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

October 28, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

28-OCT-2008_L081_1.pdf

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 28 October 2008 Mardi 28 octobre 2008

OPPOSITION DAY MOTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES AND INTERIM

APPROPRIATION ACT, 2008 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 2008 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

ET L'AFFECTATION ANTICIPÉE

DE CRÉDITS (NO 2)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

VIOLENT CRIME

VIOLENT CRIME

MANUFACTURING JOBS

SKILLS TRAINING

VIOLENT CRIME

CHILD CARE

CHILD CARE

VIOLENT CRIME

POVERTY

FOODLAND ONTARIO AWARDS

VIOLENT CRIME

WASTE MANAGEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

RENEWABLE ENERGY

LABOUR DISPUTE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FOREST INDUSTRY

FORESTVIEW PUBLIC SCHOOL

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

FIREFIGHTERS' MEMORIAL

FLU IMMUNIZATION

CANADIANS FOR CHILDREN

AT HEALTH RISK

WINE INDUSTRY

GARY MORDEN

DIWALI

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

USE OF ELECTRONIC

DEVICES IN HOUSE

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COUNTERING DISTRACTED DRIVING

AND PROMOTING GREEN

TRANSPORTATION ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 VISANT À COMBATTRE

LA CONDUITE INATTENTIVE

ET À PROMOUVOIR

LES TRANSPORTS ÉCOLOGIQUES

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE

LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ROAD SAFETY

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

ROAD SAFETY

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

ROAD SAFETY

PETITIONS

EMERGENCY DISPATCH SERVICES

POLICE RECORDS CHECK

DIALYSIS

POPE JOHN PAUL II

CHILD PROTECTION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

GASOLINE PRICES

FERTILITY TREATMENT

SEXUAL REASSIGNMENT SURGERY

FIREARMS CONTROL

DRIVER LICENCES

OPPOSITION DAY

VIOLENT CRIME

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord's Prayer, followed by an aboriginal prayer.

Prayers.

OPPOSITION DAY MOTION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just like to inform the House that I've had the opportunity to review the revised opposition day motion that was placed by the loyal opposition and reviewed by all three parties, and I find it acceptable to proceed with.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES AND INTERIM

APPROPRIATION ACT, 2008 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 2008 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

ET L'AFFECTATION ANTICIPÉE

DE CRÉDITS (NO 2)

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 27, 2008, on the motion for second reading of Bill 114,

An Act respecting Budget measures, interim appropriations and other matters, to amend the Ottawa Congress Centre Act and to enact the Ontario Capital Growth Corporation Act, 2008 / Projet de loi 114, Loi concernant les mesures budgétaires, l'affectation anticipée de crédits et d'autres questions, modifiant la

Loi sur le Centre des congrès d'Ottawa et édictant la Loi de 2008 sur la Société ontarienne de financement de la croissance.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate?

Mr. Mike Colle: Yesterday, I was speaking and trying to explain one of the provisions in Bill 114, and that referred to the Ontario seniors' property tax credit. The property tax credit was instituted by the government three or four years ago, and it enables senior households to apply, when they file their income tax, for a credit from the Ontario government. The credit can go up to $600 per household. That is not only for people who own their homes or have a mortgage but also renters, because they pay property tax indirectly.

So what this bill does is it raises the threshold so more people can take advantage of it. I know that a lot of people who have small homes and apartments in my riding do apply for that every year. You can get up to $600 off your property taxes. But they have to include it in their tax returns; that's very important. What people sometimes confuse this with is that in last year's budget we included the property tax grant. The credit was already in place.

The grant, which will be up to $250 this year and then, when it matures, will be up to $500 per household, also has a threshold–I think it's about $40,000 per household—but it's a direct grant. That's one way we're trying to help seniors on fixed incomes in their homes because we certainly know that the living-at-home strategy wants seniors to stay in their homes. It's something they want desperately.

In this bill we are talking about the general context of the economy. When I was coming to work on the subway this morning, it was very crowded. I said to myself, "This is a good thing," because in the early 1990s—and some of you remember the recession we hit in the early 1990s—I was involved with the TTC at that time, I was chairman of the TTC, and our ridership was just collapsing almost on a weekly basis because people were losing their jobs. I remember a lot of people at that time were requesting that we lower the transit fares to try and get more riders on transit.

I know that seems to be the right thing to do, but it's really not the right thing to do economically. People were not riding transit at that time because they didn't have a job to go to. If you don't have a job to go to, you also do less shopping and less discretionary spending. So we could have lowered the transit fare right to the very bottom and it still wouldn't have brought people onto the TTC because, again, if you do not have that job to go to and you don't have money, you're not going to ride the TTC.

For that time in our history, the TTC ridership was almost lock-sync with what was happening in the recession. TTC ridership went down; the number of people applying for social assistance went up. It was almost on a weekly basis in the 1990s when this recession really impacted on people. It was very, very challenging for government—it was challenging for everybody—to try and get through this.

Now, why I use that example of TTC ridership, which, by the way, I recommend to everybody who wants to see what's happening in the economy—and the good thing is that ridership is staying steady; it doesn't mean that it will, but for the time being it seems to be doing quite well. It's a very good indicator of the economic health of the GTA. Why I mention that is because of a lesson to be learned in terms of the overall economy.

We as a government have invested over a billion dollars in the forest industry because of their challenges, but the forest industry is still struggling because, as we know, Ontario's forest industry, like Ontario's auto industry, depends on foreign markets; in other words, willing buyers, especially in the United States, who buy our lumber and lumber products to build their homes etc. But as you know, the American domestic economy is in very sad shape. Our best customer, the United States, who buys our lumber and buys our cars is unable to buy because they're not working.

So no matter how low the price of lumber is, the Americans aren't buying. The same with cars: Over 80% of the cars we manufacture here in Ontario—in Oshawa, Windsor, Oakville—are bought by Americans. Look at the pickup trucks—the Ford F-150s, for instance. We made a living in Ontario selling those trucks to Americans. They are not buying these very good Canadian products. You can lower the price of those trucks, as they are; still our best customers are not buying the trucks. That example is why we in Ontario are not an island unto ourselves. And not to use that as an excuse, but it's a reality check.

The best thing that could happen for Ontario's economy is for the American economy to get back to where it was. I know as much as we'd like to say, "We're Canada; we're a large nation of 32 million; Ontario has 13 million people," we cannot get out of this economic morass that we're in unless we have our neighbours see better times. As you know, the American situation has directly impacted on the whole world's economy. The United Kingdom is now in a recession. Prime Minister Brown announced yesterday a huge stimulus package to try to prime the pump in the UK economy. They're not immune.

France, Italy, even the East European countries—Hungary had to have a bailout from the IMF; Ukraine just got $16 billion from the IMF. None of us are an island, and that's the lesson that maybe we should appreciate if we are going to get out of this economic morass that we're about to go in.

We are dependent on each other, whether dependent on the United States, dependent on Europe or dependent on Asia. The Chinese, who have been doing very, very well exporting products all over the world—we all know about their success—are now suffering; they're having to lay off people. In many Chinese factories the wages are being cut in half—a 50% reduction in wages—because the Chinese are not able to sell their products to the Americans and to the Canadians. So whether you're in China, whether you're in Iceland, where essentially there's been a total collapse of their banking structure, or whether you're in Ukraine, all of us are impacted by this economic downturn.

We have to ensure that our federal government, and whatever we do from a provincial standpoint, works with the world economic community. In the long run, that's the way we'll get out of it. As a government, we'll try to do what we can to cushion the blow, to try to make strategic investments, but it would be foolhardy to say that what we do in Ontario alone is going to be the solution to all of this unprecedented impact.

Thomas Friedman wrote a book called The World Is Flat. Basically, the thesis of that book is that no matter where you are, you are in one global village where we are all affecting each other. In this time of crisis, we really have to understand that more than ever. I know that the Wall Street collapse has been the collapse for financial markets all over the world. That means that Main Street is impacted. Main Streets are impacted in every country in the world. So we have to try to understand that we've got a global impasse here and we need global solutions and we have to look at solutions.

I know in this House, sometimes all of us are partisan and saying, "Well, the last government had a deficit," or "Ottawa is not doing this," and that is going to continue. But I think we also want to listen to the people of Ontario, who are telling us: "We want to hear from you what your solutions are. We want to see what strategies you have in place to recognize the economic realities." The economic reality has just begun to hit—just begun. We are a little slower in the impact here in Ontario, but we are seeing it marching right across the world.

That's why we need to try to find solutions, whether it be investments in infrastructure, in the new green, low-carbon economy, in retraining, or looking at initiatives to encourage entrepreneurship. We have to look outside the proverbial box in this case.

We have to listen to people like Warren Buffett. Two years ago, everybody scoffed when he said that the financial mechanism in the US market—the derivatives; you've all heard about that being the cause of much of this. He said that the derivative scheme was like a latent hydrogen bomb waiting to explode. And they scoffed at him; this was about two years ago. The Hank Greenbergs of this world, Alan Greenspan, the head of the US Treasury, all of these people, scoffed at Warren Buffett when he said, "Don't go down this scheme of derivatives." But we all drank the Kool-Aid.

We all thought, "Wow, the market is doing great in Toronto. The market is doing great in New York. Let's get those derivatives. Hedge funds, wow. We'll go that way." But, sadly, Warren Buffett was right.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Norm Miller: I'm pleased to add comments on the debate on Bill 114, Budget Measures and Interim Appropriation Act, and the speech by the member from Eglinton—Lawrence. This budget bill, of course, is leading up to a planned $500-million deficit for this year, and I say that this deficit is just something that's totally political. It is a warm-up act for this government so they can continue their out-of-control spending, warming up to bigger deficits next year, when TD Bank predicts some $4-billion to $5-billion deficit.

The member talked about the early 1990s. Well, I remember, leading up to the early 1990s, the last slowdown, we had a Liberal government in power at that time too, leading up to the last big recession. That was the David Peterson government, which enjoyed relatively good economic times, and what did they do? They spent every dime that they received. They greatly increased the civil service. When bad times hit they had no room to manoeuvre, no room to increase spending to deal with the bad times. Now we have the same act being replayed again this year.

The David Peterson government increased spending by some 45%, and we see the same thing happening with this government. This government came into power, and the budget was $68 billion; it's now $96 billion, a $28-billion increase in spending. This year, revenues have decreased very slightly, but the spending is increasing. They have done absolutely nothing to try to control their spending. In fact, they've made four-year commitments to a number of different groups, 12% pay increases, which are further tying the hands of the government.

I say that this $500-million deficit is just the warm-up act to soften the general public to the fact that we're going to have much bigger deficits in years to come. This government is to blame for not controlling their spending whatsoever.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I want to come from a bit of a different perspective. I've got a lot of respect for the chief government whip. He and I have had to deal with things over the years and generally have a pretty good relationship. My criticism would be this: Ontario's been very fortunate over the last century in that we've been sort of in the centre of everything when it comes to the economy in North America. Our border to the United States and proximity to their market have played to our favour. Naturally, because of the seaway, the Great Lakes system and our natural geography, things came easy to us.

