate it like a bank." This includes real regulation of hedge funds and large pools of capital that are able to manipulate markets for quick profits.

—Strengthen regulation that restricts leverage for all financial companies. Leverage is the proportion of debt used in speculation and is one of the causes of the current crisis.

—Deal with the conflicts of interest that are so much a part of our securities regulation system. Organizations that regulate the mutual fund and investment dealer sectors police themselves while also acting as a trade association and promoting themselves. This is a clear conflict of interest, and that simply has to stop now.

Obviously, these are just a few proposals, and we look forward to hearing more from the province and the Ontario Securities Commission. But we need to act now to protect Ontario's savings from more wild swings and the jobs impacted by financial markets.

I can only speak from my experience in the city of Hamilton, and I can tell you that in the last 20 years, I've seen probably 50 to 60 major employers pull out of the Hamilton region and go back to the States, to Europe, to Mexico, to South America, throwing thousands and thousands of Hamiltonians out of work—good-paying jobs, anywhere from $40,000 to $70,000 jobs, which are above average but sure stimulated our economy. If you drive down Barton Street in Hamilton, it's like a ghost town. Every second store is closed or boarded up. I remember the days when it was a booming area—cars, people, shoppers. Not now.

And where are all our young people going? They're going west, where the money is, where the good money is, or to the oil rigs off Newfoundland.

When are we going to start attracting major manufacturers to our province? That's the problem. We can diversify, we can put money into education, we can put money into retraining, but if they don't have a job to go to, they're going to go elsewhere. So we're going to pay taxpayers' money to train these guys in trades and crafts and train doctors and nurses, and they're going to go to other provinces. They're constantly courted by the United States; they come here and offer them houses, offer them packages to go south. We probably lose 30% of our doctors and nurses to the United States.

I just don't understand. We're sinking all this money into the Big Three, we're sinking all this money into all these other areas, yet they keep laying people off, taking the money, and we don't see any results. I can only speak for my area, but not one major manufacturing company has come back to Hamilton. I could go down a list: Otis Elevator, CIL, Massey Ferguson, Procter and Gamble, Inglis, Westinghouse—it goes on and on. We're talking thousands of jobs.

Our tax base in the Hamilton area used to be 70% industrial, 30% residential. It's now 70% residential, 30% industrial. So what happens? It's hard to believe when a hard-hit community like Hamilton and area pays some of the highest residential taxes in this province. Unbelievable—and half of our people are out of work. Our seniors are on fixed incomes. It's just unacceptable. It's got to change. This government should be moving in the direction of attracting major businesses to the hard-hit communities in our province, not always bolstering the communities that are reasonably well and can survive.

Believe me, Ontario is west of Burlington. There is another part of this province that's been ignored. We've got to move.

The government has put money into health in Hamilton, but that doesn't give John Smith, the truck driver, a job. It gives researchers, nurses and doctors employment, but the bulk of our population is not being dealt with.

It's got to change. It's got to change fast or everything is going to get worse. I'm very, very concerned about our economy and the future of this province. Hopefully, the government sometime will listen to the opposition.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Hon. George Smitherman: It's a real privilege for me to have a chance to participate in the debate over this resolution and indeed in the debate over a matter which is first and foremost for all of us in our considerations. These are challenging times, to say the least.

I must say really appreciate the privilege in this House today of following on the comments by the honourable member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. I really enjoy his presence in this Legislature and his passion for his community.

But I do wonder slightly, and I'll wonder aloud, whether his passion with which he concluded his remarks around the desire to see manufacturers return to the Hamilton community, take root there and provide economic opportunity for individuals to support their families, and for that community, which I have a long association with, to prosper—how he feels, in the context of the current federal election campaign, about a $50-billion tax increase for these very same corporations that the member wants to see setting up in Hamilton.

I'm not sure how he rationalizes that in the context of the party which I know he supports, taking the view at the federal election that they would put about $50 billion in additional tax burdens on those very same corporations. I don't think, somehow, that's going to be the path to the success that we all dream about for Hamilton.

I must say I was a little bit surprised by some of the honourable members' comments about Hamilton that don't really reflect the optimistic viewpoint I've experienced in my visits to the Hamilton community, in my engagement with people there. The honourable member did acknowledge that there's been very substantial investment in the Hamilton community.

No doubt, the nature of the investment and the nature of the job growth that has occurred in Hamilton is different than in some of Hamilton's history, but I really look to Hamilton as a community that continues to emerge, built on the strengths of research capability at McMaster University and extraordinary investments, which are reflected in construction crane—very, very evident in the Hamilton community—about the continued emergence of the health sciences sector.

I will speak a little bit later on to some of those very direct infrastructure investments that are helping to fuel the economic prospects and, indeed, to provide an optimistic viewpoint for the future of the Hamilton community. I think in a certain sense it's appropriate to use Hamilton as a community symbolic of the exercise that we're engaged in here in the province to transition to the jobs of the future. Health sciences is one of these very good examples, and it's an example where there has been very important and evident progress in the Hamilton community.

This debate that legislators will take up here is a crucial one, for it is also a sign to the people of Ontario that, as they do, we have our eye firmly fixed on the economic circumstances and we share in this struggle with all Ontarians. It is a time of some great uncertainty, and it is a time, therefore, that calls upon government to act in a proactive way, to set a vision and a destination point and to courageously lead our province in that direction.

I understand, having served as an opposition member, how it's important and a part of the responsibility to put on the record those concerns—

Interjection.

Hon. George Smitherman: The member for Durham is doing what he does well, which is muttering under his breath.

I think that there is importance in this debate in terms of being able to characterize for the people of Ontario those efforts that we're making.

I listened carefully yesterday to the Leader of the Opposition—that is, the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislature, as the opposition party does not have a leader who has a seat in the Legislature—the member for Leeds—

Interjections.

Hon. George Smitherman: I think one of the members just offered to step aside to make way for Mr. Tory.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Was it you?

Hon. George Smitherman: If I heard the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock properly, she's going to step aside and allow a by-election to occur so that Mr. Tory could visit himself in this Legislature. He once had a seat here. I'm not sure what happened.

We set out on a path, recognizing the importance of setting that destination in mind for the economy of the province of Ontario. We've been working to cut business taxes. We eliminated capital taxes for manufacturers and resource-based industries. Some members in this House who call for action related to manufacturing and resource-based industries voted against those tax decreases. We cut capital taxes for businesses by 21%, and we made it retroactive, which meant that they got cheques back, and there is further action in that area.

Infrastructure is the second of a five-pronged strategy to advance the economic prospects for Ontario—economic prospects in the short term in terms of the 100,000 or so people who are actively working in Ontario today on rebuilding and addressing the infrastructure deficit that has plagued our province, but also making investments in the infrastructure of our province, which is about the foundation of our province to be successful going forward. I want to talk more about infrastructure. I'll leave those comments to just a few minutes from now.

A third in our strategy was to support innovation.

Obviously, there is an extraordinary evolution going on in a wide variety of areas—in my responsibilities as Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, thinking of the energy side, the emergence of more green technologies does provide a glimpse into the extraordinary array of opportunities there are for the ingenious minds of the people of the province of Ontario—the best-educated workforce in the western world—to apply themselves and to create the devices and the products and the services which will be in very strong demand over the course of the next several decades, particularly as we grapple with the challenges and the opportunities related to climate change.

Those investments have supported things like new laboratories, equipment and research; they've created a venture capital fund to help support some of the capital needs of those companies that are creating the high-quality and high-paying jobs of the present and of the future; and also, resources put aside to support the biopharm investment program to attract new pharmaceutical investment in the province of Ontario.

