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

October 29, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Oct-29 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 29 October 2008 Mercredi 29 octobre 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES AND INTERIM

APPROPRIATION ACT, 2008 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 2008 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

ET L'AFFECTATION ANTICIPÉE

DE CRÉDITS (NO 2)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

VIOLENT CRIME

VIOLENT CRIME

VIOLENT CRIME

MANUFACTURING JOBS

VIOLENT CRIME

CHILD CARE

HOME CARE

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

ROAD SAFETY

ACCES AUX SOINS DE SANTE

HOSPITAL SERVICES

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

HOSPITAL GOVERNANCE

MEMBER'S BIRTHDAY

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHICKEN FARMERS

TERMINATION AND

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

CHARLES DUBIN

GREEK COMMUNITY

LONG-TERM CARE

MAISON INTERLUDE HOUSE

REPUBLIC OF TURKEY

CHICKEN FARMERS OF ONTARIO

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOM LONGBOAT DAY ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LE JOUR

TOM LONGBOAT

USE OF STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

HEALTHY SCHOOLS /

ÉCOLES SAINES

HEALTHY SCHOOLS

WOMAN ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH

HEALTHY SCHOOLS

WOMAN ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH

WOMAN ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH

HEALTHY SCHOOLS

PETITIONS

LOGGING ROUTE

FIREARMS CONTROL

LONG-TERM CARE

FERTILITY TREATMENT

PENSION PLANS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

GASOLINE PRICES

FERTILITY TREATMENT

EMERGENCY DISPATCH SERVICES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

POPE JOHN PAUL II

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE

LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Please remain standing for the Lord's Prayer, followed by a Sikh prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET MEASURES AND INTERIM

APPROPRIATION ACT, 2008 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 2008 SUR

LES MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES

ET L'AFFECTATION ANTICIPÉE

DE CRÉDITS (NO 2)

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 28, 2008, on the motion for second reading of Bill 114,

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

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

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate? The member for London–Fanshawe.

Applause.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: When the opposition claps for you, it's a good day.

I was listening to many speakers, during the last two or three weeks, speaking about the economy, which I think is the most important topic these days. You cannot turn the TV on without listening to people from across the globe talking about the economy, talking about the crisis we are in. When you turn the radio on, you listen to many people talk about the economy and concerned about the economy: economists, presidents, governments, people, investors, seniors. Across the globe these days, the most important topic people are concerned about is the economy.

I've been listening to many speakers from both sides of the House, and I know the opposition is trying to blame the government and the government blames past governments and sometimes blames the federal government. But the most important thing—

Mr. Peter Kormos: Bill 114, Khalil.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I'm talking about Bill 114. I'm talking about our initiatives as a government in order to—

Mr. Peter Kormos: Where is that in the bill? Which schedule? Tell me.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Order.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Mr. Speaker, it's important to stand up in this place and remind people. Bill 114 is an important bill. It's brought by the Minister of Finance in order to protect our investors and investment in this community. It's important to talk about many different issues: what our government was doing in the past to make sure we have strong economic foundations in order to support our economy, to support our seniors, and to help, through many different initiatives, the elements of our community, our society and our economy to keep performing well.

Since we got elected in 2003, and recently in 2007, we have taken different initiatives in order to support our economy. I can speak about our plan to maintain our infrastructure and maintain our ability to perform well. Cutting business taxes for big corporations and big companies that want to come and invest in the province of Ontario—we have heard the Conservatives say many different times that we don't cut enough taxes to persuade many companies to remain in this province, but we are doing so.

We cannot forget about our infrastructure. We have to maintain the infrastructure across Ontario, and we have to continue to support our municipalities in this province. As you know, our infrastructure is getting old and needs a lot of renovation and rebuilding. That's why we had a great announcement not too long ago. The Premier made this announcement at the AMO conference in Ottawa: $1.1 billion to support municipalities across Ontario to enable them to maintain their infrastructure—roads, highways, bridges and many different elements of their infrastructure.

Also, to support innovation and research—as you know, we cannot prosper in this province in this day and age without supporting innovative ideas, especially when you want to attract companies and manufacturers, and companies want to partner with universities and colleges to bring good and important ideas to maintain business and to maintain our prosperity for our next generations. It cannot be done without going back to the fundamental basis on which our future, our economy, and our research and innovation relies.

I was talking the other day to a couple of people who are concerned about the economy in this province. They told me that every once in a while, every 25 years, we invent something and we benefit from that invention for almost 25 years. Different communities and different nations across the globe try to imitate our invention and do the same thing and compete with us on the same level, maybe even better sometimes due to their population numbers or their geographical distances, or due to many different elements. What we have to do is again create different ideas and try to benefit from those new ideas in the future for ourselves and also for our future generations.

It's also important to continue partnering with small business and business across the province, to convince those businesses to maintain their business in Ontario, and also to try to partner with them and invest if we can. I will give you an example. I come from London, Ontario, London—Fanshawe. We have great companies there. We have Diamond Aircraft. We, as a government, went to this company many different times. We partnered with this company. We give them the tools they needed in order to grow and hire more people. We invested more than $10 million at low interest rates.

This company hired more than 300 people to work there. We went further. We invested money in the college to prepare skilled people to work at this company. These were all steps toward maintaining business in Ontario, to help manufacturers stay in this province and give them the tools and the support they need to maintain their ability to compete nationally and internationally.

Also, we cannot forget about skills, about investing in our people. It's important these days to continue our ability to invest in our people, whom we badly need in order to face the future and the technological era, and to compete in national and international markets. That's why we have our training centres, colleges and universities across the province opening their doors to students to come and get the training they need and to retrain if they have lost their jobs.

Bill 114 talks about many different elements too. It talks about support for seniors: tax credits for the people who want to accommodate their grandmother or senior living with them. This bill would allow tax exemptions if they want to add a room or whatever to their home in order to accommodate seniors who are living with them. Speaking of helping seniors, we increased the threshold from $23,090 to $24,300. I think that is a good threshold to allow seniors living on modest incomes to be able to save some money.

It's important also to reach out to mineral companies with a tax exemption for a company that wants to expand and open in Ontario. This bill gives us the ability to allow more of them to open, and we expand this tax exemption to gravel pits and also limestone companies if they want to open and explore their inventions and their companies here in Ontario.

This bill also talks about the cigarette tax. As you know, these days many people go to many different spots in Ontario and try to buy illegal cigarettes. So our government is coming forward with a plan to monitor the machinery and the manufacturing of the machinery which produces the cigarettes, and is also talking about the seizure of contraband tobacco, because it's very important to protect our small businesses across the province. As you know, many small businesses, especially convenience stores, came to us as a government and complained about contraband tobacco.

Therefore, I think Bill 114 is an initiative, a step, towards strengthening our economy. That's why I'm supporting it. I hope all the people on both sides of the House will support it.

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: It's always interesting listening to my friend from London—Fanshawe, particularly because he is so passionate in almost everything he says and, in this particular case, because he has highlighted a list of things which he terms important—and indeed they are. But he begins by discussing what's happening elsewhere in the world economically and not focusing on what's happening in Ontario when in fact what we have here under discussion is a deficit that was made in Ontario and not made anywhere else in the world.

Our party, and indeed, beyond the partisan party politics area, professionals in the field of economics have been forecasting that this would happen for the past year, year and a half, you could even say two years. While there is certainly an effect on Ontario, as there is everywhere, of economic events in the rest of the world, there is a reason why most economic indicators in Canada show that we are dead last. There are nine other provinces in this country that operate in the same environment.

So why is it particular to Ontario that we have a government that has acted like chemists and taken a $6-billion surplus and turned it into a deficit, a deficit of $500 million that is being forecast, when the Toronto-Dominion Bank says no, this is not going to be $500 million; it might be closer to $5 billion in deficit by the time all is said and done? I think you have to focus on that before you talk about all of the good things that you believe the government has done. I think there is an awful lot more to do.

I think it could have started a year or a year and a half ago, even earlier than that, in order to face this economic storm we are in. It's going to take us a long time to get out of it.

The deficit is forecast. That one number will wind up being another number, and time will prove me right.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: We face a substantial crisis globally in credit markets, and the expectation is that we will face very rough times in what all of us refer to as the real economy, a place where people really do work. This government has not had a plan in the time since it was elected in 2003, and it does not have a plan now as we face extraordinarily tough times. It has not had a plan to develop the economy of this province. It does not have an approach that will in fact put people in a place where they can deal with this crisis, put people in a place where they can survive this crisis with dignity, with employment and with futures for their children—the kinds of futures that they want.

We went through a debate here in this chamber over the last few weeks about the economy of the province as a whole. I've heard speakers from the government side talk about their five-point plan. What was extraordinary to me was that they were talking about a five-point plan that they had in place, that they were executing, and essentially saying that things were fine in the province, things were wonderful, they had things under control.

Yet the simple reality is that hundreds of thousands of people have lost their jobs in manufacturing, many face huge uncertainty right now and, essentially, we have a government that comes forward, a failed five-point plan on the back burner and a budget bill that does nothing, says nothing, about how we will advance, how we will deal with the economic downturn that is coming before us.

One thing I will note, though, is that the hiring of nurses has been pushed back. I will speak more about that when I get a chance to debate, but frankly, in tough times you don't make sure that people who are sick pay the highest price.

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I find myself agreeing with the member from the NDP—

Hon. James J. Bradley: That's dangerous.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Yes, it's a little scary, says the man who is banning cellphones in Ontario and taking credit for all of John O'Toole's work.

Interjections.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Well, I noticed you gave him credit on a very quiet basis—on a one-to-one basis—but during the press release—

Interjections.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Oh, in public? My apologies to the member from St. Catharines if he did that in public. Apparently, the fourth estate did not report that in their—but they're like that. They wouldn't give credit to a Conservative when it was due. But what were we talking about? Oh, we're talking about Bill 114, making deficits okay.

We live in very scary times. This government hasn't had a financial plan for the province of Ontario, to carry the province over a very difficult time. Of course, during good times, which we've had for the past three, four, five, six years—during those good times you prepare yourself for the bad times. This government hasn't done that. Now we're entering the bad times, and those bad times will be very, very bad. I believe personally that they'll be as bad as the 1930s.

This is a number that people are not paying attention to: There's $681 trillion in jeopardy in the United States—$681 trillion. I don't know how big that number is. I know it's bigger than any number that I can imagine. But that's the economic problem that the United States finds itself in. Economists in the United States say it's really only $56 trillion. That's another number I don't know the meaning of. Ontario is not prepared for this coming recession—

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: I tell you, I like the member for London—Fanshawe. I always find it a delight to be here in the chamber when he speaks, or if I'm not here in the chamber but in my office, I'll turn up the volume on my television.

