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

October 8, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Oct-08 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 8 October 2008 Mercredi 8 octobre 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SERVICES

À L'ENFANCE ET À LA FAMILLE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

THUNDER BAY ECONOMY

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

POVERTY

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

TAXATION

LABORATORY SERVICES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

ONTARIO ECONOMY

DIAMOND MINING

EDUCATION FUNDING

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

PROPERTY TAXATION

VISITORS

PETITIONS

BEER RETAILING AND DISTRIBUTION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

BEER RETAILING AND DISTRIBUTION

EDUCATION FUNDING

CHILD CUSTODY

POPE JOHN PAUL II

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

GASOLINE PRICES

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

STROKE THERAPY

IDENTITY THEFT

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FUNDING

FORT WILLIAM REDSKINS

FOOTBALL TEAM

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS WEEK

ONTARIO ECONOMY

PAN AMERICAN GAMES

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

ALBERT NAULT

YOM KIPPUR

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO ECONOMY /

ÉCONOMIE DE L'ONTARIO

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

ONTARIO ECONOMY /

ÉCONOMIE DE L'ONTARIO

(CONTINUED / SUITE)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SERVICES

À L'ENFANCE ET À LA FAMILLE

Ms. Matthews moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 103,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act and to make amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 103, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les services à l'enfance et à la famille et apportant des modifications à d'autres lois.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I'm pleased to rise to speak in support of Bill 103, the Child and Family Services Statute Law Amendment Act, 2008, which I introduced on September 29. This bill brings together two existing pieces of legislation that deal with Ontario's youth correctional system: the Child and Family Services Act, which governs youths between the ages of 12 and 15 at the time of the offence, and the Ministry of Correctional Services Act, which covers young people aged 16 and 17 when an offence is committed.

The amendment that our government introduced last week will harmonize the two pieces of legislation to create a single legislative framework for all youth in conflict with the law between the ages of 12 and 17 at the time of the offence. This new framework will complete our efforts to create a new youth correctional system devoted exclusively to the needs of youth in conflict with the law, a justice system that offers secure and open custody, as well as a wide range of community-based alternatives to custodial sentences, as outlined in the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The integration of youth justice has been a long time coming. In fact, it was started under the previous government, who knew that the integration of youth justice was needed. Although this legislation is primarily focused on secure detention and custody, youth in conflict with the law require supports to help them succeed in life. We have in place a range of interventions to respond appropriately to their charges. For the most serious offenders, we have secure custody facilities. We also have open custody and alternatives to custody programs in many communities.

Since the introduction of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, we have experienced a steady decline in the use of open custody facilities. Last year, fewer than half of our open custody beds were used. As a result, we have reduced these unused beds and we're reinvesting the tax dollars saved and putting them back into improving outcomes for youth.

These proposed amendments are part of the government's commitment to build stronger, safer communities by holding youth in conflict with the law accountable for their actions, while at the same time providing the support they need to help them make better choices and lessen the likelihood that they will reoffend, because every time we prevent a reoffence, we prevent a crime, and every time we turn a young person from a path that leads to a life of crime to a path that leads to productive employment, we've strengthened our economy and our society.

Some may argue that these amendments, if passed, will make young people, particularly older youth, less accountable for their actions while committing offences. But placing older youth with younger youth under one act means that we are holding these kids accountable for their actions under one piece of transparent and consistent legislation.

Our proposed legislation provides decision-makers with greater discretion in determining the level of detention for youth in custody who are facing new charges. This is consistent with the federal proposal to broaden the possibility of detention for a young person who represents a danger to the public. It also provides additional mechanisms to ensure that youth who are in secure custody cannot harm themselves or others. To do this, we will give service providers additional powers to deal with contraband items and to protect all staff and clients at youth justice facilities.

This government takes the issue of crime very seriously. When serious crimes are committed and the safety of a community is at risk, we will not hesitate to act to protect the lives and property of the people of Ontario. After studying this issue of youth crime and seeking the advice of experts in this field, we know that youth in custody between the ages of 12 and 17 have very different needs from adults in custody. If passed, this proposed legislation will complete our efforts to create a dedicated, fully integrated justice system that is responsive to the needs of both younger and older youth who are in conflict with the law.

This legislation, if passed, will ensure that youth aged 12 to 17 at the time of the offence will no longer be held in the same secure correctional institutions as adults. This is important, because it means that youth in custody will not come into contact with adults convicted of serious crimes. It will ensure that these young people between the ages of 12 and 17 have access and supports based on their specific needs. It will also ensure that they receive the programs and services they need in a setting that's appropriate for their age group.

This, the evidence tells us, is one of the keys to stopping young people from becoming repeat offenders and beginning the journey toward making the right choices.

For this reason, our government has committed to removing all young people in custody between the ages of 12 and 17 from adult correctional institutions by April 1, 2009. I want to tell all members of this House that we are on

schedule to meet that goal. To achieve it, we're building or expanding new and existing youth justice centres in a number of communities across the province. This is on top of the 20 secure youth-only facilities located throughout the province. These new centres will offer state-of-the-art facilities that will include on-site education and rehabilitation programs.

These programs are crucial, because they offer opportunities for young people to learn new skills, develop their minds and bodies, and become productive members of our society. The first of these youth justice centres opened in Sault Ste. Marie in July. Named after a local police officer who was killed in the line of duty, the Donald Doucet Youth Centre offers education, training and the promise of a new start for 16 youth in custody. More than 130 construction jobs were created at this centre during the building phase, and 30 new provincial government jobs have been created for staff and support workers at the centre.

Additional youth justice centres are being built in Brampton, Thunder Bay and Fort Frances. All of them are scheduled to open in early 2009. As well, the existing youth justice facility in Ottawa is being expanded and will also open in the first few months of next year.

These buildings are about much more than bricks and mortar, the number of jobs created and the number of young people in custody. They are, quite simply, about hope–hope for a brighter future for young people who have made mistakes and who are paying the price for their misdeeds. But through training, counselling and guidance, these centres offer youth in conflict with the law the chance to take the first step toward a brighter future for themselves and their families.

By locating these centres in communities across the province, including northern Ontario, we can keep these young people closer to their homes and their families. Having family members close gives young people valuable support while they are in custody and provides them with a smoother transition back into the community when they have completed their sentence. That is an important consideration when it comes to helping prevent youth from the possibility of slipping back into the patterns that originally brought them into conflict with the law.

As well, our government has made special provisions to help meet the needs of aboriginal youth. The new Fort Frances facility is being designed specifically to meet the needs of these young people and will be operated by an aboriginal service provider, the Fort Frances Area Tribal Chiefs. This facility will be the first of its kind in Canada dedicated to aboriginal young people in conflict with the law. It will provide each of the 12 young aboriginal men and women housed there with their own case manager, who will be responsible for getting them the support and treatment they need.

In addition to training and counselling services, the aboriginal youth will be given opportunities to learn more about their culture and to practise spiritual beliefs that will help them connect with that culture. Our government strongly believes that by providing aboriginal youth with the tools they need to make the right choices, they can be set upon the right path to achieve their goals in life.

All of Ontario's youth deserve the opportunity to achieve their ambitions and take advantage of everything our province and our country have to offer them. That has been our government's objective since we have assumed office. That's why we've implemented the new Ontario child benefit for low-income families and offered increased support for families that have children with special needs. We've also introduced the youth opportunities strategy, to help provide young people in underserved communities with training and skills to compete in today's challenging international job market.

When youth find themselves in conflict with the law, we have in place an alternatives-to-custody program, which provides support, counselling and training to help them reorient their lives and get back on track.

Some young people will make the wrong choices, and when they do, we will do everything in our power to ensure that they face the consequences of their actions. For those who pose a threat to society, we take action to keep our communities safe. But for those who show potential, we offer support and guidance to help them make a fresh start and begin becoming productive members of our society—that is our commitment.

These proposed amendments to the CFSA, if passed, represent the final steps in achieving our objectives. For these reasons, and for the reasons that will be outlined by my colleagues, I urge all members of the House to join me in supporting these proposed amendments.

The Chair (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: The member talks about this wonderful bill she is bringing in. But this wonderful bill is not going to put one more police officer on the street, in a summer and a fall when every week, if not every day, we open the newspaper and find that somebody else has been shot in Toronto. These shootings don't take place in isolated areas. They don't take place in areas we have come to traditionally think of as crime-ridden areas—I won't mention names, but we are aware of what those areas are. These shootings are taking place all over the city now. This bill is not going to put one more police officer on the street; it's not going to prevent one crime in Toronto.

At a time when we have huge economic challenges in this country, this government will be spending a tremendous amount of money. When crime rates traditionally rise, when we have economic difficulties—they've finally admitted that they actually have an economic problem in this province, and we're having a special debate on it now, all of a sudden. We called for this debate in early June this year, and they've finally admitted that there is a difficulty, there is a problem in Ontario with the economy, with their budget and with their precious five-point plan, which hasn't worked, isn't going to work and is far too little too late.

It's disappointing to see this government wandering down this road. Certainly, trying to protect youth from youth crime is an important start to prevent crime in adults, because of course adult crime comes out of youth crime. But to move in this direction at this particular time with a large expenditure of money and not one more police officer—I just think this government is moving in the wrong direction.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I listened very carefully to the whole 15-minute leadoff speech of the minister regarding this new bill, Bill 103. One of the things that the minister spoke about was the fact that she believes that this bill is actually going to provide hope and opportunity for young people who have found themselves on the wrong side of the law. I have to tell you, when I read this bill—it does nothing of the sort. There's nothing at all in this bill that says it's going to help young people to make better choices in their lives. There's nothing in this bill that talks about how we're going to change a system that puts young people on the wrong side of the law in the first place.

The minister knows very well, if she has actually read any of the reports and done any of the hard work in terms of looking at what leads to crime in young people, that young people who don't have an opportunity for a future often end up on the wrong side of the law. We know that young people who don't have jobs often find other ways to get money. We know that young people who have addiction problems are more likely than not to be the ones who get into trouble with the police.

We don't have very much service in this province when it comes to addictions, so of course, without services to help with these addictions that young people are facing, guess what? They end up in trouble with the law. We have a mental health system in the province of Ontario that doesn't serve the needs of young children, and as they age with mental health problems not being taken care of, guess what happens? They get in trouble with the law.