We had the natural resources in order to supply our industry, we had abundant hydroelectric power etc., and because of that, things just happened for Ontario. Government didn't have to intervene too much, because the economy sort of sailed along on its own.

If I have one criticism, it's that maybe because it was too good for too long; governments, in this case the McGuinty government and others before it, did not do the things that we need to do in our economy in order to say, "All right, the economy is changing.

We are not going to have a traditional economy as we've had in Ontario for the past century, that it's strictly a resource sector with a manufacturing sector, making automotive, steel etc." I'm not saying those industries are going to be lost, but what we've not done is we've really not thought about strategies about how we position our economy over the longer term. How do we encourage the private sector and entrepreneurs to look at what the new products are that we can be building?

We saw that with RIM—obviously, I think that is a good example—but it did not happen because governments were there trying to spur that kind of development to happen as far as new technology and new markets; it happened sort of on its own.

The problem we have now is that we are not, as a provincial government or as a federal government, really putting in place what's necessary to encourage that type of innovation. I'll get an opportunity a little bit later to talk about that, but we shouldn't be thumping our chests too hard at this point because I think we're not out of the—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. Questions and comments?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: It's my pleasure to respond to the comments made by my friend from Eglinton—Lawrence. One of the comments really struck me this morning when he stressed the need of building partnerships. We are living in an extremely globally-connected world. We're seeing the direct impact of that sort of globalization right now in our economy in Ontario and in Canada in terms of what is happening in the financial world, and I think what my friend was speaking about is how we need to build partnerships.

One great example in this bill which I want to focus on quickly is outlined in

schedule P of Bill 114 dealing with the Ottawa Congress Centre Act and changing the name of the Ottawa Congress Centre in my community of Ottawa Centre to the Ottawa Convention Centre Corp., and here is a great example of what partnership can accomplish. We've got three levels of government coming together—the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal government coming together—pooling their resources and making sure that we take Ottawa as a hub for tourism and conventions to a whole new next level.

I'm very proud that the McGuinty government has invested $50 million in the Ottawa Congress Centre—and the name will be changed to the Ottawa Convention Centre—to make sure it's a bigger facility, it's a facility that can accommodate much bigger conventions in the nation's capital, can bring more tourists in.

I want to salute the leadership of Jim Durrell, the former mayor of Ottawa and the chair of the board of Ottawa Congress Centre, and Pat Kelly, the president of the congress centre, for really building that coalition and for all the three levels of government coming together to ensure that Ottawa remains at the forefront of the tourism business in terms of attracting large conventions. This new convention centre is going to be truly an additional crown jewel in what Ottawa has to offer.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): We have time for one last question and comment.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Just responding to the member from Eglinton—Lawrence, whom I have a great deal of respect for, I want to say that I don't think his government prepared very well for this period of time. In my 18 years, this has been the strangest year that I've ever encountered while sitting in the House. Back in June, everything's rosy. We're told, when we ask questions about the economy—and we have been doing that for three years, telling this government that the economy is going to sour, that the good times, perhaps, are gone—because we could see the trend in the US and in Europe.

But this government was asleep as late as last June and July, throughout the summer, telling everyone, "Don't worry, be happy, the fundamentals are strong in the economy," and then all of a sudden we have this bill today, which I call the deficit budget bill.

It shows a half-billion-dollar deficit, which I think is clearly not correct from the get-go. We see on page 16 of the economic statement that was delivered on Wednesday, October 22, that they have not found any of their year-end savings of a billion dollars that they were supposed to be finding over the last four years. It's still marked as a billion; in fact, it's gone up to $1.1 billion because, in the economic statement, they said they'll try and find another $104 million or $100 million. So you really can't believe them. They have not set the fundamentals right.

They criticized Jim Flaherty when he tried to say, "You know, Ontario, you've got the highest corporate tax rate." Every other province—governments of all political stripes—has come to a common corporate tax rate. They are all consistently lower than Ontario. They wanted to go out and sell Canada without having to prejudice one area of the country or another.

They didn't want to have to go out and say, "Oh, by the way, Ontario is the highest." But because McGuinty didn't think of the idea, or because he was being forced by the federal government to do it, he simply was stubborn and still is stubborn and will not reduce those business taxes so that the federal government can go out and sell Canada as one country.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): That concludes the time for questions and comments. I return to the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, who has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Mike Colle: I appreciate the comments from the members from Parry Sound—Muskoka, Timmins—James Bay, Ottawa Centre and Simcoe—Grey. I appreciate the feedback.

Ireland lowered its corporate tax rate to the lowest in the whole western world, yet the first country to suffer the economic collapse was Ireland, so lowering taxes doesn't do it for everybody.

In terms of the economy, we've got to start to understand that there's never been a time like this if we are going to really deal with this seriously. Could you have believed 10 years ago if someone had said to you that the shares of Mattel, which makes toy trucks, are of higher value than a share of General Motors, so you can buy a Mattel share—I think it was trading for $4.60 a share, and a General Motors share you can pick up for $4.10. You know the old adage, "What's good for General Motors is good for the rest of the economy"? Well, General Motors has already gotten a huge bailout. They are now begging for another bailout from the US government.

Why I mention General Motors, and I refer to the point the member from James Bay made, is that we in Ontario have been linked to the auto industry, we have been linked to the forest industry, and we've tried to keep those industries going because so many people rely on those industries for jobs. Hopefully, those industries and other industries will now realize that the whole paradigm has shifted, so we can't continue to pretend that the world is the same as it's always been.

That's why the critical thing is to do some very innovative thinking, to find out what are the new jobs, the new economies, where we are going, and to be positioned to do that. You've got to invest in these new ideas, and we're starting to do that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mr. Jim Wilson: I'm happy to join in the debate on the Budget Measures and Interim Appropriation Act, 2008. For viewers at home, this is basically a bill to implement last week's economic statement, which announced the province was going back into a deficit situation. So for the purpose of this debate, I think it would be easier if I just called this the budget deficit bill.

This budget deficit bill was introduced in this House last Wednesday by the finance minister, and as I've said, it reveals a half-a-billion-dollar or a $500-million deficit, which should be troubling news for any taxpayer watching this debate. And actually, as I pointed out in my short response to the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, I think the deficit is probably about $1.6 billion as we speak, because you would think the government, on page 15 of the economic statement, would actually brag about some in-house savings that they made, this billion-dollar line that goes back to 2004-05.

They show in each year absolutely no savings, and then they show the current economic outlook for fiscal 2008-09—they're going to try to find $1.1 billion, because they announced in the economic statement they'd try and find another $100 million. They haven't found the first billion, and if you can't find a billion over four years, how in the world are you going to find a half a billion over the next couple of years to get us back in the black and out of deficit? You've been able to do nothing since 2004-05, or you would have bragged about it.

Instead, you've increased the public service, and I'll talk about that in a minute. The settlements you've made with—God bless them—nurses and doctors and firemen and policemen and the broader public sector are pretty generous when you consider that 300,000 people have had a 100% cut in their pay. They don't have jobs, they've lost their jobs, and they have very little hope of training, which I'll talk briefly to in a few minutes.

With the very first settlement you made with the broader public sector, you signalled that 3% was the bottom line. You didn't start at zero going into negotiations, talking about health benefits and job benefits and stuff like that. You started at 3% and you pretty well ended at 3% each year for all of those hundreds of thousands of broader public servants. Well, that's fine. You wanted to buy off the teachers; we know that. You wanted to buy off physicians and the broader public sector, and you've certainly bought off the firemen.

Great politics for you, but you were doing it at a time when we were standing on this side of the House taking heat from those groups, saying that you just can't afford to do that; you can't afford to be that generous.

I was in cabinet for eight years, fourth in the order of precedence in terms of cabinet ministers, so I had a pretty good eye on what was happening in the province. We were trying to take the province from in the red. Remember, when the PC government came in, in 1995, the actual deficit, everyone agreed—it was signed off by the Auditor General—was $11.6 billion a year from the NDP. That worked out to $1 million an hour, every hour, every day of the week, every day of the year, 365 days a year—$1 million more going out in government spending per hour than what was coming in in revenues. You could not sustain that.

Now we're seeing that all over again. We're seeing the David Peterson years, the best economic years we'd seen in my lifetime up to that point—1985 to 1987—and then he called the snap election in 1987. But then from 1987 to 1990, he managed to rack up an enormous deficit. At the time, it was a record deficit—you know, the spend and tax. Also, taxes went up a record amount.

I say to my honourable colleagues across the way: The member from Eglinton—Lawrence talked about how Ireland lowered taxes and now, look, they're having the same problems as the rest of the world in this economic turmoil that we're in. True, but Ireland also went from times of war and strife to great economic times that I didn't think I'd ever see in my lifetime, for quite a few years, for a decade, and were leading the world in many growth areas. Now they're suffering a bit, but they did the right thing at the time to lower taxes, as Mike Harris did the right thing at the time: lower taxes and create jobs.

We couldn't bring a policy to our cabinet, and you certainly couldn't bring a 3% boost for your interest groups to cabinet—well, you wouldn't even get in the door. Even the security guards knew enough not to let something like that in. Everything we did had to create jobs, and that's what we don't hear from this government. Everything Ireland did during that decade was to bring peace and create jobs and take people's minds off—what did they use to call it—"the worries"? Or the strife they were having, anyway. And it worked. Mike Harris—it worked. We cut taxes—business, corporate and individual taxes—by $16 billion at the same time we were getting rid of a deficit.

It was tough, but you have to learn how to take tough decisions when you're in government. That's what you make the big bucks for. That's why you have the limousines, so you can actually sit there and think and not have to worry about using your cellphone and driving, or write your speech, like I do in opposition now, as I'm driving along the road. Mr. Bartolucci smiles because I know he had many, many tough years like that too. But you've got to take the tough decisions.

Now I think what you're going to see—you had good economic times for the first five years. I don't think you laid the groundwork properly. I think you should have kept public sector wages down; you should have kept public sector growth down. We've seen a tremendous growth in the public sector, and not just the broader public sector. You say, "Well, those numbers all include teachers and doctors and that." Yeah, and we needed more teachers, and we certainly need more doctors. But I'm going to give you the numbers of the actual public service here at Queen's Park.

I took the Ministry of Health in 1995-97 from 11,000 bodies of actual public servants—not doctors, not nurses—down to about 6,800. And that was tough. I wasn't very popular—I see smiles across the way—but it had to be done. We had to get the size and cost of government down. You just haven't done that, and I think we're on the slippery slope again.