Interjection.

Mr. Peter Kormos: No, because he's very effective and I find that he comes to this chamber with some real-life experience and narrates it in a very useful style. Which is why, for the life of me, I don't understand why the government whip restricts him to 10 or 11 minutes of a 20-minute speaking spot.

I know that the member for London—Fanshawe is more than capable of filling a 20-minute speaking slot and, like his constituents, I have concern about why he would be censored in this very oblique manner that the government offices appear to censor him—by restricting in an artificial way the amount of time that he is able to speak. Having been re-elected handily in London—Fanshawe, clearly having the support of the community, I as well find it somewhat amazing that he's not been chosen to be part of the cabinet table.

The member from London—Fanshawe is humble, but he has every skill that would be required for a cabinet minister. And for the life of me, I can't understand why the Premier would have such disdain for him that (1) the Premier's office not only cuts short his speaking opportunities but (2) slams the cabinet door in his face. I tell you, I don't agree many times from an ideological perspective with what the member from London—Fanshawe says, but I find him a valuable player. I only wish the Premier's office shared my view of him.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for London—Fanshawe, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I thank everyone who spoke and gave comments on my speech. I want to tell the member opposite that we are not here to ignore the economic situation in the province of Ontario. That's why the Premier stood up in his place and spoke about the economic situation, and spoke out how we are facing some challenges. Also, the Prime Minister, I guess yesterday or today, has called all the Premiers to meet and discuss the economic situation.

The member from Danforth spoke about our members speaking about everything except the economy, and talking about many different things but not our crisis. No doubt about it, in the situation we're facing in Ontario we're not alone. All the provinces have the same problem. Every nation around the globe is facing some kind of economic circumstances and crisis. I think it takes both sides—the opposition and government sides—working together in order to get out of this crisis. I believe strongly that only when we work together are we able to solve our problems.

I'm not here to defend any circumstances. I know we are facing an economic crisis. We're facing some challenges, especially in the auto industry. We heard them yesterday. They came to the provincial and federal governments for almost a billion dollars' support in order to maintain the most important element of our economy in this province, which is the auto industry. Hopefully, the Prime Minister and the Premiers from all the provinces will come together with some kind of financial package to support our economy and our business in this province.

Also, I thank the member from Niagara Centre, I believe, for his confidence in me. He knows we get equal time among—

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: As we debate this budget bill, we do that with the knowledge that the government that brought forward this legislation, this budget, is also the same government that put us in this mess in the first place, and I'm referring to the last five years of over-the-top spending that has brought the once-powerful Ontario fiscal engine—it has pretty well ground to a stop.

In this morning's debate, as we consider the sad state of affairs of this McGuinty government's tax-and-spend spree, I ask members of this Legislature to consider a well-known parable. When I think of the last five years of McGuinty government economic mismanagement, I think of the parable of the ants and the grasshoppers. And it commences:

In a field one summer's day in Ontario, the grasshoppers were hopping about and chirping and singing to their hearts' content. In contrast, the ants marched by, bearing, with great toil, the kernels of corn that they were taking back to their nest for the winter. And the grasshoppers asked, "Why are you ants toiling and moiling in that way?"

"We are working. We are helping to lay up food for the winter," said the ants, "and recommend that you do the same."

"Why bother about winter?" said the grasshoppers. "We have plenty of food at present. Times have been good."

But the ants went on their way and continued their toil. When winter came, the grasshoppers had no food and found themselves dying of hunger while they saw the ants distributing every day corn and grain from the stores that they had collected in the summer. For you see, the grasshoppers had spent, they had consumed all and they had nothing in reserve—nothing in reserve. And I just heard some chirping across the way.

Well, folks, this is what I see that we have today with respect to the present Ontario economy in a McGuinty world. No worries, however.

There is more to the parable, though. The grasshoppers decided that they were entitled to some of that corn, being hungry and all, and to deny them food was a moral failing on the part of the ants, whose greed was so loathsome that it should be punished by those who respected social justice. So the grasshoppers complained loudly to government leaders about their terrible inequity with respect to food redistribution.

If these ants were in Ohio, they would probably complain to Obama.

And that is when the state, ever compassionate and wise, stepped in, confiscated all the food and divided it out fairly and evenly among all of God's creatures, with a few exceptions: save for the bits they kept for themselves, of course, and save for those who had especially helped them to power, all of whom received extra rations for being kind of more equal than others. Granted, not a soul died that winter, neither an ant nor a grasshopper, although they all became very, very weak and very vulnerable. That's the price that you pay.

What the grasshoppers didn't realize, you understand, is that it is best to prepare for the days of necessity. Perhaps grasshoppers and ants don't understand this, but those in this House, we all understand that economies go in cycles. The good times do not last forever. And people in my riding find it unconscionable that at the end of five years of prosperity this government went right into a deficit.

Obviously, taxing and spending and consuming in the good times leaves nothing for the tough times, and that's exactly where this government stands today. If I may, all the grasshoppers opposite have been complacently sitting back, resting on their political laurels with no prudence, no thought for the days to come. While the grasshoppers in this parable eventually learn, out of necessity, the importance of preparation, I am not confident that the Ontario McGuinty government grasshoppers will ever admit this.

It's not as if they weren't warned about the coming tough times, the looming economic crisis—and these warnings arose, certainly, from the banks over the past year, the last several years. Do we need warnings anyway? We all know that economies go in cycles. Warnings from the official opposition; warnings from the third party; economists, banks told you; even your own advisers told you what was about to happen and what may come in the future. I'm uncertain whether your disregard for these warnings—was it sheer arrogance? Was it negligence? Was it incompetence, perhaps? All of the above.

I do ask people to take a look at that spending over five years—spending that skyrocketed from $68 billion a year to $96 billion a year. Where did that money go? Did it disappear? We have some indication of what the money was spent on. For example, my colleague Jim Wilson outlined recently $6 million to remove the C from the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. logo. So there's $6 million out of what is now a budget of $96 billion. And $2.3 million was spent on a reception at Caesars Windsor casino. This was the opening reception.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I didn't get an invitation.

Mr. Toby Barrett: I didn't get an invitation. As I recall, at the beginning of the McGuinty term there was another reception at a casino down the Niagara way. Did that cost $2.3 million? I don't know. With respect to that Caesars Windsor casino, $400 million was spent on renovations—for a casino. Gambling money obviously wasn't enough to support this place. Another $2 million was spent on an incomplete report on youth violence and $600,000 was spent in the courts to fight parents who have autistic children.

Now, those are just a few examples, a very small total of the spending that occurred over five years, where we saw the provincial budget go from $68 billion a year to $96 billion a year, even though we were getting those warning signs—warning signs from the banks, warning signs from the opposition for some time now that tough times were coming.

However, these happy-go-lucky grasshoppers, these devil-make-care grasshoppers, these "What, me worry?" grasshoppers, were too busy spending the ants' hard-earned money, the ants' tax dollars, to listen. Even the ants started to question, "Why should we be moiling and toiling and dragging corn back to be redistributed? Why should we work overtime? Why should we strive to expand our anthill? Why should we strive to get ahead?" knowing that at least half their corn was going to the grasshoppers, who were sitting back over the summer living the life of Riley.

Last week—this is now well known—the McGuinty government announced a half-billion-dollar deficit. That's a $500-million deficit. But the warnings were there. We all knew that only seven months ago this provincial ledger showed $5.6 billion in excess revenue, and $800 million at that time was indicated to be in reserve. What happened? All that money has disappeared.

Remember the grasshoppers: Grasshoppers cannot run deficits; grasshoppers starve.

Despite five years of prosperity, we now have this made-in-Ontario deficit. The shortfall is resulting from what works out to a 50% increase in program spending. It results from the largest tax increase in the history of Ontario; even then, not enough money at the end of five years to balance the books. We're in trouble as well, in part, because of the creation of more government jobs than all the other provinces combined. Dalton McGuinty has increased the size of the civil service by more than all the other provinces put together, and the number of Ontario civil servants making more than $100,000 is now up by 27%.

This deficit is a clear indication that McGuinty is a poor steward of the public purse—no prudence in evidence here. We're considering a budget bill introduced by the same government that put us in the hole in the first place. Truly, Dalton McGuinty—Dalton the grasshopper, if you will—has eliminated Ontario's economic advantage, has left all of us now weak and vulnerable to the global economic challenges that I heard one of the Liberal members talking about earlier.

I predict that this budget bill will only lead us further into Mr. McGuinty's economic abyss. In fact, the TD Bank has indicated that this government will continue to run deficits; it won't be just in the coming months. They predict deficits as large as $4 billion, as large as $5 billion. That's going right back to the born-again-Liberal Bob Rae days.

I don't think a lot of people in my riding and throughout our area in southern Ontario made an awful lot of money in the last five years when the stock market was being artificially revved up by that easy money, that summer money. I do worry that if this government does not get its act together, people in my riding—and again I think of farmers, truckers, industrial workers and small business people—are going to get kicked in the teeth.

I think of the people in my riding who have already been kicked in the teeth: the cattlemen, the horticultural producers, the tobacco growers, of course, and the young farmers in my riding getting into cattle, hort and particularly hog production. I think of people living in Caledonia and throughout Haldimand county and Brantford. They're pretty well at the end of their rope, and for the last several years, certainly two and a half years in Caledonia and Haldimand, have already been kicked in their teeth. Oral surgery is required, and I'm sad to say that you are not going to see it in this particular budget.

Who will be there to do it? There's really little hope for the next three years at any rate.

We know that while the deficit is a number, that number goes beyond just a $500-million figure that puts us in the hole. That number represents fewer nurses, less money for cities, less money for farmers, less money for education—fewer school repairs, for example—less money for health care, let alone health promotion, and fewer dollars to help young people at risk. In the long run it means we'll all be paying higher taxes to pay off that debt; that's something that our children and grandchildren can look forward to.

We know that we have a finance minister who recently suggested to the media, two weeks ago, that the upcoming economic statement would be printed in red rink. For me that generates a lot of concern about our finance minister's ability, let alone his willingness, to roll up his sleeves and try and address these economic times after five years of neglect. Deficits should always be the last resort, not the first choice. With signs of clouds on the horizon—actually beyond the horizon—and now clouds over top of the province of Ontario, what is the immediate answer? Run a deficit.

Seven months ago this government stressed that to achieve a balanced budget, they'd be looking for a billion dollars in savings and efficiencies. This raises questions. We to date see no evidence of those savings, we see no evidence of those efficiencies. Another question: Are the wheels truly falling off this Ontario economy? And what evidence do we have that this government, now that they've got us into this pickle, is attempting to do something about it? Both the Bank of Montreal and the Bank of Nova Scotia are predicting a recession—not only in Ontario, but right across Canada.