We have young people in this province who are living in desperate, desperate poverty, whose parents are unable to hold down a job because the jobs don't exist, who live in substandard and inadequate housing, who go to school hungry, who can't get a decent education. Those are the kids who—guess what?—end up on the wrong side of the law. So I'm very sorry to say that Bill 103 does nothing of what this minister claims in her initial remarks.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: I'm very pleased to be able to take a couple of minutes and comment both on the minister's speech and Bill 103. I'm pleased to stand in support of this legislation being brought forward. Not every piece of legislation can fix all of the ills. Pieces of legislation are intended to build on what's currently in place. They're intended to refine, in some cases, existing standards, existing situations. I think Bill 103 does exactly those kinds of things.

I think the opportunities to create new, secure facilities for those young people who need them allow those young people who currently might be in a youth unit within an adult facility to be in an environment that's focused on youth needs, which is an important part of the rehabilitative capacity that's needed in the province for young people who have found themselves to have gone astray.

I think that bringing together legislation so that young people who are of similar ages, less than adult age, is being managed in a legislative capacity under one ministry's legislation, as opposed to multiple ministries', is a good and progressive way in which to build on the needs of addressing and supporting youth who find themselves in these kinds of environments.

I'm pleased to be able to stand and support the bill as presented. As I say, it builds on good work that is currently being done by the children and youth services ministry, it builds on the investments that are being made in the province on behalf of young people, and I think it will add, in an additive way, to a good legislative framework that we need to address the concerns and problems that young people find themselves in.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Ted Arnott: I'm pleased to have a moment to respond to the Minister of Children and Youth Services with respect to her presentation this morning on Bill 103,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act and to make amendments to other Acts. The minister's comments were brief and she did not take her full time. Her parliamentary assistant didn't participate in the debate. But I know we're at second reading and I know there will be lots of opportunities for other members to offer their comments on this, and I'm certainly looking forward to the comments of our critic in this functional area, the member for York—Simcoe, because she has a lot to add to the debate.

We know that we're entering a very difficult economic period. We know that the government wants to commence debate on the challenges we're facing, and there is a motion that stands in the Premier's name that has been tabled that we're going to be debating very soon, talking about changes to the government's financial plan or fiscal plan. We're possibly taking about reduced spending, we're possibly talking about reallocating spending; perhaps the government is contemplating higher taxes, perhaps the government is contemplating a deficit—we don't know yet; the Minister of Finance has not been fully forthcoming.

But I would ask the Minister of Children and Youth Services, how much is this bill going to cost? How much is it going to cost to implement it? Is she certain that this is not going to be part of the Treasurer's fiscal reduction plan when he brings forward his financial statement? Certainly these are questions that need to be asked.

I listened to the minister in her comments and I didn't hear from her any plan to reduce youth crime. I didn't hear from her any targets or time frames for reducing youth crime. I would ask her if she has any of those targets and time frames in mind, in her two-minute response—and further, I would ask whether or not this bill is going to be referred to a standing committee of the Legislature so there would be more opportunities for public discussion and public input on this particular issue.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I thank the members from Halton, Hamilton Centre, Pickering—Scarborough East and Wellington—Halton Hills for their comments, and I look forward to the debate on this issue. I think that all of us in this House are committed to reducing youth crime, committed to reducing crime in general.

Let's be really clear about what this bill is and what this bill isn't. This bill is largely administrative in nature. It brings together two acts so that all young people aged 12 to 17 at the time of the offence are governed under one act. That work is already under way and it is the final piece in what is a transformation of the youth justice system in this province. The member from Wellington—Halton Hills asked, will it reduce crime? The answer is, our program absolutely is committed to reducing crime. That's what this is all about.

The evidence is very clear—and I have taken the time to review it—that with the right support, kids who commit crimes when they are young can move on into a full, productive life in our society. Our youth justice programs are built on the evidence that tells us with the right supports we can reduce the likelihood that they will reoffend. That prevents crime. Every time you prevent a crime, because a youth has been given a chance to get on with his or her life, you are making a safer society. That is what we are all committed to doing.

We are building on what we have already done. This piece of legislation in and of itself is largely administrative, but it is an important piece because it pulls it all together. It is the final step in the transformation of our youth justice system.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I would like to remind members that questions and comments are not intended to enter into a new debate on a different subject. Questions and comments are specifically meant to be made to the speaker that had the floor at that time, and we would appreciate it if you kept them that way.

Further debate?

Mrs. Julia Munro: I'm pleased to join the discussion on Bill 103. There's very little wrong with this bill because there is, as the minister has even alluded to, very little in the bill. In fact, it could be referred to as a housekeeping bill, meeting the deadlines that had already been established and simply moving provisions around. Older young offenders will no longer be under a particular ministry; they will then move to the Ministry of Children and Youth Services.

The government's press release talks about the government's plans to make communities safer. This bill has no connection to that worthy goal. Communities do need to be made safer, and if you had really wanted to, you could have introduced a bill that would have helped communities.

Youth crime is a very serious problem in Ontario. You see it every day on the news, more and more frequently. Youth are killing innocent people in this province, and so many of the victims of youth crime are, in fact, other young people. We have all read the stories of what the real problems are with youth crime in Ontario. Here are just a couple of tragic stories in the last few weeks.

From the St. Catharines Standard of October 4:

"Two years ago, a young man recounted to a St. Catharines jury how he laid in wait to kill.

"He hid in Bruce Firman's garage in the north end of the city until the 72-year-old retired real estate agent arrived home on his bicycle. When Firman entered, the killer, then 17, held a pipe wrench with two hands like a baseball bat and swung at the man's head.

"The teen beat Firman on the ground until he stopped breathing.

"He received the maximum custodial sentence a youth can get for first-degree murder: six years. Although a judge ruled in February 2003 that the teen should be tried as an adult, an appeal reversed the decision.

"Now, he's out of jail."

Other cases from the same paper:

"A 14-year-old girl was charged with second-degree murder for smothering toddler Matthew Reid in a Welland foster home." As a result of that, she was sentenced to four years in custody and three years in supervised community living.

"In Niagara Falls, a 17-year-old girl helped kick 58-year-old John Everard to death in 2003.

"The girl pleaded guilty to manslaughter in 2004 and received an 18-month sentence, of which one year was in custody and six months in the community."

The Toronto Star, on August 19, reported:

"In 2003, there were 39 known gangs in Peel. As of last year that number had jumped to 108, said Constable Dirk Niles of the intelligence services gang unit.

"The number of gang members and associates has almost doubled in that period, from just over 800 to well over 1,500 in Brampton and Mississauga today, said Niles, adding that the increase is partially due to improved efforts in tracking gang activity in the region."

Sixteen-year-old Alex Masih "became Peel region's 17th homicide victim of the year on August 9 when he was gunned down next to this modest townhouse complex near Kennedy Road and Williams Parkway, in the heart of Brampton.

"A week later Farhan Ali Omar, 22, was stabbed to death in Mississauga, bringing the homicide total to 18, and setting a record for the amount of murders in Peel in a single year. With more than four months to go, the numbers will likely continue to climb in the rapidly expanding suburbs west of Toronto."

But some people are claiming that youth crime has declined in the last few years. Well, here is an explanation. Mark Bonokoski, writing in the Toronto Sun in August, said the following:

"Statistics Canada indicated there was some good news in the wealth of bad news concerning youth crime—the bad news, of course, being the fact that serious crime among youth falling under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) has risen dramatically.

"The latest tabulations by StatsCan, focusing on 2006 research, showed violent crime among youth aged 12-17 increased 12% in the last decade, and 30% since 1991.

"And homicides had jumped by an astounding 41% since 1997, with 2006 seeing 84 young people—72 boys and 12 girls—implicated in 54 homicides.

"The good news, said StatsCan, was youth involvement in property crime had fallen to a third of what it was a decade ago, putting it at its lowest point since 1996.

"Break-ins were down 47%, minor theft by 33% and car theft by 41%."

Let me explain: The stats are indeed real, but they do not take into account that charges that would have meant convictions 10 years ago would not mean that today.

Bonokoski got an explanation for this from the member from Leeds—Grenville, "who wrote in an e-mail following that column, 'You might want to [check] on the accuracy of these stats.

"'Police are not laying charges for many crimes,' he wrote. 'They are using "diversion"—to things like community service (which frequently isn't monitored), or less.

"'I was told of one incident in my riding where a 15-year-old stole a car, was caught several hours later, and his punishment?—A warning letter.

"'The act needs a complete rebuild.'"

"One of the more authoritative analysts of crime stats is Scott Newark, a former Alberta crown prosecutor and now special counsel to the Ontario Office for Victims of Crime.

"He sees 'diversion' as a buck-passer, and the" Youth Criminal Justice Act "as a shackle on the appropriate policing of young offenders—all covered in his brief to Parliament when the Young Offenders Act was devolving into its present form.

"'Society has a number of choices when it comes to the increasing rate of youth crime over the past decade,' he wrote.

"'It can strengthen the penalties in a hope to deter conduct; add enforcements in the hope to catch and thus deter more offenders.'

"'Or it can simply decide that that which was previously a crime will no longer be treated as a crime.'"

"Parliament, as it turned out, took the last" option.

"Under

section 6 of the" Youth Criminal Justice Act, "for example, a police officer is 'compelled' to consider a number of options before actually arresting a young offender, and this would apply to a car thief, a drug peddler or a sexual offender because no youth crime is exempt from the act's diversion eligibility.

"The cop, under

section 6, could ignore the incident and simply drive away. The act calls it 'no action taken.'

"The cop could tell the car thief not to steal a car again, and then drive away. The act calls it 'issuing a warning.'

"The" police officer "could get out of his patrol vehicle, use a printed form telling the young car thief not to do it again, and then drive away.

"The act calls" this 'administering a caution.'

"Or, the officer could take the young car thief to an agency or program that would help him deal with his penchant for thievery, but only if the young offender agrees.

"The act calls this 'referring.'

"Even if the" officer "decides to lay a charge, however, another layer of 'diversion' comes into play.

"Under

section 8, the crown can tell the officer to go back to the young offender and tell him to stop stealing, and then the crown will either withdraw the charge or refuse to lay one.

"Under

section 10, the crown can tell the" officer "to refer the young thief to an extrajudicial sanction, which could include writing a letter about how it is not appropriate to steal."

We all know the problems. It is time for this government to take action. We need reform in Ottawa to ensure that weak sentencing is eliminated. We need this government to start taking action to prevent youth from turning to crime, to intervene when necessary and to rehabilitate convicted youths in cases where we can.

