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

May 6, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-May-06 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 6 May 2009 Mercredi 6 mai 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POVERTY REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DE LA PAUVRETÉ

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

TEACHERS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

POVERTY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

DEFERRED VOTES

POVERTY REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DE LA PAUVRETÉ

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CATHOLIC FAMILY COUNSELLING CENTRE

FAMILY COUNSELLING

CENTRE OF BRANT

MAGGIE MCCREATH

COMMUNITY ACCESS

TO CHILD HEALTH

AMATEUR SINGING CONTEST

SMOKING BAN

LISGAR GO STATION

PUBLIC TRANSIT

CERTIFIED GENERAL

ACCOUNTANTS OF ONTARIO

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 171

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

TAXATION

PROFESSIONAL HOCKEY FRANCHISE

PROFESSIONAL HOCKEY FRANCHISE

PENSION PLANS

PROFESSIONAL HOCKEY FRANCHISE

TAXATION

ONTARIO BUDGET

HOSPITAL FUNDING

PROFESSIONAL HOCKEY FRANCHISE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

CEMETERIES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAMILY STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LE DROIT DE LA FAMILLE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POVERTY REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DE LA PAUVRETÉ

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 30, 2009, on the motion for third reading of Bill 152,

An Act respecting a long-term strategy to reduce poverty in Ontario / Projet de loi 152, Loi concernant une stratégie à long terme de réduction de la pauvreté en Ontario.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: On the last occasion, I was mid-speech when the time ran out. I see I still have approximately 15 minutes left; I don't think I'll use all of that today.

Just to reiterate what I had said on the last occasion, because I know there will be some new members here in the House, I started my speech off by thanking the minister and the parliamentary assistant for the work that they did around this bill and for their efforts in making it a better bill. In fact, I pointed out how many amendments were accepted within the bill, and that when you look at a copy of Bill 152 today, and the way it is done around this Legislature with the different font, you can see how many changes, page after page, were actually made.

I went on to talk to them about some of the changes that I was very happy to see. There were a great many of them; I listed them. Then, of course, in my job as critic, I also have to say where I thought the bill had fallen down, and I spoke to that for some extended period of time.

I would just like to close today by going back to where I think the bill could have been a better bill, and I'm saying this for the future, not for today. It is the intention of New Democrats to vote for this bill when it comes for a vote, either later today or on some subsequent day in the future. It is our intention to vote for it, but I do want to state for the record that at some point this bill will be brought back before this House. Whether it is brought back in this Parliament, whether it is brought back in a subsequent Parliament, whether it is brought back by this government or a subsequent government, it will have to be brought back, and changes will have to be made.

I am speaking to the future now, about what I think those changes are that need to be made, because a good bill can be a better bill. A bill that sets out with a future standard of making Ontario the first jurisdiction or one of the best jurisdictions in the world when it comes to poverty can be made a bill that actually eliminates poverty and sets a standard that is higher than what we are willing to set here today in this Parliament and with this government.

I say this in terms of the future–not in terms of today, but in terms of the future—because I know that the bill is intended to encumber future governments. Even though you cannot do that, that is what the intent of this bill is: to set out a standard, or a minimum standard, so that every government that follows from this one, whether it be a Liberal government, a Conservative government, a New Democratic government or some other government, will have to look at the bill, will have to follow it and will have to give service to it.

What I am saying to them and to subsequent governments is that we need to go further. We need to have the goal of poverty elimination. It is not simply enough to be the first or the best jurisdiction in the world. We have to have the goal of poverty elimination, because if it is simply to reduce it and to reduce it over time, that is not what we should be looking for. That is not what Quebec looks for; it's not what other jurisdictions around the world look for. They see an end to poverty, and we should be looking to that end as well.

The second thing is that we should start to look very carefully at an independent review. When we take something seriously in this Legislature, we set up independent reviews. That's why the Environmental Commissioner comes before this Legislature—not before the government, but before the Legislature—and is required once a year to table a report.

That's why the Integrity Commissioner, the Ombudsman, all of those groups that we set up independently at arm's length, come forward to the Legislature once a year, so that we know that the independent review truly reflects what is happening and that the commissioner will tell us when the Legislature is failing. I think if this government and future governments are serious, we will have and encompass an independent review.

We need to ensure that the laws are meshed so that human rights laws and enforcement are part of poverty reduction, because it is in places where people suffer human rights abuse and it's in places where people do not know their rights that poverty is endemic. I'm thinking here in terms of new immigrants, many of whom have suffered at the hands of unscrupulous employers, many of whom are not being paid their dues and their wages, many of whom struggle. Part of the reason that they're finding themselves in poverty is that human rights laws and enforcement are not adequate. So that should, too, in the future be part of the bill.

I am talking in terms of the future as well in setting minimum yearly targets, because it is against that which we must be measured. It is simply not enough to say we have reduced poverty a smidgen or we have reduced it in some small way in the past year, because this year was difficult. Everyone is going to say, "In a difficult year, it's not possible to do it." I can see governments in the future saying that, and that is not what should be happening. We should be setting a minimum, and if that minimum is as low as a 3% reduction, then that should be the floor under which no future government could ever fall.