I think that, as my honourable colleague from Parry Sound—Muskoka said a few minutes ago, this half-billion-dollar deficit contained in the economic statement, the deficit budget bill here today, is really the warm-up act for what truly has to be an enormous deficit next year. Otherwise, I think you would have shown that—certainly, I know that my honourable colleague Mr. Phillips, minister without portfolio now, who was the critic of finance most of the time that we were in government, wouldn't want to be sitting in a cabinet that was preparing to have a huge, huge deficit next year. I think there's no other way out of it.

It's amazing how, through your ability to have the media on your side—we call the Toronto Star the Liberal briefing notes—that they're not freaking out.

This would be four-inch headlines if suddenly in June everything is rosy, with a "Don't worry, be happy" Premier and finance minister, when the rest of the world is certainly showing signs, real signs of economic turmoil and where we on this side of the House, for three years, have been telling you that you can't keep going in the direction you're going; you're going to have to bite the bullet, even though it's against your ideology, or you think it was our idea first, or it's a Conservative idea.

In the name of jobs, in the name of the almost 300,000 people who have lost their jobs, you're going to have to bite some of these bullets, and bite them right away in terms of lowering your taxes, so that Canada can go out and be sold across the provinces with some of the lowest business tax rates in the world.

Right now, Ontario—and you don't deny it and none of your economic advisers deny it—you have the highest start-up business taxes, new taxes, for a business in North America. So if there are jobs going to be created—and yes, the world won't end tomorrow, so jobs will be created and things will get corrected, and markets will come back.

The price of oil has already gone down. It's going to be interesting who they're going to blame next month, because the price of oil is below $66 a barrel today, so that excuse is gone. The dollar is well below 80 cents—that excuse is gone. Gee, these were all your excuses for the last four years: the federal government doing this; the dollar was too high; a barrel of oil too high. "We have no control over our economy"—so why did anybody elect you? If you have no control over the economy, even to the degree that a province is expected to have control, but you don't even take that responsibility, then we're in trouble. So it will be interesting.

The federal government got blamed for everything on this side of the House, whether it was crime, lack of nursing home beds—I don't know how you blame the federal government for that; they've increased health care transfers—or lack of doctors—we saw that in the federal campaign. They were blaming the federal government for the lack of doctors. I was health minister for two and a half years. You can't blame the federal government. We actually started to increase the supply of doctors even though Paul Martin cut $2.2 billion. I had been health minister for two weeks.

In my second week, he cut an actual $2.2 billion. He didn't bother to call me or have his health minister call me; I got an e-mail saying, "Transfers." All the health ministers got on the phone one night and said, "Jeez." There were Liberals and the NDP and Conservatives on the phone in a conference call saying, "Jeez."

Do you know what? The Toronto Star did nothing, absolutely nothing—$2.2 billion. Of course, they're here for one of my "nothing" speeches again, so that's the usual attendance I get from those people. But they said nothing.

In every one of my letters—you would send me a letter about some medicine that went wrong and I would add this paragraph: "Well, you should know that the federal government cut $2.2 billion"—and that was my only way, because we weren't doing government advertising; we cut $10 million of government advertising, so I could not take ads out, like you guys do, saying that the federal government had cut us by X number of dollars—"and that's why I couldn't respond to your health care concerns as quickly as I wanted to." But that was another thing too on how times have changed.

I'm talking about this budget bill. We're now into times changing back to where they were, into deficits, which is a shame, because when you consider the—is it a $173-billion debt we have? I'm way off my notes, but it's in about that area. There's $9 billion paid in interest every year. When are we ever going to start to pay that off? That works out just in new debt alone, new spending alone—you know, it took a decade to get us back into the black under the Mike Harris government. It's taken them five short years to put us back into the red, into a deficit, which I think is $1.6 billion.

The budget, over the last five years since Dalton McGuinty has come into office, has gone from $68 billion to $96 billion. It took us 136 years since Confederation, I believe, for Ontario to finally get to a $68-billion budget.

If you need proof that your spending was out of control, is out of control, this economic statement and these budget bill interim appropriations don't go anywhere near far enough to putting you on the right track. But if anyone wants proof—and you don't have to listen to Jim Wilson or Bob Runciman or John Tory—you can just look online at the economic statement itself: $68 billion. It took us 136 years to get to that government spending level, and $28 billion and five years later, we're at a $96-billion budget.

Just off the top of my head, that's about a 42% or 43% increase in five short years—remarkable, and remarkable that you weren't written up every day and brought to account for that. We try to do that in opposition. But it's remarkable that you can spend 40% more in such short years. It took 136 years to get to a $68-billion budget and then you add $28 billion—and that's just government spending; that's core government spending. Advertising—I will go through the two-and-a-half-million dollar parties at Windsor Casino and all the boondoggles.

Your actual other spending is about another $30 billion of borrowed money.

You were completely against P3s. In fact, you had interest groups actively protesting out in front of the Brampton hospital while it was under construction under the Progressive Conservative government and any other sites across the province where we had done P3s, private-public partnerships, which means the government uses a little bit of their money to leverage private sector money, you drive the best interest rate you can with those companies and you get the project built, presumably on time, because you build in tough penalties with those companies to make sure they do it on time and on cost.

The other way of doing it is basically a P3, but the other partners are the banks. The biggest borrower in the country, next to the federal government, is the Ontario government. So the other P3s, in the old way of doing things, were the banks.

We came along, along with the rest of the world, and said, "We're going to do P3s." My point there is, just like they said they wouldn't raise taxes—and Dalton McGuinty looked into our living rooms through the television in the 2003 campaign and again in the last campaign and said he wouldn't raise taxes. But he's doing that. He's subtly raising fees and taxes throughout the province in many of the services.

Again, these P3s: There's another $30 billion that is going to have to be paid off that you guys don't talk about. You brag about the construction, but you don't stand there and say, "By the way, we borrowed 95% of the cost of this new school," or, "We borrowed 80% of the cost of this new hospital." You won't even release the details of those contracts so that taxpayers can determine whether it's a good deal or not. So there's another $30 billion in spending out there. They like to brag at the ribbon-cuttings at these buildings, but they forget to tell the taxpayers.

They were totally against this sort of construction and borrowing in the past, and they're doing it rampantly now. All I say is: Fine; just be honest with the people of Ontario, release those contracts, and let us determine whether it was a good deal for taxpayers.

I did the largest privatization in Canadian history when I was Minister of Energy, and that was the privatization of the Bruce nuclear plant. It turned out to be a huge success. This government's bragging about it. They actually gave them a licence to bring up one of the downed reactors during their time, so they must have had great confidence.

I released that contract when I was asked. I released it several times. I remember that Mr. Hampton, the member for Kenora—Rainy River, used to say quite frequently, "Give me the contract," and I would have a poor page here carry over those six- or eight-inch, 24-inch binders of contract to give to him. I also gave it to him in committee a couple of times.

It was a successful privatization, because there was transparency. The employees were transferred from the former Ontario Hydro to Bruce nuclear. They were members of the Power Workers' Union, and they actually ended up being better off because Bruce nuclear believed in profit-sharing, which they had done in their plants in Scotland and England. It turned out to be a huge success. In fact, to this day, thank you very much, the Ontario Power Workers' Union is my best supporter when it comes to financial contributions in campaigns. Unions are supposed to be against Conservatives, but if you're transparent, you work with them and you do things right, they can become good friends.

Which brings me to, in the final few minutes I have, one of my pet peeves and one that many of my colleagues here share: something that you could do right away to increase jobs in Ontario. We have thousands and thousands—and we've brought many of them, on many occasions, down here to Queen's Park to sit in the galleries, while we ask the government the question, "Why won't you change the apprentice-to-journeymen ratio?" Today, if you want to apprentice in the electrical field, you need to join a shop that has at least three licensed electricians or journeymen.

Now, most of the shops—about 80% in the province—are small, and they might have two journeymen, which means that they can never take on a new apprentice. So they can't train any of these thousands of kids, young people mostly, who are going through college today to become an electrician.

You can work at that shop during the summer, do the same work as an apprentice, for three or four months, but then when you actually have to go into the apprentice program to get your hours towards your ticket, you can't work for that shop anymore. Many of these shops are father-and-son shops, for example, and they can't necessarily afford to hire another journeyman—well, they can't find one because none are being trained. So, it's just this total Catch—22. It wasn't an issue brought to our attention very much at all when we were in government, so you can't blame us for not having done it five years ago.

You've had five years. You've got apprentices. We brought them down here so you can stare them in the eyes.

It's all because you are in favour with the unions: Of the $5 million that the unions contributed in campaign contributions to the Liberal government in the last election, last October—88% of them had a stake in this ratio business. So whether it was the electrical brotherhoods or boilermakers or machinists—there is a long list—they almost all, or through associations, gave money to the Liberals.

Why do the unions have an interest in not changing these ratios? For a mason, for example, it's 5-to-1. You've got have 5-to-1. Good luck, if you want to find five masons in any town in this province just to hire one new student, or apprentice. I say "student" just to make it simple for everyone. So you have almost no new masons being trained in this province, you have very few machinists being trained, and yet this is a regulatory change. It doesn't require a new law.

You simply go to the cabinet, you change it, and tomorrow all these young people who have worked in these shops during the summer can now start to get their hours together towards becoming full-time professionals in their trades.

Why do the unions not like it? Supply and demand. They like to keep it low. I just moved houses. I waited weeks for an electrician—and I'm the local MPP. Generally, I can pull strings; people generally like to come over to my house and help out. But try and find an electrician, carpenter—what was the other one I had the other day who I still haven't found? I've forgotten about it. And you're paying $60 an hour, you know? It's crazy.

Those that have a nice job in a unionized shop, that are in—I can't say that word—cahoots with the Liberal government because of all the money the unions put into—they used to put it into the NDP, by the way, but they've given up on them; now they put it into the Liberals. This political and trade brotherhood is hurting jobs. You're doing the wrong thing. I think it's immoral that you would so blatantly have this gamesmanship going on.

We can see the money trail. We know the regulations, we see the young people that want jobs—thousands—and we see your stubbornness. We see that all you want to do is blame the federal government. Good luck. There's one federal government in Canada, and every other province has done better in economic growth and jobs than Ontario. You're dead last. On the track you're on, you're still going to be dead last, and you're going to have no one else to blame.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I know that the government is the party that we should be attacking as opposition parties, and I like to do that as best I can on a regular basis, but I do have a question for the member from Simcoe—Grey. The member says everything that the Conservatives did while they were in power was about creating jobs. As I remember, this is what they did: They reduced government because they say government is too big, so they cut jobs. Then they, by his own admission, cut about $16 billion over an eight-year period. He didn't say that, but it was over an eight-year period. I thought it was $14 billion.

