I have several questions for you today regarding liberal priorities. As critic for health and long-term care, I get letters from Ontarians across the province who are not getting the health care they need. Janice from Chatham writes me that she was scheduled for a knee replacement in 2012. Due to funding cuts, her surgery was delayed until 2013. And now, because orthopedics have run out altogether, she now won't have her surgery until 2014. Forgive me, Premier, but I have trouble understanding your government's priorities. When it comes to liberal seats, you have billions of dollars to spend. When it comes to Ontarians, you're out of money. The NDP may have to solicit advice on how to hold you responsible, but we think that this is just plain wrong. Premier, on the basis of this, with priorities like this, do you think that you've earned the right to govern? Premier? Very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, let me talk just a little bit about what our budget would do in the area of health care, Mr. Speaker, if it were to pass. It would increase investment in home and community care by an additional 1% annually, Mr. Speaker. $260 million this year and an increase of more than $700 million by 20 million, Mr. Speaker. It is our priority that people get the care that they need in their home and in the community, Mr. Speaker. We're going to focus on new investments, providing care in community to reduce those home care wait times, Mr. Speaker, because not only do we want patients, people to get care in their homes, we want them to get it in a timely way, Mr. Speaker. We're going to invest in community health links, Mr. Speaker, that will promote collaboration in patient care so that patients have one unified... Care plan, Mr. Speaker. Those are priorities that I think will make the health care system in Ontario stronger, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. I think it's a priority that the member opposite should support. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Premier talks about spending more money in health care, but what I'm hearing from people across the province is that... Pretty general, come to order. ...and cuts in health care. It's getting worse. It's not getting better. Here's an excerpt from another letter I've received. My husband is battling a deadly brain tumor, and we as a family have struggled for almost two and a half years. A medication approved by Health Canada in March of 2010 for treatment is not provincially funded under the Ontario Drug Benefit Program, but is available in the provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Dana from Bell River, Ontario has difficulty understanding why she has to cash in her life savings in order to provide her husband with the medication he needs. Premier, I also have trouble understanding when your government clearly has billions on hand to save liberal seats while you can't spend money to save a woman's husband's life. So Premier, I'll ask you again. Do you think that your government prioritizes saving a few seats over saving the lives of Ontarians has earned the right to govern? Thank you, Premier. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, let me just say that it is obviously our highest priority that we provide the best care possible for all the individuals that the member opposite has named and for all Ontarians. That is the focus of the health care system, Mr. Speaker. And the reality is that we are in the process of transforming that system. And it's very interesting to me that a member of a party that has said government has to change, implement the recommendations of the report that Don Drummond wrote, Mr. Speaker, change government so that it works better, that the moment we try to do that, Mr. Speaker, when we actually transform the area of the largest expenditure in government, which is health care, Mr. Speaker, and that means change in the delivery of services. That already stands up and says, Mr. Speaker, well, we don't want that kind of change. We don't want change that's going to make the health care system more effective and more efficient, Mr. Speaker. It really is a contradiction in terms. I hope that the member opposite will reconsider and support our change. Thank you. Final supplementary. Mr. Speaker, the only real change we're seeing is continued cutbacks in health care and no accountability for the money that's being spent. Like many Ontarians, I have difficulty understanding how your government can continue to underfund orthopedic surgery, drag your heels in approving life-saving drugs, cut physiotherapy services for seniors by $44 million, but it's got $1 billion on hand to cancel gas plants. Premier, we're not the NDP. We think these priorities are wrong whether you set up a financial accountability office or not. Do you think it's right when your government prioritizes the Liberal Party over the life-saving needs of the people of Ontario? Premier, do you see the freeze? Do you see the freeze? Thank you. Premier. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, what I think is not right is to mischaracterize changes that are being made in order to deliver service in a better way, in a more timely way. And I'll just use one example, Mr. Speaker, the physiotherapy issue. We are changing the way physiotherapy will be delivered in the province. And that will mean, Mr. Speaker, that more seniors will get access to those services, Mr. Speaker, because the model does mean that there's a change, and there is always some disruption when there's a change, Mr. Speaker. But we will continue to invest in services that will improve healthcare for people. And no matter how many times the member opposite talks about cuts, the only party in this House, Mr. Speaker, that would slash public services that were cut across the top, Mr. Speaker, and change services irrevocably in this province is the Conservative Party. Mr. Speaker, do you have a question? Remember from the other side? Thank you. And good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Premier, between the member from Nepean Carlton and me, we asked you 32 times when you knew the tab for Oakville was more than $40 million and the bill for Mississauga was more than $190 million. Sadly, we don't have that answer. I use those numbers because you and others have repeated them in the legislature over and over. But neither you nor the former Premier would answer that one burning question when. Premier, is the reason you won't tell us when you knew the costs were higher than you reported, because that would prove you and your entire cabinet would be held in contempt in this House. There it is. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I guess this is the 33rd time that I'm answering this question, Mr. Speaker, and I have said repeatedly, Mr. Speaker, that every time I used a number, it was a number that had been given to me through the Ministry of Energy from the EPA, Mr. Speaker, and it was the number that I understood to be the reality. Mr. Speaker, I answered these questions at committee. I have taken responsibility for improving the process going forward and planning of large energy infrastructure projects, Mr. Speaker. That is what we need to do going forward. I have opened up this process. I wrote to the Auditor General. I asked him to look at the Oakville situation, Mr. Speaker. I worked to broaden the mandate of the committee so that all questions and all documents could be requested, Mr. Speaker. We have worked very hard to make this an open and transparent process so that all the questions of the opposition and the people of Ontario could be answered. The process did not work. It should have been better, and it is my responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen again. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, we still don't know when she knew the numbers were higher. So here's what the former Energy Minister, Chris Bentley, had to say about the hundreds of all millions already spent in Oakville. Quote, over the coming days and weeks, you will read and hear lots of numbers related to the cost of plant relocation. The only accurate cost to the taxpayers for this relocation is $40 million. Again on Oakville, your current energy minister said, quote, it ends up with a net cost of $40 million. But, Speaker, the energy experts are telling us it's at least $310 million. And, Premier, you knew the number you're using is wrong. You can't be trusted to govern. Will you support our motion to call a non-confidence vote in the House on your scandal-sees liberal government? Mr. Speaker, please. Mr. Speaker, please. Thank you. Premier. Government House Leader. Mr. Speaker, the member is aware that the Premier has personally asked the auditor general and officer of the Legislature to look into the matter of the costing for Oakville. But you know what I find very curious, Mr. Speaker, is he's talking about questions that have not been answered. Mr. Speaker, let me put a few on the table that we're still awaiting the Progressive Conservative Party to answer. Why did they oppose the Mississauga gas plant in the last election? Why did they campaign so aggressively and what was their costing? Mr. Speaker, I do not believe those are overly complicated questions. And yet, Mr. Speaker, when we ask Conservative candidates to come before a committee, they refuse. When we ask the Leader of the Opposition, it takes weeks and weeks and weeks for him to show up, Mr. Speaker. What I find, someone pointed out to me, that the Leader of the Opposition seems to be able to find lots of time to go on CP24 and talk about gas plants, but he won't appear in front of the committee and answer those simple questions. So maybe the member for Nipissing Well in his supplement. Thank you. Final supplementary. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Listen to what former Finance Minister Dwight Duncan had to say in the Estimates Committee about the $180 million at that time, Mississauga cancellation. He was asked, quote, what about any penalties? He answered, quote, none that we're aware of, question, quote. So you're not expecting anything else over the, at that time, $180 million on Mississauga. Any additional claims or penalties? Answer, quote, no, the $180 million should cover all of that. Now, of course, his answer grew to $190 million a week later, and we know now from the auditor that at the time they were swearing that in the Estimates Committee, the auditor told us they'd already paid $245 million. Premier, you know the costs were more than $190 million. Of course, you do. I'll ask you again. Will you support the motion to bring a non-confidence vote on your failed leadership? Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member wants some quotes. The only party that will stop the Sherway power plant is the Ontario PCC Party. On October 6th, vote Ontario PC, Mary Ann DeMonte-Wailen. You know what was interesting, Mr. Speaker? We asked her to come to committee, and she agreed to come to committee, and surprisingly the last minute, she cancelled, Mr. Speaker. We asked the Leader of the Opposition to come. I understand now he may be there on the 14th. It's taken week after week after week. He finds time to go on CP24. He doesn't find time to go on the committee. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about Jeff Yannisic. Let me see you tell you about Jeff Yannisic. Here is what some of his quotes. Only Conservative Leader Tim Houdak will cancel the Easter power gas plant slated to be billed on Laurel and Matt. We asked him repeatedly to come to the committee. Mr. Speaker, he told the clerk to stop calling him, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. You have a question? The member from Beaches East York. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Premier. New Democrats have been very clear that we needed to see a balanced approach to balancing the budget. And we also insisted on seeing real guarantees of results for people. People are telling us that they doubt the government will keep its promises because the government won't define how long people are going to have to wait for home care for their loved ones. Or the government won't define how long drivers will have to wait to get a break on their auto insurance. They've seen decisions made behind closed doors by this government and they feel like they almost always come out on the losing end. Does the Premier agree that we can do a better job of showing Ontarians their government can be accountable and transparent? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The leader of the third party yesterday put forward an interesting idea. But I really believe that it would be useful for me to be able to have a face-to-face meeting with the leader of the third party. I've been trying to get that in place, Mr. Speaker, for a number of weeks and have a conversation about, you know, exactly the other issues that she wants to raise. But, Mr. Speaker, we have put in place a number of accountability measures since we came into office. And, you know, we can go through a list of them. The broader Public Sector Accountability Act in 2010, Mr. Speaker, which put in new roles and higher accountability standards, it banned the cracks of hiring lobbyists, increased accountability for hospitals and lends. We put in the fiscal transparency and accountability act 2004, Mr. Speaker, which put in a new framework for the conduct of fiscal policy. So, Mr. Speaker, we've got accountability measures in place. Thank you. Supplementary Ontarians and even the members of this caucus want to trust this government. But after all the waste and e-health in orange, the gas plants, the ongoing attempts to hide the costs from Ontarians, no one over there should be surprised that many people are very skeptical. New Democrats put forward a simple, positive and practical idea that would start to build trust, a financial accountability office that would create some real accountability and transparency. Is this an idea that Premier's ready to consider? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have said it's an interesting idea, Mr. Speaker. I had a number of conversations with the leader of the third party before we introduced the budget, Mr. Speaker. We talked with hundreds of thousands of people across the province in developing the budget, Mr. Speaker. We went to great lengths to make sure that we wrote a budget that reflected the concerns that we had heard and reflected issues that are of common interest to us all, Mr. Speaker. That's what the budget document is. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to have another conversation with the leader of the third party about another idea. The question is, will there be another idea and another idea and another idea, Mr. Speaker? We've gone through a long process, but they're in the time for decisions, Mr. Speaker. The time is now to make a decision on getting the budget passed and doing the work of the people of Ontario. That's what the timing is now. Over here should always be the people of this province and we're not going to stop listening to what they have to say, whether it's today or tomorrow or the next day. Canada's first federal budget officer told reporters yesterday that a financial accountability office for Ontario makes a lot of sense. I quote him, we're spending taxpayer money. I don't think anybody should be left in the dark, end of quote. One Ontario resident named Marilyn from North Bay says, and I quote her, I am not happy with what the Liberals have done with e-health, the power plants, or orange and find the payouts to CEOs to be obscene. There needs to be independent oversight, end of quote. Is the Premier ready to take some prudent, affordable steps to address the concerns of people like Marilyn? Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. And there are a number of prudent steps in the budget that are addressed concerns of people in the province. People who are worried about their son or daughter not being able to find a job. We would like to put in place a youth strategy if the budget could pass. People who are concerned about getting home care for their children, Mr. Speaker. Municipal leaders who are concerned about having money for infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, for roads and bridges. All of those concerns are reflected in the initiatives that we have put in the budget. And that we talked about with the people, with the members opposite before we wrote that budget. I have said that the idea that the leader of the third party has put forward is not a bad idea. It's an interesting idea, something that we can talk about. But Mr. Speaker, we need to know how long the ideas are going to flow. How many days are we going to hear an idea a day? And then, what is the decision-making process? I'd like to have a face-to-face meeting, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to that opportunity in the near future. Thank you. Your question? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Yesterday at the Public Accounts Committee, we heard more testimony about public healthcare dollars being diverted to private businesses and to creative accounting practices at Orange. Does this Premier admit that there's a serious failure of oversight and transparency at that organization? We've said long ago that it's clear that the past leadership at Orange led Ontarians down. It was our government that called in the forensic investigators. The results of the review have now been handed over to the OPP to assist with their investigation. And yesterday's testimony at committee reinforced the decision that our government made to bring in new leadership, Mr. Speaker, and enact measures to increase transparency and accountability. So we absolutely agree that there was a failure of leadership in the Orange situation, Mr. Speaker. Patient safety is our number one priority. That's why we've introduced legislation that would increase oversight. That legislation is at committee, Mr. Speaker, and we'd like to see the Air Ambulance Act go ahead, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the party opposite will work with us on that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In tough times, people want to see their scarce and precious healthcare dollars invested into frontline services. Yet the scandal at Orange shows very clearly that those public healthcare dollars were spent on CEO salaries to build private businesses and even to purchase ski boats. The government has insisted that they didn't know what was happening at Orange. But does the government, does the Premier admit that there's a serious systemic failure with respect to accountability and transparency at that organization and in this government? And our Minister of Health has said clearly that there was a serious issue of oversight at Orange, that the past leadership failed to deliver what Ontarians needed in terms of service and accountability. That did not work, Mr. Speaker, and that's why the legislation that we've introduced would appoint special investigators or a supervisor when it's in the public interest to do so. Similar to the situation and the process we have in hospitals, Mr. Speaker, would appoint members to Orange's Board of Directors, would prescribe terms of the performance agreement between government and Orange and put that in regulation, and would provide whistle-blowing protection to staff who have disclosed information to an inspector, investor, supervisor, or ministry. Mr. Speaker, that's why we brought the legislation in. Because there was a failure of leadership at Orange, we have said quite clearly that the past leadership at Orange did not function in an appropriate way, and that's why we've taken action, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the people of Ontario are very skeptical about a government that struggles to invest in their priorities, that allows, at the same time, inside connected insiders to profit and get rich off of public money. The government has insisted that the public interest was protected at Orange and it simply was not. Just like insiders were building millions of dollars at eHealth, just like the government spent millions of dollars on cancelling gas plants, people are seeing a problem with this government. They want accountability. Is the Premier ready to consider some tangible steps that we can take to afford some accountability and some transparency to the people of Ontario and consider the idea of having a financial accountability office? Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think this question goes to the first question that the third party asked, and that is the idea that was put forward by the leader yesterday about a new accountability officer. Mr. Speaker, I've said that it's an idea that we could look at. But in the context of the budget discussion, we need to know how long the list is of new ideas that will be coming forward from the NDP. Because we have had a process, Mr. Speaker, that has led to the writing of this budget that was very different than the process last year, Mr. Speaker. This year we spent a lot of time listening to what the third party said. We had the opportunity to interact with 600, more than 600,000 people around the province, Mr. Speaker. I met with folks in communities across the province at 10 jobs and economy roundtables, Mr. Speaker. So there was a lot of work that was done in the lead-up, and there is much in the budget that reflects the common ground between us and the third party. And I would suggest between us and the Conservatives as well, Mr. Speaker. We need a decision now. I'm happy to have that meeting with the leader of the third party. New question, the member from Newmark, Aurora. Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. The incompetence and mismanagement of this government is from bad to worse, Speaker, and it's no more evident than in the Ministry of Health. At yesterday's Public Accounts Committee, we heard from Mr. Richard Jackson. He told us that he was hired to head up the Minister's new Air Ambulance Oversight Program. When asked what experience he had in either Air Ambulance or Land Ambulance, he said none. He told us he hired six individuals into that department to help him with his oversight responsibilities. When asked how much experience those six staff members have in Air Ambulance or Land Ambulance, he said none. Can the Premier tell us who was responsible for hiring this group of inexperienced people to oversee the most critical oversight responsibilities in the Ministry of Health? Thank you. Mr. Speaker, so let's just be clear about exactly what the member opposite is talking about. He's talking about the Air Ambulance Oversight Branch. There's another branch called the Emergency Health Services Branch. There is plenty of expertise in land and air ambulance operations in that branch, Mr. Speaker, the Emergency Health Services Branch. What the Air Oversight Branch is designed to do, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that transfer payment agencies are transparent, that they're accountable, that we get value for money when spending taxpayers' dollars, Mr. Speaker. I think that that's exactly the kind of expertise that the official opposition would want, Mr. Speaker, given what is transpired at Orange. So we need to be very careful that when we talk about the expertise that's needed, that we understand that there are different branches and that different expertise is needed depending on the task at hand. Mr. Speaker, I think what's important is that the Premier familiarize herself with the Ministry of Health. There are not two branches. The Emergency Health Services Branch is headed by the same person that heads the department within the Emergency Health Services Branch, which is the Air Ambulance Program. It is the same person who has no experience in either land ambulance or air ambulance. The people who now are responsible for oversight of air ambulance have no experience in either land ambulance or air ambulance. My question back to the Premier is this. When will this Premier recognize and admit that neither the Ministry of Health has competent leadership at either the minister's level, the deputy minister's level, the associate deputy minister's level, or the assistant deputy minister who hired these inexperienced people to have this important, crucial oversight responsibility? It has made my point that within the Ministry of Health there are different expertise that's necessary. And what's important, Mr. Speaker, is that we have the right expertise performing the right function. I would ask the member opposite. He is so concerned about oversight as are we that he would work with us to get Bill 11 through committee, Mr. Speaker, to stop stalling that. I know that he wants to make sure that oversight is in place. So my hope is that he will work with his colleagues, will get Bill 11 back from committee and will be able to get that legislation in place because that's where the accountability measures are. Thank you. My question is to the Premier. The government claims that building high occupancy toll lanes could raise $250 million a year for transit. Yet there are no revenue projections in the budget and the government won't say where the lanes will be built or where the toll will be. Metrolinx puts the initial revenue from HOTs at $25 million and says the HOTs are not a significant source of revenue for transit. So which is it? $25 million a year or $250 million a year? Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation. Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We are indeed in this budget extending HOV lanes significantly according to our long-term plan, Mr. Speaker. This is so that families can get home and get to work and we can enhance the quality and better use our highways. There are some interesting studies, Mr. Speaker, that have come out of Washington and California, demonstrating the effectiveness of HOV lanes, Mr. Speaker. And we are going to look at this as an evidence-based process to enhance transit. But, Mr. Speaker, our big move plan builds 15 remarkably important critical pieces of transportation infrastructure, LRTs, bus rapid transit. It is the biggest single investment in the history of Ontario in public transit. It is already underway, Mr. Speaker, on the Eglinton Crosstown Line on half hour all day two-way service on the Lakeshore Line. The biggest single transit improvement for people in the 9 of 5, Mr. Speaker. We're very proud of that. We hope the party officer will join us in supporting the finance. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The minister keeps on saying HOV, but you're really proceeding with HOV lanes. These are the tall lanes we're talking about. The government made similar rosy projections when it rolled out presto, but we now know that this private sector misadventure has been very costly to taxpayers. Experts say that building new high occupancy tall lanes costs more than 700,000 per kilometre. That means millions will be spent to build 450 kilometres of these lanes before they generate a dime. And that's if everything goes perfectly. Metrolinx says we will need $2 billion a year in new money to pay for transit. Why is the government playing games with another risky, costly and complicated new payment system for the sake of a mere $25 million a year? Mr. Speaker, I will speak very slowly, so I'm not misunderstood. Mr. Speaker, we are expanding HOV lanes and we will be introducing... Order. Order. Thank you. Finish, please. The member from Eglinton, Lawrence, is not using his timing properly. He's not even listening while I'm trying to get him to stop. I know how to do that if it's needed. Carry on. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll be very clear. I'll speak slowly. We are expanding HOV lanes and we will be introducing HOV lanes. We will be doing that strategically on an evidence-based process, Mr. Speaker. We have the benefit of about 18 other projects going on in North America that are similar. And we will use that experience. But, Mr. Speaker, my question for my friend in the third party is, how are they going to pay for the commitments that both the Liberals and the new Democrats believe are critical? Thank you. Mr. Speaker, our premier has been very candid. We have a... Time's up. No question? A member from York Southwestern? Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the minister of community and social services. Strengthening the social safety net is a very important issue to many people in Ontario. Those who have depended on social assistance and time of need appreciate the support it provided to them and their families. And I've heard that firsthand from constituents in my writing of York Southwestern. Others are simply glad to know that the system is there for those who may need it. However, many of us are concerned that social assistance as it exists now may not be delivering all of the results for the most vulnerable that it could be. Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, the Commission to Review Social Assistance in Ontario submitted the report to you at the end of last year. And I remember from earlier questions you've answered that you've been taking the time since then to review the report and to consider what actions the government might take to begin reform. Has the ministry taken to act on the suggestions of the report? Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from York Southwestern. She is hardworking, in fact. And I want to thank her. Thank you. I want to let her... I share her concerns that she's correct. We have been reviewing the recommendations, all 108 from the Commission to do that. We've been listening to a number of stakeholders. I think I've met... My ministry's met with 64 different groups and we're getting some good feedback. Based on all of that information gathering, we're investing $400 million of new dollars over three years to support the increases in OWO-DSP to also provide adults, single adults with a $14 top-up. And while we're allowing social assistance clients to earn as a work incentive and keep up to $200. We're also looking at assets, special provisions for First Nations and Northern communities, as well as simplifying rules, Mr. Speaker. Jobs, the Acronomy and Affairs. See you, please. Supplementary. Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, again to the minister. It is encouraging that this government plans again to be raising social assistance rates for all recipients. This step can make a difference in their lives as will the increase in the earning exemption. While I recognize some of the items that you mentioned from the Lankan Sheik report I believe that there was a lot more that was recommended. Mr. Speaker, can the minister speak about what plans he has for some of those other recommendations included in the report? Thank you. Mr. Speaker, back to the member. We're going to be working very closely and in a collaborative way with a number of stakeholders to move us forward. There were a number of things in the report that the group said they didn't want to see us implement. So there are bound to be some tradeoffs and we need to be careful about those. That having been said I think it's encouraging to know that this government is about fairness and is about moving forward. Jobs, the economy and a fair society are of course the government's top priorities and reforming social assistance is a key part of that priority. I can tell you Mr. Speaker that we will be working very hard we'll be working together collaboratively and we would invite all members to join us and by the way we can't do the kinds of things that we want to do for those who need special help unless we get the budget through so let's get at it folks. Good morning my question is to the Premier. We've heard that the disagreement between you and your environment minister over the liberal ecotax programs has been so bad lately that you've personally taken over the file. After rejecting the PC plan last November to scrap ecotaxes and set waste diversion targets the minister did an about face last month claiming he was suddenly against ecotaxes but he failed to present a real solution to eliminate them instead he wants to continue to charge ecotaxes while keeping them hidden from consumers you on the other hand want ecotaxes to remain visible to consumers. Premier now that you're managing the environment portfolio should Ontarians expect to still have ecotaxes on the receipts? That's a good question Minister of the Environment As we have done that for some time we have identified the real problem and that some of the members some of the members who are here for some length of time who don't get a chance to ask questions for the Conservative Party anymore the widely veterans the great people who served the people well don't ask these but they would fully understand they would fully understand that the real problem is the Conservative bill was passed in 2000 it allowed for cartels to be set up to be able to charge these particular fees we recognize we've tried to work with your old bill we've worked very hard on that it's impossible and that is why we'll be introducing a new bill to make the kind of changes people happen to believe are needed so you should go back to some of your colleagues who are there and who recognize how bad that bill was and encourage them to support the new bill that we will be introducing in this house that will in fact address many of the problems that have been there for some period of time Thank you The Attorney General will come to order supplementary Yeah, you know what those programs were introduced by this government and the true godfather of the eco tax the tax man himself Premier, we've heard your