Ontario's real gross domestic product declined 0.3% in the first quarter of this year, 2008. That followed a mere 0.1% increase in the fourth quarter of last year, 2007.

People in Ontario are angry. They're angry about this government's economic mess. In the last fiscal year, revenues, as I indicated, were $5.6 billion higher than expected, but instead of saving for a rainy day, as the ants do, this government spent every single penny. "Why bother about winter?" said the grasshoppers. "We've got plenty of food and present times have been good. Let's just get more tax revenue from the ants, and spend it as we see fit." And so it was.

In 2004, Premier McGuinty introduced the largest tax increase in the history of Ontario—and he ran up a deficit. This government commenced their regime with a deficit and we're now back into a deficit. We know that revenues went from $69 billion to that whopping figure of $97 billion, and this government spent it as quickly as it came in. Spending increased by close to 50% over those five years, and this crew thought the good times would last forever. Now here comes the bill; here's the tab.

This most recent deficit announcement means that Dalton McGuinty has increased our total debt now by a total of $31 billion since he came into office. That works out to something like $6,500 in extra debt for every household in Ontario. Five years of overspending, five years of overtaxing and year-end spending sprees—combine these and you have a province of Ontario that has been weakened. We have become very vulnerable. The money's been spent. Those who received the money will not be returning any of that money to this government.

Even though we had five relatively good years, nothing was salted away—no thought at all for the rainy days.

Oh, you grasshoppers on the other side of the Legislature, it's sad, really. But as they say, the horse has bolted. This government, the people opposite—they do need advice, they do need help. We put out an offer for hearings by a dedicated select committee to meet as soon as possible to draw in expertise from ordinary people out there as well as the experts—of course we would ask economists and representatives of the banks to come forward. That was voted down by the devil-may-care grasshoppers who do not really fully appreciate the fact that winter is upon us.

Sadly, the budget bill we're debating today is only one more proof that, as badly as this government needs it, they turn deaf ears to prudent thought and carry on like happy grasshoppers, taxing and spending. Has this government played politics with the looming economic crisis? That's the question. I feel that they have. If they haven't, I wish they would at least admit that they weren't playing politics, and that they were essentially careless and, at best, inept.

You know, in June, John Tory, the PC leader—

Hon. David Caplan: Who?

Mr. Toby Barrett: —John Tory demanded an emergency debate on the economy. He also asked—

Hon. David Caplan: Where is he?

Mr. Toby Barrett: Where is that economic debate? What happened to the select committee? What happened?

What else did he ask for? He asked for an immediate economic update. Where is it? He asked for a financial update. Where is the financial update? We got something that may pass for a financial update. We got an announcement about a deficit—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The strategy of dealing with cost containment by deferring the hiring of nurses is a fundamental error on the part of this government. You can talk to people in the nursing sector—Linda Haslam-Stroud, head of the Ontario Nurses' Association; Lesley Bell, the CEO there; Doris Grinspun at the RNAO—and the simple reality is that in our hospitals today we do not have enough nurses to cover the workload.

When I was out canvassing in the last election, I met a nurse at the door who was desperate for some relief in her unit. She was in a situation where she felt compelled to provide support, but couldn't do things like take lunches and breaks and get the rest she needed. My sister is a nurse. She works in the GTA, north of Toronto. Recently she sent me an e-mail saying, "Sorry I wasn't able to call you. I had to work through lunch, work through my breaks and then do my charts at the end of my shift because I didn't have time to do that during the day."

When you look at what is happening in our hospitals; when you talk to our constituents who wait for hour after hour in emergency rooms, or who find, when they're in a ward, that they have to wait extended periods for someone to come and attend to them; when you talk to family members who spend lots of time in hospitals because they know that nurses are overextended and can't come to the aid of patients, then you recognize those realities, both from personal stories but also from the fact that this government has said, "We need to hire more nurses." They recognize the need.

They recognize that hospitals need them, that the sick people—any of us here who could be in hospital today or tomorrow—need more nursing care. To defer that puts people at risk. It is false economy. Because if people are not attended to early, the chance of developing deeper, more complicated problems grows dramatically. So this government has made a fundamental error in this area, among all the others it has made.

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

Ms. Helena Jaczek: It's a pleasure to enter this debate, and specifically to respond to some of the comments by our colleague from Haldimand—Norfolk.

If we weren't facing such an important global financial crisis, it might almost be amusing to hear a member who was here during the years of the Mike Harris and Ernie Eves Conservative governments lecture us on prudence. This was a government that accumulated a $5.6-billion deficit, which our government tackled exceptionally well in the first few years of its mandate.

Interjections.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I am no grasshopper; I am the elected representative of the good people of Oak Ridges—Markham, and in the last week I have been busy consulting with the residents of my riding. In particular, I had the opportunity to meet with the Richmond Hill Chamber of Commerce at breakfast last Friday morning, and of course the topic of discussion was the Minister of Finance's economic statement and our government's five-point plan. I can tell you that the first thing those members of that chamber of commerce said to me was, "Please maintain your infrastructure commitments.

We need that, particularly in York region. This is an excellent investment in our infrastructure. It'll provide short-term jobs and it will obviously give us ongoing investments in infrastructure." The subway to Richmond Hill is another priority for them. In fact, what I heard was real commitment from them to support us in our prudent management of the economy. I can simply say to the members of the two opposing parties that I'm convinced that we have embarked on an excellent course.

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: The lesson of the parable of the grasshoppers and the ants was very good and very appropriate for this debate. The member mentioned that there was a party for the opening of the new Windsor casino, and that $2.3 million was spent on that party. I don't know how you spend $2.3 million on a party. I didn't receive an invitation; none of my colleagues here on this side of the House received an invitation. I wonder if anybody watching on the legislative channel received invitations to this $2.3-million party.

All of southern Ontario must have been invited, to spend that much money at one simple party. I dare say that the people watching probably didn't get invitations to this party, but I'll bet you that a lot of Liberals in southwestern Ontario got invitations to the party. There was no stone left unturned when it came to making this an opulent party.

It reminds me of a time when the Liberals had an event down in Niagara-on-the-Lake. They trucked the ice in from Toronto, and the bill for the ice was over $1,000; it might have been $1,800. There was ice supply locally that they could have had, but they didn't care about that. They cared about an ice supplier who was a friend of a friend, or someone else. They didn't care that they were spending taxpayers' dollars. When you don't care about spending taxpayers' dollars, things become very, very extravagant. That's why the grasshoppers and the ants are so appropriate: The grasshoppers don't care if they spend someone else's money. That's what has happened to this government over here.

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: The parable about grasshoppers and ants is interesting. Last winter, a number of people I know, myself included, who invest some of their savings in the stock market, realized that something was amiss. It was predictable, as was the situation that has now gripped the world.

Given the fact that there's planning involved, some of us were smart enough to ensure that part of our savings were liquidated, so that when the tough times hit and losses were racked up on paper, we could look at them and say, "You know, over the course of a year, two years or three years, these will turn around and our savings will be our savings again. We don't have to liquidate." Not so the government of Ontario, and hence the parable of the grasshopper and the ant having resonance with me and people like myself who have planned for that rainy day.

The main thing here is that a budget has to be seen as what it is, which is a plan. In this particular case what we've got is a plan, as my friend has pointed out, that is something we can look back at having been tabled in March, and by June we knew it would not be achieved. So what have we got? We've got the plan followed by a statement that was issued last week that said, "Correct, the plan is not going to be achieved. So here's what's going to happen.

We're going to miss it by $500 million"—in fact, by over $1 billion, if you take a look at the use of reserve funds—"and at the end of the year we'll rack up a deficit of $500 million," which remains to be seen. We won't know that for six or eight months.

So when it comes to planning, this government's record is not particularly good. I found it interesting that at the same time as we were hearing from the finance minister here, our colleagues in the Liberal government in the province of British Columbia were doing the appropriate thing for their people and providing the appropriate tax measures to address their problems.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Haldimand—Norfolk, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Toby Barrett: I appreciate the feedback from the members for Toronto—Danforth, Halton, Thornhill and Oak Ridges—Markham. I wasn't referring to the member for Oak Ridges—Markham personally as being a grasshopper or an elected grasshopper, but I do wish to make the point that we can learn from these parables and we can learn from the past. Look at the people in Ontario. People in my area this time of year are putting away firewood. In fact, given the economic storm clouds, I notice my firewood pile is larger than it's ever been and I see that with my neighbours. People out there know. Not all the wisdom resides within the hallowed halls of this monumental edifice.

We can learn from the recent past, and those indications were put forward to this government by the third party, by the opposition, by the banks, by the everyday Joe who is out there. We've been warning, certainly for the past two years—not only Joe the plumber, but Joe the farmer and Joe the carpenter and Joe the hairdresser—that the high-taxing, high-spending policies will leave this province ill-prepared. We now have the economic crisis upon us, a crisis that was being dismissed by the members opposite. We saw the procrastination. I'm concerned that we still see procrastination.

The member for Thornhill made very clear in his recent remarks the importance of planning. Our question remains, where is the plan, let alone, where is the action?

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Governments and, more importantly, their leaders get their real tests when bad times come in. Over the last five years, this McGuinty government has stood on the sidelines while over 200,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing and over 40,000 direct and indirect jobs were lost in the forest sector. Those were seen as the good times.

This government, which has been pushed on this issue for years now by the leader of this party, Howard Hampton, constantly, regularly, did nothing, stood aside while hundreds of thousands lost their livelihood, hundreds of thousands were forced to take a substantial drop in their standard of living. When you go out and talk to auto workers in Windsor or in Oshawa, talk to people who have gone from making $25 or $30 an hour to making $8, $9 and $10 an hour, about the kinds of wrenching adjustments that are made in their lives, they say to you, "What's happening at Queen's Park? What is it that makes us invisible?

What is it that makes our crisis invisible? Why is there no action, no cohesive plan, no cohesive direction on the part of this government to take on those big issues?"

That is the situation that has prevailed in what we have referred to in this province as the good times. Now the economic storm clouds are rolling in. The Minister of Finance has been talking about how fundamentally strong the economy is in this province, and it does have many strengths. It has historically had strengths because governments have taken steps to intervene and make sure that people in this province had the opportunity to benefit from its tremendous riches and talents.

If, at the beginning of the 20th century, you had not had a government that was willing to take action, set up Ontario Hydro and provide large-volume, reliable, affordable power, we would not have developed to be the industrial jurisdiction that we are. That made a huge difference and has provided power at extraordinarily low cost for decades.