Imagine: They say $16 billion; it's even bigger than I thought. So $16 billion gone forever—just gone—which has to do with income tax cuts—and the highest-income people are the ones who benefited the most—and corporate tax cuts. So $16 billion gone. They then sold Highway 407, gave it away for 99 years, and got about three billion bucks out of that deal.

By the end of their term, they had a $5-billion deficit. Let's say, to be fair to them, it was $4 billion. To be fair, let's say $4 billion, not $5 billion. My question to you is, how do you do that? In great economic times, you cut corporate taxes—and the Liberals are saying they did that too; they upped you a little more in that regard—and at the end of it you have a $4-billion deficit. How do you do that in a good economy? If you were that great, you would think you wouldn't have a $4-billion deficit. Other people say it's $5 billion, and I'll give you credit for $4 billion.

How do you do that in a good economy? You also had $3 billion by selling Highway 407. Do you get the picture I'm drawing for you, member from Simcoe—Grey?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Bruce Crozier: I will begin by saying what others have said here this morning: that I respect my honourable colleague the member for Simcoe-Grey, and I share good times and bad times with him, but he's simply misguided. That's all.

We'll answer one thing first. He talks about journeymen and apprentices. Sixty per cent of the firms in the province of Ontario have a 1-on-1 ratio of journeymen to apprentices. What we're really talking about is the other 40%, and I suppose that they are those larger firms.

I think the people of Ontario can recognize that what really happens in this place is that I stand up and say, "We did it better," and say, "It's your fault." The member for Simcoe—Grey blamed it on the previous government, the NDP; we blame it on the previous government, the Conservatives; and if ever we don't form the government in the not-too-distant future, I suspect that whoever does at that time will blame us. But we look to our history to get our advice. These folks across the way, in this case the member for Simcoe—Grey, were giving us financial advice.

Well, I recall, in the early years that I was here, that Mike Harris, before he was in government, said that government was bankrupt. But what did he do? One of the first things he did was, yes, give a tax cut, but what enabled him to do that? He borrowed $20 billion. So it seems to me that this didn't make sense, that this bankrupt government should go out and borrow $20 billion to give a dividend to some of its corporate friends and high earners.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Robert Bailey: I'd like to add my comments to the remarks from the members for Simcoe—Grey, Trinity—Spadina, and the member for Essex as well. I wasn't in the House at that time, but I'm sure that what Premier Harris was probably referring to at the time was that they were bankrupt of ideas. It wasn't that they were bankrupt of money; it was more that they were bankrupt of ideas.

But anyway, I'd like to comment on the remarks from the member for Simcoe—Grey. He covered a number of those issues, where the spending went from $68 billion to approximately $96 billion, a cost of $9 billion a year in interest; another way of putting it is $1 million an hour in interest, $25 million a day in interest.

The apprenticeship ratios: I think he covered that very well. That's something that in my office I hear about on a frequent basis from the people in Sarnia—Lambton, as well as, being the labour critic, from people in eastern Ontario and the rest of Ontario.

The other issue is this economic bill that we're talking about this morning, about the deficit. They promised that there would be no tax increase, but there's another bill that's going to be introduced, I understand later today or tomorrow, and that's the WSIB bill, the labour bill, which will force a number of employers to pay WSIB premiums, which, from information we have from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, will essentially mean a $10,000 increase to those businesses, which, in essence, would be a tax increase. So it isn't going to be a budget without tax increases. That's just one that we know of; I'll speak about those later.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments? Seeing none, I'll return to the member for Simcoe—Grey, who has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I'll just respond. Member for Trinity—Spadina, remember when we cut taxes by $16 billion—you're right—over eight years? Revenues went up by $16 billion. Just look at the facts. The best income for government is not direct taxation in terms of businesses and job-killing payroll taxes; it is a human being and the dignity of a job and income tax, because then you're not draining any of the social services. You're able to raise your family.

Mike Harris said privately—and I'll tell you this for the first time. We came into government and we were having a meeting about taxes, and if they weren't so high, we wouldn't have been able to lower them. But Mike sarcastically said to me privately one day, "Thank God they're so high; I can lower almost every one of them."

You have an opportunity, I say to the Liberal government, to lower some business taxes right now a little faster than you're planning to and to hit some of those taxes that you maybe weren't planning on hitting, but you're out of whack with the rest of North America in terms of tracking. The member for Eglinton—Lawrence, during his remarks today, talked about attracting new jobs and the new economy, and more power to you. Get out there, sell the province, find the new jobs, invest in skills, which you need to do more of and you need to do it properly. The Second Career program is a miserable failure, as you basically admitted last Friday.

Secondly, I say to the member for Essex, whom I respect very much, if 60% of the firms have a 1-to-1 ratio, let's deal with the 40% that don't, and they're not the large firms. The large firms keep most of these journeymen in-house. The Hondas of the world—don't ever talk to me about ratios, and they're in my riding. They're in-house, they're on the payroll and they want to keep the union out, they don't have a union, they want to keep their people happy; other shops just want to keep the union happy.

So let's deal with the mom-and-pop shops, the father-and-son shops. They're the ones that are lobbying us, of about 62 different trades that need these ratios adjusted. You shouldn't let the big boys push you over; you should favour the small ones. Eighty per cent of the jobs created in Ontario are by small businesses.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate? I recognize the member for Trinity—Spadina.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I'm happy to have the opportunity to speak to the fall economic statement. I would begin from where the member for Simcoe—Grey left off, and that is to say that during the Conservative reign, when they cut by $16 billion in eight years, the member from Simcoe—Grey says, "But that was compensated by the fact that our economy was growing at a great rate." It is true that the economy was growing at a fantastic rate, but they left a deficit. The reason they left a deficit is that cutting income taxes and corporate taxes along with the increased revenue did not match one with the other.

Therefore, to compensate for revenues not coming into the economy with what they were cutting by way of income taxes and corporate taxes, they had to cut, and they cut everywhere. They did it with a great deal of love, it seems. They cut in education. They cut in the construction of housing; not one public housing unit was built under the Tories. There was no child care under the Tories. They decimated our elementary and secondary system. The post-secondary system started to crumble under the weight of lack of government support. That's why tuition fees began to increase in a dramatic way.

So it isn't so, by way of the arguments that the member from Simcoe—Grey makes, that by cutting taxes, our economy grows. There's really no sound economic argument to be made in that regard. It failed dramatically as a strategy, and all the Conservatives have to offer is more tax cuts to the corporate sector. It's simply not an economic strategy. It didn't work, and it doesn't work in this setting either. It didn't work then in the good economy; it's not going to work in a bad one. It's not going to work either way. In both instances, we are in trouble economically. Sadly, that is the only thing the Tories have to offer in this debate.

The Liberals, not to be outdone, by way of Premier McGuinty say, "We cut corporate taxes some more." He actually admits that. He says it proudly, as if somehow that is a sound economic strategy. If it failed under the Tories, why would it be working under the Liberals, to cut corporate taxes even more? You would think that cutting corporate taxes even more would be creating the jobs that would pull us out of this recession, and yet it's not working. Right, Jeff, member from Peterborough? Because you've got a couple of degrees. It's not working, right?

Mr. Jeff Leal: Just continue.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It is a problemo, I say to you. So we have to look beyond some of these tired propositions that political parties make.

The Liberals themselves, again not to be outdone and not to be outflanked by the Tories, keep cutting, only to discover in the end that they are short of money. That's why they had to break their promise not to tax. Thus, they introduced the health tax, which we attacked because it was an unfair tax on the middle class in particular, and the upper-middle classes escape unscathed, because if you earn over $100,000, all you pay is $900; if you earn $200,000, all you pay is $900; if you earned a million dollars, you pay 900 bucks. You understand what I'm saying.

If you are earning $35,000 or $40,000, you've got to pay your minimum, right? In the middle, $40,000 or $50,000, you've got to pay about $600. You see how the middle class gets whacked by your Liberal proposal, member from Peterborough? It's obvious, right? It doesn't take a lot of intellect to understand that the middle class gets whacked by you fine Liberals.

Now, I understand you need money. You cut corporate taxes, yet you need money. Then you introduced the health tax. You had to break a promise. You had to, because you needed money, even in a good economy. You faced the same bright economic prospects that the Tories did for the last four or five years—the same economic prospects. You've had more revenues coming into your coffers, but you had to introduce the health tax because you needed money. You understand you needed money because the Tories took out $16 billion.

With your health tax, the unfair health tax on the middle class, you add $2.5 billion to your coffers, and it's not enough. That's why you can't deal with a poverty agenda, even though you claim you are. That's why you built so little public housing, even though you claim you are; that's why you're doing so little by way of child care, even though you claim you're doing it, even though you never spent the $300 million that you promised to spend on child care. Do you get the picture?

Now you're in a crunch. The economy has slowed down completely. We've lost 230,000 manufacturing jobs. There are about 40,000 jobs that have been lost in related forestry industry jobs—and this is huge for a lot of places in the north, in southwestern Ontario, and many other parts of Ontario as well. So about 230,000 manufacturing jobs have disappeared, and it's continuing in the other sectors of finance and construction and retail, and it's not abating one single bit; it continues and it's going to affect us in a serious way.

So the question is, when we have good economic times, what do we do? Not only are we going to judge you by what you do in bad economic times, but we have to judge you in good economic times. In good economic times, what have you done that can make you proud? You should have prepared the ground, given that the fundamentals were great, as you claimed, as Harper claims. He still claims the fundamentals are good. As Rome burns, he still claims the fundamentals are good, but so did the Liberals. The Liberals, provincially, say the fundamentals are sound. Only of late are the Liberals saying, "It's a bit shaky.

Things are getting tough. We've got to prepare ourselves for the worst" and so on. The point is, what did we do in a good economy?

Instead of raising the money that we desperately need in order to deal with income inequality that has now grown worse—and I don't know what Liberals are doing about this; I don't know what Tories are doing about this, except cutting more taxes—we have growing income inequality between the various social categories. The middle class is disappearing because middle-class jobs, largely unionized, are disappearing, and as those jobs disappear and have headed off to China and India to a great extent, you're left with a class divided: high-income people and low-income people.

That is why an economic report revealed just a week or two ago that income inequality has grown. That, in my view, ought to worry a whole lot of left-leaning Liberals, because I know there are some. I know that the social Conservatives also feel a bit uneasy about that and the social lefty Liberals feel a bit uneasy about that. But the question is, what are they doing about it?

Hon. Jim Watson: What about the right-wing New Democrats?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I know, Jim, you used to have an affinity to the other group a long time ago, so you fit quite nicely in the Liberal Party. I understand that. People can move between the Liberal and Conservative parties, no problemo. People have done that—

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: —and even Bob Rae has joined the Liberal ranks. So it's possible. Other friends up there, who don't want to be named—from Oakville used to be a New Democrat. God bless them. There are some.