I find it very interesting that in the minister's statement to the House when she introduced this bill last Monday, there was one word she never used, one word that should be at the heart of any bill about crime and justice issues, one word whose omission shows this government's real priorities when it comes to the needs of Ontario residents. The word the minister failed to mention when she introduced this bill last week was the word "victim." Not once did she speak this very important word.

The Minister of Children and Youth Services spoke of creating a "system designed specifically with the needs of youth in mind," but what about the needs of the victims of young criminals? Why have you failed to speak about their rights? The bill before us today is a mere housekeeping bill. It will not make a single person in Ontario safer. It will not prevent any crime. It will not help youth who are in trouble or who are the victims of other youth.

Three years ago, our party published a report on youth crime. We are still waiting for this government's report to come out. Our report was titled Time for Action: A Report on Violence Affecting Youth. Our party held round-table discussions with stakeholders, parents and youth and came up with 22 recommendations to keep youth away from a life of crime. First, improved policing: We recommended more police officers and to have them sooner. Everyone in this House remembers this government's repeated announcement of 1,000 new police officers.

It became a joke to see the ministers make the same announcement again and again. Obviously, doing it is the important thing. We suggested a crime reduction commissioner, one experienced individual to study intensely the issue and offer permanent solutions. We wanted a locally developed police strategy, community policing designed to meet the individual needs of individual communities, a more effective system of information for police officers in the community. We need a culture of information sharing amongst law enforcement.

A good example of this is the practice in Boston, where they tracked information such as who bailed out youths from jail to make linkages to who belonged to which gangs. We recommended a warrant sweep. Police should be encouraged to conduct sweeps of high-risk areas to target those trespassing and those with outstanding arrest warrants. Police should work with communities to develop this plan.

Our second series of recommendations was to fix our justice system. Sentencing has to be made tougher. We should lobby federal parties to toughen sentences for violent crimes. We suggested that the crown should contest bail for anyone committing a crime involving a gun. We want to toughen the Youth Criminal Justice Act for crimes involving violence, particularly guns. Rehabilitation of young offenders is important, but the community must be protected from violent youth. Probation officers and police should get the power to make home visits to first-time offenders.

If only they could get to young people early enough to help steer them away from crime. We must halt the flow of illegal guns into Canada. The federal government must tighten our borders to cut off the flow of illegal weapons into our country. To do this requires more searches, better information about gangs and full co-operation from provincial and local governments.

Our consultations to produce the report also identified a number of areas outside law enforcement where we really could make a difference. Mentoring and tutoring of students should be established in every school in at-risk neighbourhoods; both adults and other young people should be involved in this, starting in Toronto and working its way out to other areas of the province. Mentorship should also be provided by Ontario's college and university student athletes. These young athletes should use their influence as positive role models to assist coaching a youth team in their particular sport.

Scholarships should be offered to help at-risk students finish high school and begin post-secondary education. Internships with the public sector and businesses would provide young people experience and options in life. Summer internships would show youth that another life is possible. We recommended a review of the Safe Schools Act to make it work better.

Another key recommendation is parental education. Many new parents do not have the life skills to give their children a good start in life. Parenting education should be provided in high schools, and Early Years centres should be expanded. People like Dr. Fraser Mustard and others have done world-class, amazing research about how important the first few months and years of life are to a child's development. Organizations such as Families and Schools Together do great work with children.

They provide that kind of stable connection between the community and the family that is at the core of understanding the importance of role models, of recognizing the values of organizations that exist to support families in the province.

As an aside, I have to remind the government that due to their underfunding, the Early Years centre in Stroud in my riding is going to close at the end of November. This seems to fly in the face of all of the research that would demonstrate the importance of providing parents and families with the kind of support that they need. The government is very conscious of, and the minister herself made comments this morning about, the limitations of this bill.

Certainly, when the minister talks about providing supports and making sure that people are able to steer away from a life of crime, the investments that the Early Years centre represents are exactly the kind of work that, in theory, she is suggesting should be available.

So it would seem to me that in the context of this debate and in the context of this bill, which is described by the minister as a harmonization of existing legislation and of meeting a deadline of April 2009—that's the purpose of this bill.

But as the Minister of Children and Youth Services, who is now assuming this responsibility for the part of the youth justice system that has been under corrections, it's the perfect opportunity, then, to demonstrate what kind of support she is prepared to provide to people like the families in my riding who have, frankly, oversubscribed to the Early Years centre, recognizing how valuable those kinds of investments are. There is a wealth of information and research that supports the importance of the investment that can be made at this time.

Our task force also recommended programs that would increase the role of fathers and recognize that there are some responsibilities and skills to be learned to be a good father. Too many young men in at-risk areas abdicate their parental responsibilities. A number of youth our party met with indicated that they did not have a positive father-figure role model. We must also encourage young fathers to play an important role in their children's lives and emphasize how important they are to a young child.

I think back on my own childhood and the opportunities that were afforded me and my sister to have undivided time with our father. One of the things that I always thought was interesting was that as a family—certainly, there wasn't the kind of funds to allow him to go golfing. I was the beneficiary of that because it meant that Sunday afternoons he spent with me and my sister and not on the golf course. So it's not just a question of at-risk or of the socioeconomic, it's also the kind of important value that people place on this.

A lot of times I think that's a societal issue, and we, as parliamentarians, need to be the leaders of that kind of societal change, recognizing the value of taking your kid for a walk instead of chasing a ball on the golf course.

In my riding, Catholic Community Services of York Region runs a number of excellent programs. Among these is the Focus on Fathers, which has been very well received and certainly, again, oversubscribed. It also looks at providing people with some insight into not only the importance of their role, but with some techniques.

We also looked at recommending looking at the role of pop culture in contributing to crimes. Certainly, there has been much study done of the violence of video games and the kind of contribution they make to youth violence. I think, again, that there is a parental role here as well. I can remember when our daughter was at an age where suddenly she moved from cartoons to music videos. Just as I had spent some time with her looking at the preschool programs and the programs for quite young children, I then continued that interest in looking at some of the music videos.

One of the things that disturbed me was the way in which women were sometimes portrayed. Once we'd had a conversation about that, she then became far more discriminating in looking at those videos, and instead of just a passive viewer, she now had a sense of, "Wait a minute. What is the message they are giving me here? Do I accept this message or not?" Sometimes a lot of these things aren't really difficult, but they do need to have some understanding.

We in this party have certainly tried, through public meetings, through meeting with a variety of experts and others, to look at where we should begin. When I look at this particular piece of legislation here today, I recognize the legal imperative that has prompted the minister to introduce this piece of legislation. But I would argue that it's also an opportunity to take stock of what the processes are that lie behind the kind of work that this framework legislation is about to embody.

I think that it is a missed opportunity if the minister is not talking about and looking at the kind of research that exists and bringing leading-edge funding for leading-edge work that quite frankly is right here at home.

I've made references to things like Families and Schools Together, and I've met with people who have told me it has changed their lives. It has given them a sense of belonging in the community. It has given them a sense of people who have similar concerns to the concerns they have. It has provided for their children having a far better sense of relationship to the school. These are relatively inexpensive, but hugely valuable impacts that you can expect. The Focus on Fathers program—again, the dollars attached to it are certainly low in exchange for the return that you're going to get.

So we are saying here that programs for youth in schools and in the community need to be improved. The different levels of government need to work together to actually help young people see that they do not need to turn to a life of violence. This report that I've referenced was made almost three years ago, and sadly, we have not seen youth violence improve; in fact, it has worsened.

Bill 103 deals only with which ministry will hold authority over older youth offenders, and it moves some of the rules and regulations into legislation. Obviously, it's not a sense of a bad bill, but we are in a situation in this province where there is so much more that can be done. We all remember the summer of the gun in Toronto. We do not even use this term anymore, since youth crime and youth violence are now virtually a daily fact of life.

Too many youth are joining gangs, too many youth are committing violent crimes and too many young people are dying, and as I mentioned earlier, the minister has never talked about the victims. We have so many people who, for every one of these crimes, is a victim. That has not taken the place that it should in the opportunity that government has to respond to that; even the question of bullying and trying to look at what happens: The legislation is silent on the issue of the victim. Usually children are the objects of this, and they are affected for life.

The kinds of support that they and their families need are simply overlooked.

So it's rather unfortunate, then, as we take stock of the kinds of problems that have been created in our communities and the increase of those things, that this government is doing so little.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I certainly did enjoy the comments from the critic for the opposition.

Applause.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: She got a good round of applause from the minister and the Minister of the Environment as well.

There's one piece that I have a little bit of different information about in terms of the statistics, I guess. I was going to raise those in my own remarks, which are coming up very shortly, and that is the issue around the rates of youth crime. The information that I have, in fact, shows that Ontario is the second lowest in the country in terms of youth crime statistics. In fact, I think Quebec is the lowest and Ontario is the second lowest in terms of the propensity of youth crime.

Again, when it comes to talking about these kinds of issues, it's really important that we look at all of the different pieces of information, but also the sources of those pieces of information and how those pieces of information are used to support various kinds of arguments.

I would say that the member brought a lot of important issues to the table. I'm on exactly the same page as her particularly when she talks about services for young children. The lack of child care in this province is abominable, as is the lack of services for families who have very young children, those very ages which are the most important when it comes to early learning and then the outcomes of that early learning later in life.

The evidence is clear, as the member mentioned in her remarks, and Fraser Mustard has actually thrown up his hands in disgust in terms of the lack of action not only in Ontario but across this country, specifically in terms of how we make those investments when children are very, very young so that over time you end up reducing your costs significantly in areas like youth justice, educational supports and health.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I also want to thank the member from York—Simcoe for her comments on this bill. Certainly, I would remind the House that this bill is intended to bring together two pieces of legislation so that children and youth who are in conflict with the law are treated with consistency under one bill. That transformation has already been underway.

The member talked about victims, and I think as a government, we are certainly always mindful of victims. That's why, and I want to quote from the minister's speech, the minister clearly stated, "This government takes the issue of crime very seriously. When serious crimes are committed and the safety of a community is at risk, we will not hesitate to act to protect the lives and property of the people of Ontario." This is certainly a recognition of the fact that victims are entitled to justice as well.

We need to make sure that children who are in conflict with the law also have an opportunity to change their ways, have an opportunity to better their lives and have an opportunity that will make sure they don't reoffend. Reoffending is probably the greatest issue that we are trying to deal with here. We talk about mentoring, and I heard the member from York—Simcoe talk about mentoring and other programs. We need to make sure that these young people have an opportunity to turn themselves around and become contributing members of society.