Indeed, I had the privilege of attending at one of the ground-breakings for an impressive new facility, actually here in the city of Toronto, at one of the long-standing players, Sanofi, known to many as Connaught Labs, at the heart of some of the most important health sciences history that our country knows, and a company deeply connected to research that has in its pipeline the capacity to affect quality of life for a lot of people out there.

This ties in well to our fourth strategy, which is partnering with business. You know, it's one thing to come to a Legislature and to talk about the necessity of investment in the manufacturing sector, as the member who spoke before me did. But he's from a party that's supporting a $50-billion tax increase for businesses and he is also from a party that doesn't consistently demonstrate their capacity to actually be engaged, to create partnerships and to be mindful of the necessity of working with those who are prepared to make investments and to bring employment.

We have a different strategy. Our auto strategy has invested about $500 million and leveraged $8 billion in new private sector investments. We all recognize that here in the province of Ontario we have a very proud history, and a very proud and strong future as well, with respect to the auto manufacturing sector. That's not to say, and certainly not to pretend, that there aren't challenges which have been experienced by many of the people who work in that sector.

But at the same time we must be mindful of the opportunities to ensure, on a go-forward basis, that the people in the province of Ontario have the opportunity to continue to participate in what will always be a very big piece of the Ontario economy. We're very excited, and I'll be going to the community of Woodstock soon to participate with them in the groundbreaking for their new hospital.

We're very excited to see coming to life the Toyota plant, which is a very tangible piece of demonstrable progress and a very good sign of how investing some of the people's resource is able to lure these very important investments.

Our advanced manufacturing investment strategy and our Next Generation of Jobs Fund are further examples of our willingness to partner with business, to give them the support and the resources that they need to ensure that the employees that they have for today are appropriately trained for the jobs and the opportunities of tomorrow. I just want to tell you that on this point about partnering, we have seen derisive comment, I think it's fair to say, from each of the opposition parties around these strategies.

We have seen the Conservative Party evolve over time from the corporate welfare comments propagated very often by the former member for Whitby, who now serves—perhaps just for a few days longer—as a member of Parliament and as the Minister of Finance in the country of Canada, the same individual who has been noteworthy for his active campaigning against the province that he is deemed to represent in the House of Commons.

At the heart of it, our fifth strategy is the one that has always been at the strength of Ontario, and that is to invest in our people. I mentioned before that we have extraordinary bragging rights insofar as the workforce. The people of the province of Ontario are the best educated to be found anywhere in the western world. We want to make sure that their skills are sharp. We've made extraordinary progress in bringing more opportunities to the fore through the investments that we've made in our post-secondary education sector.

I think that of all the things we can point to through the initiatives that our government has led over the last five years, one of those killer facts, one of those things most noteworthy: The people of the province of Ontario should know that investments in the post-secondary education system, in our colleges and in our universities, mean that today there are 100,000 more individuals participating in post-secondary education opportunities than five years ago. This is 100,000 more people getting the skills that they need to ensure that Ontario will be in a competitive position going forward.

We've got 10,000 more individuals, through the efforts that we've made in enhancing the quality of our high schools, graduating from high school. This is a further example of the steps that we're taking to allow people to ladder up, to have a good foundation in education, to go back for retraining as necessary, to continue to enhance their skill set and see those skills evolve as our economy evolves and the nature of employment evolves.

We've got 50,000 more apprentices working. We've had some questions in the Legislature from the johnny-come-lately school of politics, from the official opposition, on the matter of apprenticeship, but where were they through the period of time, for eight and a half years, when they were the government, in preparing Ontario for what they now say were evident transition-area matters going on in our economy? Why did they not have the foresight through those many years, when the predictions of an aging workforce were first out there? Why did they sleep through those opportunities?

Instead of investing in post-secondary education and in apprenticeship models, they chose to go with a strategy of tax cuts, and in 2003-04 they left us holding the bag for their irresponsible actions and a more than $5.5-billion deficit to boot.

Our strategy is clear: It's investing in the people of the province of Ontario.

I want to return to the subject matter that I have lots of responsibility for and is near and dear to my heart, and that's infrastructure.

The first thing I want to do is apologize to the people who are at home and who, over the course of the last several months, in their travels here, there and everywhere in the province of Ontario, have experienced some of the delays from traffic associated with road and bridge construction. I have many privileges associated with my job, and the greatest one, the one that I enjoy the most, is the privilege of travelling about this vast and beautiful province of ours. My travels last weekend took me to Sudbury for some family business; I married into Sudbury. I drove up Highway 400/69 to Sudbury.

Five weeks ago I had done the same trip, and in the time since, yet even more impressive road building and preparation for the next phases of road building are evident there, as we shrink the province of Ontario through enhancements to our transportation system and provide the people in northern Ontario with more connections to the communities in the south. This is one very, very strong example.

As I travelled around here in Toronto, or as I travelled earlier in the summer from my mother's farm in Ravenna in eastern Grey county down to Windsor, I came upon so many places where local detours were necessary because our government has made investments in infrastructure which allow counties and municipalities to rebuild bridges which were otherwise threatened. Yet we receive only criticism from the opposition party, particularly the official opposition. They didn't want to see the more than $1-billion investments in communities. They characterize that spending as reckless.

We characterize that spending as essential to make sure that the essential infrastructure of the province of Ontario is there. We want to get past the neglect that has created infrastructure deficits totalling $100 billion, and we have been working with a very different approach than the party that came before us.

I had the privilege of serving as Minister of Health for more than four and a half years in the province of Ontario. Unlike the ministers from the previous government—including you, I might say, in deference to you, Mr. Speaker—I was very lucky because I was part of a government that wasn't intent on closing hospitals, but instead was intent on building them.

Interjection.

Hon. George Smitherman: I'm being heckled again by the member from Durham, but if he was more gregarious, outgoing, and optimistic, he would stand in his place and acknowledge a new regional cancer centre which has come to life in Oshawa through investment by our government. He would acknowledge that as we stand here today, in the community of Ajax there is a hospital undergoing a $100-million renovation that was necessary when his party was in office, but instead they dedicated themselves to other tasks, not the essential tasks of building the infrastructure that's necessary.

This year in the province of Ontario, we're spending just about $10 billion to build up the infrastructure. This is in comparison to not many years ago, when the official opposition was the government, when infrastructure investments were a small percentage of the kinds of investments that we've been making to build back the infrastructure to support the economic profile of the province of Ontario.

I know that we'll have viewers who have tuned in from a variety of different places in the province, and I want to highlight, just on hospitals alone—keeping in mind that we've got transit, we've got schools, we've got post-secondary education, we've got road building and bridges also going on—what is happening in real time, as we speak:

—Credit Valley Hospital: 270,000 square feet of new construction and 70,000 square feet of renovations; more hospital beds, and double the number of labour and delivery rooms; expanded cancer treatment centre and increased diagnostic services.

—Hamilton General Hospital, which I spoke about earlier: Consolidate the current acquired brain injury and rehab services from 14 different buildings to one site; 44 beds and more efficient ambulatory programs.

—Up on the brow of the mountain in Hamilton, Henderson General Hospital, a hospital slated for closure by the previous government, is undergoing an extraordinary renovation. The construction cranes can be seen for miles and miles. We're adding oncology and critical care beds, providing more capacity in emergency services. I think that emergency room was threatened with closure by the previous government. Instead, we're putting a lot of the people's money into rebuilding their necessary infrastructure.

—In Ottawa, the Hôpital Montfort is doubled in size and will be officially opened very soon. I had a chance to visit there not long ago to tell them that we were going to bring a new MRI to that site. This is another example in our Ontario where the McGuinty government is investing the people's resources in building up their infrastructure in an instance where the previous government intended to close it.