environment minister claim for reminded members in the past about this and I'll do so again we refer to people according to their writing or to their title Premier, we've heard your environment minister claim on multiple occasions that the government doesn't receive any money from eco taxes while he's totally wrong the Liberal government has been secretly collecting its share of eco tax revenue for years at a cost of up to $100 million According to Ontario Tired Stewardship's budget more than $8.5 million of hidden HST charges were embedded in the Liberals Tire Tax in 2011 alone and that number is only going to rise with the Liberals more than 2,000% tire tax hikes that unfairly target Ontario farmers Premier, do you continue to support eco taxes because you're profiting from imposing hidden taxes on Ontarians Thank you Minister of the environment The legislation that the Conservatives put in place allowed that to happen Now we have and I'm going to seek I'm going to seek the member from Bruce Gray Owen Sound, you're warned Finish. I'm going to seek the assistance to some members of your caucus who may know this individual the Federal Minister of Finance and try to get him to change a system which in fact allows for HST but the bill has to be changed completely what we should know is the real godfather of eco fees in this province is your leader was the Minister of then Consumer and Business Services and he allowed eco fees at that time so when we're looking for godfathers out there of eco taxes I think you should speak to your own leader Thank you before we move on I will also remind the Minister of the environment that we use people's titles or their writing names new question member from the member from Durham the member from Bramley Gore-Molden Thank you very much Mr. Speaker my question is to the Premier President Tan this government slashed or whoever knows this slashed the benefits that our consumers receive in this province when it comes to auto insurance This slash and the statutory accident benefits resulted in a 70% drop in payouts to residents of the GTHA within one year alone. That's a 70% drop in claims payouts yet over the past 3 years these very same residents haven't seen a penny of savings in the form of lower premiums. How long does this government think that those residents should have to wait before they see a drop in their premiums? So Mr. Speaker, what we need to do is get this budget passed so we can start getting at the issue about reducing automotive premium rates. And I look to the leaders on both sides of the House so that's good moving on that. We've already identified that the cost of claims are much too high. We've taken steps necessary to try to reduce them. Some of those transfers are starting to take place. We need to give fiscal more teeth so that the regulator can start passing on those savings. We need you to act with us now. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Supplementary. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Later on today, the Premier is scheduled to speak in Brampton and make some announcements regarding the budget. I want the Premier to be very well aware that the residents of Brampton know that the 15% reduction in auto insurance does not have any timelines whatsoever. This is a serious concern. This means that people in the GTA or in Hamilton could wait two years, three years, five years. No one knows how long it will take. The benefits were slashed in 2010 that's three years ago. There's been a 70% reduction in claims payouts to residents of the GTA and Hamilton. How long does this government expect the residents of GTA and Hamilton to wait before there's a 15% reduction in auto insurance premiums? So Mr. Speaker, the timelines will be dependent upon how quickly we get this budget passed. The member opposite knows that the Congress city of the file all too well. We know that we need to take proper measures to help the superintendent get the oversight and the authority required to ensure that the filings of those near rates take place. You know that we need to work with the industry to reduce the cost of claims. You know that in dealing with the industry and the players, they are now receptive to taking those steps as well. But what we need is this legislation to pass so that we can act quickly. You yourself recognize that it takes a gradual approach to get at the cause. You put that in your private members bill. We agree. We all want this to happen quickly. The faster the better. So let's get on with getting this budget passed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And today my question is to the Minister of Innovation and Research. Speaker yesterday, Minister Shirelli and I visited a company called Temporal Power and Mrs. Saga. And as Ontarians, we can all be really proud of the fact that Temporal Power leads not just in Ontario, not just in Canada, but in the entire world when it comes to storing technology in five weeks. And it is companies like Temporal Power Speaker that are powering Ontario to new heights economically and creating new jobs. And I want to know from the Minister of Research and Innovation what we are doing to ensure that Ontario continues to be the leading edge of technology and innovation. Minister of Research and Innovation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I want to thank the member from Miss Saga, you spoke for that question. Mr. Speaker, supporting research and innovation is a major priority for our government. Since 2003, Mr. Speaker, we have invested $3.6 billion in research and innovation. This investment, Mr. Speaker, has helped create 30,000 jobs, 75,000 people were trained and also fostered 10,000 industry and academic partnerships. In our budget of 2013, Mr. Speaker, we reaffirmed government's commitment to research and innovation. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that our government investment ends up $100 million in Ontario Brain Institute, which supports cutting-edge research in brain diseases. Mr. Speaker, we are transforming global challenges into jobs and economic growth. And even furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we are making better health care for Ontarians and also quality of life for people in this province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Minister, for that update and for reaffirming our government's commitment to research and innovation. But, Mr. Speaker, you know, research and innovation is great, but it's only useful if we can commercialize it to improve our economy and help our society. So, and to do this, we need to support our entrepreneurs. So, Minister, can you tell us what is the government of Ontario doing to help and support entrepreneurs? Thank you, Minister. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank the member for that question. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of our leadership role our government has taken in venture capital. With the success of the Ontario Venture Capital Fund, Mr. Speaker, we are partnering with our federal government. The member for the Hamilton City, Stony Creek, will come to order. With $50 million investment, Mr. Speaker, in 2022, this fund has the potential to reach $300 million. This fund, Mr. Speaker, will help to create a right environment for attracting investments to Ontario and also supporting innovation, creation of jobs and the boosting of our economy. Mr. Speaker, our recent budget will deliver a commitment on commercialization and innovation voucher. And this voucher, Mr. Speaker, is going to help the small businesses and the parents to reach research institutions in this province to solve their problems and also increase productivity. Mr. Speaker, our government is taking important steps in order to support research and innovation. Thank you. Thank you. New question? The member for Perth, Wellington. My question is for the Premier. On March the 5th, the Premier received a copy of the package from the municipality of North Perth concerning the industrial wind turbine project that threatens the community. It included a letter from the mayor, the municipal consultation forum, and my letter of support. The Premier should remember it. It was about an inch thick and I delivered it right to her, right here in the legislature. I trust she has read it, but it's now over two months later and we have had no response. My question to the Premier is simple. What was the very clear position taken by council and will she respect their will? Thank the member for the question. The member will know that the Ontario Power Authority has had procurements, standing offer procurements for renewable energy. And through that process, Mr. Speaker, over the last several years, we've created over 31,000 jobs. We have stated quite clearly our speech from its own and the Premier has repeated that we are looking and working together in a number of ministries to improve how we deal with the siting of renewable energy projects. I'm pleased to announce that in the very near future, we'll have some new rules on the siting of renewable energy, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Supplementary. Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the Premier will not support them. On this issue, the McGinney wind liberals are showing no more respect to my constituents than they did in the gas plant scandal. We also remember the throne speech, which suddenly claimed to understand the need for willing hosts on projects like wind turbines. While our councils have spoken, North Perth, West Perth and many more have passed resolutions. They are, and I quote, not willing hosts for industrial wind turbines. And the Attorney General. The Premier continues to allow the wind project in our area to move through the old broken process. I also ask her, and so I ask her, when will you stop trampling the overwhelming will of our communities and declare a moratorium? Minister of Energy. Speaker, I'm looking for some leadership and advice from the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker. We just heard a very secret. Members from here on Bruce come to order. Dialogue with respect to cancelling contracts. And the position on the other side is that the government ought not to be unilaterally cancelling contracts. And we now have a request from the other side to unilaterally cancel a contract, Mr. Speaker. So I'm looking for advice from the other side in terms of how we deal with the number of contracts that have been signed, Mr. Speaker, for which there might be some objections in the community, as there was in Mississauga, as there was in Oakville. And I'm challenging the member to say, should we break this contract? The member from Renford at the same time will come to order. And now the member from here on Bruce will come to order. New question. The member from Hamilton Mountain. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the minister responsible for seniors. Speaker, my office has been flooded by calls and emails from concerned seniors who live in retirement homes and supportive housing for seniors. They have been told that the physiotherapy programs that are keeping them healthy will be discontinued as of August the 1st. Dorothy Johnson wrote, and I quote, they just gave us this program to keep us healthy and in shape. And a couple of months later, it's ripped from beneath us. Can the minister assure us that Miss Johnson, that her physiotherapy program will continue after August the 1st? Mr. Speaker, I think the member for the question, let me say at the beginning of August 1st, 2013, on there will provide more than 200,000 additional seniors with a precise process and full prevention service as well as a speaker. This will provide in long term care homes, local community center throughout our province of Ontario. 92 physiotherapy clinics are delivering service only today. But in enhancing access to exercise and full prevention classes for more and additional 68,000 seniors for about 100 years for our seniors. Living in buildings like Mohawk Gardens, a municipally run supportive housing building will have no other options in their in-house physiotherapy is canceled. The government can talk a good game about wanting seniors to stay active and healthy, yet they're about to discontinue a hugely successful program. Barb Wyatt wrote, and I quote, if this program is canceled, I have no excuse me. Barb Wyatt speaking has no other choice. I don't drive. I can't. Now I'm speaking. Stop the clock. I'll stop at this time. But it's very difficult to have the question put when somebody on the same side is heckling. And it's hard to for me to get to the people who are heckling on this side. If somebody on that side is heckling. So please keep it down. Finish your question, please. Speaker, Barb Wyatt wrote, if this program is canceled, I have no other choice. I don't drive and I can't afford public transit that frequently. What is the minister's question to ensure that seniors in retirement homes can continue to access physiotherapy? Speaker, it's a fair, it's a good question. I let me assure the members and every member of the house that there are no changes with respect to accessibility to the system or to the care that seniors are receiving in community care. What's being proposed? The amendments that are being proposed speakers will give 290,000 more seniors access to home care on a one to one basis in more location throughout Ontario. And this is what we want to do for our people, especially living in nursing homes, in seniors home, in home care, and at a home as well. Speaker, it's the intent of this government to provide more services when they are needed, where they are needed to our seniors. And this is what we'll be doing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And my question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Last November, I heard the minister speak about expediting the technical consultation on fire safety improvements in residences for seniors, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable Ontarians. I was glad to hear this morning that the minister announced the mandatory use of sprinklers in all retirement homes, nursing homes and residences for the disabled. Can the minister please tell us more about what this will mean for all our seniors? Good question. Thank you, Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Mr. Speaker, let me say thank you to the member from Oak Ridge and Markham for this question. Mr. Speaker, last Monday I was very pleased to be with the Premier to announce the making of automatic sprinkler mandatory in residences for senior people with disabilities and vulnerable citizens. The first province to achieve that in Canada, Mr. Speaker. These changes to the fire code will include a phase-in of mandatory sprinkler for all existing care residents and a retirement home with more than four occupants over the next five years, annual validation of fire safety plan, enhanced fire inspection and staff training, and fire safety announcement for all new retirement homes. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to congratulate the Minister of Housing, the Minister of Seniors, the member from Niagara and the member from Hamilton East. Thank you. Supplementary. Back to the Minister. I'm delighted to hear about our government's groundbreaking announcement. Mr. Speaker, I know that our government has always been strongly committed to fire safety. We've required smoke alarms on every floor of homes. We updated the safety requirements for hotels and so much more. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister please tell us what kind of input we received from the retirement home sector? Thank you, Minister. You're responsible for seniors? Minister, are you responsible for seniors? Well, thank you very much, Speaker. I thank the member from the remarkable member from Oak Ridge. It's time for the question. Let me say, Speaker, that seniors in retirement homes need to feel safe and secure. By mandating fire sprinklers and enhancing fire safety measures, the winning government is demonstrating its commitment to the well-being of our seniors in Ontario, Speaker. But that's not all. The 2013 budget, it's a document written with seniors in mind, Speaker, increasing investment in home care and community services, helping seniors with low and moderate incomes, in getting their trillion benefit program, yes, Speaker, on a monthly or on a one-yearly basis, providing 30,000 more house costs to seniors and other with complex condition speakers. It is the announcement that it's about celebrating the positive result of a collaborative process that puts seniors in other vulnerable Ontario in first, Speaker. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premier. You know, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house are also hearing from Ontarians about the budget. I'd like to share one story that we've heard.  Mr. Speaker, Andrea from Hamilton is 100% correct. People are tired of this government. So, Premier, will you call the PC Party one of confidence motion today so that Andrea from Hamilton can have her wish a new accountable government for the people of this province? The member from Barrie is warned. Government House Leader. Mr. Speaker, I think the members should be aware that in several days from now, according to the standing orders, we will have a vote on the budget motion, which is a confidence vote, and we look forward to that vote and their participation in it. When the budget bill reaches second reading, for example, just one example, Mr. Speaker, that will be a confidence motion. When it returns here to the house for third reading, that will be another confidence motion. But again, Mr. Speaker, you know, I want to go back. The member from Pembroke, sorry, Renfrew, Nipissing Pembroke, is warned. Finish. Mr. Speaker, I just want to again go back, and perhaps the honourable member in his supplementary could answer a question that we've been asking over here. Why did his party oppose the gas plants in the last election? Why did they campaign so aggressively? When will they put forward their costs? When will their candidates appear in front of committee, and why is it taking his leader weeks and weeks to agree? Thank you. Mr. Speaker, it's funny that the government house leader mentions the budget. Let's see what Andrea from Hamilton has to say about that budget. And I quote, we want to see a balanced approach with a budget that's accountable to people, a budget that tackles people's concerns about creating jobs and growing our economy, while helping them in their daily lives and balancing the books in a balanced way. Mr. Speaker, Andrea from Hamilton knows the Ontario PC party knows the people of Ontario know that the budget presented by that government doesn't reflect the priorities of Ontarians because the priorities of Ontarians is not to waste $600 million on a gas plant scandal to save some Liberal seats. Premier, the people of Ontario do not have to be held hostage by this dysfunctional budget negotiation sideshow. You can end the charade right now by calling our want of confidence motion. Will you do it today? Let's get on with fixing what's wrong with your government. Can you see it please? Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member stands up, talks about the gas plants. And again, Mr. Speaker, we want an over on this side of the House why Tim from the Ford area, the member from Holden is named. The Minister of Training Colleges and Universities come to order. You are warned. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration come to order. And before I finish, as much as everyone might think that's cute on both sides, I think we should still be respectful of this place. And by doing so, if we think we can skirt rules, that means that you're not trying to find the highest ground here. My recommendation clearly again and again and again is to use members titles or their writing to try to skirt them is not what I called impressive. Finish your answer, please. Mr. Speaker, I think there's a lot of people that would like to know why the leader of the opposition so aggressively opposed the plants and perhaps because it's topical, Mr. Speaker, we'd also like to know why the member from Holden had this to say to the Toronto Sun October 7th, 2010. It was sad that it took so long for the government to listen to the people of Holden. It was nice to see that decision overturned. Mr. Speaker, these are not complicated questions. When will we see candidates here in front of the committee? When will they be encouraging their colleagues to be there? We're from Toronto, Danforth. Thank you, Speaker. My question to the Minister of Energy. This government has just wasted $600 million on Mississauga and Oakville gas plants, but apparently you haven't learned your lesson. The government has now signed a billion dollars worth of contracts for refurbishment of the Darlington nuclear power plant, even though according to the Toronto Star, you haven't even made a decision as to whether or not to go ahead. Why is the government continuing to waste public money on these secret energy deals? Mr. Speaker, there are two separate issues. Mr. Speaker, there's the issue of refurbishment of Darlington units, and there's the issue of possibly building new units at Darlington. And he's referring to something that appeared in the Toronto Star today, Mr. Speaker. That was totally referencing the possibility of new nuclear. And in terms of new nuclear, Mr. Speaker, we should be aware of the fact, of course, that the New Democratic Party built 3,500 megawatts of nuclear during their term. Those units are still in place, Mr. Speaker. And the important thing is a decision has to be made of whether or not we're going to shut them down or whether they're going to proceed. And we're taking some very, very serious advice, Mr. Speaker, on new nuclear that's under deliberation. We're receiving the best advice possible. And we're not going to rush the decision. I assure the critic from the New Democratic Party, we're dealing with it responsibly. And we're going to be proceeding. Thank you. We're still at the starting order. 30 of the members from Hamilton Mountain has given notice of her dissatisfaction to the answer of her question, given by the Minister responsible for seniors concerning physiotherapy services for seniors in retirement and supportive housing. This matter will be debated next Tuesday at 6 p.m. There are no deferred votes. This House stands recess until Monday this afternoon.