So in good years, it would be possible to reduce poverty by 5% or 6% or 7%, but even in bad years there should be a minimum floor, and I'm suggesting that should be 3%.

In future bills, when future parliaments look at how to change it, there should also be the use of disaggregated data so that we can understand who continues to be in poverty. There is no question today that people who live in poverty tend to be new immigrants. They tend to be people of colour. They tend to be First Nations. They tend to be women and they tend to be children. We need that kind of data so that we know where we are being successful and where we're not being successful, so that in the future, if we are able to eliminate most forms of child poverty, we can turn our attention to other groups and other areas.

We need to have an anti-racism and employment equity directorate as well that can comment on the reduction of poverty.

And last but not least, in terms of this government and future governments, there has to be a will around the budget. This bill cannot stand alone; it will never stand alone. We cannot legislate an end to poverty without putting the necessary funds and programs in place that will do it, so that every subsequent budget, starting next March, has to have the monies available. Future governments have to understand that if poverty is to remain a commitment and a goal to all of the parties in this House, and however future governments feel they are encumbered on it, there has to be money set aside.

It is no good talking about the elimination of poverty unless you're willing to build affordable housing. It's no good talking about the elimination of poverty unless you're willing to raise ODSP rates and Ontario Works rates, because they are not liveable, and the people who are forced to live on them cannot ever hope to escape from poverty. You cannot end poverty unless you are willing to stop the clawback of so many government programs, and that is going to cost the government some money as well.

You cannot end poverty unless you're going to build daycares and things that will help women to get out of poverty, to go back to school and to get jobs.

All of these things are going to cost money, and we need to make sure that governments of all stripes feel that this is a worthwhile goal and that it is reflected in the budget, and particularly that it is reflected in budgets in times like these, which we know are going to be tough. Next year's budget is going to be every bit as difficult as and perhaps more difficult than the one we've just gone through. Unless governments are willing to do that, then this bill will be an empty shell, because it will stand for something that is not going to happen. I think this is the true test of this Legislature, and it will be the true test of future governments.

Having said that, those would be the comments that I have. It is a bill that we are going to vote for. It has had many amendments which we are proud that we had a

part in. We are very proud of the groups that came forward: the 25 in 5 Network and all of those who made deputations, all of those who pushed the government so hard over the last year and a half. The results have finally been borne out.

We are going to vote for it. We are critical, in part because we are New Democrats first and we want more, but we also look to the future. We look to the future of what governments can expect to do, and I am hoping, in my lifetime, to see the elimination of poverty in this province.

As I started out my speech the other day, as a boy from Regent Park, I grew up with that poverty. I grew up with it around me. I have seen it my whole life. I have seen it at Jane and Finch; I have seen it on First Nations communities across this whole province; I have seen it continuing in Regent Park, although they are redeveloping and it is getting better; and I have seen it on many of the streets in this city and other streets where children simply don't have enough.

We can eliminate poverty. We must eliminate poverty. I want this bill to pass, but I also want to state for the record that in this government and future governments of which I hope, perhaps, to be a part, I am going to be watching to make sure that every single budget does exactly what this bill demands and that we can in our lifetimes see an end to poverty, not just for children, but for every single person who suffers it daily.

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: I'm pleased to join the debate on third reading of Bill 152, which the government calls the Poverty Reduction Act.

We had two days of hearings on this bill, which provided a lot of thoughtful and meaningful input from agencies and groups concerned about poverty in Ontario. None of the amendments that the government made to this bill have led me to believe it will be an effective tool to fight poverty. The government has successfully passed the old test of "First, do no harm," but they have forgotten that they should follow up with "Do some good."

The committee presentations demonstrated that groups that fight poverty are in support of this bill. I have wondered why they support a bill that will not directly pull a single person out of poverty. I think it comes down to hope. This government is very good at offering hope without substance.

I spoke in second reading about the government's predisposition to gesture politics, making sure they stay on the right side of an issue without actually doing anything about the issue. All this bill offers is more gesture politics. It is designed so that those Ontarians who truly want to fight poverty will see hope in its name and in its goals. The only problem is that the bill is empty. It's like one of those chocolate bunnies kids get at Easter that has a thin layer of chocolate and inside is hollow—empty.

Fighting poverty does not take legislation. It takes political will and good research, and it takes money. The government offers only a bill that requires a plan and annual reports written by the minister herself. These reports allow the government to tell everyone what a great job they've done. It's like letting a student write his own report card. Where is the accountability?

If the government believes that legislation is the way to fight poverty, why do they not require any independent review of their poverty plan? Why will the bill not allow this House to review and debate the annual reports? In committee, presenters repeatedly called for accountability. I would like to review some of what they said.