—North Bay Regional Health Centre: huge new hospital. Mike Harris couldn't deliver a new hospital in North Bay. Monique Smith delivered a new hospital in North Bay and a new hospital in Mattawa, the opening of which I'm looking forward to participating in on October 25.

—The Ottawa Hospital's regional cancer centre program, on two sites—new cancer capacity coming to life in Ottawa.

—Rouge Valley, Ajax and Pickering I mentioned before; yesterday, Runnymede Healthcare Centre—they topped off the new building. In Sarnia, Bluewater Health: a big, beautiful new hospital; same thing in Sault Ste. Marie. I saw it recently from the air and it is magnificent. Sudbury Regional Hospital, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Trillium Health Centre Mississauga, Trillium Health Centre West Toronto—all of these examples of infrastructure investment, jobs for Ontario in building Ontario's future.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. John O'Toole: I want to start by saying we're actually in government order number 11, and we are basically debating the amendment to the amendment. That's Mr. Prue's amendment to Mr. Runciman's amendment from the notice we debated yesterday, which is notice number 87. That's where Premier McGuinty started off by a self-congratulatory style of saying, "It's not our fault."

In fairness, I have to respect our House leader, Mr. Runciman from Leeds—Grenville. I think his tone yesterday was absolutely perfect. He talked about working in co-operation, in a conciliatory fashion, but he also pointed out the hypocrisy of the tone of the government's secret, last-minute putting of this on the government agenda with no consultation, and also accusing the opposition of not working in co-operation. If you read or pay attention to the remarks by Mr. Runciman, you would, I believe, in a non-partisan way, be impressed.

I can tell you, after 10 or so years of being here and listening, he was extending what I definitely consider an olive branch in terms of trying to show some recognition for the families, those persons on fixed incomes, those persons with pensions, those people who are affected by this. I think there's something for all of us to learn on this. It's more than just the tone, I agree; it's also a lesson that we should learn—putting the people first—because they are the people who actually put us here to talk about it.

I think it's important also to put some wrapping around this, in the context of the government. It's kind of strange—I start the framing of my comments around a broader tone.

The notice of motion by Premier McGuinty said, and I think it would be important to put that on the record: "I move that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario acknowledges our province is facing economic challenges created by the high dollar"—in other words, it's not his fault—"high international oil prices"—not our fault—"the US economic slowdown"—not our fault—"international economic turmoil"—not our fault—"and increased global manufacturing competition from China and India especially"—not our fault. He goes on to really say that none of it is his fault. Well, what else is he doing?

What has he done to encourage, stimulate or help the economy of Ontario if he can't take responsibility for this situation—and in fairness, Mr. Runciman said that he shouldn't, which in fact is the case; this is global. But the cynicism of it all is, why was this motion at the last minute brought in? Basically, it was to bump up the current election on Tuesday. The federal election is now framed around—the ballot question is the economy, and he's trying to blame Stephen Harper. That's what this is about.

To be totally honest in how cynical you can be here, he brought this in at the 11th hour on the 11th day in the heat of night and the darkness of night, sprung it on the opposition, and the main issue was, it's not his fault; it's Stephen Harper's fault. Here we have an election federally coming next week, on the 14th. It's tragic.

I hate to sound cynical, but it's even more cynical when you look at the broader context of what this government does. Just on October 7, there was a government bill introduced by the Attorney General, the Honourable Chris Bentley. The bill is number 108, and it's called

An Act respecting apologies. It's quite an interesting bill. In fact, I've talked to a couple of lawyers about, what does it mean for liability—not just for the medical community, but what does it mean for liability? What has this got to do with the motion we're debating? I'm going to read the explanatory note.

It says: "The bill provides that an apology made by or on behalf of a person in relation to any matter does not constitute an admission of fault or liability by the person, except for the purposes of a proceeding under the Provincial Offences Act, and does not affect the insurance coverage available to any person.... The bill also provides that an apology is not admissible in any civil proceeding, administrative proceeding"—in other words, "We're sorry, but we're not going to do anything about it."

In fact, he could have started the speech yesterday by introducing or referring to this bill: "I'm sorry." What does Premier McGuinty have to be sorry about? Well, he could apologize for the number of bold-faced mistruths that he stated during the last two elections. One of them was the highest increase in taxes in Canadian history, the health tax, $2.5 billion, about $800 or more out of every single person's pocket. He said it was a health tax. Well, he may tell you it's a health tax, but have you got a doctor? Is your health care any better? We're paying more, but we're getting less.

But it's more straightforward than that. I suggest he should have used his mandate as the Premier of the province to exercise Bill 108 and apologize to the people of Ontario, apologize for the cynicism of trying to blame everything on the federal level of government and taking no responsibility for his inaction—in fact, his actions of creating more red tape, more regulations, more inspections and more tax burdens on the hard-working families of Ontario. And it's worse: The seniors are paralyzed. Many people in my riding are very, very concerned about a number of things—the price of gasoline.

They're also concerned about their electricity. This morning, I turned on the radio and what they were talking about was natural gas. All of this stuff is under the whim and the will of Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Energy Board. He has some authority; he has some authority to protect people on fixed incomes who can't and will not be able to afford their heat for their home this coming winter. I can't believe it for the life of me. He actually went around and put in smart meters. He put smart meters in every home. Now, they're not really smart meters at all.

What they are, for your electricity, are time-of-use meters. Then he subtly introduced some changes in the regulations of how you're going to pay for electricity. Electricity is going to cost you about 100% more if you use it at peak times of the day. The smart meter is a device that allows your utility to bill you at your home for the energy that you used at a particular time of the day. Now that they have the differentiated prices, if you use electricity at the high point of use, you'll pay about 11 cents a kilowatt hour, as opposed to 4 to 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. That's a 100% increase.

Not only that; you're going to be paying for the smart meter itself. That's just one more example. We've got the health tax, and then we've got the whole idea of energy and the costs.

With the economic climate, he says he has no tools to deal with the threat to our seniors' pensions and other capital accumulation mechanisms, one of which, of course, is pension accounts. It's a huge, huge issue, Mr. Speaker—or Madam Speaker; good to see you in the chair. That, to me, is getting down to—because I'm over 65 and I play close attention to these things. I can see in my own accounts that I have lost a considerable amount. I think of people who haven't had the privilege that I've had of a decent, secure job—General Motors, 30 years, as well as this job for over 10 years.

I have accumulated money, primarily for my own future. I feel each of us should have a responsibility to do the best we can, without always depending on government to bail us out.

But there is a role for government. Don't tell me that he can't make changes. I know for a fact he can. He has been warned by myself and others. There's a very excellent report that some members may not have had the chance—or the interest, perhaps—to read. It's called the Wise Persons' report. That report is by a very well respected and recognized group of individuals. One of the people whom I've had the privilege of meeting and hearing is one of the most respected people on this issue in the financial industry. It's Purdy Crawford, and I think he chairs the Wise Persons' Committee.

They have reported on the tools under the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, FSCO, as well as the OSC, the Ontario Securities Commission, and the rules they make on securing pensions.

I can tell you that not too many people are paying attention, but those funds worldwide—you should know this; I'm not making this up. On the pension side, it's so large that no one wants to talk about it. It's terrifying, actually. It's about $4 trillion. It's huge. It's not some mortgage that failed. This is accumulated capital that sits in investments, longer-term, mostly bank stocks. How are bank stocks doing? They're down 50%, some of them.

In fact, the bailout, the $700 billion in the United States.... I was just recently in Ireland. Their bailout for their banks is $400 billion, and their population is smaller than Canada's—$400 billion to bail out the Irish banks. Why? We think Ireland's so well off, but I could cite a few things.