That is why we want to make sure that they're treated with consistency. This bill will make sure that they have those opportunities, but it also gives the decision-makers greater discretion and the ability to determine the length of that detention. Again, they are to provide justice for the victims as well.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O'Toole: It's a pleasure to make just a few comments. I believe our opposition critic made it very clear that the government's press release talked about a plan to make our communities safer. The bill in no way has any connection to the worthy goal of making our communities safer.

In fact, she pointed out very clearly that this is primarily a housekeeping bill. What it does is bring older young offenders under one ministry. When I look at the explanatory notes in the legislation—which, by the way, was just introduced on the 29th—it's very clear, if you just read the explanatory notes, that this is purely a housekeeping, administrative exercise. It does nothing to the laudable goal of making our communities safer. If I was to be specific, I would look at the legislation, and the member from York—Simcoe has pointed this out.

It "permits the minister to designate persons to conduct inspections and investigations in places of temporary detention, of secure custody and of open custody." That's the kind of tone and themes that are marked throughout this legislation.

As laudable as administrative goals are, at the end of the day we have a serious problem if you look at street crime and drugs and youth and youth violence. Our position clearly would be something that I'd encourage the minister to look at: repeat violent offenders. There should be consequences for those kinds of actions. If that is not spelled out in here, the courts need you, Minister, to direct that policy direction, and it's not in here.

This is administrivia gone wild under a Liberal government. This is about making it more comfortable for them. I'm waiting for the member from York—Simcoe's wrap-up on this because she has it right: It's well intended, but in fact there are no teeth in the deliverables.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

The member for York—Simcoe has two minutes to respond.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I appreciate the comments made by other members, the members for Hamilton Centre, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and Durham.

If I were to take the comments collectively here this morning—and certainly the message that I feel is important for the government to receive—it's the question of the fact that on the one hand we have a housekeeping bill; we're sitting here in relative comfort discussing a housekeeping bill,

whereas out on the streets of all of our communities, in fact, there's a sense of urgency. I think that's where we're having difficulty, in the fact that, okay, fine, you want to put these two things together; in fact, that was a decision that was made some years ago. This is only because you are facing the deadline of April 2009 that we're looking at this housekeeping matter.

Our streets are in dire straits. Our communities are under siege. It's that kind of urgency that I think has prompted all of us to speak about what we should be talking about. I liken it to the fact that we are going to debate a resolution by the Premier on the economy months after we started saying you need to be concerned about this. So on the one hand we have a housekeeping piece of legislation here; outside are dire circumstances. A sense of urgency needs to unfold on this topic.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I'm certainly pleased to have a chance, on behalf of New Democrats, to speak to Bill 103. We definitely welcome the opportunity to have a discussion about this bill, which, as the minister said, in fact does unify the youth justice system and bring 16- and 17-year-olds—formally, I guess—into the current system that we have here in Ontario.

Really, what's been happening is that they've been left in a little bit of a limbo over the last little while and as a result have not actually had a chance to access programs and services that we would expect them to be able to take advantage of in the facilities that they are currently in—although "currently" is probably a bit of a misnomer, because we know that there's a move of a lot of these young people out of those kinds of facilities into ones that, as the minister indicated in her remarks, are being built specifically to house, if you will, the consolidated system.

I actually believe that it is the right thing to do to bring the system into one consolidated system, a youth-only system. I think that would give opportunities for better rehabilitation so that the kids who have found themselves in the youth justice system will be able to have the most supports that they could possibly have and be able to, hopefully, some day, live very productive lives, and healthy lives at that.

We know that many of the youth who become involved in the youth justice system didn't get there by fluke. Oftentimes those kids are coming from extremely difficult situations. They've become involved in the justice system because of where they come from in their lives. They often are the kids who are growing up in poverty in this province. They're often the kids who have experienced physical and/or sexual abuse. Of course, yesterday the minister gave a statement in the House here on abuse prevention month.

These are the kids that we're talking about, who end up not being able to cope because of some of the things that they've experienced, and turn to crime as a result. We know that many young people in the criminal justice system end up there because of mental illness that often goes untreated, undiagnosed and ignored until it worsens and worsens; events occur and young people end up not having had the services and supports they need for their mental illness but in jail instead.

They're youth, really, who are from our communities. They are young people who are part of our neighbourhoods, part of our ridings, part of our province. They're not these other people who are out there somewhere; they are actually kids from our own communities. We no doubt have a responsibility towards those kids to try to get them on the right track and back into a community, with a much better outcome.

Having said that, it's really, really important I think to acknowledge and recognize that the public safety has got to be preserved. It's not one issue or another; we have to look at the issue from a broad perspective and acknowledge and recognize that folks out there are really concerned about the likelihood of being victims of some kind of violent crime, some kind of criminal act. Those folks are out there. They're worried. There's a palpable sense that people are concerned that there is going to be something that threatens them in their daily lives, and this is unacceptable.

It's really unacceptable that this fear, this anxiety, this sense of the likelihood of an event happening that's going to be a criminal act upon average people—that's out there, and that's something we really have to take seriously and deal with. People have a right to live in their communities without that kind of fear. They have a right to enjoy their lives and their neighbourhoods without worrying that they're going to be the victims of—you name it—a robbery, a carjacking or some kind of violent crime.

The other thing that is important to recognize is many of those folks who have that fear are regular folks. They're not the folks who are living in gated communities or buildings with high security; they're regular working-class folks who are concerned about their safety in daily life, as they live it out in their communities. It's not the people who have the means to protect themselves in terms of fancy systems, but it's regular folks. It's folks who are working hard, trying to make ends meet and trying to eke out an existence in these troubled economic times, and we know that they're only going to get worse.

But those are the folks who are worried about their safety, and rightly so. They have some concerns, and we have, then, a responsibility in this place to do everything we possibly can to prevent crime and to ensure that those who perpetrate crimes take responsibility for that action and take responsibility for what they have done.

We have to really approach the whole issue of youth justice in a way that is effective and in a way that is based on knowledge that has been accumulated for many, many years—for decades, in fact—around these very issues. It's not just knowledge that we've come to here in the province of Ontario, but of course this is an issue everywhere in the world.

There is a lot of evidence that is out there that speaks to not only why crime occurs or the factors that lead to higher levels of crime in communities, but also what do you do, what are some of the methods that you use to reduce crime, to reduce the likelihood that crime is going to take place? Then, of course, the other side of the picture: Once someone is in the criminal justice system, how do you deal with that situation to reduce recidivism, which is to reduce the likelihood that they will reoffend once they are out of the system?

The biggest concern I think is that there's a real sense, from some of the debate already today, that the fear we have about the likelihood of being victims of crime is something that leads to this idea that there's an epidemic of crime out there, an epidemic of youth crime particularly, and assumes that there's an increase in youth crime and that that is a result of lax punishment, that's a result of the fact that the penalties and punishments against young people are not strong enough, and therefore we have these wildly increasing crime statistics in the province of Ontario.

It assumes there has been a shift from rehabilitation to denunciation and punishment. Basically, what it assumes is that if you focus on punishment as opposed to rehabilitation, then the result you're going to get is reduced crime. That's the assumption of that fear-based perspective that is out there and that is fanned by certain places. But the evidence is very, very clear, not just here in Ontario, not just in Canada, but in fact around the world, that severe punishment, particularly for youth crime, is not the best approach.

Youth criminal justice needs to be based on prevention, rehabilitation and public safety, and it has to be informed by evidence, not by ill-founded assumptions about the merits of punishment and the possibility of deterrence.

So, as I said earlier in my remarks in response to the member from Simcoe North, there is really no evidence of an epidemic of youth crime. Yes, there are individual incidents that we all completely abhor, that we think are absolutely unacceptable, that we rightly do not accept and are extremely vocal about, in terms of saying that we will not put up with this kind of violent crime when it occurs. But the incidents are not increasing by leaps and bounds, as some would say. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, Ontario has the second-lowest youth crime rate in all of Canada. The lowest youth crime rate, not surprisingly, is in the province of Quebec.

Moreover, many people like to think that punishment is something that is really going to reduce the likelihood of young people committing crimes. People think, "Well, gee, if you just put a big, scary punishment at the end, that's going to prevent young people from getting into trouble." But the reality is that punishment doesn't prevent or reduce crime. Stronger penalties do not deter youth offences.

The John Howard Society has a paper that outlines some of this theory in detail. It says, "Sentencing severity"—that means the severity of the sentence—"has no meaningful general deterrent value for young people, or anyone for that matter. People who commit crimes simply do not consider the length of the sentence they might face when making this often split-second decision."

If someone is about to commit a crime, they don't stop themselves and say, "Maybe I shouldn't commit this crime," and then think about all of the outcomes which are going to be occurring if they actually commit the crime. It's kind of ridiculous to think that's the case. Yet that is what some people believe and use as a basis for the way that they would like to deal with youth justice issues specifically.

In particular, for youth who commit very serious crimes, the rates of reoffence are the same, the evidence shows, regardless of the sentence. So that, again, is a piece of evidence that shows that the severity of the punishment has no impact on reoffence when it comes to very severe crimes. The reality is that youth who commit crimes are people who have high impulsivity, low self-control, and often, as I've already mentioned in my earlier remarks, mental health concerns and addictions. So these are some of the things that are predictors of whether or not young people are going to be actively involved with the criminal justice system.

These kinds of factors mean that kids are not in a position to be able to make rational decisions. If they have a mental health problem, if they have problems with impulsivity, if they have low self-esteem, these kids are not going to just take a step back and rationally figure out whether or not they're going to be involved in a particular activity which they know is against the law. That's what the empirical evidence shows quite clearly.

Homicide rates in Canada have been falling since the abolition of capital punishment, since 1976. Since we got rid of capital punishment, those rates are going down. American states with the death penalty have higher rates of homicide than those who do not. California counties that enforce the famous three-strikes law did not show any decline in crime compared to other states.

Not only does deterrence not work, as the preponderance of evidence shows, when applied to youth, it is in contravention of international laws and covenants.

So the evidence is pretty clear. Oftentimes it's obfuscated so that other agendas can be brought to the fore, but the reality is severe punishment, particularly of young people, not only doesn't work but it is in contravention of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This convention requires that youth justice courts "impose sentences that ensure the care and protection of youthful offenders, that avoid the detrimental effects of detention as much as possible." Again, an international body that came up with the covenant which Canada signed on to, right? So we're all supportive of it.