Let me begin with the Family Service Toronto, Ontario Campaign 2000: "Our eighth suggestion relates to the annual report on poverty reduction. We're suggesting that it should not just be posted on the website, as currently appears in the bill, but that it should be tabled in the Legislature within 60 days of completion in order to ensure public debate, public discussion and public awareness of the very important annual report on how we are doing in achieving the goals of poverty reduction set out in the strategy.

"Our ninth suggestion for an amendment is around the review of the poverty reduction strategy. We would like to see an independent review of the poverty reduction strategy happen at least every five years—not the minister doing the review, but an independent body that would be appointed by the Legislature. This follows on some of our research as to what happens in the European Union, where independent experts conduct peer reviews of each country's national action plan for poverty reduction and social inclusion....

"Our 10th suggested amendment is that the independent body doing that review consult with the public, in particular, low-income people.

"Our 11th suggested amendment is to ensure that the new poverty reduction strategy that is developed be based on the findings of that independent review and be tabled in a timely fashion. We're suggesting within four months of the tabling of the review of the report."

Ms. Jacquie Maund reported: "We're suggesting that someone be appointed, possibly an officer of the Legislature, who would conduct a review, clearly in consultation with interested stakeholders. He or she would require some funding to do that, to hold consultations, and we would like to see those be held around the province, not only in Toronto, so that people have an opportunity to provide comment, to provide input and then, of course, that there be a timeline around that review and that the document be public and then be tabled in the Legislature for public discussion."

From the Chiefs of Ontario, Grand Chief Randall Phillips, speaking about the consultation on this bill, said the following: "There was no concerted effort with respect to addressing any of this strategy, any of these discussions in terms of how it was going to deal with and potentially impact and benefit First Nations communities. That's what we've been saying for many, many years, that within our First Nations governance structures, we have an idea and a sense in terms of how to address these issues, how to look at them and how to really deal with them in a serious way to benefit our people.

But it's an example like this where we've just been totally ignored with respect to how does the strategy move forward and how we are included.

"So, yes, it is an insult with respect to First Nations communities. It is my task as the chair of the chiefs committee on social and child welfare to address these matters with people like yourself who make these decisions. There is an impact with us. We're trying to say that we need to be involved. We're trying to say that we can form solutions and work together on this. That has not occurred, and I think that's the message that I'm trying to bring here right now: Without our inclusion, there are going to be some serious challenges with respect to how we move this bill forward and some serious challenges with respect to the intent of the bill."

The Association of Ontario Health Centres also made similar comments: "While the poverty reduction strategy speaks to the importance of measuring progress with specific indicators, and Bill 152 refers to targets, the legislation currently lacks the teeth necessary to ensure that those targets are sufficiently substantive....

"Accountability is key to our common goal to reduce and eliminate poverty in this province. Reporting must be regular, its processes transparent and accessible. Consultation must be real so that your partners in this project, people living in poverty and organizations who are their voices, can see that their input has been taken seriously. This means reporting that is timely. It also means review and mechanisms of evaluation that are meaningful across the social determinants of health.

Indicators must include income, education, health, housing and standard of living, amongst others, if we are to get an accurate measurement of success, or not. Evaluation must also be timely, independent and thorough. AOHC recommends that the work of the Provincial Auditor be expanded to include an exhaustive five-year review of the strategy then in effect."

The Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction added, "We would note, however, that this process which you've undertaken for these public hearings on this bill was a bit restrictive to those individuals who will be most impacted by the legislation—people living with low and limited income."

The Income Security Advocacy Centre for the 25 in 5: Network for Poverty Reduction made similar comments, and Mary Marrone began by saying, "I think you start by appointing an independent body. Precisely how that's done—there are a number of options. There's the Public Appointments Secretariat; the minister could appoint. But it needs to be somebody who has the confidence of the low-income community and the people of Ontario." Ms. Sarah Blackstock added, "And that's precisely why we've called for the reports to be tabled in the Leg.

We have other recommendations that specify some of the indicators that we would like to be used to measure poverty. So absolutely, those are key amendments that need to be addressed so that we can continue to build."

Sister Pauline Lally, from the Sisters of Providence of St. Vincent de Paul, added, "In the end, it will be up to groups like those appearing before you today and tomorrow to hold future governments accountable. If future governments are to continue the work of poverty reduction, groups like our Kingston vigil keepers need regular and reliable yardsticks by which Ontario's progress in the area of poverty reduction can be measured....

"We need an independent officer of the Legislative Assembly who can report on the state of the social environment. We need this social Ombudsman who can prepare the annual reports on progress in poverty reduction already stipulated in Bill 152. These reports must be independent from the government of the day. They must be delivered to the Legislature every year. This will allow groups like ourselves to praise and/or pressure future governments. This, as you know more than I, is the stuff of politics....

"We hear a lot these days about two words. They inform public discussion of government policy, including social policy. Those two words are 'accountability' and 'transparency.' We hear them in our congregation too. They are repeated so often that sometimes it seems we lose sight of their importance.

"We believe our suggestions for improving Bill 152 reflect the need for future governments to be accountable with respect to poverty reduction and transparent in measuring progress towards that important goal."

The Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, represented by Mr. John Rae, added the following: "We also call upon a clear, understandable and transparent process of review. Part of that must involve tabling all reports before the Legislature. That will give the citizens of this province an opportunity to judge what progress has been and is being made. It will also remind all members of the Legislature what progress has been and is being made so you, who are members of the House, will not forget that poverty must be a part of your everyday thought process and everyday work.

It must not be confined to the work of this committee; it must not be confined to this bill. It must be part of everything the government of Ontario does."

From the March of Dimes, Ms. Bobby Moore said, "We feel that

section 5, under the title 'Regular Consultation,' is not specific enough. We feel that there should be clearly established time frames as a starting point for regular consultation, then an additional provision of additional times to meet, as considered appropriate by the minister. We recommend that specific reference be made to the following: an annual meeting of an advisory body, with cabinet representation, be charged with identifying the champion programs or services that sector and cabinet representatives deem most effective in tackling and alleviating poverty."

Houselink Community Homes: "Currently, the bill asks a minister to undertake a review every five years. We support the idea of there being a regular review; that's great. However, we believe that if this review is to be effective and impartial, it should be undertaken by a body that's independent of the government. It makes no sense for the government to review itself. Furthermore, this independent body that will conduct the review should include those who are closest to the issue, including those who have the direct experience of poverty, as well as organizations who work on the front line."

"Community Living Ontario endorses the recommendations of the 25 in 5 network, providing for regular reviews of the progress on poverty reduction by an independent body reporting to the Legislature. These reviews should include the direct involvement of people who live in poverty, as well as organizations which work to reduce poverty.

"We recommend that all references to reviews of the poverty reduction strategy be amended to provide for the review of the strategy by a body independent of government that is comprised in part by people who have an intellectual disability."

The Canadian Union of Public Employees calls "on the government to add real targets, standards and recommendations into the legislation to make it necessary to ensure the implementation of real poverty reduction strategies. Such targets, standards and recommendations should be established with the Poverty Reduction Act through a series of broad and regular consultations with stakeholders, including those people living with poverty across the province."

Voices From the Street: "We also recommend that the government appoint an independent body that shall review the strategy the government has chosen. The review needs to take place sometime between year three and no later than year four. This review must be completed within a specified timeline; we would recommend a maximum of six months. The review must be tabled in the Legislature within 60 days of the review's completion.

"We would also like to recommend that the government always include those with lived experience to be part of this review. We also feel that Bill 152 needs to be amended so that a consultation includes stakeholders, all other levels of government, members of the public and non-profit sector, business and those who have experience of living in poverty."

"In terms of accountability," the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses said, "we agree with the presenters already here that we need a transparent and objective review and evaluation of any poverty reduction strategy in the government, and we also need that report to be provided within the Legislature for full public debate."

The Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario concluded: "Within four years of the release of Breaking the Cycle: Ontario's Poverty Reduction Strategy, an independent person or group should be appointed to undertake a comprehensive review of the implementation and effectiveness ... of transparency and credibility. It is essential that a meaningful consultation process be initiated so that those who have direct experience with poverty and social exclusion would be encouraged and would have the opportunity to fully participate in the development, implementation and evaluation of the poverty reduction strategy.

In fact, we should make the mechanisms such that they will be supported to participate. The government will then be able to issue a revised long-term poverty reduction strategy for Ontario based on" that review.

The Canadian Mental Health Association regarded regular reviews as essential to ensure that the reduction targets remain timely, relevant and effective. Again, we recommend that an independent body of stakeholders be appointed by the government to lead the review. This will ensure that any new strategies and revisions align with the identified needs of those it is intended to serve.

The majority of the submissions in committee had a common theme: accountability. Many called for an independent review of the plan and your annual reports, maybe because although they support this bill, they're really concerned about the question of whether you actually try to reduce poverty. Maybe they do not believe that your annual reports will make any difference. If these anti-poverty groups trusted you, they would not have asked over and over again for independent reviews of your poverty plan.

I offered the committee an amendment to require that the annual reports promised in this bill go to a legislative committee for review and public hearings. The Liberal majority on the committee, of course, voted it down. It means that after the minister tables her annual report in the House, the government does not have to do anything.

A lot of space is taken up in the bill with a list of disadvantaged groups that suffer from poverty. This follows a list of noble sentiments about how poverty is a bad thing. I am not opposed to noble sentiments, but none of them mean anything in reality. The only thing that has real meaning is action. Action means creative ideas and the money to pay for them.

The Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, led by Roger Martin and originally set up by the Ontario government, reported in 2007 on ways to fight poverty. They identified who is at risk and what should be done. They wrote, "Poverty is concentrated among six high-risk groups—high school dropouts, recent immigrants, lone parents, unattached individuals between the ages of 45 and 64, the disabled, and aboriginals. Individuals in these groups are much more likely to be at the bottom end of Ontario's income distribution and are more likely to live in poverty.