Where would this money be? Real estate is usually a pretty civil investment. How about a pension fund that invests in a REIT or some other instrument in real estate, and that market goes south? The capital value of those one-time-secure assets has gone down. I can tell you, the market, the equity market itself, has gone down. Even the resource market has gone down.

My sense is this: A Premier who stands up as a leader, as Mr. Runciman outlined yesterday, at the very least should have been honest with the people of Ontario. The first thing he could have done, Mr. Speaker—I see you're back—is give us, as Mr. Runciman asked for, a financial update. Most countries in the world—I know that in Great Britain, they're doing it on October 14. Ontario's going to do it on the 22nd, I believe. They should have brought that forward, in all honesty, in an atmosphere of collegiality and co-operation.

I believe, just reading the tone of our leader, John Tory, and our House leader, Mr. Runciman, that we would have a steady hand on the tiller and we would take some responsibility. At least we would take some partnership with you to do the right things. And Mr. Runciman—what we're debating in this government motion number 11 are his recommendations, which came out of public consultations that our leader, John Tory, and Mr. Runciman and the rest of caucus had with the sectors within our economy, the leadership in our economy. This included union, management, and labour and manufacturing leaders.

I have some clippings from this. Judith Andrew and others from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business—small businesses, as we know, are very important. What are they saying? The two most important things they're saying: overtaxed and overregulated red tape. I can tell you that there's no quick fix.

This is a third party, whose mandate is to represent small business: family restaurants, family small manufacturing businesses, family cleaning businesses, lawn service businesses, kennels, hairdressing shops, all these various things; families paying their bills, paying the inordinate expense of electricity bills. This, at the end of day, in all due respect, Mr. Premier, is about people. This is about our constituents, our collective constituents, and it's time to extend a hand to Mr. Runciman, as well as the NDP—Mr. Hampton—and take some responsibility in this climate.

Just recently, I spent some time, as I said, in two or three other countries, and I'm looking at a book here. I'm just going to read some of the titles, with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. Don't become confused. These are from other countries and it really does tell you a lot about how similar the real functions are. I'm running out of time. This is a statement here.

The title is—and I'm going to validate this shortly—"Facing Into a Dismal Vista"—this is the Business and Finance publication—"Assurances our banks are robust does not so much inspire confidence as indicate the looming terror yet to stalk economic lives." The writer is the former senior government adviser in the British government.

Another headline in the same publication—it's all over Europe. This has nothing to do with Stephen Harper. In fact, the Canadian economy, in the overall scheme, globally, wouldn't be 5% of the total equation; it wouldn't be that big. Our economy is so linked to the United States; 80% of our total manufacturing economy is linked to the United States and if they catch a cold, we get pneumonia. So let's not be dissuaded in the election. Who would you sooner have their hand on the tiller? Stéphane Dion, who's going to increase taxes, or Stephen Harper, who's going to steady as she goes?

That's what the question should be about, and Mr. Harper should have a strong minority government and have to work co-operatively in these troubled times. I would be satisfied with that outcome, but to swing right over and bring in another taxing-and-spending Liberal—I don't think so. That's not on the question. Read what's happening in the global economy.

If you look at the Prime Minister of England, he's a Labour Prime Minister and he's acting like a Conservative. They're looking to them for leadership. In fact, David Cameron, the upcoming Conservative leader in England, will be the next Prime Minister, I can tell you for sure. He's very popular. They've all had their annual general reviews and that's the way it sounds over there.

The next headline is, "Walk the Key Economic Planks

"Alan Dukes examines Ireland's myriad muscles and Achilles heels and concludes we have little cause to feel secure."

It goes on to outline how vulnerable the Irish economy is, the Celtic economy. The Celtic tiger is in huge, huge trouble—big time. All their expansion and growth is financed on the backs of these funds I talked about, which have all gone south.

I'm just reading these out. This is another one. This is a good example, and you should follow the money in these things is the advice from Stephen Harper. Lloyds TSB created the United Kingdom's biggest bank with the HBOS takeover. That's the Scottish bank that was taken over by Lloyds. The next title here is: "Bank of America Set to Buy Merrill Lynch for $50 billion"—large, unimaginable sums of money and consolidation of money. Why?

Because their capital base is completely gone, their capital base being what they considered to be their securities to secure their loans, the securities being the houses that they hold the mortgages on. Maybe a $300,000 mortgage is now worth $150,000. So if you put that across all of the condos and apartments and commercial buildings, they're in huge trouble.

I'm going on here. I am trying to relate this to what this debate is about. The last one is the big bailout. This is about the US $700-billion guarantee to the banks. And another one here is a very interesting sector. I'm going to wrap up by saying this. It says: "Public Sector: Insult to Injury. The new social partnership agreement further cossets state employees at the expense of the private sector," and it goes on to say the public sector will bankrupt the British economy. I'm not making this stuff up. It goes on to say that they have to cut almost €2 billion in expenses—€2 billion, a lot of money.

Where should they start cutting? They start talking about health care. Let's relate this back to Ontario.

Mr. McGuinty led us to believe that he has no choice. He said the economy is in trouble. We all get that. In the next week or so he's going to come up with an economic statement, and the trouble is, he's going to say that there's a deficit. Now, that's not the only choice. He has three choices. Premier McGuinty and the finance minister, Dwight Duncan, have three choices. He can run a deficit. That's choice one, just keep on spending; even though the revenue is going south, going down, the expenditures are going up, because it's all payroll. The second one is, he could raise taxes. That's another choice.

The third one is, he could cut expenditures. Those are the three choices of any government, of any party, of any stripe. Bob Rae had it. His revenues failed and he introduced the social contract. What was that? The social contract was to eliminate payroll, and a function of the payroll is what is going on in Britain, it's going on in the United States, it's going on around the world.

We'll see shortly what kind of leader Dalton McGuinty is. Leaders are elected to make difficult decisions, not to cut ribbons and smile and fawn and agree with everybody around the table. It's about making difficult but responsible decisions. Where his choices lie—this morning it's true as well. Mr. Caplan, the Minister of Health, said even though the information is available for patients with cancer on where to get the quickest treatment, he's not going to release that information. How cynical to put them, the government, first, and the people last. They've got it all wrong.

In my view, this is a time of great decision for the people of Ontario, not just the decision to elect another Liberal, Stéphane Dion, who doesn't have the foggiest clue about what's going on currently in the economy. To my view, what has to happen—watch for Dalton McGuinty's reaction, what he does of the three choices: raise taxes, run a deficit, or cut spending. I think he'll choose the first two: raise taxes and run a deficit.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I guess I enter this debate in a bit of an odd situation in the sense that, first of all, this is a debate that I think we should have had a long time ago, because we certainly have seen for the last four or five years the train coming down the tracks. I've been raising in this House, along with my leader, Howard Hampton, and others, what's been happening, first of all, in the forestry sector. That was the first big alarm bell, when you saw the forestry sector not being able to export the amount of wood that we normally do and mills shutting down all across northern Ontario.

That was the first bell that was rung that there was a problem in the American housing market, followed shortly by what was going on with the loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector. So I want to say first of all that this is a debate that we should have started some years ago, and the debate should have been about what we can do as a province in order to assist our manufacturing and resource sectors to weather the storm.

I know government members will get up and say, "We did. Look at the great job we did," and the Premier talked about that yesterday, but I say what Ronald Reagan said years ago: Are we any better off four or five years down the road with the McGuinty government than we would have been otherwise? I say no. The government has tinkered at the edges, has had all kinds of great speeches, has made all kinds of commitments to do things, but at the end of the day, the effect that it has had on helping us weather the storm of what's going to happen to our economy, quite frankly, I think is somewhat minimal, and I'll get into that a little bit later.