Hon. Jim Watson: They're fleeing you, Rosie.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: No, most New Democrats stay firmly here, seated, with principles, on this side of the House, unlike our opportunistic Conservative and Liberal friends who flock to the Liberal Party.

In my view, this income inequality needs to be dealt with, because unless we do, we're going to have social wars 15 or 20 years from now. We're likely to be facing that again. We thought it was a thing of the past, but it's not going to be a thing of the past; it's going to be something we're all going to have to face. As people grow poorer and poorer, they're going to mobilize in ways that we're not going to like in the next 10, 15, 20 years.

So, my humble view is, and not a lot of people like to talk about it but we've done that in several elections, and that is to say we need to tax those people who have the money. Tories don't like that. You see it in America. The Republican candidate says, "Obama is going to tax you and he's going to redistribute your wealth, and it's just not right." It's a laughable kind of claim. He's going to take money from those who earn over $250,000, and McCain is saying, "It's not good. He's going to take your money up there"—because only 5% earn over $250,000—"and he's going to redistribute that money, and it's just not healthy." Not healthy for whom?

And so if you are in society, you have to be part of society, and if you're part of society, assuming you're a human being of one sort or another, then you've got to relate to others, you've got to work with others, and sometimes you've got to share the wealth and spread it around, because that's what it means to be a being in the world. If you're not a being in the world, you're somewhere else.

So my view is, we've got to raise some money. We should be taxing, beginning with MPPs who earn over $100,000—we should be taxed a little more so that we can make a contribution to those who are less fortunate.

Now, Liberals are saying, including Monsieur Dion—God bless Monsieur Dion; nice man—even he says, governments need to intervene. And that was a laughable claim. Liberals are saying, "We need to intervene. We need government involvement." He almost said, "There are government obligations," although he didn't quite say that. But it's as if he's saying the government has an obligation to help those who are more deserving because they find themselves less fortunate in these kinds of economic circumstances.

Governments need to intervene. Governments need to redistribute wealth so that we are all, as human beings in this society, sharing in the wealth that we produce. And so I say that I want to be taxed a little more, because I believe that we can be taxed a little more than those who earn $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 and even, yes, $70,000. If we have a little more to give, we should be contributing a little more.

Where does that start? It starts from governments, so governments should be taxing a little more, but you've got McGuinty saying he's not going to increase taxes. Oh, no.

He doesn't want to be worried about the Tories attacking the Liberals for raising income taxes, and at the same time they say, "But we need government intervention." What kind of government intervention is this when we're not building public housing to address the needs; when we've barely touched the child care problems that we're facing in this society, where women want to work and have to work, and they have nowhere to bring their children and find themselves in a crisis, yet we're not building child care spaces to provide for those working families, men and women?

We now have a situation where tuition fees are the second-highest in the country, and we have the highest debt levels in the country, and Liberals seem to believe that's okay. Well, it's not okay. It is not okay.

In the next year, as our economy gets worse, you will find government, this particular government—yes, even Liberals—cutting in our social sector, which includes education—elementary, secondary and post-secondary; child care; housing; infrastructure. Whatever you can think of, they're going to be cutting—yes, including health. That's what we're facing. These are our prospects. This is where we're heading.

So when you look at the fall economic statement for guidance, what does it give us?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Nothing.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It give us absolutely little to work on, except a five-point plan that they've been working on for quite some time that is clearly failing the people of Ontario. And why is it failing? Because, clearly, you've got people who are being laid off by the day. Two hundred and thirty thousand manufacturing jobs have disappeared; 40,000 forestry-related jobs have disappeared; the retail sector is tumbling; the construction sector is stopping building.

We've got people worried about their pensions, people worried these days about whether or not they'll be able to pay their mortgages—and that will be coming, I suspect, in the next year—and the five-point plan that they tout, that they say is working to help Ontarians out, is failing us.

There were no new ideas put out by this government. The Second Career apprenticeship program is failing us. It was supposed to spend $350 million over three years, and out of the 20,000 spots that it was supposed to have created, it evidently attracted only 1,000 applicants. Out of the 20,000 spots that it was supposed to have created, it evidently attracted only 1,000 applicants that were successful. It's not working. And the reason that it's not working, in my view, is that the government doesn't want to spend the $350 million or $359 million they said they were going to spend.

They don't want to spend the money. If you don't want to spend the money, you create barriers. You make it difficult for those applying to actually get into this so-called second career.

So I proposed, in an interview I did last week, that we look at the Jobs Ontario plan that we had introduced in 1992-93. The Jobs Ontario plan was a good one. People still talk about it to this day, except Liberals and Tories. But it allowed, or it gave, employees 30% of their salary. That helped the employer, with that 30% of their salary, to hire employees. It gave an incentive to employees to look for work and it gave an incentive to employers to be looking for employees. It was a good plan; it's still a good idea. They're doing things like that in Britain.

I propose that we force or oblige corporations that earn over $1 million to contribute 1% of their money to a training fund. We believe that kind of training fund is a better plan. It's enduring, it's sustainable, it's predictable, and it trains on a regular basis to match the needs of the corporate sector that is saying, "We are short of skilled workers in many of our sectors." So what you need is a universal plan that's not one year, two years or three years, but that is long, sustaining and predictable. Not one Liberal supported that plan—not one.

Some who might have liked the idea stayed out of the vote, but most of the other Liberals who were present voted against it. There are no new ideas being presented by this government to help those most in need.

We proposed a number of things. We proposed a Buy Ontario policy that would ensure that streetcars, subways, buses continue to be made right here in Ontario, resulting in the protection of thousands of good-paying jobs. They're doing it in America. They're doing it in Europe. We could do it here and should be doing it here. We proposed a five-year guarantee of industrial hydro rates so that Ontario manufacturing and resource companies can count on stable, competitive hydro policies at a time when many competing jurisdictions have far lower industrial rates.

We've been pushing that for four years, and not one Liberal has been listening to that suggestion. We could have saved a whole lot of jobs in the north had we done that, had we listened to the leader of the third party in that respect.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Bartolucci is listening.

Mr.

Rosario Marchese: Bartolucci is listening, but he didn't listen to the idea: We proposed a jobs protection commissioner to help at-risk companies overcome financial difficulties and save jobs, tougher plant closure legislation that would ensure that everything is done to prevent a profitable plant or mill from closing and enhanced mandated severance; expansion of severance eligibility and an 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 their company becomes insolvent or goes into bankruptcy; and finally, a refundable manufacturing and resource investment tax credit.

We're saying as well that, as poverty deepens, we need to address that. The government says, "We've got a plan," and they didn't work on it when they had a great economy. Now this plan is about to be unfolded by December, and Santa Claus is going to come and announce something by December. Not last year, when the economy was still good and they seemed to have a plan.

They wait until the economy crumbles to then say, "We've got a long-term plan, but you've got to limit your expectations, because what can you do?" And that was part of the Liberal plan as well: Wait for the economy to crumble and then say, "We're going to do the plan. It will be five years or it will be 10 years, and here are few crumbs for Christmas, and then we'll see what we can give you next year if the economy improves."

We need more from an economic statement than what you gave us. People are watching, people are listening, people are hurting and we're going to try to make you as accountable as we can to the middle class and to those most in need in this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): It being 10:15, I'm compelled to now recess the House. This House stands in recess until 10:30 later on this morning.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I'm delighted to be able to introduce the family of our page Elise Wagner, who is from Guelph. Her mom, Johanna Wagner; her dad, Glenn Wagner; and her sister, Kaitlin Wagner, are all visiting with us today.

Hon. Jim Watson: I'm pleased to recognize, in the members' east gallery, Dennis Matthews and Paul Bien, graduates from my alma mater, Carleton University, one of the great institutions in our province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would like to welcome, on behalf of the member from Halton and page Adriane Pong, her mother, Sandra, and her father, Josiah. Welcome to Queen's Park today.

On behalf of the Minister of Small Business and Consumer Services and page Emma Street, her father, Paul Street. Welcome to Queen's Park today.

I would also like to welcome some guests of mine today in the Speaker's gallery: Kory Preston, a former summer student in my constituency office, Kyle Hocking and Greg Evans. Gentlemen, welcome to Queen's Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

VIOLENT CRIME

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Attorney General. On a regular basis, you refuse to answer questions in the House, suggesting that to do so would jeopardize the rights of accused. So I would like to ask you a question about a past court process, and it's dealing with the alleged shooter in the murder of Bailey Zaveda in downtown Toronto this past weekend, a Mr. Kyle Weese.

We now know from press reports that he was charged in a 2005 shooting, and the crown in a plea-bargain deal dropped six of the seven charges against Mr. Weese. Will the Attorney General reveal today what charges against this very violent man were dropped and explain why they were dropped?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I know I have some time to address this. As we express our sympathy, not only in this Legislature but in the community, for the families affected by these tragedies, we all naturally want to know what more we can do to protect public safety.

We knew several years ago we needed more police on the streets, so we have put more police on the streets, 1,000 more, and most recently 329 additional ones just the other day.

We knew that the laws relating particularly to gun crimes were not tough enough, so we pushed for the federal government to bring in reverse-onus bail for serious gun crimes and mandatory minimums for serious gun crimes. We know there's more to do there.

Our commitment throughout is to make sure that public safety is protected and respected at all times.

I'll speak to my colleague's question—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Hopefully, the minister will address the specifics of the question I posed.

I think, Minister, a convincing argument can be made that because your crown, the office that you're responsible for, dropped six of seven charges against Mr. Weese, he was on the street this past weekend, allegedly shooting six people and killing one, Bailey Zaveda, because of decisions made by the crown.

You are the chief legal officer for this province, responsible for enforcing the Criminal Code to protect Ontarians, and people deserve an answer. Bailey's family deserves an answer.

Why did your officials do a plea-bargain deal with someone the police describe as a very violent person with an extensive criminal record? Why did this happen?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The crown has always taken public safety as the paramount consideration, and we protect the public safety within the facts that can be proven and with the law that applies. It may or may not be the result, in all cases, that somebody who doesn't know all the facts and the law might think is appropriate. Whenever a case is resolved by way of trial or by way of guilty plea as a result of discussions, there may be multiple charges. At the end of the day, the crown makes sure that public safety is paramount, remembering what facts we can prove and what law applies.

We have pushed for tougher laws to give our justice system the tools they require and we will continue to do that, both in terms of the sentences and the bail provisions that apply and the release provisions that apply after parole. We will protect the public—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Bailey Zaveda's family deserves specifics, not generalities. The province is responsible for the administration of justice, and this minister, day after day, blames others and accepts no responsibility for a system that he's in charge of. If the system worked properly, Mr. Weese would have faced all seven charges. If the system worked properly, the crown would have opposed the two-for-one credits Weese got at sentencing. If the system worked properly, Bailey Zaveda, in all likelihood, would still be with us today.