To help these people, we need greater investments in their skills and capabilities. These can be funded more easily if Ontario achieves its prosperity potential."

I would encourage all members of this House to read their report. If the government had read their report in 2007 when it came out, they could have already taken action. There was certainly no sign of reference to this report in committee. Poverty policies should be tailored to meet the needs of people in each of the six groups. The best way out of poverty is a good job. The best way for children out of poverty is for their parents to be able to get good jobs. Governments must design policies that emphasize education, language training and other means that suit the needs of individuals. No one wants to be poor.

Thousands are seeking a way out. They are looking for hope. The Poverty Reduction Act may appear to provide hope, but it is somewhat of an illusion.

I want to finish by saying that I know there has been a great deal of concern about support for this bill. I want to reinforce the fact that we are supporting the bill.

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: It's questions and comments.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Well, okay. You were a bit slow, but go ahead.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: As the member has pointed out, this bill does precious little to solve the problem of poverty. In fact, I think the title of this bill is wrong. It says it's a long-term strategy to reduce poverty. I think in a country like Canada, which is among the richest countries in the world, even the people who are in poverty live in the top 90th percentile of the people in the world. The people in this House, I dare say, are living in the top 98th percentile of the people in the world. A country that is this rich should not be satisfied with reducing poverty. The title of this bill should be to eliminate poverty.

Interjections.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I don't find eliminating poverty a laughing matter. I'm absolutely amazed that the government would find some humour in the fact that someone wanted to eliminate poverty. We are a rich enough country to be able to do that. This is a very sad day for Ontario when this government finds such humour in the fact that someone stands in their place here and says that we should eliminate poverty. We are a rich enough country to be able to accomplish that goal.

I feel sorry for the poor people of this province when they have that government looking after their best interests and bringing this bill in that is going to do precious little—next to nothing—to eliminate the restrictions of poverty in which people find themselves in this province.

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

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Order. The member for York—Simcoe, you have two minutes to respond. Oh, Mr. Miller. Sorry. Questions and comments?

Mr. Paul Miller: I'd just like to reiterate my colleague's comments that we will be supporting this bill. However, I only have one thing to say and it's going to be quick.

The bottom line is that there have been a lot of studies done, there has been a lot of input from community groups and other people, and only thing I can say is, put the dollar where the bill is. We'll see in the next two or three years in budgets how much money actually goes out the door and into the hands of the people who need it. I've heard a lot of talk and a lot of meetings and all that, but I guess the proof is in the pudding. We'll see. When the cheques start going out to the people who need them, then that's when I will believe it.

I mean, we can talk all we want, we can make promises and a nice, pretty bill, but if the people don't get the resources, if they don't get the money and if they don't get the help, then it is a wasted effort.

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: That old biblical story about Saul on the road to Damascus I think can apply this morning. I remember chairing social services in Peterborough as a city councillor when we got the notification that ODSP and OW rates were going to be slashed by 21% by the Harris government and their cronies, when we got the message that minimum wage was going to be frozen for eight long years. And they can stand up today and talk about what they want to do for people who find themselves in difficult economic circumstances in Ontario?

That, without a doubt, is the biggest bunch of poppycock I've ever heard in the six years I've been in this chamber. That is absolutely atrocious, that they can stand up talking about that.

They opposed the Ontario child benefit that we're going to accelerate by two years to give those individuals a helping hand in Ontario. One of their leadership candidates came out yesterday and said, "We're going to freeze minimum wage again in the province of Ontario." And they come here today saying they're supportive of this bill? Oh my goodness. I mean, as I said, this is the Saul-on-the-road-to-Damascus story this morning. Gosh, if it's a real-life conversion, well, that'll be—

Interjection: We welcome that.

Mr. Jeff Leal: We welcome that if it's a real-life conversion. But I understand that's not the reality, when you hear those leadership candidates don't want to provide anybody in a low-income situation with a helping hand.

This is what this bill is all about. This is what this minister is all about; that, and providing the kind of leadership that's needed on this file in the province of Ontario. That's what we're looking for, to get this bill to royal assent and to move forward on this file in Ontario.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: Just to tone down the rhetoric a little, we are supposed to be talking about the submission and the statements that were made by the honourable member. The attacks that are going on here—what she said was cogent, it was clear and it was good. What she was trying to say is that the people who came forward had some very real suggestions, that the government listened to some of those suggestions and that she was hopeful and mindful of them going just a little bit further.

What she said repeatedly, and I said it in my speech as well—and I think the government needs to hear it, and people who are going to come here, if there is a vote, need to hear it—is that one of the things that is missing is that there is not an independent review. I wish there had been one. I listened to what she had to say. The groups called for it and she called for it. She spoke dispassionately; she spoke well; she spoke in favour of the bill.