The Premier calls on us to have this debate, and we're here today and we were here yesterday and we'll be here in future days to have this emergency debate, to talk about what Ontario should be. I sat in this Legislature yesterday, along with my colleagues here in the opposition, both the New Democrats and the Conservatives, and we listened to what the Premier had to say. The speech essentially was, "Look at the great job we've done." There was really no discussion about the vision of what we need to do, and do immediately, in order to deal with this particular situation.

I want to say that the opposition was very quiet. We were listening intently to what the Premier was saying, followed by a speech by the leader of the official opposition, Mr. Runciman, and followed by a speech by Mr. Prue, who's our finance critic. Was the government listening? Well, I thought it was very interesting yesterday: The telling sign was that halfway through the speech of Mr. Runciman, the Premier decided to leave.

He's the man who said that he wanted to listen to what we had to say, that he wanted to listen to what everybody in this Legislature had to say, no matter what side of the aisle, and as my good colleague Andrea Horwath says—

Ms. Andrea Horwath: So much for that.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: —so much for that.

Then, when Mr. Prue took the floor and he started talking about what should be done on the part of interventions in the economy, the finance minister left. So I'm saying, to what degree is the government even taking its own emergency debate seriously if the two key people, who are supposedly calling for this emergency debate to listen to us, are really not paying any attention to what we have to say?

So what's this exercise about? It's about a communications exercise. This is what this is all about. The government predetermined what the outcome of this debate was by the way that they put forward their motion. They said, "Here's what we want at the end, and we want you, the opposition party, to endorse what the Liberals have done for the last four or five years." I'm sorry, we're not going to play that game.

Now, I'm not going to say here that the government hasn't done anything good in five years. Of course, they've done some good.

Mr. John O'Toole: Name one.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: He says, "Name one."

But the problem is that if you take a look at the initiatives the government talked about in that emergency motion yesterday, it did very little to really help the problems we've been having for the last four or five years.

I'll give you a very quick example. In northern Ontario, when the forestry sector was starting to go through the downturn that we've gone through, and mill after mill after mill was shut down, Howard Hampton was the first to stand and say: "We need to deal with electricity rates. For pulp and paper mills, 25% to 30% of their cost of operation is electricity. Electricity rates have more than doubled, and it's putting those companies at risk." Did the government, over the last four or five years, address that issue?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: No.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No. Here's what they did: They tinkered. They had a really great announcement that they had a type of hydro rate for the pulp and paper industry that might save them some money. What they did was probably save them about 15% to 20% of what the overall increase was, and the increase was more than double.

My leader, Howard Hampton, stood in this House, along with other New Democrats, four or five years ago and said: "We, first of all, have to reverse what the Tories have started with the deregulation and the privatization of hydro. We need to accept that hydro was set up as a basic infrastructure for the economy of Ontario. If we have paper mills in Ontario and we have a strong manufacturing sector, one of the reasons is that we decided many years ago that electricity would be produced and sold at cost to the industry as an economic development tool."

So the government announced a type of program to help, but at the end of the day what did it do? Smooth Rock Falls, Tembec—the mill is shut down. Opasatika, Tembec—the mill is shut down. Cochrane—the mill is indefinitely closed. Timmins—the mill is—I can read this off for the next 20 minutes. My point is that the government, in its motion, said, "Here are the wonderful things that we have done," and what they are, quite frankly, are one-third measures. They have not done what needs to be done. So let's understand what the debate is all about.

It's about a government trying to deflect the attention that they're getting and the criticism that they're getting vis-à-vis their inactions and their half-hearted attempts at responding to this issue.

Now let's talk about the economic climate that we're in. We are now in a situation where globally, our economic system is really at risk. We have banks that have overextended themselves by basically taking on some pretty bad credit. We have the stock market, which has basically seen a lot of profit-taking and a lot of speculation that has resulted in stocks increasing in value above the actual company values.

So now what you've got is a correction going on in the marketplace overall. You have people who have defaulted on their loans because of the teaser rates and the subprime fiasco of the United States, and it is having a trickling effect, because what happened is that all those mortgages that were held by the banks were basically sold as sort of blocks on Wall Street in order to speculate about how much money they were going to make when the teaser rates ended.

People are losing their homes by the millions, because of those teaser rates and the subprime rate, in the United States, and it's happening somewhat in other countries as well, because those practices, even though we have a regulated system, are happening in Ontario to a degree—not to the same degree as the United States—and the stock market basically speculated on those. So now, what have we got? People defaulting on their loans, banks saying, "Oh, my God, I can't cover the liability," and the marketplace that bought all of these mortgages saying, "God, we're in trouble."

Here's the fun part. I'm really quite amused, to a degree, at the reaction that the right wing has had on this issue. We've got Mr. Sarkozy—do you remember him? He's the President of France; he's the beacon of the right wing of France. Mr. Sarkozy stood in his house, he stood in front of his residence, and said, "By God, we've got a problem, and we on the right have a solution. We are going to regulate capitalism." My God, the right-wingers all of a sudden are talking about regulating capitalism. If I stood and said that, as a social democrat, they'd say, "He's nuts.

He doesn't know what he's talking about." We've been saying this for years, that capitalism is good, capitalism is absolutely wonderful and the marketplace is great, but you've got to have rules about how the market operates.

It's a little bit like having a freeway. Do you allow people on freeways and roads across this province to drive at any speed they want and not have any laws about how they navigate their way down these highways? No. We understand as a province that you have to have laws that set out speed limits, how you can pass cars and what you're allowed to do as a driver to be responsible, hence a safer highway system. It's the same thing with capitalism.

You have to have some rules about what banks can do, to what degree they can basically open themselves up to exposure, how you secure pension funds so that workers aren't left in the dry when banks have made really bad decisions and the market's made bad decisions and how we're allowed to trade stock on the stock market—you need to regulate some of that.

So here we've got the beacon of the right wing in France, Mr. Sarkozy, saying that he wants to regulate capitalism. Well, George Bush can't be outdone by Mr. Sarkozy, because we know he don't like French fries no more, right? So Mr. Bush says, "I've got an answer. I'm the beacon of the right wing of the free world and I'm going to do—what? I'm going to nationalize my financial institutions." My God, the right wing has gone nuts. They now want to regulate the banks. They've been the ones who have been saying for years, "Let 'er rip. Open it up." Mr. Mulroney, Mr. Harris, Mr.

Reagan and Madam Thatcher were the vanguards of the right wing, and they said, "The answer to our economic woes and the answer to building a great economy is deregulate her and let 'er rip." Here they are now, the beacons of the right wing, saying, "Whoops, we kind of messed up. We opened 'er up, we let 'er rip, and look what's going on. She's falling apart." So all of a sudden, George Bush has accepted the NDP manifesto and he has now moved over to the left. Mr.

Bush is saying, "We need to have rules about how our banks operate, we need to regulate the banking sector and we need to nationalize the banking sector." My God, there's hope for us on the left. We New Democrats are surging in the polls. Finally, they're beginning to understand, on the right wing, that you can't let capitalism rip. You have to have capitalism, but it's got to have rules, as we have rules on the road.

Then you've got Mr. McCain. He's trying to make it to the White House—and he's quite a nice man. Actually, I was at Hanoi and sat on the bed where he was in prison. So I can say I have a special connection to Mr. McCain.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: I can't believe it—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I went to the prison. I was in Hanoi, I saw the prison, I sat on the bed, I looked at his cell—and I can understand that the man has had a very tough life, and I honour him for the service he gave to his country. But you've got to remember he's been a Senator in the United States, and I want Democrats and I want undecided voters in the United States who I know are tuned in to our Legislature—because what we're saying here is so serious that everybody in the United States and Canada is tuned in—you've got Mr. McCain.