This is the animation minute As always it start with job steamroller studios is looking for animators and a lot of other positions Skydance is looking for senior gameplay animator Here's another job posting with a ton of positions including lead gameplay animator Snowball Studios is hiring as well. Here's a posting for a feature film. They're looking for 3d animators This is not quite animation really with this post even though it's really cool I would highly recommend you check out masterclass just because they have some really cool acting and directing classes Speaking of directing as always editor with the fantastic thread here as always check it out switching over to Lego Yeah, that is that is cool. Come on. Come on those colors. I love it You see Irish folklore trilogy box set look at this. This is available to sit before 14th You got multiple movies in here, and this is what you get. So check it out. This is gonna be really worth it Model sheets for the ghost and Molly make G Super cute. I like these Here's a cool clip from beginning to the end all done by one person. I love this I love seeing the animation the renders really nicely done speak of nicely done. Look at this This is the boss baby test for unlimited limbs software transparencies and smears and so on check it out So cute. Harvey has a new clip. This is 10 tips on how to get unstuck in animation Absolutely worth your time time for a 2d clip. Look at this. That's a nice turnaround. Look at that volume Everything stays the same. It's really neat. You've seen me include Sean's clips here and there But this is a compilation of all the stuff that he's done. Check it out here. This is admitted in 33 seconds. It's so cute So cool. I love seeing what he's doing. I love seeing progression clips here You can see the blocking and steps you can see file animation. You can see the reference super cool I love it. I love seeing stop motion. Look at this. It's so cool when you see the people actually animating them It's a fantastic compilation. Make sure to check it out. Super Metroid process. That's already cool Oh, I like this. Oh moody. Yeah, very cool. So you're very cool I had no idea procrate is now going into 3d. Check this out. Look at that. That's really cool If you go down actually, there's more as you can see here So make sure to check it out using the software even if not speaking of cool Love this colors love those designs. Look at that. That's super cool I love seeing this not just because I'm working on a dragon show, but that is cool I wouldn't mind a game like that. Come on That's a really cool thread. Look at these Love the style Those ideas is really great is one in the water So good long check it out. It's really worth your time. So and happy pixel art day. Come on This book I just received. I'm gonna do a review on my channel Of course is really neat and speaking of neat. There is more look at that the detail of the little animation in there That's very cool. And that's but at least of course pixel art You got to do it. Happy pixel art day. And that is that for the animation minute You'll find it every Monday of my channel at 10 a.m


You shouldn't confuse a Mott and Bailey argument for valid reasoning, just like you shouldn't confuse Mott's and Bailey's for dinner. I've been called out before for making a ton of episodes on intellectual rigor, the slow, methodical, nitpicking analysis of ideas to uncover problems or inconsistencies with them which don't appear on a more cursory inspection. I keep harping on it for many different reasons, not the least of which is my continued embarrassment at how bad my thinking was before I discovered it in earnest, but also it lies at the heart of several issues which many people face every day, like logical fallacies. A post hoc fallacy is just what happens when someone doesn't think about causation rigorously. A slippery slope fallacy is just what happens when someone doesn't think about necessary consequences rigorously. A strawman fallacy is just what happens when someone doesn't think about a counter argument rigorously. In that sense, all logical fallacies are really just names given to special cases of the same basic problem, using faulty intuitions instead of rigorous analysis when considering an idea. But it can help to have names for common forms of that mistake. If people fall victim to the same blindspot and reasoning again and again, putting a label on it can help us all unravel those errors more quickly. So with that in mind, let's put a label on one more, one which you've probably experienced but never really thought about explicitly except to say, that's just dumb. The Mott and Bailey fallacy. In medieval towns, usually built to repel enemy attacks, there was a popular sort of multi-level defensive scheme. The Bailey or courtyard was a low, flat region, only protected by a ditch or a moat, but where most of the town structures were built. On an overlooking hill or mound sat the Mott or Keepe, a heavily fortified and easily defended structure. The idea was that even in the event that the Bailey fell to some attacking force, the Mott provided ample, last ditch protection for the inhabitants of the town, raining down rocks and arrows and whatever else onto the invaders until they left. A Mott and Bailey argument, as first coined by philosopher Nicholas Shackle in response to some postmodernist philosophy which was irritating him, metaphorically uses the same technique. An argument employing this strategy actually uses two forms of a single argument. A strong form, one which is indisputable to anybody with any sense, and a weaker form, which isn't. The person advancing the argument switches back and forth between those forms as necessary depending on what sort of resistance they find for their ideas, despite the fact that they actually mean two different things. Shackle's chosen punching bag for his paper is the postmodernist assertion of social constructivism. The idea that what we think of as objective reality is actually a sort of cultural construct dictated by the language and concepts developed by our culture. Interpreted very broadly, that is kind of true. We do use socially imparted cognitive handles to break up the sensory input from our world into manageable concepts and people with different social backgrounds have different handles. Like in the ancient forms of various languages there is no separate word for blue and green. Their eyes didn't function any differently. They could still tell them apart, but it's probably fair to say that they didn't think about them the same way that we do. Even today physicists might think of these colors as different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. Painters might look at them as different combinations of primary colors. People from different educational and social backgrounds think about the same input from the world in different ways. Duh. However, some postmodernist philosophers took that idea a step further, suggesting that what we think of as objective reality doesn't have any meaningful existence outside of those arbitrary structures and that things like facts and truth were just as arbitrary. That's less of a duh thing. If someone said this apple is red and someone else says that it's blue, most people would agree that that's not just a matter of, well that's just like your opinion, man. In fact, if you think carefully about it, it's sort of a self-refuting assertion. If the truth of social constructivism is just a matter of opinion, then why should we accept it? But using a Mott and Bailey strategy, if someone were to voice some objection to the more audacious version of the claim, the social constructivists could just retreat to their Mott saying, but I just meant that people use different concepts to interpret the world. All I'm saying is that maybe these people use different concepts to refer to the color of the apple, so they think about it differently. Maybe one of them has just never learned the color red and so they're using the closest word that they have. Yeah, okay, I guess. Therefore, the color of the apple is just a matter of opinion.  Essentially, all of the interesting or provocative stuff happens out on the Bailey, largely by implication. But when forced into a more defensive stance by counterarguments, the person making claims retreats to a more boring or trivial version of their ideas. The Mott and Bailey strategy appears in all sorts of different places, in more or less ridiculous forms. To be clear, it's totally legitimate to back off from some more extreme assertion to try and find some common ground to build from. But it's never good to do so in a way which misrepresents your original position as being something that it's not. That misrepresentation isn't always just a case of word games either. For example, some people will assert that so-called alternative medicine is just as good as or better than genuine evidence-backed medicine. That homeopathy or aromatherapy or spirit healing will cure what ails you. However, if met with any appreciable resistance, like compelling research which shows pretty conclusively that these treatments are ineffective, rather than defending their initial assertion, they'll retreat to a much more easily defensible Mott of it being harmless. At least until the skeptic goes away. Hey, so long as it's not actively hurting anyone, what's the big deal? A nice placebo that makes people feel better? It's not the end of the world, right? You'll notice that nobody was arguing that these practices should be banned because they're harmful or because they don't make people feel good. But that's a much more defensible position. And you just know that as soon as they think they can get away with it, they'll be right back out on the bailey, saying, oh, you should definitely try ear candles. My mom swears by them. Again, these sorts of tactics depend on a lack of rigor in establishing a strict definition of what is being asserted and maintaining that definition throughout an argument. That doesn't imply that every time someone moves to argue for a more conservative position that you should jump at their throats. The problems only crop up when there's no differentiation made between two different positions of differing strength, saying that people use different social constructs to interpret the world isn't the same thing as saying that no interpretation is better than any other. Claiming that alternative medicine shouldn't be banned because it's not explicitly harmful isn't the same thing as asserting that it works. In the end, the lesson of the Mott and Bailey is pretty simple and is pretty much the same as any other cautionary tale about intellectual rigor. Say exactly what you mean, and don't try to hand wave your way around any counterpoints. That's what the catapults are for. Have you experienced any Mott and Bailey fallacies? Please leave a comment below and let me know what you think. Thank you very much for watching. Don't forget to blah blah subscribe, blah share, and don't stop thunking.