For comments to be on someone else who is speaking—I mean, I don't know whether that's what's supposed to be done. As speakers we have rules, and the rules are—you're supposed to confine your two-minute comment to the person who spoke. She had the lead-off speech, and I would hope in the future that all members from all sides of the House would confine themselves to speaking and to commenting on the person who has delivered either the one-hour or the 20-minute speech and not use the opportunity to attack each other.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Since the matter has been raised, I will read to the House standing order 25, which says: "Following the speech of each member, up to four members may ask questions and comment for up to two minutes each on matters relevant to the matters before the House.…" It doesn't necessarily confine it to the member's comments; it's relevant to matters before the House.

Anyway, the member for York—Simcoe, you have two minutes to respond.

Mrs. Julia Munro: First of all, I would like to thank the member from Beaches—East York, because I too had the same

interpretation of the standing order, and I was very clear about the fact that I wanted people to understand that the amendment I put forward, which was lost, actually responded to the theme of accountability that we heard over and over again from others.

Let me just say to the member from Peterborough that, while you may remember the 21%, that was for able-bodied people. It had nothing to do with ODSP and it had nothing to do with single mothers. However, a much better response from me is the fact that 750,000 Ontarians were taken from the provincial tax rolls. That was money in their pocket, and that is the kind of creative opportunity that, if you as a caucus read Roger Martin's work on poverty, you would know that, for each of those groups that he identifies, he has very specific, tailored suggestions.

So that's why I think that, in this House, I would have liked to see a demonstration of that kind of research being put into legislation, because what this bill has done is simply raised the level of expectation, frankly, amongst all Ontarians, and at the same time has not provided an adequate avenue for consultation. There is no science behind what is suggested here.

I want to just remind—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. Further debate? Does any other member wish to speak? Minister?

Ms. Matthews has moved third reading of Bill 152. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The vote will be taken this morning after question period, under deferred votes.

Third reading vote deferred.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Orders of the day?

Hon. John Wilkinson: There is no further business this morning until question period.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): There being no further business, this House in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 0945 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Visiting today at Queen's Park for Family Service Ontario day, from Catholic Family Services in Kitchener, I'm pleased to introduce Cathy Brothers, Mike Collins, Catherine Fife, Pam Mank, Karin Voisin, Jennifer Berry, Vivian Zochowski, and a person that I know well, Scott Witmer.

Mr. Bill Mauro: I'm pleased to introduce to the Legislature today, visiting from Thunder Bay for family services day, from the Thunder Bay Counselling Centre, the executive director, Nancy Chamberlain, and the chair of the board, Connie McLeod.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I ask all to join me in welcoming, from Catholic Family Services of Durham, Mary Wells, the executive director, as well as Elizabeth Pierce, the senior council program manager.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I want to introduce some people from Catholic Family Services in Hamilton: Dana Vladescu; John Henderson; Erin Forler; Wendy Brawn; Linda Dayler, the executive director; Paula Forbes; Mary Jefferson; Dana Tozier Gillespie; and Kate Sudak.

Mr. Bob Delaney: In the west visitors' gallery, I'd like to introduce an old friend, the executive director of Catholic Family Services of Peel-Dufferin, Mark Creedon.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: It's my pleasure to introduce Kevin, Nicholas, Helen and Alan Currie, all family of page Robyn.

Mr. Jeff Leal: It's a pleasure for me to introduce today, in the west public gallery, two people from Peterborough: Ms. Casey Ready, who is executive director of the Community Counselling and Resource Centre in Peterborough, and Mr. Don Cumming, who is president of the board of directors for the Community Counselling and Resource Centre in Peterborough. They are here as part of family services day at Queen's Park. We certainly give them a warm welcome.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I'd like to welcome Nancy Brown, executive director of Halton Family Services; Susan Jewett, executive director of Burlington Counselling and Family Services; as well as other members of those two great organizations who are with us today. I'd like to thank them for the great work they do for the families of Halton, and I look forward to meeting them after the session. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Mr. David Zimmer: It's my pleasure to introduce Stephen Mills, president of the board of Catholic Family Services of Toronto; Lucia Furgiuele, executive director of Catholic Family Services of Toronto; Roz Boateng, member of the board of directors; and Mary Kennedy, a member of the board of directors. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I take great pleasure today in introducing members from the Family Counselling Centre in Sarnia, Don Pitt, their director, as well as other members, in the west members' gallery. We welcome you.

Mr. Howard Hampton: It is my privilege today to introduce Mr. Jon Thompson, who is the executive director of Community Counselling Services, which, while headquartered in Fort Frances, serves a very large area in northwestern Ontario. Welcome.

Mr. Dave Levac: Visiting us today in the House are members from the Family Counselling Centre of Brant: the president of the association, Jamie Clark, and the executive director, Shelley McCarthy. We would like to welcome them here to this House and listen carefully to what their concerns are.

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to introduce Susan Gapko, who is in the east gallery today and who will be watching the proceedings. Hi, Susan.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: It's my pleasure to welcome Derek Thompson, the chair of the board of the Community Counselling Centre of Nipissing, and Alan McQuarrie, the executive director. We're delighted that they're here today.

Hon. John Gerretsen: I'd like to introduce Mike and Charlene Brown, who are in the east lobby and who are my guests here today.