The reality is that in the 1960s, when the auto pact was negotiated and trade was regulated so that there was fairness, this province benefited dramatically. We grew industrially. Government intervened; it did not let the free market simply act as it wished to determine our economic future. It's that need for activism, it's that need for a sense of where you want to take the province that's missing from this government. They're essentially a government of technocrats.

When we look at the statistics, every new statistic or report brings more bad news about job prospects for Ontario. The simple reality for us is that it's not just manufacturing and resource. In fact, to say something like, "We're getting job losses in manufacturing and resource; don't worry, the rest of the economy is fine," is to misunderstand the way Ontario works, because it's those sectors that provide the economic foundation for all that is built upon it. Now we're looking at difficulties in retail, financial services and construction.

A few weeks ago, the Premier presented a resolution in this House arguing that his so-called five-point plan was sufficient to guide Ontario through an economic downturn. He was telling us about his five-point plan—the one that the minister of economic trade was talking about so wonderfully, all the opportunities that she had to go to talk to people in the business sector around the world—talking essentially about the wonderful job that was being done.

That five-point plan and this government's—I will call it "so-called"—strategy did not protect people in Ontario's manufacturing heartland or its resource heartland. Those people were left to their own devices. Unfortunately, that meant they were left in trouble, in difficulty.

What people are looking for in this province from this government is a real plan to sustain and create good jobs and, for workers who are facing layoffs, to provide better protection and fairer benefits.

Ontarians wanted to see a real poverty reduction plan. Poverty has been deepening in this province. We know that there's a real price to poverty. There's a price to the individuals who are caught in it, there's a price to the families who are sucked into it, and there's a price to the society that has to deal with the social damage that comes from it. Ontarians have wanted to see and were excited before the last election about seeing a real poverty reduction plan, so that people who were facing difficult lives already would have the support, the backing of the provincial government as we went into an economic downturn.

Ontarians want to see continued investment in the public services that matter to them: hospitals, so that if they get sick or members of their family get sick, they know with some assurance that they'll be taken care of expeditiously, they'll be taken care of with the care that they need and deserve; education, so that our children have the training to take on the jobs that they're going to be working at tomorrow, so that they have the education to make full use of their talent and skills, because when I talk to people, so many people in this community, in this province, they know that a good education is the key to their children having a future that's going to matter; and municipal infrastructure.

When I talk to people who have had their suspension done in by huge potholes on roads, who look at the state of municipal infrastructure across this province, they are worried. They are worried about the scope of the need that is there and the lack of action on it.

So this fall economic statement was an opportunity for this government to come forward with a real plan, accomplish the goals that need to be accomplished to make sure this province functions well and put Ontario on a better path. But in fact, the statement took an entirely different course. It didn't deliver a plan to create or sustain jobs; it took a hands-off approach, a technocratic approach. Fundamentally, this government, if it understands what's going on, doesn't feel that it can do anything or does not want to do anything.

In the course of the economic statement, in the course of the speech made by the Minister of Finance, the word "poverty" was not mentioned once, and the economic statement made it clear that there are many public services that will be on the chopping block soon.

Rather than implementing a real plan, rather than looking strategically at the resources, opportunities and talents that Ontario has, looking at what we can build on to actually put people to work and hold our own in this economic storm, the government stuck with a do-nothing, hands-off approach; again, said to the people of this province, "You're on your own. It's all yours. Good luck." These are the times, when the storm hits, when workers and their families need their government the most to be there for them, to sustain jobs, and ensure the services that they need.

By failing to bring forward a real plan, by failing to step in when people expected the government to step in, this government has abandoned the people of this province. The McGuinty Liberals failed in the good times, and it's clear that they're on track to fail in the difficult times.

Our party, New Democrats, have been putting forward a real plan and substantial recommendations for years. Our plan would assist the manufacturing and resource sectors and would have prevented massive job losses that have devastated many communities across this province. Manufacturing and resource sector workers in this province have been witnessing a recession for years now; a worldwide financial crisis coupled with a provincial government on the wrong track will only make things worse. They know the economies in their communities have not been, as the finance minister has said, fundamentally strong. Since July 2004, almost 230,000 Ontarians in the manufacturing sector have lost their jobs.

Here are some examples: 430 jobs, 80% of its workforce, at DDM Plastics in Tillsonburg; in Niagara, in the last month, 800 jobs are lost in John Deere in Welland and a temporary layoff of another 480 at AbitibiBowater; since June 2004, 100,000 manufacturing jobs lost in Toronto, 25,000 in Hamilton and almost half of Thunder Bay's manufacturing jobs.

I was in Thunder Bay in September and had an opportunity to talk to a man who runs a company making hydraulics. That company has found a niche market in Canada, in North America, and frankly, in the Asia-Pacific basin. They're in a position to expand because what they make is highly specialized. The market isn't a big market, but it's a strong market.

And when they've approached this government in the past for assistance to expand, they've been told, "You don't fit into any program we have." So if, in fact, a pro-market government can't help businesses that have a product that is in demand, that satisfies a niche market, that in fact in some ways is protected from mass marketing or mass production in China because they make custom hydraulic products, then what are the chances that this government will actually assist other manufacturing to take on their challenges and actually fulfill their opportunities?

It's extraordinarily frustrating to see that productive economic enterprise, productive businesses with good markets, can't get assistance from this government.

Some 230,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing, and more than 9,000 direct jobs in forest products and about 35,000 indirect jobs tied to them have been lost. I shouldn't have to tell people opposite the value of these jobs. They're not just important because, on average, they pay $2.50 an hour more than the average hourly wage in this province; they're important because they also come with good pensions and good benefits. For many people, the loss of dental protection, prescription protection, protection for other things like eyeglasses and hearing aids, is of great consequence to their families.

So, in the protection of manufacturing jobs, we have to think not only about the whole question of wages, we have to think about the overall level of social support that people get.

Loss of those jobs is a huge problem for us and one that needs to be addressed vigorously by this government and one that this government seems to have decided is a side issue—collateral damage, an unfortunate series of events that no one could actually have done anything about. When you pretend, when you say, that these job losses are limited to manufacturing and forestry and think that there's another Ontario economy that somehow floats independently in the air aside from these jobs, you misunderstand this province.

Second-quarter economic accounts released by the Minister of Finance last month show that output from the manufacturing sector continues to decline. Exports declined 2.5%, particularly in the automotive, industrial goods, and materials sectors. The simple reality is that the American economy is in free fall and things are expected to get worse. When you combine the reports from the first two quarters of this year, it becomes clear that the rest of the economy is no longer picking up the slack. There aren't extra jobs floating around out there that people can simply move to. So we're declining or seeing declining output in a variety of sectors of the economy.

Retail, finance and construction are all facing trouble. Stats Canada released a report on retail trade last week that showed a decline in retail sales in Canada by 0.3%, and that could mean real job losses.

The US credit crunch is creating higher mortgage costs in Canada, and when combined with higher unemployment and lower incomes, declines in residential construction are on the horizon. The Emerging Trends in Real Estate 2009 report states: "Less volatile Canadian real estate markets cannot avoid shock waves emanating from the big elephant in the room next door." That's bad news for our construction sector, which employs 400,000 workers. Stock market declines and the collapse of international banking institutions are likely to lead to layoffs and the hiring of fewer people in the financial sector.

I want to speak for a moment about that crisis and the deregulated approach to finance that has caused trouble around the world, caused the crash in the United States, caused huge problems in Iceland. Iceland deregulated its banks a few years ago, and those banks are now in a situation where Britain has seized their assets because they aren't paying out to their customers—looking at IMF support.

You're looking at nations all over Europe that are having to pump in hundreds of billions or trillions because they tied in to a deregulated American financial structure that allowed people to play wildly with money, to create financial instruments that more and more were vapourware, rather than reflecting real value.

An agenda of deregulation that allows that kind of economic playground to be set up at the expense of the real economy and the real people in this country and on this planet has shown itself to fail before—less dramatically with the savings and loan crunch in the 1980s in the United States, and very dramatically in the 1920s and 1930s, a time that we are all praying we will not be repeating.

But a lot was learned in those crunches: that deregulation was a huge error, because for a while it allows illusory growth and illusory gains in financial markets, but in the end all it's doing is building a huge castle of cards. We need to have in this province an approach to regulation that protects people because in the end it protects the economy as well.

I raised a question a few months ago about deregulation in the natural gas industry in this province—looser rules by the Ontario Energy Board that essentially allowed a company in southwestern Ontario, owned by a company in Texas, to increase the money they took out of this economy through payments for gas storage. Now, I know it sounds kind of esoteric, but $100 million is going to flow out of Ontario's economy and go to a company in Texas that under previous, stricter energy board rules would have stayed here and stayed in the pockets of customers.

We in this province need to understand that regulation in the public interest is a good thing, and that arguments that are always made by sharp-dressed financiers, who say that these regulations are hemming them in and are cramping their style—the people making those arguments and advocating for those changes set things up for us that most commonly end in tears. We learned a lot in the 1930s; a whole system of regulation was brought in in the United States and the rest of the industrialized world. A lot of that was cleared out in the last decade and we're paying a price for it.

We here in Ontario are paying a price for deregulating energy and for increasing privatization of our energy system because that will lead to substantially higher prices and undermine the rebuilding of our industry.

This government has to seriously rethink and go back to basics. What does Ontario need to prosper? It needs regulation, it needs the energy price advantage that brought industry here in the first place and it needs activist government that will create markets for goods so that people can be put back to work.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 8(a), this House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am delighted to welcome Dr. James Wilkes and Diana Collins to the Legislature, as Dr. Wilkes is winning the Stand Up for Kids award this afternoon for his work on child protection. Welcome.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I'm delighted to have two constituents visiting today: Mrs. Judy Nafziger from Milverton, who's with the real estate agents visiting today, as well as Ed Verkley, a chicken farmer from the Atwood area, who is here with the Chicken Farmers of Ontario. Welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I'd like to welcome Chantal Adams and Brian Graham, who are here from the North Bay Real Estate Board, and we're excited to have them here with us today.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I'm delighted to welcome Natalia Adams from the wonderful riding of Parkdale—High Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and page Laura Sawka, I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome her mother, Mary, her dad, Barry and her brother, David. They'll be sitting in the west members' gallery. Welcome to Queen's Park.

I would also like to take this opportunity—we have with us today in the Speaker's gallery a delegation of visiting public officials from Pärnu county, Estonia, led by Mr. Toomas Kivimägi, the governor of Pärnu county, and accompanied today by the Honorary Consul General of Estonia, Mr. Laas Leivat, and guests.