Minister, are you satisfied with the performance of the justice system in this case, and if not, will you accept any degree of responsibility for its failure?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: All families are affected by this tragedy, and we're all affected in our individual families, because we all have our loved ones and our friends and our neighbours whom we all want protected.

I agree with my friend entirely when he calls for an end to the two-for-one credits—entirely. We have been advocating for that as a province for years. We have been advocating for a statutory end to two-for-one credits and will continue to do so. We've been pushing for tougher laws both at bail and sentencing. We've had some success, and credit to the federal government where they've done that. There's more to do. People are asking what more can be done. I am speaking with Chief Blair and other chiefs about specific changes to the bail laws for the dangerous, the violent and the out-of-control that will further protect our communities. I look forward to my friend's suggestions—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question?

VIOLENT CRIME

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Back to the Attorney General again. Later today, we'll be debating a motion calling for a public inquiry into the bail system in Ontario. The Attorney General is responsible for what has become a revolving-door justice system in this province. People are arrested for violent crimes, gun crimes, and all too frequently, in the blink of an eye, they're back out on the street, committing additional crimes. Just this morning, we read reports of police searching for a shooter who was out on bail for an armed robbery charge.

Minister, will you stand in your place today and tell us that you are not happy with the bail system the way it's working in this province and that you and your colleagues will support the motion that's coming forward this afternoon?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Chief Blair was asked whether a public inquiry was required and he said, "No. We know what a number of the issues are. So now"—and I'm paraphrasing—"let's get to the solutions."

The question is, in the case of the dangerous, violent and out of control, are there changes that could be made in the bail system, for example? Because there are many layers here that will further protect public safety. We've advocated for and were successful in reverse-onus bail for serious gun crimes. We've advocated for—not yet successfully—in getting the federal government to change young offender laws for the out-of-control.

What further protections are there at the bail stage or the trial or sentencing stage or at the parole-release stage to make sure that the dangerous, the violent and the out-of-control are not menacing the public? I look forward to the debate and the suggestions that come.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I guess that's a no, in terms of support for a public inquiry into the bail system in the province of Ontario. The minister continues, day after day, to blame others and suggest that he's doing everything right. But we know, if we just open the morning papers, that he is not doing anything right. He has the tools available to him, through his ministry, to appeal. He said in this House last week, in terms of the individual charged with that double murder, that his officials opposed bail. I've read the transcript. They did not oppose bail.

He doesn't even take a cursory look at these situations, yet he gets up in this House and, day after day, gives these large pronouncements about, "We're doing everything right." You're not doing anything right.

Minister, will you stand up on your feet and accept some degree of responsibility for this revolving-door justice system you're in charge of?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I understand the passion, because we're all passionately determined to make sure that the public safety is protected. And wherever we can make improvements within the issues within our control, we will do that, and look for more. More police on the streets was an improvement we knew we could make, and have done it. What's next? A guns-and-gangs task force, because we can be more strategic about how we deploy police officers—we can do that and are doing that. A crown policy manual, which always says that public safety is paramount—and we will continue to take that position. Tougher bail laws—we've advocated for that.

Is there more that can be done? I suspect that there is more that can be done. We've advocated for some more; maybe there's more still. I return to the all too common denominator here: a national ban on handguns to reduce the risk by reducing the number of guns in circulation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Again, he's blaming someone else and not taking any degree of responsibility. He said earlier here that public safety is the overriding priority. I think it is not. It's somewhere far down the list. What we're seeing, in terms of decisions made by the courts, the crowns, the JPs and others involved in the system, is trying to achieve some kinds of cost efficiencies and cost savings. Public safety is not the overriding consideration when making release decisions. That's clearly the case.

The minister, through his crown law office, has options available to him. They can appeal all of these bail release decisions that involve violent crime and gun crime. They can appeal them in Superior Court; they're not doing that. They can apply for dangerous offender status; they're not doing that. They can apply under Criminal Code

section 810.2, to have electronic monitoring; they're not doing that. There are all kinds of tools available to this government, but this minister and his people are not following through and not utilizing them. Why doesn't—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: On the latter point, I believe the last five years will show that we brought more dangerous offender or long-term offender applications than ever before in this province, and we'll continue to do so to keep the most dangerous out of the community. We must always, whether we take a position to oppose bail, whether we take a position at a trial or a sentencing, abide by the law that exists, which is why I say to my friend, let's work together and work with the federal government to make sure that where the law needs to be changed, it can be changed.

We deal with different governments with different jurisdictions, but we all must share the same goal. The people want to be protected in their community. We have taken steps within our jurisdiction so far. We'll continue to do so and continue to work with the federal government. Indeed, I'll be calling them when the new ministers of justice are appointed to see what else we can do with the law—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Minister. New question.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Acting Premier. We know Ontario has lost over 230,000 good jobs and is losing thousands of good manufacturing jobs virtually every week. It was incredible in that context that the McGuinty government's economic statement last week hardly mentioned the issue of job loss and certainly had no strategy to deal with job loss. Today, we learn that the auto parts sector is in grave danger of losing thousands of more jobs and needs short-term financing because it can't get loans from the banks, due to their liquidity problems.

My question is this: At a time when we've lost thousands of good jobs, and obviously 72,000 auto parts sector jobs are at risk, why has the McGuinty government no strategy? Why did the economic statement not—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Deputy Premier?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Michael Bryant: With respect to the request for a loan, as the finance minister said, the government is open to working with the federal government and with our auto industry to deal with the liquidity challenges that are facing that industry right now, as we speak. I spoke yesterday with leaders in the manufacturing industry, the Ontario Economic Council, including the auto industry, to discuss our strategy. The strategy is the Ontario automobile strategy that invested dollars directly in the establishment of a burgeoning, growing—we at the time sought to improve productivity by making investments in the auto industry in exchange for the companies themselves making those investments.

The additional strategies, I'm happy—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Minister. Supplementary.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I don't think the minister's answer would give many Ontarians much confidence. What Ontarians have seen is that the McGuinty government gave General Motors $175 million and then thousands of GM workers were given pink slips by GM. The McGuinty government gave $100 million to Ford before Ford sent thousands of workers out the door with layoff slips.

My question is this: Since there was no jobs strategy in the economic statement, and since the McGuinty government's auto sector strategy is full of the holes I've just mentioned, can the McGuinty government assure us that the auto parts sector will get meaningful help from the McGuinty government, and in return the McGuinty government will demand job guarantees?

Hon. Michael Bryant: The government has provided support to the auto industry as part of its strategy by making a half-billion-dollar investment in that industry. That created jobs across this province, jobs that I know this member would support. I understand that the member takes issue, but I would hope he would stand up and say that the auto strategy was a solid strategy.

Secondly, the advanced manufacturing loan strategy allows for companies to come forward—and auto parts companies have come forward—to individually apply for loans. Ninety million dollars has been spent through the advanced manufacturing fund in that regard. In addition, there's the Next Generation of Jobs Fund, which I will speak about in the supplementary.

But to answer the member's question, the government has said it is open to working with the federal government, as governments in other jurisdictions are doing, to—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Howard Hampton: The McGuinty government says that its strategy in the auto sector has been a success. I invite the minister to go to Windsor and talk to all of the laid-off auto workers there, or go to Chatham or go to St. Thomas and talk to all the laid-off or soon-to-be laid-off auto workers there, or go to Oshawa and talk to all of the laid-off auto workers there. It's obvious when you talk to those laid-off auto workers that the strategy they have seen so far is not working.

What I'm seeking from the McGuinty government is a commitment today that it will not be the same old, same old, which obviously hasn't been working, unless you count workers going out the door on layoff a success. Will the McGuinty government commit to providing short-term loan financing to the auto parts sector in exchange for job guarantees? Yes or no?

Hon. Michael Bryant: This government established a program well before it hit the front pages of the newspaper, I say to the leader of the third party, and well before this letter was received by the finance minister, in order to be there to provide loans to the advanced manufacturing industry, to provide assistance to the auto parts industry, just exactly for some of the reasons that the member has said. Moreover, this was in advance of the credit crunch. This was established far before the recent events which have led to the loan request in particular.

So I say to the member that this government anticipated the need for upgrades and assistance with loans and investments in this industry, and that is on top of the half-billion-dollar investment in the auto industry. This government has made huge investments and has made a massive commitment to the auto industry, and I can assure the member that it will—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Minister. New question.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Howard Hampton: Again to the Acting Premier: We learned yesterday that the McGuinty government, in one month, spent $4 million in advertising on its Second Career program, and yet only 1,300 laid-off workers have been able to gain access to the Second Career training program. That works out to $3,100 in advertising per unemployed worker who has been granted access to the program, and that $4 million was just the advertising bill for the month of July.

I want to ask the Acting Premier: Can you tell us, how much money in total has the McGuinty government spent advertising a second-careers program that has so far only signed up 1,300 laid-off workers for training?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. John Milloy: Again, I want to begin by clarifying for the member that I know he would never want to leave the impression that Second Career is the only program that's available for laid-off workers.

I'll give him some figures that he'll want to remember. First of all, Employment Ontario, which is the main body which deals with those in Ontario looking for jobs, serves about 900,000 people every year. In terms of laid-off workers, we have a system of action centres across the province which, in one year alone, dealt with about 53,000 individuals. We have a number of programs that are available for people looking for a job, including short-term training. We've seen about 13,000 people come forward.

But the one gap that we acknowledge is that there was no long-term training. So in June of this year, we brought forward the Second Career strategy and, yes, we brought forward an advertising campaign to make sure that people knew about this new strategy—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: Speaker, you have to help me out. It was a simple question. I simply want to know: How much money has the McGuinty government spent advertising a second-careers training program that has only succeeded in getting training for 1,300 laid-off workers? I don't think that's too difficult.

But I want the minister to know about Jeremy in Hamilton, a welder who lost his job a year ago. Jeremy started attending Second Career meetings last spring, hoping that he could learn another trade. He was told, however, that because he already had a first career as a welder, the Second Career program would not pay for him to get a second career. After filling out many forms and going to countless meetings, Jeremy was rejected because he didn't have enough employers saying they wouldn't hire him as a welder. That's his experience.

I want to know: How much money has the McGuinty government spent advertising such—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. John Milloy: As I said, the Second Career program is a new program; it was introduced in June. I would like to inform the member that we've spent approximately $4 million on print, radio, TV and online ads informing Ontarians of Second Career. We've also worked with Service Canada to send information on Second Career with EI cheques. Since launching the advertising campaign, we've seen results: almost 7,000 people a day visiting the website. Approximately 22,000 people have called the Employment Ontario hotline, and we've had about 6,000 people come forward for various EO training programs through that—Employment Ontario training programs.

The honourable member asked about criteria. He should be aware that last Friday, we announced changes to the criteria to remove obstacles for workers across the province and allow them more access to this long-term training program, which, combined with short training programs and a whole menu of services, serves about 900,000 people every year.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Speaker, you have to help me out here. I'm not sure if the minister can't add or if the minister is deliberately trying to avoid answering the question.