It says very clearly that the preponderance of evidence is what you need to really look at when you're determining how to deal with youth criminal justice.

Other UN rules mandate that youth sentences are minimal, proportional and in the child's interests. The NDP actually concurs with the John Howard Society, which holds that crime prevention is best addressed by addressing the underlying causes of youth crime. I raised this in my remarks to the minister's initial statement because it's absolutely where we need to focus. I was listening to some reruns this morning on CBC Radio of debates that were happening here in Toronto in regard to the federal election, and of course the youth crime issue came up.

Once again, very, very clearly, the amount of applause that came when people were talking about, during that debate, when candidates, Olivia Chow particularly, from—what's Olivia's riding?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Trinity—Spadina.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thank you. The member for Danforth, Peter Tabuns, reminded me that Olivia's riding is Trinity—Spadina.

CBC radio did a debate that had federal candidates from various ridings coming together to have a debate here in Toronto, and Olivia was very clear in her remarks—and it's consistent with what we believe at the provincial level as well, that it's about the roots of crime. It's about opportunities for young people. It's not about punishing at the end, after kids have had no opportunities whatsoever to choose a better way. So, when educated and informed, those kinds of principles are the ones that Canadians tend to stand for.

Again, it was clear in the amount of support that Olivia got in her comments in debate, but it's also clear when you talk to people in depth about what it is that leads to crime with young people.

One principle for preventing youth crime is to remove the tools of crime from the hands of youth. New Democrats have been very clear and again, in the debate that was held in Toronto, Olivia was very clear as well: The New Democrats have advocated for, and will continue to support, a comprehensive handgun ban. It has to happen. It is required. There is no reason—no reason—for handguns to exist in the city of Toronto or anywhere else. In fact, I think that's almost word-for-word what she said in her debate: There is no need for guns in Toronto, period.

And I would say in Toronto, in Hamilton, in Kingston, in Windsor, in Ottawa; in all communities, there is no need for handguns, period. So a handgun ban is a part of what we need to do when we're looking at how to reduce crime, particularly youth crime.

Another important approach to reducing youth crime is to build the child rather than fix the adult. This goes back to my comments around lack of affordable housing, lack of mental health supports, lack of addictions programs and services. Reducing child poverty, providing quality child care and early learning opportunities, investing in strong public schools and expanding community-based social and recreational programs for families are going to go much further in reducing crime than will an increased reliance on punishment.

Simple community support programs, like home visits from nurses to low-income first-time teen moms in the US, have led to reductions in crime—and this is amazing. Crime rates of children have been reduced by up to 80% as a result of that program in this one jurisdiction in the States. All it took was a public health nurse to come and provide supports, education and help to a new 14-, 16- or 18-year-old, a young mom, a teenage mom. Instead of just blaming and shunning a teenage mom or a pregnant teenager, provide the supports that she needs.

Get the public health nurse to come to her home to show her how to care for her child and teach her the kinds of signals a baby makes when certain things are occurring, whether it's hunger—usually it's hunger—or sometimes there's an uncomfortable piece of clothing chafing their skin or something like that. There are many, many ways to engage a brand new mom, particularly a teenage mom, in the ways to appropriately care for her child.

If you have that support coming in and you have that teen mom learning how best to take care of her baby, how to breastfeed, because we all know that that's the best way to provide nutrition for a young baby—through breastfeeding—if we provide those supports, the evidence shows very clearly, in this particular jurisdiction, an 80% reduction in youth crime rates because of a program that focused on the early, early years of life.

Again, it goes back to what the member from York—Simcoe said in her remarks and it goes back to what I've said in my remarks: These are the things the government needs to pay significant attention to because these are the things that are going to prevent young people from getting into trouble as they grow older.

Investments in programs like that are important, and maybe it takes a little bit of time for them to pay off, but as politicians we have a responsibility not only to act on the moment but to act for the future. We need to make changes today that might not show up today but that will make positive changes for the future. It's not always good and appropriate—in fact, oftentimes it's ineffective—to use a quick fix, a simplistic, sometimes, and misguided quick fix that we see so often that comes to the table. Fixes to profound social problems often take long-term investments and the long-term view.

With that in mind, with that kind of framework in mind, if you will, let's turn to the specifics of Bill 103.

The minister brought this forward as a bill. It's interesting, because in her introductory remarks she talked specifically about how this bill was going to provide hope, it was going to provide opportunity, it was going to give kids a chance to make different choices, to be able to come out of the system and make different choices for their future.

Then, of course, in my comments to her speech, I said, "I don't see how that happens in this bill." I was fairly critical of that remark, and then, when it came back to the minister to respond to my criticism, she said, "Really, it's just an administrative bill." Well, you can't have it both ways.

You can't come out and spin this as a bill that's going to make all kinds of positive change—that's going to give kids a new chance, that kids who have been incarcerated are somehow going to be given all kinds of new opportunities and all kinds of hope for the future—and then turn around and take another step back when you're called on it and say, "Well, really it's just an administrative type of bill. It's really just administration."

This is the thing that's very frustrating, the propensity of the government to spin these things out like they're larger than life. If it's an administrative bill, it's an administrative bill. If it's a bill that's going to create huge change and positive impact, then, fine, I'm prepared to debate it within that context. But let's not pretend it is what it isn't, and let's get down to exactly what it is. The aim of the bill is to bring youth aged 12 to 17 under one single justice system, and that's a laudable goal, as I said earlier on.

It's the amendments to the Child and Family Services Act, and the overriding principle of the Child and Family Services Act is that it is supposed to be in the best interests of the child. That's the overarching theory, more or less. The limbo that the 16- and 17-year-olds have been in the last couple of years and the last couple of decades has been an ongoing issue.

The 16- and 17-year-olds, when they're in the youth justice system, have been in this no-person's land where they're not really getting the programs and services that they should be getting to try to provide some rehabilitation, to try to reduce the recidivism rates.

That has not been happening, so this bill gets those kids who have been falling through the cracks over the last little while, kids that have not been able to get the programming they need in the wings of the adult facilities that have been set aside for their use, and provides them with the opportunity to be in with other kids in the criminal justice system, ages 12 to 15. So now instead of 12 to 15 in the Ontario system and 15 to 17 in the adult system, that all comes together and it's one system.

It makes sense particularly with 16- and 17-year-olds because it provides some opportunity for the involvement of young people in their decisions around work and training, and that's a positive thing.

But there are some concerns that we have with the bill, and it's important to get those things on the table. The first one is that there has been a very disconcerting lack of consultation around the development of the bill. What we've found out is that not only were youth not consulted—again, it's the principle about consulting people who are going to be affected by legislation. Oftentimes you end up with a better product if at the beginning you build in the conversation with stakeholders and with people who are concerned. But with youth, oftentimes they're not considered to be legitimate stakeholders, right?

"They're just young people, so we'll just dismiss them because we don't really care about their opinions. It's not really important." But it's very important.

This piece of legislation will have an impact on young people and so it's important to have an opportunity for young people to have a look at it in its drafting, in its preparation and perhaps—for sure; it's not a matter of "perhaps"—they can absolutely provide insights and suggestions to the government.

But the arrogance of the government to not even bother to have any kind of consultation with a bill that specifically amends the Child and Family Services Act, which is the act that's supposed to be in the best interests of the child—of course, in typical fashion, "We don't want to find out what the children think is in the best interests of the child. That's not how we do things around here." I think it's a shameful lost opportunity. It's a shameful missed opportunity.

It's bad enough that young people were not at all consulted in terms of the drafting of this bill, but the child advocate was not even consulted in the drafting of the bill. We have an independent child advocate in Ontario: an advocate for children, a person whose job it is to advocate on behalf of and with—I have to say that our independent child advocate, Irwin Elman, is an extremely competent and skilled professional who's been working with young people for a very long time.

The member from Pickering—Ajax was on the hiring committee and participated in the interviews along with myself and the member from Nepean—Carleton in regard to this. It's quite interesting that we have this expert, really, that we've hired as the child advocate and the government didn't see fit to even let the child advocate know that there was a bill in preparation. That's problematic. That's really problematic.

We have found out that not only was he not consulted—this is Mr. Elman, our new child advocate—but in fact the staff of the advocacy office have no recollection of having been contacted or approached at all in regard to putting this bill together. That's not good form. In fact, it's very disconcerting that the government would not even consult the child advocate's office. It's even more disconcerting because in fact Bill 103 contains within it several amendments to the independent child advocate act. The very legislation that covers off the child advocate is being amended with Bill 103 and yet the advocate's office was not invited to participate in any way in the discussion.

I'll talk a little bit about some of the specifics around what those amendments are a little bit later, but that is poor form when it comes to consultation. It's really obvious that the government doesn't see their role as being collaborative in any way when it comes to youth criminal justice, and that doesn't send a good signal. The consultation was not satisfactory at all. Although some of the service providers say that they had some minor involvement in the drafting of the act, by and large there was very, very unsatisfactory participation, and much more consultation would have been useful.

The second major issue is that there are parts of the bill that impact significantly, particularly on people who are granted authority under the auspices of the bill. There's a new authority that is granted to directors of facilities. These directors of facilities are given new powers, if you will, or new abilities to do various things under the idea that because of the 16- and 17-year-olds coming into the system, they need to expand their scope of power, their scope of opportunity to do certain things.

But one of the things that the bill allows authorities to do which is new is to open up e-mail and mail from children. Children are sending an e-mail or writing a letter, and this act now allows authorities to open that mail or read that e-mail before it gets sent.

The question becomes, to what extent is this new authority necessary, particularly with the younger kids? Is it necessary to intercept a 12-year-old's mail to her mom? I don't know. It's a question. It's something that we need to explore. To what extent is it necessary to have that kind of control over a young person's mail that they're sending out—not mail they're receiving in but mail they're sending out?

I get it a little bit—and I'll talk about that as well—wanting to intercept mail that's coming in, because you don't know what's in it and there could be concealed weapons or dangerous things in the mail. What I don't really see is the need, particularly with the younger children, to intercept their outgoing mail.

That's something that I think we need to spend some time on in committee. I'm actually looking forward to the committee hearings because I believe this bill needs to have some time in committee. I believe that there are young people and people from the advocate's office, and I'm sure there are service providers as well, who will want to come and give some insights and remarks on the changes that this bill is undertaking in terms of youth justice. But some people think that some of those changes go a bit too far—and that is one of them, particularly.