Please join me in welcoming our guests to Queen's Park today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

VIOLENT CRIME

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is for the Attorney General. He knows, like I indicated to him yesterday, that we on this side of the House have reviewed the transcript of the bail hearing for Mr. Nathaniel O'Brien, who is the individual charged with the senseless murder of two women in their Scarborough home.

We've expressed concern about the crown's failure to appeal the judge's decision to release Mr. O'Brien into that quiet residential neighbourhood. That bail hearing occurred April 30, 2008. Minister, have you reviewed the transcripts and are you satisfied with the performance of the crown at the hearing?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I thank the member for the question. As the member knows, I can't comment on the specifics because there is an ongoing matter before the courts and to comment may actually endanger the very prosecution that is undergoing and may actually undermine public safety. I understand that is frustrating for people in the community. It is sometimes frustrating for those who would ask questions. Let's be clear about the principles: The crown acts and the police act to protect the public safety and act in the public interest on the basis of the facts and the law that applies in every single case. We will continue and always do so.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I hope that people who observe these proceedings were listening to the question. I asked the Attorney General if he's satisfied with the performance of the crown in a bail hearing. I didn't ask him for specifics of the case. I asked him if he had reviewed the transcript and was satisfied with the performance of the crown. The bail hearing occurred April 30, 2008, almost half a year ago. The murders occurred over two weeks ago.

The minister knows, as we all do in this place, that there's significant public outrage over the justice system that you are responsible for, a system that released a man linked by DNA evidence to two violent sexual assaults into an unsuspecting residential neighbourhood.

Minister, you're telling us, the victims' families and the public at large that you haven't even reviewed the performance of your own employees in their role in that release. Is that what you're telling the public today?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Clearly, what I've said is that I can't comment and won't comment on the specifics. The public rightly ask questions whenever there are tragedies. As well as expressing our sympathy, we ask what further can be done, what changes should be made, and how we make sure that tragedies don't happen in the future.

We've done a number of things with respect to bail. We've moved to make sure, over the past five years, that in serious crimes, the crown takes the position that public safety is paramount, and we start from the position of opposing bail. We've worked with the police to make sure the best information gets before justices of the peace and judges, and drawing on our front-line experience, the police and the crown, we've moved for changes in federal bail laws. We will continue to take positions to protect the public interest.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Regrettably, the Attorney General continues to use cop-out language. Specifics? I'm not asking for specifics. Minister, we know there's a publication ban on the bail hearing proceedings, and we strongly agree with the need to protect the identity of the victims. What we don't agree with is protecting the other players in this drama, specifically the judge, the crown and the defence lawyer. I can't speak to specifics—I'm not going to—but we are very concerned, even alarmed, at what went on at that hearing.

Minister, would you consent to asking the court to lift the publication ban, save and except for keeping the victims' names private? Will you do that?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I must always act in the protection of the public and in the protection of the administration of justice. There is an ongoing prosecution, and undermining and endangering rights in the prosecution is not something that I will do.

But let us be clear: We have done, and will continue to do, everything appropriate in the circumstances to protect the public interest. That's why we've been working with the police; that's why we place public safety as a paramount consideration; that's why, drawing on police and crown front-line experience, we've toughened laws for those charged with serious gun crimes, both bail and sentencing; and that's why we'll continue to make whatever improvements and changes are necessary to protect the public interest.

VIOLENT CRIME

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I guess a lot of words could be used to describe that response. "Depressing" would be one that comes quickly to mind.

My second question to the Attorney General is talking about bail. The Attorney General frequently gets on his feet and talks about, "We always oppose bail in certain crimes—violent crimes, gun crime."

I want to know what "oppose" means. What's the definition of "oppose"? Is this just a perfunctory—a kind of indifferent public relations exercise? What specific direction has he given crowns when it comes to opposing bail?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The crown policy manual speaks to this at some length. It says that we always begin from the public interest perspective and always begin from the perspective that public safety is paramount. We make sure that wherever we can, we oppose bail to make sure that the public safety is protected. We are bound by the facts of cases and we are bound by the law, but we take the position and the protection of the public seriously. It is reflected in the crown policy manual, and it's reflected in comments made by my predecessor and by myself on numerous occasions in many different fora.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: In a lot of ways, this is a useless exercise. We're certainly not getting any meaningful responses.

In Murray Campbell's column today in the Globe and Mail, he reminds us of Mr. Bryant's pledge—your predecessor, Mr. Bryant—to work "'with the laws that we have' to fight case by case for stiffer sentences." That clearly didn't happen in the O'Brien bail hearing or in the 2006 trial of Kyle Weese, the accused killer of Bailey Zaveda this past weekend.

Why, Minister, haven't you required the crown to request electronic monitoring, to prosecute bail breaches, to appeal bad bail decisions, to bring 810 applications? The tools are there, but under your so-called leadership, they're not being used. Why not?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Minister Bryant was absolutely right; that's what we've done for the past five years. We prosecute case by case. Our job is to make sure the public safety is protected, and it's protected when the guilty are convicted and sentenced for the harm that they have done.

Drawing on front-line police experience and crown experience, my predecessor Michael Bryant pushed for changes in the laws that govern cases: tougher laws for those charged, bail and sentencing with serious gun crimes. So we continue to prosecute cases to the fullest extent that the facts and the law allow, and they bind us all, and we will continue to use whatever tools are available where we can use them to protect the public interest.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Two women were brutally attacked, murdered by a stranger. Their alleged attacker was allowed back on to the streets by the justice system in this province. What message does that send to victims, who deserve nothing more than the full protection of the law that you're responsible for administering, Minister? What message does it send in terms of the sexual assault allegations to individuals who have been sexually assaulted in this province?

Your failure, your crown's failure, to appeal that bail decision tells women, "Don't bother coming forward, because the justice system won't be there to protect you and every other innocent woman in this province." You have a duty to change that message. A public inquiry would address that. You turned that down yesterday. Why did you and your colleagues reject a public inquiry into this very, very harmful situation?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I say to every community member who is justifiably determined, angry and outraged at tragedy that we will continue to do whatever it takes to protect the public safety.

For those things within our control, we have moved over the past five years, in terms of working with the police for more police, guns-and-gangs initiatives, tough positions on the bail hearings when they are within our control, tough positions with our federal counterparts—whatever the party—to change the laws. But we are absolutely determined to protect the public interest. That is why I don't comment on the specifics of cases, because we protect the public interest through prosecutions that convict the guilty—

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

VIOLENT CRIME

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Attorney General. I want to follow on the questions that the Leader of the Opposition has just presented.

I'm sure the Attorney General knows that people across Ontario are particularly upset when they see an innocent young woman who's a bystander shot and murdered on the streets by someone who has already been convicted of gun crimes.

My question is this: It was only a couple of years ago that the former Attorney General of the McGuinty government said, "Working with the laws that we have, we're arming our prosecutors with the legal ammunition that we think will make a real difference in getting stiffer sentences for gun crime. We want to send a message to the streets that gun violence won't be tolerated."

Can you tell us what happened with that message from the former Attorney General, given the occurrences of the last few days?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: To the families and all members of the community, our sympathies are there. We are justifiably all outraged at tragedies when they occur and we're determined to make sure we do whatever needs to be done to make sure they don't happen in the future. My predecessor was absolutely right. We take every case and send a very strong message that violence, gun violence, serious violence is not tolerable. We prosecute in the public interest.

We take tough positions where the facts and the law permit us, and we move to change the laws where our front-line experience tells us they're not tough enough. Nobody should have to suffer the tragedies that have been suffered. We'll do whatever it takes to deal with it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: Well, these are fine words from the McGuinty government Attorney General, but people have heard these fine words from the McGuinty government before. I want to again quote the former Attorney General: "What we're going to put before the courts is evidence on the extent of gun crime and the number of guns that are on the streets of Toronto. This will be used as a tool to help us have the court consider how serious this problem is.

We believe that it's going to help us get tougher sentences for gun crimes." He said the information would be used to assess all gun crime matters, including bail hearings, in an effort to stop what police say is a revolving door at the courthouse. It would seem from the events of the past week or so that these words were not acted upon. We heard them, but they don't seem to be acted upon. Can you explain how that could happen?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Innocent people are dead—people my daughter's age. We're all outraged and we all want to know what can be done. We have taken a tough position on the serious crime and the gun crime; we prosecute them to the full extent of the law. The police who investigate and the crowns who prosecute have families as well. We're all working in the public interest, and where our front-line experience tells us more needs to be done, we do it: more police, Anti-Guns and Gangs Task Force, TAVIS intervention, information coming before judges, tougher laws federally. We'll continue to act with the police and our justice partners to protect the community interest.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: Once again, more fine words from the McGuinty Attorney General. But again, I want to quote the former Attorney General, who said just a couple of years ago in this House, "I can assure the member opposite that we"—the government—"will continue to have in place principles and policies that are exactly consistent with ensuring that we have safety on our streets and that people who ought to be detained are detained." Attorneys General for the McGuinty government have said these words over and over again over the last five years, but nothing seems to have changed. How can that be?

How can you continue to say the words but people continue to see innocent people being gunned down on the streets by people who should have been detained? How can that be, Attorney General, given that you and previous McGuinty government Attorneys General—

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

Hon. Christopher Bentley: So the crown policy manual and the direction to crowns has been supported by, among other things, 72 more crowns to target gun crimes, six new anti-gun-smuggling crowns, eight new high-risk-offender crowns, 15 additional officers for the OPP provincial weapons enforcement unit, 12 new victim services staff to support victims and work with witnesses, 12 new probation and parole officers to work with the Anti-Guns and Gangs Task Force, a dedicated major crime court, a thousand police officers. Do we need more? Yes.

We need an end to the automatic two-for-one credit that lets too many people out too early when they get federal sentences. And we do need a national ban on handguns, not as the only answer but to reduce the risk. The common denominator in all gun crimes is a gun.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is to the finance minister. The finance minister will know that the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association of Canada is calling on the Ontario and the federal governments to provide $1 billion in short-term loans to help them through the global liquidity crisis. It's been clear for over a month now that the auto manufacturers are suffering as a result of the lack of loan liquidity, but your economic statement last week said nothing about this. Why has the McGuinty government failed to respond to what is a dire, dire situation that could result in the loss of tens of thousands of more jobs in Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We implemented a number of plans beginning in 2004, and you voted against every one of them. Do you know what? In my most recent budget, not only did we eliminate the capital tax for manufacturers, we refunded it retroactively and got the cash into their hands. Unlike the member opposite, this government has been in constant communication with the automotive parts people: with the CAW, led by Ken Lewenza, the president of the CAW; with the Detroit Three; with Toyota; with Honda. He voted against every opportunity and he's also spoken against assisting the automotive industry.