Welcome to Toffy TV, this is the transfer show powered by Snickers Protein. You're helping fans to get excited about football during this transfer window. We're just going to try and keep you excited as much as we can. Baz, what's happening today? What are we looking at today? We're looking at today. Crystal Palace have confirmed the long signing of John Philip Matete from Mines on Earth. And this is someone you really like, isn't it? Well, it's someone you're a bit disappointed that I haven't haven't got them. A little bit disappointed. You had a little cry over there. It's a player who I think has got a lot of potential. Whether he can do it here remains to be seen, doesn't it? But he's a 23-year-old French striker. Six foot three, six foot four, I think he is. He's done quite well in Germany. If you look at the centre forwards, you could come in and kind of be an understudy. Well, not an understudy, but battle with Dominic Alvelywm without demanding to be the first choice striker. I think this is someone who Everton could have got it. Someone who was on Everton's radar in the summer. Got a good turn of pace about him. Crystal Palace might have got themselves a good player here. It's a loan, isn't it? With an option to buy. Who's to say that? Have you ever got a loan? But if he's nins, I'll grab him and make pay-offs. What they're saying is the agreement is an 18-month loan with the view to a buy. So he's here for a deal. If that's the case, obviously, there's always room for manoeuvre in these deals. But it's one to watch because he could do very well in their team. With Ben Tecky and I in plays and they have got a lot of goals. If you can get himself in it, you can do quite well, that puts questions of a batch. But palace play a lot on the counter attack. I don't think this play seems like he would suit that and if he's got an eye for a goal. In this Premier League, it's only the odd goal that wins me most games. It's getting that little edge and it's interesting because tantrum he's been a bit quiet coming in so far Pan haswad ond it's like this. We can have a goal. We want to get away from what's going on at the bottom but we can also swing a couple of wins together. I don't think it's that hard in this league. We've seen how many teams now strung four wins together up the city at the moment. They've got six, haven't they? West Amron on a transloff run. It can propel you very quickly. That's a good sign for Palace, isn't it? If he settles, he'd be... I think he'd do really well for them, but... Just keep them warm for us. Exactly. But it's a case of getting these... trying to get these opportunities and see whether you can mould these players, and if he doesn't settle it, he goes back, doesn't he? He doesn't take the option up, but if he does, then he gives themselves, you know, got themselves a good young player, so it looks like he could do well. Another player who was on evidence raiding in £15, was a great player from the sport. He was an amazing player, Mae'n rhaid i'r dyfi yn Hel cell yn hwnnw a'r rai oedd yn groesodd. Mae'n rhaid i'n gwell yn oedd, a'r rai oedd yn oedd yn oed. Roedd yn oed yn oed i'r gwell yn oed i'n gwell yn oed i'r gwell yn oed i'r gwell. Fe'n gallu greidio. Fe'n gallu'n ceisio'n olw'r gwheithgol. Fe'n gallu gweld hwnnw. Аr hynny, mae'n gofod ar fod yn oed yn oed i'r gweld hwnnw. Mae'n gofod ar y gweithredu hoffi. Dwi'n ddod i'w du'r cerdd, mae'n aflwch ar y bydd. Ond yn bod yn gweithio golygu gydag y gwasanaen o'r mawr o'r llan. Byddai'n gweithio bod yn ei cas, mae'n myth. Ond mae'n i gweithio. Mae'n ychydig iawn yma, mae'n i ffyrdd o'r teulu. Mae'n yma, mae'n maeth i'n edrych gan eich sefydli. Aethau'n pob i'n gweithio'n gweithio gydag o'n ni'n gallu cefn. Pof yn gallu'n cefn i'n gweld yn yma, I played him for the first half of the season. He done really well on it. He took him out of the team and he didn't get back in. Leads won to them as well, didn't he? Leads won to them, Westam won to them. He didn't want to go to Westam. I don't think he wanted to go to Leads either. So he's ended up, looks like going out to Milan. So that could be a great sign for both him and them. Yeah, well, Milan did well. Top of the league. I mean, he'll bring their age down. Significantly, you know, there's a lot of time still smashing it. One of the two goals this week. And they just brought in Manzio's pitch, of course, as well. So, interesting time. Italy's a weird and wonderful place, isn't it? You should get a... We're sort of, you know, in this country, we're trying to get away from those kind of deals, but Italy... Obviously, the pace of the game is probably a lot more slow, but we've seen it with Inter as well, Inter have brought. Well, they've bought all the plays in from the Premier League in the last 12 months as well. I mean, they might start trying to get rid of them, Christian Eriksson, once, as we told you the other day, once there. Maybe come back to Spare, but... Well, they've had victim ousers, and actually, I'm a bit older, you know, we've seen Chris Smalling and players like that go out there to... It's interesting, though, isn't it? Cos, obviously, this time last year, Antony Robinson nearly went to AC Milan, and obviously, the medical exposed the situation with his heart, which probably, again, probably, you know, that's probably the best thing that's ever happened to him. He's got a good move to Fulham now. He's doing all right. And they're reckless in their off this week. They've probably lost them again to Chelsea, but they obviously do cast an eye over here, don't they? And they're obviously, you know, it's... They've obviously got a few scouts knocking around, it does, you know. And they thought of looking towards Janak Balasi. Or, you know... Mo Bezzith. Chiang Towson. Chiang Towson would be. I think. He'd be lightning over there. He'd be a perfect backup, I think, for Zlatan. Well, one player who was at Milan was Christian Peter, the striker, a Polish striker, and he's been linked. He's available for loan, I think. He's another one who had been linked with Evan in the past. So I wonder if there's... I mean, I think Evan still needs to move people out, but I wonder if something like that would appeal to Marcel Brans the last couple of days, because he did. One of the things that was said last week about Evan was obviously what come out the ADM, and he said we're not bringing anyone in. So he answered the question, which hasn't really been put out, in many places, I think. Paddy Boyland and Greg O'Keefe actually referenced this. I think they'd done an article for the Athletic, but he answered the shareholder's question directly about it. Mor he said we're not planning on bringing anyone in this window, but our eyes and ears are always open to opportunity, which is the last thing. We're a late to opportunity. So that is a little bit of a caveat as to when, you know, never say never, isn't it? Yeah. You can't fold just a baby there. Well, you know. But it's like any kind of opportunity that presents itself. If it's worth a go, and it's a couple of days, and you can get someone in for a loan for maybe even just five months for the rest of the season, could really help you so. It's interesting, we'll just have to see at the moment it looks like Evan aren't going to do any business, but they're not going to do any business until they get people out. So hopefully, from an Evan perspective, that will happen. I think Peer Tech is one who might be where taking a chance on. Very prolific when he first went on, and obviously the goals have dried up, but he's an interesting amount to watch, definitely. Anymore? Well, there is, but, you know, there's a couple that we're going to reference due to the finalised stuff. Well, I don't know if we mentioned yesterday on our Evan News Daily with Evan the Blingor and yesterday, but Arsenal. On Wednesday? On Wednesday, sorry, but Arsenal are apparently in talks with Real Madrid, but Real Sociedad are in the race as well. They had them last year and you had a great time there. So we may just remain in Spain because obviously he done well before and he wouldn't have to move and all that. So that's one, that's definitely one to watch. As we mentioned the other day, Snickers protein, fanline, which is here to give you guys a chance to get your comments into us regarding this transfer window. Using the hashtag fanline, and a few people have gone in touch with us, so over to Ned. Well, James says, do you think there is a trending stand in older players now when they have gone past their best? The likes of Zlatan, Manzukic, Bailon Lone. He also says, what's your most hated transfer talkism minus Warchest? Well then, obviously something has just been referenced now. I think it doesn't tend to happen that much anymore with players saying they're coming into this country and it's something I actually called for last year. I would love to have seen Zlatan come to Everett last year. You obviously got all the football hipsters, you know who you are, telling you not to because you can't block youth and all this, but sometimes you need those older players to come in. I also think someone like Manzukic going to Milan, he's been out