The Second Career program has been around for seven months. We know that the McGuinty government spent $4 million advertising it in one month, the month of July alone. My question is: In total, how much money has the McGuinty government spent on a second-careers program that has only found training for 1,300 out of 230,000 laid-off workers?

It would seem to most workers that this program is all about giving the appearance that the McGuinty government cares about laid-off workers, through all kinds of advertising, but in fact doesn't help laid-off workers.

I ask again: How much money has the McGuinty government spent advertising this program that obviously—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. John Milloy: I think the honourable member needs to get his facts straight. Second Career was introduced on June 1. We began the advertising campaign in July. To date, we have spent approximately $4 million to advertise a brand new program, unique in its kind across the country.

But this is more than about figures; this is about individuals. Let me tell the honourable member about some more individuals. Let me tell him about Andrew Machan. Andrew lost his job last spring following the first round of layoffs at Sterling Truck in St. Thomas. He heard about Second Career through the action centre that was set up at the plant. Andrew is now registered at Fanshawe College's engineering technician-industrial controls program.

I'd like to read a quote from Andrew. Andrew said: "Second Career has given me another chance to do what I've always wanted to do. Being in school and doing well at it has given me a more positive outlook about my future prospects. Next to marrying my wife, this is one of the best decisions I've"—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

VIOLENT CRIME

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Back to the Attorney General. I'm looking for answers to questions which he failed to respond to with specifics earlier, dealing with the prior charges against the man who is now accused of Bailey Zaveda's murder and the shooting of five other people on the weekend. Apparently, back in 2005, he was charged with—among other things—assault with a handgun and aggravated assault. He ended up pleading guilty to discharging a firearm with intent to wound. All of the other charges were dropped.

Again, the minister has had adequate time. Given the gravity of the situation on the weekend, surely he can tell us, tell the family: What were those charges that were dropped and why were they dropped? Why did the crown plea bargain with this man?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: You know, I have a 23-year-old. I can't imagine what any family goes through when they lose their loved one. We all share the determination to make sure we're doing everything we can so that we can protect the public safety.

The resolution of charges, whether through trial or plea, depends on the evidence and the law. I can't change the evidence as Attorney General. I can advocate for but can't change most of the law. We can take the tough positions to advocate for public safety, which is always paramount in every case, and that is what we do. That is our policy, to protect—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I'd like to ask the crowns and the police if those six charges that were dropped were not warranted. That doesn't sell. The reality is that we're talking about court backlogs, efficiency in the system. That's why public safety is being jeopardized on a regular basis by this minister and the system that he is supposedly responsible for but won't accept any responsibility for the bad and faulty decisions being made.

We should ask about this individual, and I'll put it on the record again. The police describe him as a very violent man with an extensive criminal record, yet your officials decided to drop six very serious charges against this man. When he was sentenced and completed his sentence, why didn't you apply under Criminal Code 810.2 and make an application for electronic monitoring of this individual so we could at least track his movements in the city?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I repeat: Without speaking to the specifics of an individual case which is now the subject of a police investigation for some very serious charges, my friend would know that the resolution of charges in what he calls "plea bargaining" has been around long before I started practice. It was around when he was a Solicitor General. I don't think that he would suggest that plea bargaining when he was the Solicitor General occurred only in circumstances to clear backlogs, to get rid of charges.

I think he would suggest that he took a tough position, as a member of a government, on crime, as do we: Public safety is paramount, the resolution of charges always dependent on the facts of the case and the law that applies. That is—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

CHILD CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

My colleague the MPP for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek and grandparents who are raising their grandchildren are rallying right now in Hamilton, as I speak. They want the ministry's Hamilton staff to comply with the minister's response to my colleague's question on October 7 about eligibility for temporary care assistance funding. The minister said, "I'm not asking the director of services to not use his or her judgment for special circumstances."

Each of these grandchildren who live with their grandparents do so under very, very special circumstances. Will this minister direct her staff to recognize these special circumstances and ensure that they're eligible for full temporary care assistance funding?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I want to thank the member from the third party for her question.

Again, I'm going to repeat it: Every grandparent who qualifies for temporary care assistance will receive temporary care assistance. It is temporary. And, yes, the director of the program in each municipality has some flexibility, because we cannot establish every rule so clearly to make a decision as to who is entitled and who is not entitled. The rule has not been changed. It was the same rule when the third party was in power, and we will continue to apply it. Every grandparent who qualifies will receive the money.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This minister appears to be really desperate to find someone else to fault in this situation, and now she's even faulting her own staff. The member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek was very clear—and last time, she actually accused him, accused the member asking the question, of somehow interfering with the process and advocating a means test, which is absolutely unacceptable.

He and the grandparents are asking the minister to commit to three very fundamental, basic things: that all at-risk grandchildren being raised by their grandparents are eligible for temporary care assistance; that "duration of assistance" means that no time limits are set on the availability of TCA, which may be needed for years and years, as the minister knows very well; and that "settled intent" is not grounds to deny temporary care assistance.

Will this minister finally take responsibility for this fiasco and reinstate the directives and

interpretations that ensure grandchildren—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: The member is right. The member from Hamilton East blew the whistle because the program was not applied equitably across the province; we reviewed it, and that was true. So we made sure that every grandparent who qualifies for temporary care assistance will receive the benefits. However, they want the program to be income-tested. It's not income-tested right now. Again, if it's income-tested, 75% of grandparents will not qualify. Do they want us to change the rules? The question is theirs.

CHILD CARE

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Minister, over the last several weeks and today, my constituents have heard conflicting stories about your ministry's temporary care assistance program. Opposition members have accused your ministry of cutting off grandparents from this program, which offers assistance to children most in need. The member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek has continually suggested that you have changed the rules, forcing many to exit this program.

Minister, the people of Ontario deserve a clear and honest response. On behalf of grandparents across the province, could you please stand in your place and clear the record?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I want to thank the MPP from Guelph for her interest in the lives of Ontario's most vulnerable.

The member is right. The people of Ontario deserve the correct information, so let me make this very clear. My ministry has not changed the rules in regard to eligibility for the TCA program. The budget has been increased again this year, to $12.8 million. This is almost 14% more than the year before. This December—

Interjection.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Yes, this has changed. This December, they will receive a 2% increase. What did these two opposition parties do? They voted against it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I note in the record in Hansard that it's not just the NDP who have been attempting to spin this issue. In fact, last Thursday in the House, the Conservative member for Dufferin—Caledon stated, "The minister must know that once an Ontario resident turns 65, they no longer qualify for social assistance and would be turned away."

Minister, is that true? You suggested on several occasions over the last two weeks that if grandparents were ineligible for the temporary care assistance program, they could apply for some of Ontario's long-term social assistance programs. Minister, can an individual over the age of 65 be eligible for Ontario Works?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Merci again for the question. In fact, all individuals over the age of 18 may be eligible for Ontario Works basic financial assistance if they meet program eligibility requirements, including those over the age of 65—again, including those over the age of 65.

But the member from Dufferin—Caledon was on a very slippery slope when she was talking about our record. Let me quote from the years 1997 to 2002: The budget for the TCA program went from $14.5 million to $8.9 million. So the Conservative Party slashed a very, very important program. This party is an uncaring Conservative party.

VIOLENT CRIME

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Attorney General: A year and a half ago, I told this Legislature about an incident involving a military assault rifle being carried behind Caledonia's Notre Dame elementary school. Turtle Island News reported that Mr. VanEvery "threatened another man in his late twenties with an AK-47 rifle." He then shot up a smoke shack on provincial Highway 6 in Caledonia. At the time, he already had 74 previous convictions, 43 of which were gun-related.

How does one get 43 convictions, gun-related convictions, and still be allowed to walk around free with an AK-47 on the Ontario-government-owned Douglas Creek Estates, to walk around behind a school and to shoot up a smoke shack?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I think the member asks an important series of questions. I don't have all the details about the specifics of the case that he raises, so let's deal with some of the policy issues.

If he asks our position with respect to whether we think handguns should be in greater circulation or lesser circulation in the province of Ontario, I say "lesser circulation," and that would apply to AK-47s as well. If he asks whether we need to take a look at the laws that apply to those in possession of firearms, I say "absolutely." My colleague Michael Bryant and Premier McGuinty pushed hard for reverse-onus bail and mandatory minimums for serious gun crimes. Is there more to do? There may well be—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr. Toby Barrett: Attorney General, VanEvery was sentenced to four and a half years in jail just the other day. He'll probably get out in a year and a half. There was plea bargaining, where 13 counts of attempted murder were dropped. The same four-and-a-half-year sentence was given to VanEvery almost a decade ago for selling illegal weapons imported into Canada.

Why are your crown attorneys pleading away offences like 13 counts of attempted murder, using an AK-47, a military assault rifle, for a man with 74 previous convictions? How can the public respect the administration of justice? Is this yet another example of your catch-and-release justice system?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: People must have confidence and will have confidence that when cases are resolved in the context of the Criminal Code in our courts, they're resolved on the basis of what facts can be proven and resolved on the basis of what law applies. It is challenging sometimes, when we hear the short question or the headline, to wonder what happened, but the crowns begin from the position that public safety is paramount, and that's determined on the basis of what we can actually prove in the courts—which is where it counts—and what law actually applies.

As far as federal parole law is concerned, I think he and I are happy to have a discussion about that, but we know that I can't change it. It would have to be the federal government that changes that.

POVERTY

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Yesterday almost 400 people gathered at Queen's Park to tell the McGuinty government to make poverty reduction a priority during this economic showdown. They told the government that it must, at a minimum, reduce poverty by 25% in five years; at a minimum, include a poverty-proof minimum wage, new affordable housing and child care, and livable social assistance rates; and, at a minimum, significantly invest in poverty reduction in the 2009 budget. My question is simple: Will the government's poverty reduction strategy meet the group's minimum expectations?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member opposite for his question and his ongoing advocacy for those who need a little extra help. I welcome the support of members from all sides of the House as we collectively work to reduce poverty in this province.

I'm going to take this opportunity—I know I will have a supplementary—to say thank you to the members of 25 in 5. They have done an excellent job in raising the issue of poverty across this province. They have come together to work with government to help us understand their issues—and the other way around. They have been a tremendous force in getting communities across the province sitting around a table and talking about solutions to poverty. So I would like to say thank you to Pat Capponi and the leadership of 25 in 5 for the excellent work they have been doing in this province.

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is not about the group, because the group, of course, is doing excellent work; my question is about whether or not this government is going to meet their minimum expectations. Ontarians across the province expect a serious poverty reduction strategy from this government: 88% of Ontarians want at least a 25% poverty reduction in five years; 87% want a minimum wage above the poverty line; 92% want more affordable housing.