For years he's been out there, he's been fighting and saying, "I'm the deregulator. You've got to get out of the way of business. You've got to let the corporate sector just do what it's got to do, because when government's on your back, you're just held down and you just can't move." Mr. McCain, the beacon of the right wing, has seen the light. He talked to George Bush and he said, "Let me see that manifesto they wrote in Regina some years ago for the CCF." So Mr. McCain opened up the manifesto and he said, "By George, there are answers here. I know what I'm going to do. I'm the beacon of the right wing.

I think you've got to regulate Wall Street." My God, there's hope for us on the left. The social democrats are surging, I must say. Even Mr. McCain understands that unregulated capitalism, an unregulated Wall Street, can lead to great difficulty.

So I just want to say I am very warmed—what's the word?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Heartened.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Heartened. I'm very heartened by the move of the right wing to finally open their eyes and to all of a sudden recognize that social democrats have had it right from the beginning.

It was people like Coldwell, people like the Lewises and others, who sat down back then during the time of the Regina Manifesto, along with social democrats around the world, who have said that we need to have a free market system where entrepreneurs can make money and they can prosper and they can dream of the dream that can happen should they make it rich—but you need to have some rules about how workers are treated, about how their pensions are secured, so they're not put out on the street.

As my good friend Madame Horwath saw, we talked to a worker in Pembroke last week: 32 years working in a mining company in southern Ontario; his pension is basically defunct. So we need to have rules so that capitalism and entrepreneurship are regulated so that we protect those people who are affected when bad decisions happen, we make sure that there are rules in the stock market so that there isn't the kind of profit-taking that we see, that there are rules within our banking sector—and thank God, in Canada we've got some rules that have protected us, to a degree, from what's going on.

So the right wing has finally seen the light, and I have to say I'm very heart-warmed—what's the word again?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Heartened.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Heartened. Certain words just don't come naturally sometimes. I'm really heartened that the right wing has moved over to the social democratic view. I'm selling party memberships. I'm running for leader. Go to my website and sign up: gillesbissonforleader.com. I'll take you all in. I really appreciate the support. I know that Mr. George Bush can't vote for me. I'll just be talking about my own leadership at this point. I'm just saying that I want to warn Mr. George Bush that he won't be able to vote for me because he's not a citizen of Ontario.

Let me say this to where we're at when it comes to the response of the right wing—and this is really, I find, quite interesting: They are basically now saying that we're going to lend $800 billion—the American treasury—to the banks in order to secure their debt. The theory is, if you secure that debt and you take over all of the bad debt in the United States, the banks will then have the liquidity necessary to go out and lend more money to people so that they can go out and make purchases and businesses can do whatever. Isn't part of the problem that we've overextended ourselves? Isn't that the base problem?

The base problem is that there's been high speculation on the market because of deregulation. People have been profit-taking. We've seen the stories of what's been happening on the part of the corporate elite across North America, who have been basically milking those investors by all kinds of great big salaries and bonuses.

The point is that the governments of the United States and other countries are now saying—and I heard Mr. Flaherty this morning basically say the same thing: "We're going to lend money to our banks and that's going to fix the problem, because once we lend money to the banks, they will then be able to lend money to others." Well, I guess to a degree that's true. But isn't the base problem that people overextended themselves, number one? It's a very consumer-driven economy that we have, which is quite good, but people are over-extended. Number two, people have had to default on loans because of interest rates.

When the teaser rates came off, they lost their houses. So shouldn't the approach be to do something a little bit different and say, "What we need to do is change the rules around how much interest people have to pay on those loans in order to assist people to make those payments so that monies, yes, can go back to the banks so they can become more liquid to lend money to people where they can afford it"?

I'm a social democrat saying that. I know that you right wingers have finally seen the light. I'm just saying that the base problem that we have is not being dealt with. I fear the response of what the United States has done, and the response of what other countries have done, are not going to have the effect that they think it will. If you look at the market, they made the announcement last week and the market still went crashing down over 1,000 points. What is it going to do for the future? Is it going to fix the problem? I don't think so.

I think all it does is put a band-aid on the problem so that at the end, you end up basically not fixing what is the core of the problem. And there is the problem.

So what can we do in Ontario? There are a number of things that we can do in order to be able to assist. The first thing is, we need to take a look at our regulatory authority when it comes to those things that we're able to control. For example, in the stock market, we really need to take a look at what rules we can enact that are not completely out of step with the world and are basically able to protect people's investments. I did it this morning. Every morning now I get up and go on to my Standard Life—I think we're with—and look at my RRSP investments. Then I turn that off; I don't want to look anymore.

People are really worried. Their life savings, when it comes to what's invested in the market, are taking a real kicking these days. We, as a Legislature, need to say, "What can we do to try to fix that so that people feel more secure?" We should move in the direction of reforming our pension system in Ontario, so that pensions, first of all, are secured, those that are there, and make it easier for workers and employers to go into defined benefit programs when it comes to their pensions and not be locked into the market. That would do a great bit, I think, to give people some security.

What can we do to assist our manufacturing sector? Let me tell you a little secret that the government hasn't figured out. All those corporations out there that are now paying corporate income tax are paying it on what the profits were last year. So when they are paying their quarterly instalments this year, they're paying based on what their profits were last year. How much profit are they going to have this year? Not a heck of a lot. So once they start to pay their corporate income tax next year based on this year, they're going to be getting credits.

They're going to be getting rebates from the federal and provincial governments, which means our revenue projections are completely off the map.

If you're going to do something, you've got to deal with the way that we collect corporate income tax in this country, so that businesses pay their fair share of corporate income tax. But we've got to change the way that we collect it so that it's based on what's actually going on at the moment within their industry. What you do by having them pay, at this downturn, heavy taxes based on last year's income—they don't have the cash flow to help make their payroll and to make the investments they need to make in order to go forward.

I say to the government, you want to have this debate? It's not a bad thing to have a debate. But is this government listening? I don't think so. I started out this morning by talking about how the Premier and the finance minister haven't been here to hear what we have to say. So I'm somewhat fearful; I'm pretty darn convinced that at the end of the day, the government is not going to accept the amendments from either the opposition or the New Democratic Party that talk about concrete proposals about what we can do as we move forward.

I say to members on the government side, you should heed what we're trying to tell you. Don't be so smug—that may be a bit of a strong word—to think that you have all the answers. This is about a collectivity. We, in society, have to work together to face the challenges that we have every day. But in these tough economic times, we really need to roll up our sleeves and understand that if you're a New Democrat, or you're a Conservative, or you're a Liberal, or whoever you might be—because we do have an independent now by the name of Mr. Murdoch—we need to be listening to each other in order to make sure that we do what's right by way of Ontarians.

I really fear that where we're going with this debate is a communication exercise on the part of this government that, at the end of the day, is not going to fix the problem and certainly will not assure the stability of the markets.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. We'll now just take a pause for a couple of minutes while we gather for question period.

Debate deemed adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We'll have introduction of guests at this time.

Guests of Sophia Aggelonitis, Hamilton Mountain: They are the grade 10 students from St. Jean de Brebeuf school. Where are you?

Tim Holman, father of Sarah Holman, the page from Eglinton—Lawrence, and grandparents Bill and Myrna Holman are with us. They're guests of Mike Colle, member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

Guests of Laura Albanese, York South—Weston: George Harvey Collegiate. Welcome.

The guest of MPP Peter Tabuns, Toronto—Danforth, is Manjit Kundal. Welcome.

Guests also of MPP Laura Albanese from York South—Weston, in the east public gallery, are from the Somali Immigrant Aid Organization. Welcome.

Guests of MPP Paul Miller, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek: Erlene Weaver, co-founder of ROCK, Raising Our Children's Kids, and with her are Diane Chiarelli and Beverley McIntosh. They are located in the members' west gallery.