of contact, he's on a freight, and they're just thinking, well, if we get into the end of the season, we know he's experienced in this country. Look at Cavani, look at Cavani, he scores again this week. Cavani, people scoffed at that, but that was a no-lose deal for Manchester United. They were bringing someone in who was not that old. He's always scored goals. He's probably likely to sell a few shats as well whether you think that's a thing of added honour. There is definitely a time and a place to bring, you know, experience is so important in football. Now, the key to doing it is not spending a fortune on these people, not giving them stupid wages, not paying a fee, really, if you can help it. But if you can add experience, and I think what we're going to find is, certainly now moving forward, all the players, listen, this is a minute 10 for a while, but all the players are going to get less and less on their contacts, less and less. They're going to have a year, a year, a year, two years if they're lucky. And it does open that door to the opportunity. I think I said it earlier in this week, we've seen. Sir Alex Ferguson has never had an issue with going after someone like Hendrick Larsen to bring them in for a few months when he needed someone. These players have obviously still got something to offer. There's always something there if you use them right. You know, look at Everton's situation, go and get Hamas Adrygus on a free transfer. You know, no one can tell me, or he's maybe a little bit younger, but 29. No one can tell me, that's a bad deal no matter what happens, because he's brought a spotlight to Everton. And I think there's, I think there'll always be players out there that no one should ever dismiss, regardless of age. If Everton, if you got to the summit and Everton could get you rude for a year, I'd still gone and take him for a year, but I think he could offer a lot to Everton Football Club. I think he's got experience. Now, again, people might not like that, but I think you use experience the right way. Some players might look at it and go, we'll put it this way, right? We brought a young kid in like Moise Keane, who wanted to play football, didn't play football, and has now ended up going to Parasensio Maron alone. So we, we used to, do you know what I mean? This is almost like a crossover there, where you're going to get an older player who might understand that coming off the bench is his job and he might play a few games if you're in Europe and doesn't give you the same trouble. Do you know what I mean? If you're looking for that second cycle. You use a really good example, because he's been excellent for Chelsea this season and he doesn't play all the time. But he'll go somewhere when you do that. Possibly whether he carries on, I don't know whether he'll want to carry on. If he does, he still looks fit, he looks like he can play. And if he wanted to come to Everton for 12 months, and you know, was back up to Dominic Calvert-Lewin. And you've got some European football you could offer him and he's happy to play half the games. Then, yeah, then fair enough for 12 months. You're looking and going, well it'll get us 12 months further down the line and we can identify what we need then. Then yeah, of course, and there will always be those players that are quality. Cavani's a quality footballer. 33, you know, was a free transfer now. Yeah, if you're putting all your eggs in, one basket with them and going, this fella's going to change everything we do, then maybe it isn't the right kind of deal. But if it's someone to come into the squad who can help you out and play and drop in and drop out and they're happy to do that, then there'll always be room for those players. You don't want players... The problem is clubs have got players who are basically just on the gravy train. Yeah, of course. Players who don't offer any value. Evertonians will point to someone like Fabian Delph. A lot of injured. He's 29, he's got them and he's coming in. It's not work. Of course. He's cost us a lot of money. And all the clubs will show those examples around it. And if you get too many of them, you become like QPR did. With like, you know, just bringing loads of names in, but they don't actually help you. Maybe if they brought one or two in, it might have helped them. There's loads of examples of that everywhere. Italian clubs like Milan, they know what they would do with Ibrahimovic. Ibrahimovic is an unbelievable football. A dead fit, big presence, great leadership qualities. You've just said they brought Manzukic in. It's brilliant for you. You know, it knows that league. It's a slower tactical game there. It's not really barely. Now, could Manzukic come to the Premier League and play 35 games in the season? Probably not. I mean, he might have been on the pitch 35 times, but would he have affected it because it's about patient power? But that league's different. And he's going into a squad with. He's got other options as well. They've got Raphael Lapp, who can do the running for them. He's a great prospect. So, he still thinks there's a place for it. It's using it wisely. That's what it is. Ned. Matt, he says, what's your thoughts on Willian Jose to Wolff's? Do you think he will kickstart Wolff's season and do you think he's a player we've potentially missed out on? Another player who was linked heavily with Everton over the last three or four years, Willian Jose. I know Steve Welsh, whatever you think about him, rarely liked him and Everton had looked at him and come and was here. Being a real social daddy, I think he's got one in three striker, but he's a good target, man. 29. 29. So, you know, the youngest. But then he brought Royal hymnors in. He was 28 at the time. He's been fabulous for them. So, I think it's a six-month loan. It's, you know, to the summer. They've got no-one up there after. No, it's perfect for them because of what happened. They've got, obviously, hymnors, they're not sure whether he's going to come back this season. We don't know. And you don't say anyone would? You wouldn't rush him back anyway? No, no way. You'd rush him. And they've got players like Podence and Neto. We were good, skillful, technical players, but they're not a goal threat, really. They might get way in with the odd goal, but they're certainly not someone who can knock it in and they'll hold it up and lay it off. Fabio Silver, who he brought in, is only 18 as lively as he is. He's not really got a grip with the Premier League guaranteeing for being a regular goal scorer. So this fella will lead the line for them and it's a good option. And again, if he was offered to Everton for six months, then, yeah, you know, he's another one. He's a target man type player. He's a little bit like for like with Dom, although obviously Dom's can run him behind as well. But what I mean is he's someone who you can aim for with balls into him and he can get hold of it and keep it for you. So it's a good target. I think it's a really good sign. And you need that. That's what they're lacking. Steve Kelly says what has been EFC's best ever January transfer signing? Ar Teta was a great January sign. It was a loan. Obviously went to a permanent. But I think that was a, that was a really, really good sign. I don't know if it's the best, but stuff that's offered me, I'd say it was one of the best. roedd y byw현 eichhaled yn cyflwydoedd? Roedd. Felly mae'n gyfrifosio, wrth gwrs, a'r gyrffodol, ben rhan ma wnaeth ar gyfer yn gyflwydoedd a'r gyrffodol yn cyflwydoedd yn cyffrwm 5. Roedd ymddug yn cyflwydoedd. Fe'w meddwl am y nôl yng Ngheithiad iawn y myfyrdd yn gyflwydoedd ond mae'r bydd yn cael ei moddien yn maen nhw'r byw sydd wedi bydd arternau â'r llaw. I gynnal i'n gwneud i gydianiaeth ei ddim yn y maen nhw, I was reading PNRs, but those two came in, Yelavitch was incredible for that first, half of the season, for the end of the season. 11 goals in 13 games or something like that. So he would have been a good one. But yeah, I think, I mean Landon Donovan, if he's talking short term. Very short term. He was excellent both times we brought him in, but if you're looking for overall, the best player event I've signed in January, Probably will be what off the top of my head anyway. Probably will be Michael Artheta for what he did and how he stayed and everything else that followed it. There you go. Thanks for the questions. So, I mean if you want to be involved in the Snickers protein fanline, make sure you're sending your video if you want to. Or comments using the hashtag fanline and we'll respond to ones that come in in our next video. Do you go? Don't forget on the 1st of February we will be over on the Ball Street YouTube channel, there's a 4 hour deadline day show powered by Snickers Protein, we'll be involved in that Robbie fastlefan TV, Redman, all the usual suspects you'll have seen over there, it's always great so make sure to check that out, that will be on the Ball Street YouTube show on deadline day show itself powered by Snickers Protein. There you go, don't forget to get those questions in on Twitter, hashtag fanline, we'll be reading now three every time we do a show, thanks for watching, see you later.