Previously, mail had to be opened in the presence of a young person in cases where there was concern that there might be articles that were prohibited by the service provider, or the mail could be read if there were grounds to believe that the contents of mail could be causing emotional or physical harm to the child. Now, I'm not talking about the mail that goes out; I'm talking about the mail that comes in.

In the previous system, any mail that came in, if there was a concern that it would be harmful or contraband, the service provider had to open that mail in the presence of the young person, so the young person knew that their mail was being intercepted. Now, with Bill 103, mail can be examined, read and withheld in whole or in

part if "prejudicial to the best interests of the young person, the public safety or the safety or security of the place of detention or custody." It's expanding the powers of the facility to intercept, read, make a judgment call and ban the mail from going to the young person, without the young person's knowledge at all.

This is a significant difference and one that I think we need to delve into a little bit more. The question is, why was the criteria of physical or emotional harm in the previous bill expanded to be a more catch-all phrase, "best interests" of the child? The issue becomes that this

section has become really broad now. The change has meant that there's a broadening of this

section that allows providers to open any mail on the basis of a claim that it's possibly a public safety issue, including situations in which young persons are in foster care or in a group home. So it's not only pertaining to youth in secure custody, it's also pertaining to youth in any kind of facility. I don't know whether the government did that on purpose. I would imagine they did, but I'd like to know why. I'd like that know why this

section broadens out the powers, not only within the secure custody situation, but also in all of the facilities where young people are staying as part their sentence.

There's no mechanism at all to ensure that the child is aware that mail is being held. Not only is this broadening the opportunity to intercept mail and keep it, but also there's no obligation or no recognition or acknowledgment that needs to be provided to the young person that says that their mail has been intercepted and kept from them. So the child's right to send and receive mail is being replaced by the facility's right to intercept their mail.

Previously, the law said mail "shall not be examined or read by the service provider or a member of the service provider's staff if it is to or from the child's solicitor." But the proposed law states that mail "shall not be examined or read under clause (

b) if it is to or from the young person's solicitor, unless there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that it contains material that is not privileged as a solicitor-client communication."

You can't tell by the outside of a letter whether what's inside it is going to be covered by solicitor-client privilege. I mean, how do you tell by the outside of a letter what's on the inside; right? So who determines whether or not correspondence or communication is privileged? What rationale exists to interfere with mail between a young person and their legal counsel? I don't know. I don't know what that rationale is, and that's another reason why we need to get to committee, to try to explore where the government's mind was—collective mind, I guess—when they came up with this, because I really don't understand it at all.

In terms of visitors, "A service provider may impose such conditions and limitations upon persons who are visiting a young person … as are necessary to ensure the safety of staff or young persons in the facility." It is crucial that this clause not apply to certain people. It shouldn't be up to the service provider of a facility to decide whether an MPP can visit that facility, to decide whether a child advocate or somebody from the advocate's office can visit that facility. An Ombudsman should be able to visit that facility.

So I'm pretty concerned there is this new piece that prevents our watchdogs, if you will, that prevents the people in Ontario who are charged with making sure that these kinds of facilities operate the way they're supposed to operate, including ourselves around this room, from having the opportunity to visit these facilities. That's an extremely, extremely worrisome addition, or perhaps deletion, if you will, in terms of access to the facilities, and it's something I'm extremely hopeful the government will reconsider. I mentioned it to the minister informally as we were having a conversation earlier today.

She was not aware that was in there, so I look forward to having a very serious discussion with her about the extent to which that piece particularly needs to be completely removed.

It used to be that MPPs could go into correction facilities. In fact, many of the most egregious abuses that have happened in correction facilities were found out, routed out and shut down because of the opportunity for MPPs to visit those places, to see what was going on there. Do we really want to remove that level of oversight from these facilities? I don't think so.

I don't think it will serve anyone at all, particularly not young people who can—and not always, and again, this is not a painting of facilities in any way whatsoever, but it is an important principle that the facilities know there are levels of oversight in place to ensure those very few who might not be acting in the best interests of children are able to be held to account. It's extremely important.

Here's another point altogether: The act expands criteria for secure detention. In other words, right now there is a way that secure detention is dealt with, but it doesn't really deal with open-custody situations. When someone is in secure detention, it's a process of ensuring that there's attendance at court, for example, and that there's safety of the public and security in the place of detention. We have to be really, really careful about the expansion of the criteria for secure detention, about what it means to be in secure detention.

The use of custody prior to conviction should serve two ends, and two ends only: to prevent a dangerous person from harming others, and to ensure that they attend court. Those are the two pieces that are most important and that need to be there. Pretrial detention continues to be an unduly long process, as a result of the backlogs in the courts. There's a backup in terms of the amount of time that young people are left in detention. It shouldn't be a matter of using the pretrial period as a back door to providing that—I'm losing my concentration with all of the noise that's suddenly come into the chamber.

It's been extremely quiet all morning, and all of a sudden—it's showtime pretty soon, so I'm beginning to lose my concentration.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We came to hear you.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Oh, thanks. The Minister of Education says she came to hear my speech, and now of course I can't concentrate on it, so that's put even more pressure on me.

Nonetheless, the point is this: Pretrial detention should not, as part of its goal, inflict a lesson on the youth or in any other way punish the youth. This goes back to the conversation earlier about the extent to which the punishment model simply does not work. So we have to be careful about sliding into this process which then allows the pretrial detention period to become a de facto early punishment or initial phase of punishment for the young person. That is not acceptable.

Pretrial detention periods, as we know, because of the jam-up in the courts, because of how long it takes for things to get to trial, are becoming longer and longer and longer. So we have to be extremely aware of the fact that young people will be stuck in this limbo, without any programming, without any opportunities for rehabilitation or training or counselling or anything at all. They really do just sit in a tank waiting for their trial. We have to be extremely careful about detaining people unnecessarily.

I think it's particularly important to note that certain folks tend to show up in the criminal justice system more than others. We know that our First Nations aboriginal communities are overrepresented in the justice system. We know that people from racialized communities are overrepresented, compared to the general population. They're overrepresented in our criminal justice system, and we know, from some of the comments before, why some of that is.

We know that new immigrants have real challenges, particularly around finding a decent job. We know that we have a minimum wage here in Ontario that does not support families adequately. We know that we have a system of certification, or of recognition of credentials, for people who have great skills coming from other countries, that is not allowing them to be able to use those skills in a productive way to make decent earnings here in Ontario. We know that there is no certification for unionization in this province, which reduces the likelihood of a decent wage.

I believe that I will be able to continue my comments on this bill when next we meet and when next the government calls Bill 103 for reading, so I'll leave it at that and look forward to the rest of the afternoon.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The time for debate has ended.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I take this opportunity to welcome some guests to the chamber today.

On behalf of the member from Oak Ridges—Markham: the grade 10 students from St. Augustine Catholic High School, who will be visiting Queen's Park today.

On behalf of the member from Eglinton—Lawrence: Tim Holman, father of Sarah Holman, the page from Eglinton—Lawrence, Paul Veary and Rayburn Veary, all seated in the east members' gallery. Welcome.

On behalf of page Paige Weller: her aunt Kristen Clarke and her cousin Coco Petracchi, in the west public gallery. Welcome today.

And some guests of mine who will be joining us soon in the Speaker's gallery: Ab Chahbar, Sam Chahbar and Dan Chahbar.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is for the Premier. Premier, yesterday you tabled a motion for a debate on the economy. Regrettably, this is, in our view, a totally insincere charade designed to give yourselves a pat on the back and leave Ontarians who are worried about their future with false hope. Premier, it's completely meaningless, because you haven't opened up the books and told Ontarians what the state of Ontario's finances are.

If you are truly looking for a legitimate discussion, will you commit to releasing a comprehensive statement on Ontario's finances before this debate begins?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm very much looking forward to having the opportunity to speak to economic issues.

I'll remind my honourable colleague that his leader, Mr. Tory, has, I believe on three separate occasions now, asked that we have just such a debate in this Legislature. I think it's important, not just for myself, but for all MPPs in this Legislature, to have the opportunity to speak to those kinds of issues which are concerning our families at the breakfast table. There is tremendous economic dislocation and uncertainty prevailing in the global economy. I think it's important that we find a way to create an opportunity—which we've done here.

Failing this debate now, we'd have to wait until the budget, effectively, for members in this House to speak to it. We think it's time to speak to it right now, and that's what we're going to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Well, that response, like the motion, is self-serving and nothing less.

This morning, the Premier, in a scrum, said that we need to discuss in this House the things that people are talking about around the kitchen table. Well, families sitting around the kitchen table don't look over their household budgets without having in front of them their pay stubs, their bank statements or their credit card statements.

Premier, do you really believe you can fool the public with this stunt of yours—a shameful stunt, an attempt to dupe Ontarians? If you want to have a serious, substantive debate about the economy, show us the books. How much money does Ontario have? How deep is the hole that you've spent this province into?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There is a traditional approach that is brought by the opposition in traditional times of economic challenge and economic downturn. I would argue that this is an extraordinary event in terms of what's happening to our economy—not just here in Ontario but globally.

One of the reasons I'm eager to have all members participate in this debate is so that we can gain a better understanding, by sharing each other's perspectives, of what is happening out there. We'll have an opportunity to hear ideas, hopefully positive ideas, put forward by all members of this House, and using that information, we can help better inform the fall economic statement and we can help to inform the budget. We see it as a productive, important exercise in keeping with the values and desires of the people of Ontario.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Now, this is the new Dalton McGuinty we're seeing here today. If you look back, he says we can't wait until March for a budget debate. But on June 4 this year, Premier, the Progressive Conservative Party—the official opposition—asked you for an emergency debate on the economy, along with a transparent financial update—four months ago; four long months ago. You've ignored the warning signs, you've demeaned concerns about the economy that both opposition parties have brought forward, and now you bring in a phony motion designed to hoodwink worried Ontarians. Is that your definition of leadership?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'll remind my honourable colleague that we released our second quarter economic results just last Monday. That's the latest information that we had available. We've made that public.

I just can't agree with my colleague. I think it's important for all of us to have this opportunity to speak to those issues that weigh heavily on the minds of Ontarians. They're very concerned about the state of our economy. They're asking themselves questions about what is happening, not only here in Ontario but what's happening more broadly in the global economy. I see this as an important opportunity for Ontarians to speak to those issues and, again, to provide their particular perspectives on this, to share their insights in terms of what they might think is happening, to get a better sense of how external events are going to affect us inside, here in Ontario.