This government will press the federal government to take its proper role. We will continue to work against people like you who have fought against help for the auto sector and the auto parts sector, and we'll continue to protect the interests of Ontario families and Ontario businesses through this extremely—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: Much bluster and bombast and no answer. Seventy-two thousand auto parts sector jobs are at stake here—and they're very clear: Everything your government has said over the last week about the Next Generation investment fund doesn't suit their needs. Everything you've just said about the capital tax doesn't suit their needs. The fact of the matter is, if these manufacturers are going to stay in business, they need short-term loans in order to finance their operations so they can then sell their product and receive the revenue. They're very clear in what they need.

Everything the McGuinty government has talked about, everything you've continued to re-announce, doesn't suit their needs.

Are you going to provide them with short-term loans in exchange for job guarantees, yes or no?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Michael Bryant: Obviously, we are working very closely with the association—you're referring to the letter making the request to the federal government and the provincial government—talking, obviously, with the auto parts manufacturers. I was doing that yesterday and I'm doing that today, and I'm doing that tomorrow and the next day. I'm talking with the industry leaders as well.

We have in place in the province certain fiscal capacity which has been set aside through the advanced manufacturing loan program, through the Next Generation of Jobs Fund and through other programs. Each of those programs the member was opposed to. There is obviously also a much larger and real fiscal capacity of the federal government, and we need them to be playing a role as well. I know that the member would agree with that.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: I have to quote Mr. Jason Myers, president of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association: "Right now ... we've got a short-term priority and that's just the survival of companies. Frankly, if we do not see government helping to provide credit to companies ... we are going to see an awful lot of very, very good and very important companies go out of business."

None of these things that you've mentioned—the advanced manufacturing strategy, the Next Generation of Jobs strategy, your auto sector strategy—provide the short-term loans that these companies need right now to stay in business and sustain jobs; everything that you've mentioned doesn't fit the bill. I ask the question again: Is the McGuinty government going to go around blaming someone else or are you going to come up with the short-term—

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

Hon. Michael Bryant: The member is just wrong. Those tools, in fact, are in place. I met with the very person you speak of. I'm meeting with leaders in the industry and the specific presidents and CEOs of these parts companies themselves. There has been recognition by management and labour that these funds that the McGuinty government established, and that you opposed, are in fact necessary for the industry to continue. Yes, there is a role for the federal government to play and we are calling for them to play it.

But let's be clear. The establishment of a grant and loan system to assist the auto industry was one that was brought forward and pioneered by Dalton McGuinty and opposed by Howard Hampton.

VIOLENT CRIME

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Again to the Attorney General: It's about yesterday's debate into our call for a public inquiry, a call that was precipitated by the senseless murders of two innocent women. Minister, during the debate, the Liberal member for Oakville said the last thing we need "is to have a gabfest and sit around and have a public inquiry."

Is that what this government considers public inquiries are all about? Is that why the victims of Dr. Charles Smith's errors wanted a public inquiry, which you called? Is that what Dudley George's family got out of the inquiry that you called? A gabfest? Your member called a public inquiry a gabfest, dealing with the murders of two innocent women.

Interjections.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: They're yelling at us; they're ridiculing us for that? Give me a break. Have some shame. My God.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: What we all want, with all the passion we can muster, is to do what we need to do to make sure that tragedies don't happen again. Chief Blair was asked, "Is an inquiry necessary?" Chief Blair said, "No."

Is an inquiry necessary? No. We get on with protecting public safety and security. My colleague from Oakville has been a determined and passionate advocate for public safety in his community. All members of this House are advocates for public safety. We are getting on with the protection of public safety.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: The man accused of the double murders of two innocent women in the sanctity of their home was released on bail when he stood accused of two violent sexual assaults. According to the charges laid, these women were beaten and brutally raped. It's public knowledge there's DNA evidence linking him to the crime. The nature and brutality of these attacks raise the possibility that Mr. O'Brien is a serial rapist, making him a serious risk to public safety, but a judge released him, and your crown failed to appeal.

These are the types of decisions that a public inquiry can look into. Why won't you stand up for victims in this province? Why won't you fulfill your duties to make sure the system keeps them safe in their homes and on the streets?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: We stand up for those affected by tragedy every day, and that's why we are getting on with the protection of public safety. That's why we're already working with Chief Blair and the other chiefs to determine what else we need to do. Yes, we've got more police officers and different strategies such as guns and gangs. Yes, we've got some changes in federal law.

What's next? Is it the end of two-for-one credits where they automatically seem to be imposed? We believe a legislative change is necessary; we'll push for that. Is it further changes in the bail law to make sure that the dangerous, the serious, the violent and the out-of-control are in custody and not out? We believe it is.

It's not commenting, much as I might like to, on cases that are before the courts, because that would undermine the very public safety that we are all here to protect.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister knows very well that not all grandchildren are eligible for TCA under her new rules. Yesterday, Hamilton rally demonstrators, in an impromptu meeting with the mayor and city director of community services, all agreed there was a change to the ministry's directives. Call it

interpretation, call it definition; there was a change, and the minister finally admitted in scrums yesterday there was a change in July.

When will this minister accept responsibility for these mean-spirited changes and turn her energy to the plight of these families, ensuring that duration of assistance and settled intent do not disqualify grandchildren being raised by their grandparents under temporary care assistance?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Again, I'm going to remind the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek that this is temporary care assistance, and all the grandmothers or adults who are taking care of these children and who are entitled will receive temporary care assistance.

We have increased that budget on a daily basis. These grandparents under TCA—we have over 5,000 children every year, every day, who are entitled and who benefit from this program. Within this program, they are also entitled to a dental program, to health care and to medication. We will continue to support grandmothers, but for those where it's not temporary care, there is another program that is offered—

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

Mr. Paul Miller: I guess what the minister is saying is that she has made them ineligible with her changes.

Yesterday, the minister again made an erroneous accusation. She said, referring to my party and me, that "they want the program to be income-tested." The minister needs to stop hiding behind her false accusations. She knows very well that she's the only one to suggest income testing.

Will this minister admit that her false accusations are an attempt to divert attention from her appalling attack against grandchildren being raised by their grandparents in this province?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Indeed, that's what I said, and that's what I'm going to say again today.

This member comes to see me and is complaining that some grandparents don't have substantial income to look after grandchildren. We have this program for these grandparents, but he continues to argue that it should be income-tested. He doesn't use the word, but all the examples that he's giving me—and I'm saying to him that 75% of the grandparents will not be entitled to this program if the program is income-tested. This minister and this government are not ready to move in that direction.

HOME CARE

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Many seniors in my riding are proud homeowners and proud of the investments they have made in building a life for their families. Support for light domestic chores requiring a degree of physical stamina can sometimes make the difference for these seniors, between being able to stay in their homes and having to move into a facility. The winter season, which is fast approaching as we can see today, can present particular difficulties for the senior residents of York South—Weston.

What support is the ministry providing to seniors to help them maintain their dignity and independence and remain in their homes?

Hon. David Caplan: I want to thank the member for the question and thank her for her advocacy for seniors in York South—Weston, because our government is committed to improving the lives of Ontario seniors and their caregivers.

Our approach is about providing our most vulnerable the support they need in order to lead safe and comfortable lives. That's why we're investing $1.1 billion over the next four years in an aging-at-home strategy that will provide seniors and caregivers with an integrated continuum of community-based services to allow them to stay healthy and live more independently in their homes.

As part of the aging-at-home strategy, we've made significant investments in community support services, the most significant, I would say, in 10 years: key services such as transportation, homemaking, meal services, supportive housing, security, home maintenance repair, foot care and many, many others that will be of great assistance and that will provide services to your constituents in York South—Weston that they can benefit from and count on. These key services represent $57.2 million invested—

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

Mrs. Laura Albanese: One of the main problems is that many seniors are not aware of the important services and supports that are available to them. Easy access to information about available health services is critical to maintaining good health, and it is important that we continue to identify ways to make it easier for seniors and their families to access this information, no matter what organization provides the support or service.

Can the minister please tell this House what the government is doing to make sure that seniors have access to this kind of information?

Hon. David Caplan: The member asks the key question. She very astutely points out that access is key. I'm proud to tell the Legislature that aging-at-home initiatives are being implemented in communities right across Ontario that will help seniors live healthy, independent lives in the comfort and dignity of their own homes and in their own communities.

There are two ways that seniors can learn about local aging-at-home initiatives in their communities. The first is by talking with some of the agencies that they deal with every day; those would be their local health care service providers and their local community care access centres. Many of the aging-at-home initiatives enhance the capacity of existing community services that help meet the needs of seniors in their own communities. Some of these agencies may also be offering new programs.

If they're a client at the local community care access centre, seniors may be referred to specific aging-at-home initiatives in their communities that will enhance the quality of life in their own homes, consistent with their care needs.

Last June, local health integration networks and MPPs—

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

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is also to the Minister of Health. Minister, four weeks ago, I called my dermatologist and I was told by his receptionist that because I hadn't seen the doctor within the last 12 months, I would be required to either get a referral letter from my family doctor or pay $125 to make an appointment to see the specialist. I informed the receptionist that I didn't have a family doctor, so I couldn't get a referral letter, and secondly, that I was pretty sure that the $125 fee he was asking was illegal.

I can probably afford the $125, but I am concerned about the almost one million Ontarians who don't have a family doctor, who can't legitimately get a referral letter and who are being asked to produce their credit card number in order to make an appointment with a specialist in this province.

Minister, do you think this is right? Do you think this is fair? Is this what your government calls open access to OHIP services?

Hon. David Caplan: The facts are these: Under my friend, as a previous health minister in this province, we saw a significant reduction in health services in Ontario. In fact, through the work of Premier McGuinty and through our colleagues here in the Legislature, we've been able to enhance health care services.

I find it remarkable that this member and his party, who advocated a $3-billion cut to health care, would even deem to ask this question. As far as doctors, there are over 1,200 more doctors practising in Ontario today than in 2003. In fact, with the advent of family health teams, 150 of which have been implemented in the province, we are seeing over 600,000 additional Ontarians have access to front-line medical care, to have access to a primary care physician.

There's more: We're enhancing and expanding the number of—

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: That is a horrible, horrible answer. I'm asking this question on behalf of the million Ontarians who don't have a family doctor and who are being asked to produce their credit cards and produce $125. What about the lady on the fixed income in Beeton in my riding, who can't afford the $125? No one under the Mike Harris or Eves government was ever asked to produce their credit card to see a doctor in this province. That is absolutely shameful. You did not answer my question. I want you to report back to this House how often this is happening.