Hon. Michael Chan: This is Family Services Day at Queen's Park. I would like to welcome guests from York region to the Legislature: Mr. Elisha Laker, Dr. Patti Reed, Ms. Susan Warren, Ms. Rose Montevergin and Mr. John Munroe. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I would like to introduce Tim Simboli, executive director of Family Services in Ottawa, and John Ellis, executive director of Family Service Ontario.

Hon. John Wilkinson: On behalf of my colleague the member for Huron—Bruce, we are both delighted to have Susan Melkert from Family Services Perth-Huron here.

Hon. John Milloy: I would like to join with my colleague from Kitchener—Waterloo in recognizing the various members here from KW Counselling and Catholic Family Counselling, and add to the list she gave from KW Counselling Debbie Young, Sherri Bean and Heidi Balsillie; and from Catholic Family Counselling, I'd like to add to the list Andrew Wilding, Jack Sehl, Larry Ryan, Megan Conway, Judy Nairn, and Ian Russell.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I would like to welcome students from the Froebel Education Centre in Mississauga to the Legislature.

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: I'd like to join in welcoming members of Catholic Family Services of Simcoe County, as has been done by all of my colleagues. They are going to speak with many of us about very, very pertinent and compelling issues.

For over the past 30 years, Catholic Family Services of Simcoe County has been an integral part of the fabric of our community. I welcome them here. I'm delighted that the Minister of Community and Social Services has provided this opportunity.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I notice that up in the gallery we have Vivian McCaffrey and Cheryl Fullerton. Vivian is from ETFO and Cheryl is from OECTA.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): This has been a good test for the Speaker, and we're certainly keeping Hansard very busy as well.

I'd like to welcome from Family Service Thames Valley, in the riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London, Warren Brooke and Sandra Savage, seated in the Speaker's gallery. Welcome to both of you today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is for the Minister of Labour. According to the Toronto Star, you've known for two weeks that Magdalene Gordo and Richelyn Tongson were forced to work up to 16 hours a day, five days a week, at approximately $1.56 an hour—well below your $10 minimum wage—at Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla's home.

While you have personally trumpeted two bills in this chamber that would protect nannies and temporary workers, it would appear you've been silent for two weeks after you were made aware of these reported abuses of your own Ontario legislation. What kind of minister sits by when workers are accusing his own friend of breaking the very labour laws he's brought forward? Minister, have you initiated an independent inquiry into these complaints?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I thank the member for the question. The member is quite right that we have been out consulting in communities, meeting with nannies and listening to their concerns—many groups: stakeholders, advocates, family, friends and supporters. We've heard many stories that have saddened me. In all of those round tables, those discussions that we have been having, what we have done is we have moved forward as a government and we have set up a 1-800 hotline to receive calls. We have a dedicated team to address all of those concerns. At all of those meetings we've also distributed employment standards fact sheet information—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: When this minister was confronted with the complaint, he did nothing about it. On the one hand, this minister put forward legislation to protect nannies and temporary workers, while on the other hand he does nothing when his Liberal friend Ruby Dhalla is the target of a Toronto Star investigation which suggests she acted in contradiction of his own laws.

It's been reported that you attended a meeting two weeks ago where these foreign workers cried out for help when they said Ruby Dhalla withheld their passports, yet not only did the federal Minister of Immigration say today in the Star—your own staff acknowledged that you did not pick up the phone and call the federal Minister of Immigration. Not only did you fail in your job as minister, you failed in your job as John Q. Public. I don't know how you couldn't pick up the phone and tell the proper federal authorities of this breach.

Will you step aside until there is an independent investigation into the Dhalla affair and your own mishandling of it?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The member is completely wrong. I have been meeting over many months, actually, with many of these caregivers. I did pick up the phone and I did call Minister Kenney. I explained to him many of the stories we were hearing from these caregivers; they were telling us about a completely broken, flawed program that they have federally. I encouraged Minister Kenney to take some leadership to fix that program because that's what we're doing here in this province.

We have set up a dedicated team to help with those who feel they've been discriminated against, who feel there has been a contravention of the employment standards. That team is there to assist any of those live-in caregivers, those nannies, with any claims they may have.

We have heard these—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: As Ruby Dhalla's mentor and his federal leader once said, "You didn't get it done. You didn't get it done."

What kind of labour minister stands by and does nothing while it's reported that their friend abused the very labour laws he's responsible for? How can this Liberal government explain this failure to the Ontario public? You could have called the immigration minister; you chose not to. You could have told your own ministry officials; you chose not to. Minister, you don't get to pick and choose who abides by and who breaks your laws. They either do or they don't. You have no credibility on this file. You've failed as John Q. Citizen and you've failed as labour minister.

Now that this issue is a national—I repeat, national—embarrassment, will you step aside and ensure your government calls an independent investigation into Ruby Dhalla?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: That member and her party have voted against every piece of legislation we have brought to this House to help vulnerable workers. Just the other day, that member and her party stood up against helping workers that are working for temporary—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Peter Fonseca: That member and her party voted against helping vulnerable workers who work in temporary help agencies. That is a shame, I say to that member.