I see it as a positive, constructive opportunity to gain information, to inform our fall economic statement and later on our budget. I think it serves the people of Ontario.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Again to the Premier: You have to wonder how serious the Premier is about this emergency economic debate he has called for when he's jetting off to Mexico tomorrow and one of his economic ministers is basking in the Middle East sun.

But let's look at the motion that has been tabled. "Just as Ontario families do when finances get tight at home, the Ontario government should make adjustments as necessary to its finances." Premier, can you tell us: Just how tight are Ontario's finances, how much are the revenues down by and how much has spending increased?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Leader of the Opposition: I will remind him that last week we put out the most recent Ontario economic accounts. I would invite him to look at those. I would invite him to review the transcripts from the meeting of the 12 economists who hosted a breakfast the other morning. We had the opportunity to meet with them after.

There is no doubt that these are challenging economic times. I welcome the opportunity to hear from members of this House before the fall statement, as we line up our response to changing circumstances. According to the Fiscal Transparency Act, the members opposite have the information they need to form views and to form opinions. One need look no further than the front pages of every major daily to get expert opinion and analysis, and I look forward to your contribution and the contribution of your colleagues to this debate.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: As the minister and the Premier know, in the past two weeks we've asked on a number of occasions for a time speed-up, if you will, on the economic update, not leaving it until October 22. To debate today without that information in front of us is just a so-called debate; it's not a real attempt to find solutions. You can't find solutions if you don't know what the problems are.

Your motion says "the Ontario government should make adjustments." In Liberal speak, that means two things: a tax increase or a deficit. Premier, Minister, are you spending Ontario into a deficit or are you telling those hard-working families sitting around that kitchen table that you're going to raise their taxes—or get ready for both? What is it?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We are taking a balanced, responsible, prudent approach to the challenges in the economy. We have laid out a five-point plan that we believe is delivering results today. This government's whole approach over the last five years has been oriented just to this time. That's why we started investing in post-secondary education with Reaching Higher. That's why we started ReNew Ontario, to be investing in infrastructure. That's why in about two weeks' time, municipalities across Ontario will be getting $1.1 billion to start investing in that very infrastructure.

There is no doubt that there are real challenges in the economy. This government has laid out a plan. We look forward to the input of the opposition and the people of Ontario as we move forward in a challenging world economy.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I didn't hear much of an answer there. If the Premier really believed there was an emergency with the economy, truly sincerely, he wouldn't be sipping margaritas in Mexico while this debate is underway. Instead, he's wasting this House's time with a phony debate.

The great minds in the Premier's office—

Hon. George Smitherman: Is that what you did when you went travelling with Andy Brandt?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: —probably with the advice of Minister Smitherman, believe they can bamboozle the public. You can't have a debate on the economy without knowing the—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Just stop the clock for a second. Minister of Infrastructure, withdraw that comment that you just made.

Hon. George Smitherman: I withdraw.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: That's a typical response when we raise legitimate concerns, Speaker.

Premier, families can't make adjustments to their budgets if they don't know whether this government is going to raise their taxes or cut their services. For once, at a time when Ontarians are looking for candid and direct answers, why can't you be straight with them? Is this motion really designed to set the stage for deficits and increased taxes?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The partners in the Pan Am Games bid are delighted we are trying to get this $2-billion net investment in Ontario that will create 17,000 jobs. I'm sorry you don't support those initiatives at this time. That's what transparency's about, dealing honestly with these situations.

We have laid out a plan. We look forward to hearing what you would do differently. We think your prescription to date of cutting corporate taxes at this time is not the only part of a comprehensive plan.

They have offered nothing but a bunch of pablum. The people of Ontario are looking to this Legislature for leadership. We need a debate on the economy. We welcome the opportunity for that debate so that we can further reinforce the appropriateness of our policy decisions to date and make adjustments as we go forward in a very challenging world economy.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. This afternoon, this House is going to be debating a government motion that essentially says to anxious Ontarians, "Your government agrees that Ontarians are facing hard economic times and that your jobs and savings are at risk, but there's absolutely nothing we can do about it."

Why doesn't the Premier spare us this afternoon's theatrics and admit right here and now that the motion is an admission that his government has no intention of implementing the bold new initiatives that are desperately required to deal with this economic crisis?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I welcome the question, and I say again to this honourable member that her leader also asked that we have a debate in this Legislature at the earliest possible opportunity, and that's exactly what we're going to do.

The member opposite says that they have other ideas—great. We look forward to hearing those. We look forward to having an opportunity here to get everybody's perspective on what is happening in the global economy, the impact that's having on Ontarians here.

We have a five-point plan in place. We're proud of that plan. We will continue to revise and strengthen that plan in order to further strengthen the Ontario economy, but I disagree with my colleague who says our plan is not working. I look forward in the supplementals to tell her exactly why we continue to make progress under that plan.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What the Premier is refusing to admit is that his government's lack of action over the past five years is directly responsible for Ontario's disastrous economic situation. The Premier knows very well that the 235,000 lost manufacturing jobs and the 40,000 lost forestry jobs have nothing to do with the global banking crisis. He knows very well that the economic crisis that has devastated Ontario's manufacturing and resource community has been unfolding over the past five years. He has been in power those past five years, and it's a direct result of his failed policies.

Why won't the Premier admit that all this afternoon's motion really is for is to say to Ontarians that his government has no clue as to what to do about the economic crisis that it has created in this province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I say with the greatest of respect to my honourable colleague, for her to claim that somehow all that ails our domestic economy, the Ontario economy, is exclusively the result of Liberal government policies is incredible. Nobody believes that, and I'm confident that she understands that.

A number of years ago, we understood that if we're going to get the best jobs, we needed the best workers, so four years ago we put in place our Reaching Higher plan, and today we have 100,000 more young people in our colleges and universities. Years ago, we understood the value of investing in infrastructure, and because for three successive budgets we've invested billions of dollars in infrastructure, there are over 10,000 workers today in Ontario on Ontario construction projects. We've been on the job.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, the Premier's Reaching Higher plan put us at the bottom of the barrel; that's the reality. His five-point plan is a five-point failure. At a time when Ontarians want assurance that their government will be there to help them through the tough times, all this Premier can do is offer a resolution that is going to be debated this afternoon, a resolution that tells them that the policies they are going to get at this time of economic crisis are the very same policies that have already failed to prevent the collapse of Ontario's economic foundation in the first place.

When will the Premier own up to the fact that his resolution is in fact proof that he has no plan, no idea about how to deal with the economic crisis, and that under his leadership, Ontarians are essentially on their own?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I talked about how our early and decisive action on education has landed 100,000 new spaces in our colleges and universities. We also have 50,000 more apprenticeship opportunities, and we have 10,000 more young people graduating from our high schools every year. I made reference to the fact that because of our early and decisive action on new investments in infrastructure we have some 10,000 people working on construction sites today in Ontario.

Something else we understood a long time ago was that it was going to become very important, in a knowledge-based global economy, that we become much more adept at turning our ideas, Ontarians' ingenuity, into products that are irresistible for sale to the world. So we created a Ministry of Research and Innovation, and so far, we've put out $1.5 billion into over 1,000 research and commercialization projects. My friend may not like our plan, but she can't disagree that we have a plan and it is proving to be effective.

THUNDER BAY ECONOMY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Again, back to the Premier: This question is about a specific region. If there is a region that demonstrates just how badly this Premier's economic policies have failed, it's the Thunder Bay region. Since 2005, northwestern Ontario has lost 6,900 forestry-related jobs. In addition to this, Thunder Bay alone has lost 1,500 manufacturing jobs, or nearly one third of all of its manufacturing employment.

On October 22, this government is going to be delivering an economic statement. Will that statement, like this afternoon's resolution, merely confirm that this government intends to continue with the failed economic policies that have already devastated communities such as Thunder Bay?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I've had the good fortune, during the course of the past five years, to visit the grand and great city of Thunder Bay on a number of occasions. I can tell you that I know they are experiencing real challenges, particularly insofar as it relates to the decline of the forest sector—something that is experienced in other parts of the country and, indeed, this continent, as my colleague well knows. But I can say that we've brought close to $1 billion to the table for supports for the forestry sector.

We have made all kinds of new investments in the health sector in the city of Thunder Bay, whether it's the new medical school or new—I think it's the molecular research institute. We have invested in other kinds of manufacturing opportunities in that community as well.

The most important thing I want to say to the folks in Thunder Bay is that we've demonstrated our commitment to work with them. We are going to continue to find new ways to strengthen them. We're going to get through these challenging times the way we've always done that in Ontario: by working hard and working well together.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I've been to Thunder Bay as well, and I want to talk a little bit more about the blow that Thunder Bay has taken under this government. The unemployment rate there has risen by 30%, and fewer than half of Thunder Bay's unemployed even receive the federal employment insurance benefits. The Premier's inability to convince his own federal Liberal cousins on the need for EI reform is especially devastating to communities such as Thunder Bay. Failed fairness campaigns, weak resolutions and an economic statement that will provide very little, that's what this government is offering Thunder Bay.

When will the unemployed workers there finally see a real plan from this government? Or will it be more of the same, all talk and no action?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Michael Bryant: It is in fact the case that the government is investing in advancing the technologies, making investments in the next-generation jobs, making the investments in that particular region in the particular industries that the member has already mentioned. It is getting ahead of that, as the government has been attempting to do over the past five years.

That has been the government's plan, making those investments, not only in the knowledge economy in order to have those workers, the skilled workers and the apprentices, on the job, but also by making the changes in the technologies, so that those companies in that industry can be competitive in a global market. As innovation around the world changes, innovation has to change here. That's why the government made the investments in innovation, technology and manufacturing, in particular, around the forest industry—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What this government may not like are the cold, hard facts that we've been laying out all morning long. His "Fairness for Ontario" campaign flopped spectacularly, failing to convince even his federal Liberal cousins to make the EI reforms needed to protect laid-off Ontarians. This afternoon's economic resolution simply says to anxious Ontarians, "Don't expect your provincial government to be there in tough times. There is nothing we can do to help." That's what that resolution says, and on October 12, I fear it will be yet more of the same, with an economic statement that offers precious little to Ontarians.

Will the Premier stand in his place now and tell us it isn't so? When will he finally do something, or will he continue to wave a white flag, telling Ontarians that they are left to their own devices and that their government has nothing at all for them?