I talked to the CPSO this morning and they said that they're getting complaints all the time and that your government's doing nothing about it. I gave your ministry a chance four weeks ago to give me an explanation; they never gave me an explanation. You should be ashamed that you're blocking OHIP services to people on fixed incomes, to a million Ontarians without a doctor. Shame on you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order on both sides. Order. Minister?

Hon. David Caplan: I'm happy, of course, to look into specific examples, but I would remind the member that he brought a similar kind of passion when he closed 28 hospitals right across the province of Ontario, when they fired thousands of nurses, that saw the roots of many of the challenges that we have today, that saw, in fact, this member vote against two-tier medicine and ending those practices when we introduced the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act.

Here is the reality of the situation that we face today: We have introduced family health teams, which have expanded the number of practitioners and expanded the number of Ontarians who have access to front-line medical services. We are introducing nurse-practitioner-led clinics, another innovation which is going to provide Ontarians with that kind of access. In our new agreement with the Ontario Medical Association, collaboratively working with Ontario's physicians, we are finding ways—

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

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The provincial-municipal fiscal review is two years old now, and after several broken commitments, the minister has suggested the report will be coming out by Friday. My question is this: Will the minister today assure this House that the report in fact is being released this Friday?

Hon. Jim Watson: I made a commitment several weeks ago that the report would be out by the end of the month, and I'm pleased to report that we will be releasing the report on Friday. This is good news for the municipal sector, when people see the report.

We're proud of the fact that my colleague the Minister of Finance and I have worked closely and in partnership with the municipal sector. We're building on the relationship that the McGuinty government established in 2003 when we started the process of uploading public health costs, land ambulance, ODP, ODSP. We're proud of the fact that to date we've gone from approximately $1.1 billion in uploads and taken that pressure off the municipal sector to $2.2 billion this year alone. We've doubled the amount of support in the municipal sector. We're proud to work in partnership with the city of Toronto and AMO, and I know they look forward to the—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: As the minister knows very well, the economic downturn is forcing municipalities to pay more for provincially mandated social programs like Ontario Works, diverting their limited resources away from crumbling infrastructure and other priorities. The fall economic statement failed municipalities by signalling very clearly less financial support for the municipal sector next fiscal year, the very time that they're likely going to be needing more resources with skyrocketing social program costs.

The question is this: Will the provincial-municipal fiscal review recommend an immediate down payment on provincially mandated services and commit the province to assuming full responsibility for Ontario Works by, at the very least, the fall of 2011?

Hon. Jim Watson: As you know, we have an agreement with AMO and the city of Toronto that the contents of the report are to remain confidential until we release the report. But I can tell you, on the subject of infrastructure, in the member's own riding, $48 million from the Investing in Ontario Act is going to Hamilton.

In fact, the NDP voted against providing more money to the municipal sector. When we announced the upload of ODP and ODSP, what did the NDP do? They voted against supporting the municipal sector. Time and time again, when we've gone to bat for the municipalities, whether it's Hamilton or Toronto or North Bay or Thunder Bay, the NDP have said no to the municipal sector.

We've turned the page on downloading and disrespect for the municipal sector. We look forward to working with them in partnership in the years ahead.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, in light of the transportation question regarding roadkills that was asked last week, what is the percentage of increase of roadkills in the Thunder Bay area? I'm sure the members would like to know how many roadkills are taking place in the Thunder Bay area, as the Minister of Transportation had that question come to him last week. We would certainly like to know that on behalf of the hunting and fishing community in northern Ontario.

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I thank the member for the question. I'm presuming the member is asking a question about collisions with wild animals on roads. Is that the correct question? As you know, in the Thunder Bay area there aren't as many. The collisions that we're most concerned about are those occurring in eastern Ontario, where out of every two collisions, one is with a wild animal. What we did was that we put in place, with the Minister of Transportation and the OPP as well, a program to raise awareness around speeding and the issue of the deer. As you know as a hunter, this is rutting season, so the challenge is that the deer are virtually everywhere.

That said, this is something we need to continue to work on very diligently because it is an education issue, along with the drivers and the animals themselves. We have two programs in place: one with the—

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

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: The intention of the question, Minister, is that there is a large concern with the tag allocation in the province of Ontario. If there's an increase in the number of incidents whereby animals are being hit by vehicles—and certainly the public is concerned, as are the OPP, insurance companies etc.—the public at large would like to see an increase in the tag allocations in those areas that are seeing a significant increase in the roadkills of animals. I'm wondering if you can enlighten us as to what the tag allocation increase or decrease is in those areas.

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: Depending on which particular unit, they have actually increased some of the tags for deer. As you know, the moose tag review is under way, but again, those moose tag allocations are based on the counts done the previous year. That said, your point is well taken. If in fact there's significant roadkill that might impact those numbers, I'm more than prepared to undertake a review that would look at whether there is a correlation between roadkill and the number of allocations.

The issue around the deer and moose tags, as you know, is a contentious one and has been for some time. I have met people who say they have been looking for an allocation for 30 years and have yet to receive one. That's why we are undertaking the allocation. But I will do both: I will look at whether or not there is a correlation between the two.

ACCES AUX SOINS DE SANTE

À

titre de ministre déléguée aux Affaires francophones, comment est-ce que la ministre entend défendre et appuyer la communauté francophone?

L'hon. Madeleine Meilleur: C'est une excellente question. Oui, il y a beaucoup de préoccupations dans la communauté francophone concernant les règlements qui découlent des réseaux de santé. C'est pour cela que nous avons des consultations présentement. J'ai rencontré les groupes qui m'ont parlé de leurs préoccupations. Alors, les consultations se terminent le 12 novembre prochain et nous avons l'intention, le ministre de la Santé et moi, de revoir les commentaires des gens et faire suite à leurs commentaires.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

L'hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Je voudrais réitérer mon engagement envers la communauté francophone. Ça fait

partie de mes fonctions d'être leur porte-parole et de défendre leurs droits. Alors, on a déjà eu des discussions. Il y a un comité aviseur sur la santé, un comité aviseur au ministère. J'ai mon propre comité aviseur et on nous envoie des commentaires. J'apprécie beaucoup et j'accueille avec beaucoup d'intérêt les commentaires de la communauté francophone, et nous allons les prendre en considération sérieusement lors de la fin des consultations.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Bill Murdoch: My question is to the Minister of Health. As the Minister of Health will know, the previous Minister of Health was very dedicated to a project in our area, the Markdale hospital. What I would like this minister to tell the House and the people in Markdale today is: Is he as dedicated to building this hospital as the previous minister?

Hon. David Caplan: First of all, I want to thank the member for the question. I also do want to indicate that the member, as well as the member from Simcoe—Grey, did come forward with the administration and supporters of Markdale hospital and did have a conversation with both my colleague Minister Smitherman and myself.

The ministry is well aware of the needs identified by the Grey Bruce Health Services for the construction of a proposed new hospital facility in Markdale. That's why, on July 20, my predecessor, Minister Smitherman, confirmed the ministry's support to proceed with the planning and design of the redevelopment of the Markdale site. I believe he provided some $3 million in planning and design funds and provided those grants toward the costs associated with developing the proposed project.

On October 16 of last year, Grey Bruce Health submitted its functional plan and related materials to the Ministry of Health, which was followed by supplementary information that was received toward the end of November, and the submission is currently under review. I have more to add in the supplementary regarding the specifics of the project.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Murdoch: Yes, I hope we get some more in your supplementary, because I still need you to tell us that you are dedicated to doing this, the same as the previous minister—as you mentioned, on July 20, and that was two years ago. So we are sort of waiting at Markdale. It is a year ago now that the previous money you mentioned was given to them, so we're waiting for the next step.

We just want to know how long this is going to take, because as you know, the study did say that this hospital should be built. We're waiting in Markdale for some more answers, and maybe you can supply those in your supplementary.

Hon. David Caplan: I do want to thank the member and I do want to recognize his advocacy on behalf of the community that he serves.

I know that he understands there are many requests and many needs right across the province of Ontario. That's why in our first five-year capital plan, called ReNew Ontario, we were able to devote over $5 billion in resources to support over 100 capital projects. There are another about 57 or 58 which have been identified, of which Markdale is one, that we are in a conversation on with my colleague the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure as he puts together the 10-year, $60-billion capital plan. I want to assure the member that Markdale is a part of that mix, of those requests that are outstanding, and will be part of that consideration as that plan is put together.

It has been nothing short of an infrastructure renaissance which has seen these projects begin. My colleague beside me reminds me that the—

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

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: My question is for the Minister of Culture. Arts and culture not only enrich our lives, they also contribute to our economic prosperity. In my community of Hamilton, we have a thriving arts community. According to census data, almost 5% of all Ontario artists live in the Hamilton area. Government support for arts and culture is important to our community's quality of life and to stimulate local economic activity.

Can the Minister of Culture tell this House what the government is doing to invest in Hamilton artists and arts organizations?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: I am very pleased that this summer I had the opportunity to visit Hamilton, and, actually, many times since, and experienced a very vibrant community that local artists have helped to create. Without question, arts and culture are the pillars upon which Hamiltonians are building their community.

The Ontario Arts Council, an agency of my ministry, just recently provided more than $740,000 to 18 Hamilton arts organizations and seven individual artists. I'm very pleased that since 2003, our government has invested more than $4 million in Hamilton's arts community so that it continues to grow and thrive.

By investing in local artists and arts organizations, the McGuinty government is helping Hamilton attract more tourists and generate more economic activity and continue to flourish and grow to be the creative centre it is.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: I'm pleased to hear that artists and arts organizations in my community of Hamilton will benefit from the government's investment through the Ontario Arts Council. Hamilton arts organizations such as Theatre Aquarius, which I was proud to serve as a board member, will certainly be pleased with the government's support.

Many people in Ontario and in my riding know the importance of the arts, both in their lives and to our economy. In Ontario, the cultural sector contributes billions of dollars to the provincial economy and employs thousands of Ontarians. Could the Minister of Culture tell this House what investments the government is making to support artists and arts organizations across Ontario?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: Thank you again to my colleague. Last year the government, through the Ontario Arts Council, provided $40 million to support 1,300 individuals and 874 organizations. These grants benefited artists in more than 250 communities right across this fair province.

Earlier this year, the McGuinty government announced a $20-million increase to the Ontario Arts Council budget, which brings it up to $60 million when that is fully implemented. Just to give you some context, that represents an increase of 140% to the arts council compared to the previous Tory government and that's more than double what the Tories invested. These government investments are helping to bring $20 billion to our economy, and that continues to create more than 250,000 jobs.