Also today, guests of page Paige Weller are grandmother Vivien Clarke and sister Hailey Weller, and they are in the west public gallery.

The guest of page Lauren Chan is John Chan, and he will be in the public gallery this afternoon.

Guests of Sarah Holman are grandparents Myrna and Bill Holman, whom I've already introduced.

Those are our guests for today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: We were advised the Minister of Finance would be here, and he is entering the building as we speak.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Could we reset the clock, please.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Thank you, Speaker. My question is to the minister. Minister, as you know—we saw it in the media this morning and last night—there's a great deal of skepticism surrounding the real motives for your so-called emergency debate motion on the economy. I think most people understand that it is a partisan motion. There's also a suspicion that you're using this to set the table for some bitter pills and more broken Liberal promises. Minister, will you stand in your place today and assure Ontarians that there will be no tax, user fee or levy increases in your upcoming economic statement?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: On October 22, I will be introducing the fall statement, bringing it forward, and there will be no tax increases, fees or levy increases in that document.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Well, I guess that means a deficit—that's the bottom line—and probably a significant one.

Members are being asked to participate in a debate for the next four days without information. We've asked the minister, and the Premier as well, and I'm going to go back to him again: To help members on all sides of the House to participate in a meaningful way in this debate, will you, at the very least, give us your latest update on the status of the $800-million reserve fund and the $1-billion commitment you made to find efficiencies and savings in order to balance the budget this year? We're seven months into the fiscal year. Surely you know what's happening with those files.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: On October 22, we will release the fall statement. I remind the member that last week we published the economic data for the second quarter, the most up-to-date numbers. We have published the first-quarter data, as per FTAA. We have taken a number of steps, sir, to encourage a public discussion about the important issues of the day here in the Legislature and across the province.

I would submit to the member and the Leader of the Opposition that we are still gathering information that's pertinent to the fall statement. We will have it on the 22nd. I'll look forward to his response and the response of the opposition parties in general as we move forward through very, very challenging times in the world economy.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Of course, the reality is we're in a vulnerable situation in this province because this government has been on an unprecedented spending spree, beyond what David Peterson put this province through. They've had phenomenal revenue increases; they've spent every plug nickel and more, running up the debt in the process. They've left no cushion for tough times and, believe it or not, they even reduced their rainy day fund this year.

Minister, we have four days left in the debate on this motion, and if this so-called emergency debate isn't the sham that most people think it is, you have to be much more forthcoming to make this debate and discussion meaningful. How can we know where we're going if we don't know where we're starting?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: You know, on June 4, John Tory said, "I think we need to have an emergency debate on the economy so we can hear from all the MPPs everywhere," and we heard it from the New Democrats, so that's what we're doing. But let me tell you what we won't do. We won't sacrifice public education on the altar of tax cuts for large corporations. That's not something this government will do.

Yesterday in your speech you endorsed Mr. Drummond's recommendations, which I presume means you want to harmonize PST and GST. That means, in fact, he wants to tax home heating oil. We need you to be clear, and that's why we're having the debate.

We have laid out a five-point plan. This government has delivered three successive balanced budgets. We eliminated the $5.6-billion budget of that member's government and we will continue to manage the affairs of the province prudently and in a balanced and responsible—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): New question.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Minister of Finance and the Premier said that the Premier's resolution in this debate that is ongoing in the Legislature is for the purpose of hearing from the opposition, from all members of the House, their recommendations and input into the current crisis Ontario faces. The minister will know that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition tabled a specific amendment that incorporates positive recommendations that we believe should be incorporated into an economic action plan.

Will the minister now confirm for us that those proposals will in fact be given serious consideration by the government? What is the process that he has in place to ensure that ideas such as that are in fact incorporated and dealt with in a proactive way, to ensure that they are included in an economic—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Response?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: That's why we're having the debate. We're going to have to vote on it. The Leader of the Opposition did present an amendment; we are looking at it carefully to see what he's recommending. I can tell the members opposite that the five-point plan we've laid out is a better plan than they've laid out, because they really haven't laid out a plan per se.

I would invite the member opposite: Instead of spending all this time on the process around what we're doing, let's start talking about the economy and what real people are feeling. Let's show some empathy to the people of Ontario. Let's not, like the federal finance minister did, trash the Ontario economy at precisely the time we should be discussing it and moving forward.

So, yes, we do have a process. We will respond through the course of the debate to your proposals and then we're going to have a vote. If you choose to vote against keeping funding for education and health care, if you choose to vote against assisting business, that is your position. We may differ.

What's important is that we have a plan moving forward and all members of this Legislature have the opportunity to participate in that discussion.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: We want to believe the Premier and the Minister of Finance when they tell us that this is not just about political rhetoric.

What we want to do is ensure that in the course of the debate, as we and members from the third party and other members of this Legislature bring forward ideas, there is a process in place by which those ideas are being properly recorded, that those ideas will then be dealt with in an orderly way so that, in fact, beyond what the minister is saying—a vote at the end of this debate—those ideas will live on, that those ideas can be dealt with in an orderly way by this Legislature so that they can, in fact, be incorporated into an economic action plan that will address the very things that the minister is saying.

Will the minister confirm for us that there is in fact a process that he has implemented where people are recording specific recommendations that we can then deal with?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Hansard still operates in the House, and we're going to look at every recommendation.

Let me just go through the Conservative six-point plan, which is the third version of it since June, by the way. You suggest we provide an economic update. We are—October 22. We also provided you, last week, with the most recent economic data. Provide a financial update: We did, in June, with all the up-to-date information; it said exactly where the province's books were relative to the budget. Tax cuts and more spending on training: We have $3 billion in targeted tax cuts for businesses that you, sir, by the way, voted against.

You want an additional $5 billion in tax cuts. We don't support that. Let me be clear about that, because we think it's important to have a balanced plan. You may want to follow the lead of Mr. Tory, who said on CBC Radio on June 4, "I'd say well fine then, let the MPPs, there's 106 others besides him, you know, put their ideas on the record. I think at least a debate would allow other people to put some ideas on the record." That was good advice—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Final supplementary.

Mr. Frank Klees: Here is what we would recommend to the Minister of Finance: We would recommend, in the same way that we do in standing committees, that specific recommendations be recorded and tabled with the Legislature following the debate.

We also would recommend to the government that they form a select committee on the economy, that that select committee be struck following his economic statement, that that select committee then take into consideration the results of his statement and the results of the recommendations that come forward, and that then that economic select committee be charged with the responsibility to put together an economic action plan, an all-party consensus that we can then move forward with in this province.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: This government put together an economic action plan: It was called our budget. That budget has the five-point plan, which we have been doing for three years now. We are investing in infrastructure to create jobs and improve our productivity. That member and his party voted against it. We are providing select targeted tax cuts to businesses to get cash into their hands in a challenging economic time. That member and his party voted against it. Before the Legislature this week is a bill dealing with the elimination of tax, to stimulate research and investment in commercialization of new Canadian technologies. That member and his party, I think, are voting against it.

This government has laid out a five-point plan and provided specifics. We will update where we are relative to the global economic situation on October 22. Our response has been the right response We'll adjust it as need be, because we need to respond to the fears and concerns of the people of Ontario in a prudent—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): New question.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, the Premier said he called yesterday's debate on the economic resolution to engage us in a healthy collision of ideas. We sat here yesterday, the members of the official opposition and we New Democrats, and listened intently to what the Premier had to say. It was then the turn of the opposition: first the Leader of the Opposition and then our Mr. Prue, the critic for finance. He didn't stay to listen to what they had to say. If you're not present to hear what we have to say, does that not speak—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I remind the member there is not to be any reference made to absence.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If you're not present to hear what we have to say, doesn't that speak volumes about how you are not taking your own debate seriously?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I would remind the member of what Mr. Hampton said on August 8. He said, "The Legislature needs to get back to work to approve a plan to protect jobs." That's what this debate is about, and we are listening.