Hon. Michael Bryant: Some waving, some flag. An additional $60 million invested in the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp—would the member say that's not doing nothing? No, I would say to the member. In fact, the member voted against it. Twenty-five million dollars to support the creation of a centre in Thunder Bay for research and innovation in the bioeconomy, focused on forestry—the member says that she's been to Thunder Bay. Really? Is that not an investment in that economy? Yes, it is; and you voted against it.

Nine point seven million dollars to complete funding of Ontario's commitment to develop the Molecular Medicine Research Centre in Thunder Bay—those are real investments in the future jobs and future industries around innovation in Thunder Bay, and it's thanks to the local members of provincial Parliament for Thunder Bay and the leadership of this government. That is a serious investment in a great part of Ontario.

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is for the Premier. Premier, beleaguered Toronto taxpayers—homeowners and renters alike—are reeling. The GTA housing market is down 3% and falling; in Toronto, it's down 6%. Your City of Toronto Act gave taxing powers to the one person who is happily ready to take you up on it. Telling the mayor of Toronto to go ahead and tax away is not my idea of protecting our citizens; it is blatant "not my problem" downloading. Mayor Miller has brought in the land transfer tax, the personal vehicle tax and the 3.8% property tax hike last year. When is this going to stop? Are you, Premier, going to let this man continue to beat the life out of Toronto?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I see our relationship, this Legislature's relationship, differently, obviously, from my honourable colleague. I think the people of Toronto have duly elected their representatives to make decisions on their behalf insofar as municipal issues are concerned, and that is in fact what is happening. Is the member honestly suggesting that if we don't like what this particular council is doing, we ought to interfere? And if he doesn't like what this council is doing, does he have suggestions with respect to any other councils around the province with which we ought to interfere?

I think we should let people, in their good judgment, elect those folks that they think will best serve the public interest and allow them to do their work.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Peter Shurman: That is shifting the blame. The people of Toronto and Ontario are dealing with terrible financial hardships and fear for their future. The Premier's economic plan plus Mayor Miller equal a formula for disaster, and that is happening now. Yesterday, he told Torontonians to expect a 2% to 4% tax increase in the coming year. We are watching property values plummet by burdening Torontonians with more taxes, and it needs to stop. When, Premier, are you going to take some responsibility for your own actions instead of downloading taxing powers and blame to Mayor David Miller? Will you intervene and assist Torontonians now?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Something exciting is actually happening in the city of Toronto; my friend may have overlooked it. For the first time since I've been Premier, there are three commercial tower constructions taking place. You can find them at Bay and Adelaide; you've got the Telus tower and another—there are all kinds of exciting new investments taking place in the city of Toronto, so I'm just not as gloomy about Toronto prospects as my colleague.

I say again, I think it's important for us to understand the separation in terms of our responsibilities and the municipal council of Toronto and its particular responsibilities. I am not as eager as my colleague opposite to begin to interfere, intrude and insinuate myself either into the city of Toronto's responsibilities or any other municipal council's responsibilities, for that matter.

POVERTY

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Premier. Mr. Premier, having reviewed your economic motion to be tabled this afternoon, I see repeated listings of shared priorities, key priorities and multi-point plans, but try as hard as I might, I cannot find one single mention of the need for action to protect the most vulnerable Ontarians living in poverty or those who are developmentally disabled. There is no mention of the most vulnerable amongst us in this government's economic motion.

My question is a simple one to the Premier: Is this government, through its motion this afternoon, signalling its intent to renege on its commitment to the poor and the disabled?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think yesterday the Premier was as clear as clear can be that our commitment to reduce poverty in this province is as strong as, if not stronger than, it has ever been before. When an economy is facing challenges, we need every single person to be at their very best. We need every child to get the education they need to be successful. We need every newcomer to get the skills they need to be at their very best in this economy. We need people with disabilities to be able to use their abilities for the benefit of themselves and for all of us. Our commitment is strong, stronger than ever.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Michael Prue: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. What I just heard was a whole bunch of empty and flowery words. This government promised to reduce poverty by a specific amount with specific actions—the so-called 25 in 5. It promised to help the developmentally disabled and their families only a scant few weeks ago. I saw and heard nothing in the motion this afternoon or nothing in the minister's statement to this House just now that would confirm any of these plans. Rather, the government seems to mention poverty when it wants to lower expectations and talk about what it cannot do at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question: Are the poor and the disabled destined to be the first casualties of the government's new five-point plan?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I appreciate that the member opposite is anxious for us to come forward with our poverty reduction strategy; so are we. That is why we are on track to release the poverty reduction strategy by the end of the year, as we committed to. We are working very hard to make sure we get it right. We are working very hard to make sure that it reflects what we heard on our consultations, because thousands upon thousands of people in Ontario have contributed to this strategy. We are taking the time to get it right, and I ask the member opposite to be patient—wait just a few more weeks—and we will be releasing this strategy on schedule.

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: My question is to the Minister of Research and Innovation. With McMaster University, a world-class university in Hamilton, my constituents and I have been following the movement of the Minister of Finance's Bill 100, the Ontario tax exemption for commercialization, very closely. Although Bill 100 falls under the Minister of Finance, I've been hearing a great deal of criticism regarding the Ministry of Research and Innovation. Of interest to both the university-based and private sector innovations is the availability of venture capital.

It was said in this House by a member of the Conservatives that "access to capital for small firms and start-ups is increasingly difficult" and that the government has "provided no adequate replacement." I've been telling the people of Hamilton who are working hard to create the jobs of tomorrow that our government invested $90 million in the Ontario venture capital fund to address this issue. Minister, is the—

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

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank the member for the question. The Canadian Venture Capital and Private Equity Association wrote a letter to the federal leaders in this election and said, "Do you know what you need to do? You need to do what Ontario has done.

You need to act as a catalyst to instill the venture capital market to come to the table and work with us to ensure that there's a sufficient supply of venture capital to take the great ideas that are created in this province and commercialize them right here." So I want to thank my predecessor, the Premier, for creating the Ministry of Research and Innovation, and for creating the Ontario venture capital fund, which today is up and running. Our $90-million investment has now been leveraged by the private sector. It stands at some $205 million.

If that fund were to be created today, I think, given the turmoil, that there would be some difficulty. But because of the wise leadership of our Premier, we've created that fund. It is up and running and open for—

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

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: I'm glad to hear that the Ontario venture capital fund has been so successful and is being used as an example of what needs to be done by experts in the field.

Another concern of the researchers at the university is the amount of funding that is invested in basic research. I think of the example of the laser. When Einstein first thought of the laser, many thought it would have no practical use. Looking back, we now know that Einstein was far ahead of his time. In fact, it would be difficult to visualize what the world would be like today without lasers for watching a DVD or listening to a CD.

A member from the third party said that the NDP believes in basic research. The member said we must ask ourselves what discoveries we are sacrificing by diverting funds from basic research. Minister, is funding being diverted from basic research? Can you outline examples?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I had a discussion with my good friend the member from Hamilton Mountain, and we were surprised by those comments made by the third party. When we invested, in the last budget, an additional quarter of a billion dollars into research, do you know who voted against that? The NDP. They voted against a quarter of a billion dollars. That adds up now to $625 million for research, basic research, the kind of research that's going on at McMaster University, one of our world-class universities. Since 2003, our government has invested just under $76 million into 214 projects at McMaster University.

So if they're going to stand up for McMaster in Hamilton, then you have to support our researchers. That's why we voted for the increase. I want to thank the Minister of Finance for thinking ahead and understanding that we needed to put more great ideas in the pipeline, more great ideas for Hamilton and for McMaster, and we're proud of our voting record on this side of the House.

TAXATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: I have a question for the Premier: As you know, homeowners across Ontario are opening their mailboxes to find massive property assessment increases that will result in higher property taxes for many Ontario families and seniors. To make matters worse, while many Ontario families and seniors are now seeing declines in the value of their homes, you decided to lock them into assessed values as of January 1, 2008, at the height of a hot housing market, for four years. Premier, given these uncertain economic times, is it appropriate to whack people with massive assessment increases and then to lock them in at inflated values, with no relief until 2012?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Seniors and others in Ontario need to know that those assessments do not lead to tax increases. And that—

Interjections.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: They may want to laugh at the economic circumstances. We don't. We introduced in my last budget a property tax credit for seniors. That property tax credit will come in very handy next year. It will be phased in starting in January. That member voted against it. If anybody needs to reconsider a policy, it's that member and his party. We are standing behind Ontario's—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Not only are families going to be whacked with property tax increases because of your new assessment scheme; they're seeing higher taxes, higher utility costs and higher costs for basic groceries, and these past two weeks they're seeing their savings and investments evaporate before their very eyes. During this time, you've also proposed to hit Ontario families and seniors with a brand new tax on tires, computers, televisions, microwaves and other consumer goods.

Minister, when you were speaking about Stéphane Dion's new plan to increase taxes through his so-called green shift, you said that "massive shifts in tax burden at a time when there's uncertainty" would be a mistake. Will you take your own advice and scrap the new McGuinty tax on tires and electronic goods?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member opposite knows full well that there is no tax increase on those items. I will charitably suggest that he is mischaracterizing what the government has done to ensure we have a good system of recycling that may save taxpayers money.

There is no question that we are in challenging times. Only one party—only this government—has laid out a plan that invests in those areas we can invest in that will see Ontario through these challenging times.

We believe that the investments we are making are the right ones. We wish they'd support the notion of a debate on the economy. We look forward to what they have to say, and to what others have to say. We will lead Ontario through these challenging times, and we will be better and stronger when we're done.

LABORATORY SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Last week, the minister denied cutting funding to Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare and other hospitals that have been successful in an 11-year pilot project to do community-based lab testing. I have this letter from the ministry to Barry Lockhart, chief executive officer of Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare, dated August 14, 2008, which says, "This letter is to provide notice to you that the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care is hereby terminating" funding to this pilot project between the minister, Gamma-Dynacare and Algonquin Healthcare.

Can the minister clarify for us today if he is responsible for the termination of this lab project?

Hon. David Caplan: I'm happy to comment, as I did last week, that in 1997 there was a pilot project that we set up around lab services in Muskoka. It was independently evaluated, and the determination that was jointly arrived at was that it would be better, in fact, to provide laboratory services in the same manner in which all Ontarians receive them.

The member makes allegations that somehow there are reductions in services. That is simply untrue. All that is happening here, on the basis of independent advice and the evaluation of this particular service, is not to continue with the pilot, and to return the service to the exact same basis on which Ontarians right across the province receive it. That's what I said last week, and that's what I say today.

M me France Gélinas: Minister, I agree there was a review. The review showed that the community-ba