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Minister of Health: In the McGuinty government's new LHIN scheme, emergency services and surgery will be eliminated from Douglas Memorial Hospital in Fort Erie and Port Colborne General hospital. Other hospital services like maternity will be taken out of Niagara Falls general. Just a year ago, neither your predecessor, the Premier nor your local Liberal candidates breathed a single word about these dramatic hospital service reductions. In fact, your candidates promised just the opposite.

Minister, the health care buck stops with you. You make the call. Will you stay true to your campaign promises, set aside this tainted process and preserve these vital hospital services in these communities?

Hon. David Caplan: I think it's important to understand, that hospital improvement plan has come forward by Niagara health services itself. It's gone through quite an extensive community consultation and conversation and, in fact, we've had the president and CEO of the Ottawa Hospital, Dr. Jack Kitts, bring his team to be able to provide advice and provide that engagement with—

Hon. Jim Watson: Excellent leader.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Excellent leader.

Hon. David Caplan: I hear my colleagues from Ottawa talk about Dr. Kitts being an excellent health care and system leader.

In fact, Dr. Kitts engaged the local community and has made some recommendations to the LHIN. The LHIN has received his report on the feasibility and the impact of the Niagara Health System improvement plan at its board meeting, in fact, yesterday. The board is not expected to make any immediate decisions on the hospital improvement plan or on Dr. Kitts's study. The board will take the time to consider the information and will announce its decision and implementation plan to the community by the end of the year. I'm pleased about the—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, you know the fix was in. Your government gave the NHS marching orders to cut $15 million from the budget and gave them six weeks to do it. You then gave extraordinary powers to unelected, unaccountable and largely anonymous government appointees on the LHIN. Minister—that's what it says on your desk—you're accountable for how every health care dollar is spent. Five thousand people came out in Fort Erie; 2,500 people came out in Port Colborne to protest the elimination of emergency services.

There can be no more clear signal of the vital nature of these hospitals to health care and economic development in Fort Erie and Port Colborne. Minister, will you come out from behind the skirts of your LHIN and stand up for health care in these two communities?

Hon. David Caplan: Well, in fact, since 2003-04, base funding in the Niagara Health System has increased 43%. And that's a marked contrast to this member, when he sat on this side of the House, when he and his colleagues cut funding, cut and threw a number of personnel out on the street and, in fact, to this day continue to advocate for a $3-billion cut to health care services. I shudder to think what the impact of that kind of an action would be on Niagara Health System and on the services that the good people of Niagara rely upon.

In fact, we've seen 368 new long-term-care beds in the Niagara area. We've seen 96 more permanent beds that will be coming online by 2010 in our aging-at-home strategy, investing another $60 million. We brought in the expertise of Dr. Kitts, and I would quote him. He says, "In terms of improving quality"—

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

HOSPITAL GOVERNANCE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Today a report from the Ontario Health Coalition revealed that ministry-appointed hospital supervisors are attempting to wipe out elected, community-based boards in Midland-Penetanguishene, Alliston and Scarborough. This move will end a 100-year history of community involvement in local hospital boards and wipe out voting rights for thousands of citizens. My question is simple: Has this ministry approved a policy that ends community-elected hospital boards?

Hon. David Caplan: That's a very interesting question coming from this particular member. This member in fact was appointed by a former Minister of Health to a district health council in 1999. I know that because the health minister at the time was my mother. This member also was appointed by Ruth Grier in 1994, also to a district health council. It's a very interesting message.

Let me outline the facts. Dr. Kevin Smith, the supervisor, has been working with the hospital board, the corporation and the community toward establishing a permanent governance structure. I support the supervisor's proposed governance structure for the Huronia District Hospital, which includes the use of a community advisory nominated committee to help select original board members, and his decision to provide spaces on the board for citizen advisory members—

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

M me France Gélinas: It's interesting to know that the minister actually has read my resumé. He might have missed the part, though, that said that I also wrote chapters of books on community governance in hospitals. They're a good read.

The minister promised to keep our local hospitals democratic. They promised hospitals would be accountable to the communities they serve. Yet, while the government speaks of its support for community governance of hospitals, the ministry is appointing supervisors who are taking over these hospitals and making recommendations to shut down elected hospital boards. Is this government in support of community governance for hospitals?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, there are several elements of accountability to the local community, including hospital reports. If the member is as expert as she claims, she would know that Ontario is the only province in Canada which publishes hospital reports, an independent report card on hospitals' performances and acknowledged by experts as the North American gold standard; that we also have accreditation and professional regulations; that we have hospital service accountability agreements; that we have public reporting; that we have value-for-money audits which are performed; and that we have the Public Hospitals Act.

Dr. Smith amended the governance proposal. I believe it is fair. It's a fair compromise for community concerns of transparency and for citizen input that ensures the balance against the proven best practices and skills of board membership.

MEMBER'S BIRTHDAY

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just want to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Nepean—Carleton on her birthday today. Happy birthday, Lisa.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Just a reminder to the members that there's a flag raising, the Turkish flag raising. We want to welcome Nedim Duzenli, the president of the Federation of Canadian Turkish Associations, and Mehmet Bor, the vice-president. That flag raising is taking place at noon today.

This House stands recessed until 3 p.m.

The House recessed from 1134 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Bob Delaney: It's my personal pleasure this afternoon to introduce to the House Tariq Asmi, executive director of the Growing Communities Healthcare Alliance, who is seated in the east members' gallery. I urge members to give him a warm welcome.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It's my pleasure to introduce Betty Doré, Bruce Sworik, Mike Carson and Katherine Low from the London and St. Thomas Association of Realtors.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I'm pleased to introduce lawyer Jim Stengel from Welland, who's being hosted here by Denise Turner, who of course is the mother of page Kevin Turner, who has impressed us all in the time that he has been here.

Mr. Mike Colle: It gives me great honour to introduce Chief William Montour of Six Nations. Welcome. It's a great honour to have you here, Chief.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHICKEN FARMERS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I'm pleased to rise today in the House to welcome the Chicken Farmers of Ontario to Queen's Park. With us today we have Bill Woods, chair of the Chicken Farmers; Rob Dougans, the CEO; Murray Booy; Lee Woods; and Ed Verkley.

The Chicken Farmers of Ontario is a non-profit organization that has been operating since 1965. Since then, it has been successful in leading the industry within the province.

The chicken industry has over half a billion dollars in sales and creates over 5,000 full-time jobs both on the farm and in the industry. Nearly 40% of all the chicken farms in Canada are located in Ontario.

The guidance and support that Chicken Farmers of Ontario provides is helping hard-working chicken farmers, protecting the environment, and ensuring that all Ontarians benefit from a safe, nutritious and affordable product.

We know how hard all our farmers work in Ontario and the challenges they are facing with high input costs and new government legislation. During this time of economic uncertainty, it is important that we help farmers succeed and that the government doesn't burden them with unnecessary regulations, taxation and red tape. The government needs a long-term vision that considers the real and practical needs of the farmers who work as hard as they do to feed all of us.

I want to commend the Chicken Farmers of Ontario for their hard work. They make a great contribution to our farmers, the agriculture industry and the economy.

Earlier today, John Tory and I met with these representatives to hear the concerns of chicken farmers, and I hope all the members of the Legislature will take the opportunity today to meet with them and hear their concerns and show their support for the Chicken Farmers of Ontario. Thank you very much for allowing me this time to recognize them here at Queen's Park.

TERMINATION AND

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: This past weekend, I was in Ajax, supporting a demonstration of steelworkers at Sklar Furniture. Most of the people in this Legislature will know the name Sklar Peppler. It was a profitable company for decades. It supplied secure, well-paid employment to working people. A new owner purchased the company a few years ago and decided to take advantage of bankruptcy laws and trade policies to satisfy what one can only call outright greed.

The company continues to sell its product, continues to supply other Canadian retailers with its product and continues to make a profit, yet the company has had CCAA protection that resulted in employees who had worked for the company for over 25 years losing their right to severance and termination pay. For some, the amount exceeded $30,000. This company has ignored arbitration orders, court orders, and even forced the union to attempt to seize assets to satisfy judgments. The government should not condone this company's practices through silence.

I ask myself: How can this company operate? How can it make a profit in Ontario and Canada and behave in this manner and treat its workers in this fashion?

I ask the Premier and this government to investigate the situation at Sklar Peppler and take action to protect these working people.

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Mr. Phil McNeely: Toronto Star columnist Carol Goar pointed out some very important facts on the employment insurance system in her column today titled "Advice for Ontario: Play Hardball." Let's take a look at the facts surrounding EI in Ontario. Workers who do qualify for employment insurance in Ontario receive considerably less in EI than other Canadians: $4,630 less per year per person. That's a shortfall in EI benefits of $2.1 billion every year for Ontarians.

What's more, although Ontario had 42% of Canada's unemployed population in 2007, Ontarians received only 27% of EI funding for labour market support and training. Furthermore, Ontario's unemployment rate is 6.4%, higher than the national average of 6.2%. Ontario has been a stalwart partner in this federation and continues to be. It's high time that the federal government give Ontarians the same deal they'd get had they lived elsewhere in Canada.

It's time for the federal government to supplement EI support for unemployed workers in the manufacturing sector by providing targeted resources for training and other supports. This proposal is the right thing to do for Ontario workers and their families and it's also the smart thing to do. It's time for the federal government to act on the fairness for Ontario campaign and give Ontarians their fair share. I call on Prime Minister Harper to immediately right this wrong against Ontarians caught in this economic downturn.

CHARLES DUBIN

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I rise today to pay tribute to Justice Charles Dubin, who passed away on October 27.

Born in Hamilton in 1921, Justice Dubin died at the age of 87 as a result of pneumonia. Justice Dubin was held in high regard by many as one of the top lawyers and judges in Canada. He was called to the bar in 1944 and appointed Queen's Counsel at the age of 29. This made him the youngest person in the British Commonwealth to receive this honour. He had a brilliant legal mind, able to work in both civil and criminal cases. He was strongly opposed to capital punishment and successfully defended 14 men on capital murder charges.

In 1991, Justice Dubin was appointed Chief Justice of Ontario and held that role until 1996. Justice Dubin headed a number of royal commissions, most notably the Dubin inquiry, which examined the highly publicized issue of drug use in amateur sport after the 1988 Olympics, when the Olympic gold medal was taken away from Ben Johnson after positive test results for a banned drug.

Justice Dubin left a tremendous legal legacy and will be remembered as one of Canada's top lawyers, alongside Arthur Maloney and John Robinette. His notable legacy will be followed by many young lawyers for generations to come.

GREEK COMMUNITY

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: Sixty-eight years ago, the Greeks said "Oxi," or "No," to the demand that Greece submit to foreign occupation. Instead, the Greeks were guided by a strong sense of hope and optimism for their future and they chose the path of resistance. Four years later, the Greeks regained control of their coun