My question again: Will the government listen to Ontarians and commit to strong action on poverty this December, or will you continue to sentence families to a lifetime of poverty?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I can assure the member opposite that our poverty reduction strategy will be a very serious strategy indeed. We have brought together an unprecedented combination of ministers. This entire government is working together to develop a poverty reduction strategy. I would be hard-pressed to think of any government that has ever put this kind of interministerial approach toward a common goal. So I can assure you: Yes, of course it will be a serious poverty reduction strategy, and I look forward to its release by the end of the year.

FOODLAND ONTARIO AWARDS

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Constituents in my riding have acknowledged just how important it is to their health and local economy to buy locally grown and locally produced foods, certainly supported by Ms. Herma van Beek, the president of the Peterborough County Federation of Agriculture. Buying local is a great way to promote the local agricultural economy while at the same time protecting the environment, because food travels a shorter distance when you are able to secure it locally.

Another important component of an effective strategy to increase the demand for locally grown and produced food is to recognize the important work that has been undertaken by industry partners. I noticed in my local paper an

article about Mr. Dave Morello, the owner of Morello's Your Independent Grocer store in Peterborough, who won a Platinum-All Seasons award for the eighth consecutive year under the Foodland Ontario Retailer Awards. Minister, could you please tell this House more about this wonderful awards program?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: First, I'd like to say, congratulations to Mr. Morello. I'm happy that the member has asked a question that allows me to talk about the great work that is happening in the grocery sector with respect to promoting Ontario food products.

Earlier this month, my ministry was pleased to announce the 2008 Foodland Ontario Retailer Awards. This is an annual event, and it's a tremendous opportunity to support Ontario-grown fresh produce. The outstanding and innovative efforts of 37 grocers across the province were recognized in this year's awards. There are five award categories, including a new category under Pick Ontario Freshness, and the five categories are Platinum All Seasons Award, which recognizes merchandising excellence; a Gold Category Award that is given to the chain and independent stores that showcase seasonal, creative and cross-merchandised items—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Minister. Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Leal: Thank you, Minister. Recognition for retailers who have caught the wave of the locally grown food movement is critical in the sustainability of this movement. Buying food produced locally in Ontario just makes sense. The food is fresh and healthy and it is helping our local farmers, who in turn add significant value to the local economy. The agri-food sector contributes billions of dollars to Ontario's economy.

These retail awards will go a long way towards advancing our goals of having a more self-reliant food system in Ontario. It's good to know that some of these major retailers are taking an important first step towards the availability of local foods in their stores and the promotion of these great products.

Minister, you mentioned that there is a new category this year, the Pick Ontario Freshness category. What is this category for and who were the Pick Ontario Freshness award recipients this year?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Yes, we do have a new category. Foodland Ontario is over 30 years old now and has done an excellent job promoting Ontario food products, but they are also working to partner with our $56-million Pick Ontario Freshness strategy. We now have a new award, and it is given to retailers who have expanded their in-store programs to promote the broader range of Ontario food products that are now under the Foodland Ontario umbrella. That includes meat products, processed foods, eggs, breads and so on.

Some of these award winners include the Sobeys food chain for their Compliments private label promoting fresh Ontario beef, pork, chicken and poultry, and Highland Farms for cross-department promotion of fresh Ontario food products. Loblaw Companies Ltd. is promoting Ontario corn-feed beef, and Longo's is promoting Ontario pork, lamb and veal.

We very much appreciate that these larger chains are getting on board—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, Minister. New question?

VIOLENT CRIME

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Attorney General. We've just found out that a 14-year-old was stabbed at Don Mills Collegiate this morning. Over the weekend, another 14-year-old was stabbed at a birthday party, and two weeks before that, a 14-year-old was stabbed to death on his way home from school in Brampton.

You've had the Curling-McMurtry report since May of this year. When are you going to take action to protect our young people?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Of course, we're very saddened by any violent events, and our hearts go out to the families affected. I say with respect to the roots-of-violence report, the Curling-McMurtry report, that the Premier will speak to that. It's a report to him. We're looking forward to its release.

Our position as a government generally has been that we want to be not only tough on violence but tough on the causes, which is why, for the past couple of years in particular, several ministries have been investing in communities to make sure that our young people have the opportunities that will keep them out of violent behaviour. The TAVIS project, which has often looked at crime enforcement, actually involves making very positive community contacts with students, school authorities and other—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Attorney General, people are outraged that this sort of activity is happening in our communities. Public safety is clearly at risk, and this is not a time to sit around and think about things. The time is now for urgent action. What are you planning to do?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Just hot off the press, to correct a misapprehension, we're looking forward to receiving the Curling-McMurtry report. It has not actually yet been delivered. But, you know—

Interjections.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Sorry. You proceeded on an assumption. What is important, and I think what my friend and I will share, is how to invest in communities that in some cases had not been invested in for many, many years to make sure that young people have the educational supports, the post-secondary education and training supports, both of which we have supported significantly, the other community investments which we've undertaken over the past couple of years in conjunction with the city of Toronto, and looking forward to what to do next to make sure there is a positive future for every young person in our most challenged communities.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre des Richesses naturelles. As of October 31, the 400 residents of Estaire, an unorganized area southeast of my riding, have been given notice by the MNR that their waste transfer site will be closed. Minister, these residents want to be part of the solution in establishing a new waste management strategy, yet the deadlines given by the MNR are impossible to meet. What is the minister doing to help unorganized areas like Estaire manage their waste in a responsible way?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I'd like to thank the member for the question. It's an issue the north is facing that's quite significant, and that is: As the landfills are filling up, what are we going to do with the waste?

There have been a number of proposals brought forward by the communities themselves. I was really pleased to hear about the innovative approach that a number took, Schreiber being one of them, to look at a different approach to collection of waste and maybe utilizing that waste into electricity. That, I understand, is under way as an opportunity maybe to work with the—the OPA, the Ontario Power Authority. How quickly one forgets. Anyway, that was one.

The other is that we are sitting down with the communities to look at what the alternatives are, as opposed to the fact that we know there is such limited land space available for waste management.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: We understand that MNR is getting out of the waste management business, yet no financial assistance has been given to the people of northern Ontario and arbitrary deadlines are being set. More or less, people in northern Ontario are left holding the bag, and we all know what is in that bag.

The decision by the MNR means that residents have no choice. They end up putting their garbage on back roads, in the bushes, basically anywhere they can get rid of it. Is it the intent of the MNR that the bush in and around unorganized areas becomes a great big dump site, or does the minister have a plan to help unorganized communities like Estaire develop doable waste management? Don't leave them alone.

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: Actually, I don't believe that the people of the north would be so foolish as to just dump their garbage. They are actually into recycling, reducing and reusing. They know they have a challenge around their waste management, and I don't believe their answer is to dump their garbage somewhere else. They are looking for solutions and working with us on how we can manage this very difficult challenge, recognizing that they have very limited space with which to work.

Having said that, I'm more than prepared to sit down with the member on any specific site to work out with the community how we can move forward. We know this is a challenge in the north, and we'll continue to work with the communities wherever it's possible.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. Reza Moridi: My question is for the Minister of Government Services. In my community, like most across Ontario, environmental issues are of increasing importance. The Ontario government employs tens of thousands of employees across the province. What are you doing to ensure the government is reducing its environmental footprint and leading by example?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I appreciate that important question by the honourable member opposite. Like people in his community, our public service is absolutely committed to a greener future. We have captured OPS creativity by establishing a permanent OPS ideas program which encourages public servants to suggest ways to enhance high-quality, cost-efficient services to the people of Ontario. To date, we have received over 2,000 great ideas. A number of these are in support of our desire to be a government that is keen and green.

One great idea was to use LED light technology in traffic lights. This was adopted by the MTO. Today, all MTO traffic signals have been converted, saving us 80%. These lamps, by the way, last five times longer. That's what I call a bright—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Reza Moridi: I applaud the initiatives of the OPS. We are lucky to have such a talented group of individuals working across the province. It sounds like good progress is being made, but I'm concerned that there isn't a coordinated approach to these kinds of initiatives in government, and I am not the only one who is concerned about this. In his latest report, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario recommended that the Ministry of Government Services establish a central greening office that would oversee such initiatives, as well as encourage environmentally responsible practices.

My question is: What is being done to ensure that these kinds of efforts are coordinated and are not just isolated one-offs?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I'm happy to inform the House that in September of this year, we created a green office within the Ministry of Government Services. It's going to play a key leadership role in coordinating the numerous exciting green initiatives across the OPS. With support from the climate change secretariat, the green office will support policy development, tracking and reporting employee engagement and education as related to sustainability. In addition, this team will drive cultural and behavioural change within the OPS. It's going to save us money.

It's going to reduce our energy costs and reduce our overall environmental footprint. With an OPS so brimming with keen and green ideas, I think that augurs well for the future of Ontarians as we attempt to reduce our carbon footprint across this great province.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. On August 22, the minister, through the OPA, released the RFP for renewable energy supply III. Since then, the world economic situation has severely limited access to capital. This will surely result in higher bids as developers face significantly higher and increased costs of financing. Minister, these costs will ultimately be borne by the electricity consumer. Will you do the prudent thing and extend the deadline for the RFP for 90 days while markets stabilize, thereby protecting electricity consumers from higher-than-necessary electricity costs here in the province of Ontario?

Hon. George Smitherman: It's not surprising that the honourable member, who comes from a party that had no energy action or policy, is now asking the government that has one to stop. I want to say to the honourable member that it is our determined view that here in the province of Ontario a good part of the green economy will emerge around the ongoing efforts to bring more renewable energy to life in the province of Ontario.

Over the course of the next few weeks, three large new wind farms will open in the province of Ontario, reasserting our leadership across the country and, within one year actually, nearly doubling the amount of energy that we're receiving from wind power alone. We are pleased with the billions of dollars of investment that have resulted from our efforts so far, and we will continue to lead forward in the province of Ontario, implementing renewable energy strategies and enhancing our ability to lessen and lighten the load on Mother Earth.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. John Yakabuski: We're all interested and encouraging the development of more renewable energy, Mr. Minister. However, it's your responsibility to see that we get there at an affordable cost. Your Premier and your Minister of Finance, last week, said it is no longer business as usual. You should have taken a hint from that. In fact, you've delayed the IPSP yourself here in the province of Ontario.

Minister, subscribers to this program have said to you that because of lack of access to capital, costs are going to be up during this RFP. If you extend this deadline, those costs should go down. Will you not stand together with energy consumers in the province of Ontario and recognize that you have an opportunity to do the right thing for them by extending this deadline in very volatile times in a world market? You can help energy consumers by extending this deadline. I ask you again: Will you extend this deadline for 90 days while the world market stabilizes?

Hon. George Smitherman: They're back at it again. The same party that, through a lack of action, deprived Ontarians from the opportunity to get off coal, stands i