I would remind the member opposite that just yesterday his colleague from Beaches—East York raised a very important issue, and upon reflection, we're changing the law because of his good work. So we are listening.

I'll tell the member opposite we're listening to labour leaders. I met with the building tradespeople yesterday on the phone. We had a good conversation about where the economy is going. We have had meetings with bank economists, businesses, labour leaders. We're going to continue to do that. We take very seriously what the member and his party opposite have to say about the issues of the day and we will respond accordingly.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: You've already responded accordingly because the motion you put forward basically says we have to stand in opposition and say Kumbaya to what you've done for the last four years, and it's not working.

Let me ask you this question. We New Democrats, through our critic, Mr. Prue, put forward a number of ideas and an amendment to the amendment to the motion. Are you prepared to accept those amendments?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It's only the beginning of the debate, and we'll analyze them. I can tell the member opposite we're not going to increase taxes on the lowest-paid Ontarians, if that's what he means. If the member suggests that we should run up a deficit in the billions of dollars—that is, to try to spend our way out of it the way he and his colleagues did at one time in the past—what I'm going to say to him is no, we won't do that.

What I can say is that our five-point plan to invest in infrastructure, technology and targeted tax cuts and, by the way, coupled with the poverty strategy my colleague opposite is going to bring forward, is the right, balanced responsible approach in difficult and challenging times that understands the problems and predicaments that Ontario families are feeling right across the province.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Final supplementary.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Minister, I asked you a specific question and that question was, are you prepared to support the amendments put forward by the New Democratic caucus through our critic, Mr. Prue? What do you do? You basically engage in what John McCain does in the United States, which is to try to deflect all the attention away from you so that they're not looking at you being the cause of the problem.

Let me ask you this specifically. One of the things that we're calling for is an industrial hydro rate. Are you prepared to say today that yes, you admit hydro rates are a problem for the manufacturing sector and that you're prepared to accept at least that part of the amendment that would see an industrial hydro rate for the manufacturers of Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: This government is taking a balanced and complete approach to the challenges of the manufacturing and forestry sectors.

I'll remind the member opposite, when we provided assistance to get the next generation of jobs into this province, that member voted against it. When we eliminated capital taxes for manufacturers, the forestry sector and the agri-food sector and put cash in their pockets right at the time—and that money is flowing last month and this month—that member voted against it. That member voted against the advice of the CAW. He voted against the advice of the manufacturers' association.

This government has constructed a five-point plan that is the right approach to the economy. I would invite the member to look carefully at what we're doing.

Instead of just voting against everything we do, start to support the initiatives that are supported by the CAW, that are supported by many of our largest manufacturers. That's what we're—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): New question?

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Minister, workers across this province wish that you were listening to what they and we have been saying for a long time. You didn't answer my question, and the question is, are you prepared to put in place the recommendation put forward by us on industrial hydro rates? Instead, you try to deflect and say that we don't support your initiatives. We didn't support them because they're not working. We've had over 200,000 workers put out of work in this province over the last four years, so your record is not stellar.

Let me ask you another one. Workers' pensions are at risk. We see all kinds of workers having their investments by way of the market at risk and people who have defined pension plans losing their hard-earned dollars as they approach retirement. Are you prepared to accept our recommendation to have pension reform in order to secure people's investments for retirement?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I assume that was to the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The NDP are catching up. Last year we appointed Mr. Harry Arthurs to review pension laws, a dialogue that has involved all working men and women. Mr. Arthurs will be reporting back next month, and I'll look forward to the member's response and the NDP's response.

What I can tell him is this: We will support good ideas that are prudent and balanced and protect workers like this government has done. I ask the member opposite, why did you vote against our training initiatives, all of them, over $1 billion? You, sir, voted against them. Why did you vote against money for the forestry sector that helps your riding and your constituents? Why did you vote against that? And most importantly, why did you vote against an increase in welfare rates this year? That's a shameful record.

This government has a balanced, full plan that is costed and responsible—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: So far, the cat's out of the bag. The government is saying they're not going to move on industrial hydro rates, and they're trying to deflect the attention from what's happening to pensions by saying, "Stay tuned. A report will be coming real soon to a channel near you." People's pensions have been lost, and this government is sitting idly by, hardly doing anything.

Let me ask you this. The workers in Welland at John Deere, the workers at Abitibi, and others in the Welland area have lost their jobs. We proposed a jobs commissioner to sit down with labour, to sit down with municipalities and employers, to look at what can be done to secure those jobs that are currently here that we're losing. Will you accept our proposal to put in place a jobs commissioner in this province?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The people of Ontario rejected that proposal last year in a general election. And if you think that's going to secure one job, you really don't get what's going on in the world economy, do you? We are in the midst of a financial crisis in the world today, and these guys throw out ideas that aren't based on fact, simply saying, "Do this, do this, do this," without thinking of the consequences or the outcomes.

We have laid out a prudent, responsible plan—investing in education, investing in infrastructure, targeted tax cuts, and building partnerships with local municipalities as well as with the federal government—that Ontarians respect and know is the right plan to get through the most challenging circumstances this province, this country, indeed the world, has seen in many, many, many years.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Final supplementary.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: This is true Liberalism, I must say. The finance minister stands up and basically says that they don't have to listen to what the opposition has to say. They're falling into the same trap that David Peterson did some years ago, which stamps you as a fairly arrogant government, quite frankly.

I say to you, we have made some real proposals that would help to safeguard the jobs that we have and help build our economy.

I'm asking you again. We have put forward a series of amendments and proposals in order to deal with this crisis. If you're not prepared to accept our amendments or the Conservative amendments, doesn't that mean you've already decided you're going to do nothing?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I can tell the member, he proposes, with an industrial hydro rate, to shift the cost of electricity to small individuals as opposed to workers. I can tell the member opposite that his jobs commissioner was rejected by the people of Ontario last year.

The people of Ontario are very wise. They understand the challenges before us today, they understand the situation in world financial markets, and they understand the need for a balanced, prudent approach, moving forward.

We will continue to focus investments on infrastructure. In two weeks, municipalities across Ontario will see $1.1 billion that will immediately create jobs and investment and get cash into communities' hands to help get us through this circumstance.

Today is the time for serious response to world-challenging issues. We are listening carefully to many, many people, and we look forward to this ongoing debate—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): New question. The member for—

Mr. Frank Klees: Newmarket—Aurora.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Newmarket—Aurora.

Mr. Frank Klees: That should be worth a few extra minutes in the question, Speaker.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Finance: His performance today and performances like that, I believe, are largely responsible for the cynicism on the part of the public about politicians and the political process. On the one hand, the minister and the Premier have invited input from the opposition on a very serious public policy issue, and when asked, on the other hand, if he would commit to an orderly process and strike a select committee to deal with that important information that's being brought forward by members of this Legislature, he declines and boasts that they have all the answers.

I want to ask him one more time: Why will the minister and his government not agree to strike a select committee to deal with the information that's being brought forward here, so that together we could form an economic—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Response? Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We have a Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. Every budget bill goes there; every decision of this Legislature goes there. In fact, unlike your government, when we send legislation there, we actually have a chance to debate it in committee.

That committee has been ongoing, doing good work. They report to me on a regular basis. We had them meeting throughout the spring on various items. We look forward to moving forward with legislation coming out of this House. Likely, there will be a fall budget bill, as there always is. That will go to committee for full debate.

What creates cynicism is when Mr. Tory calls for an emergency debate in June, the Premier gives him one, and then you say, "You shouldn't have done it." That's what