I have picked up the phone. I have spoken to Minister Kenney. It is unfortunate that the federal government has not taken leadership on this very important matter. There is a completely broken live-in caregiver program in Canada that needs to be fixed. I would hope that Minister Kenney would take some leadership and fix that broken program. I've told Mr. Kenney—

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

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: That disgusting response just endorsed the need for this minister to step aside.

My question is to the Deputy Premier and it has to do with the Minister of Economic Development's now-infamous Canadian Club speech earlier this week when he talked about drawing from a $2-billion fund of funds in order to pick winners and losers in the economy. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance was scrummed after question period and was asked about this $2-billion fund of funds. He was standing there, I'm told, scratching his head and suggesting, "Well, we have a variety of funds."

Deputy Premier, if there is this much money, as your colleague in cabinet was suggesting at this Canadian Club meeting, why did you present a record-breaking deficit budget? Why did you secretly cut back on your promise to kids for textbooks and rural travel? Where is this $2-billion fund of—

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There are, in fact, a variety of funds that this government uses to assist a variety of businesses, and that is the response I gave yesterday. I'll just review a number of them for you. There's the Next Generation of Jobs Fund. There is the northern heritage fund, which assists business. There is the RED fund, from the Ministry of Agriculture, to assist farms throughout the province.

So there are a variety of these funds. The total amount that's been allocated in their budgets is in the vicinity of $2 billion.

Our government will continue to partner with business and labour to help grow this economy through the most challenging time in the world's economy since the 1930s.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: This should really go back to the Deputy Premier.

The Minister of Economic Development clearly stated, in what today's National Post describes as a "bizarre" speech, that he plans to pick winners and losers and will be using $2 billion of taxpayers' money as Liberal mad money in order to play the economy czar.

Yesterday I asked the Premier about this, and he didn't have, or at least declined to offer, a valid response. I think it's important to have clarity here. It sends a message to our business community and international investors.

Deputy Premier, was Minister Bryant's speech based on a government policy decision, or were you and your caucus blindsided by a minister with his own agenda?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Our government has been partnering with the business community over the course of the last five years. That's what the Next Generation of Jobs Fund is all about. It's what the advanced manufacturing investment strategy is all about. It's what the comprehensive tax reform package we brought forward in our budget is all about.

Governments around the world today are interfacing with business, are investing in business, are providing assistance to the auto sector—Japan, China, Germany, the United States, Canada, Sweden; a variety of countries.

We do, in fact, offer a variety of funds that are designed to assist with the preservation of jobs and to help create new jobs, particularly those new jobs that will be prevalent in the 21st century.

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Well, there's not much clarity there.

We hear about a secret fund. Perhaps they also have a secret economic adviser, Hugo Chávez.

In his speech, Minister Bryant said, "This is governments choosing winners and losers.... This is the business that we are in...."

So once again, back to the minister: When did your government get into that business? When did you decide that consumers and the marketplace in this province no longer have a say?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We've offered a variety of programs—but I'd like to review the comments of some of the members of the Conservative Party in the last few weeks.

Some Conservatives like to call assistance to business corporate welfare, but here's what Frank Klees said in December, when he asked the government to support a business in his riding—"for example, to the Next Generation of Jobs Fund, which I have attempted to help some of my constituents make application to." He called upon us to help.

Christine Elliott, last year, said about the auto industry, "I wouldn't dismiss (another provincial investment) out of hand, especially where I come from.... I think it's important that" the auto industry "be given whatever support they can give."

Then their economic development critic, Ted Chudleigh, who often uses the term "corporate welfare," said last May, "I understand the need to partner with industry and to leverage investment, and I value GM as an important Ontario"—

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

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. This government claims its $4.5-billion corporate tax giveaway is pro-jobs and pro-growth. New Democrats have argued that the $4.5 billion could be far better used to fund strategic social and economic investments that will create the jobs of tomorrow, jobs like the ones at Bombardier in Thunder Bay, which will be killed if this province refuses to pay its fair share of the TTC's streetcar purchase.

My question is this: Why is this government insisting on giving away $4.5 billion to corporations that are profitable in this province when that money should and could be better spent on creating and protecting jobs?

Hon. George Smitherman: By way of supplementary, the finance minister might want to speak to this initiative, which has at its heart the desire to place our economy in a much more competitive circumstance on a going-forward basis. But I want to say to the honourable member who spoke, again, about the issue with respect to investment in public transit, that we welcome the New Democratic Party's return to support for public transit in the province of Ontario, and that the Bombardier workers in Thunder Bay are heralding the demise of the member from northwestern Ontario, who in the past said that he was against expansion of the subway line to York University and beyond.

We're going to work closely, as we have, to continue to make investments in public transit, along with the $9 billion that the Premier has committed in the context of Metrolinx here in the greater Toronto area.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This government's corporate tax giveaway to profitable companies made no sense when it was announced and it makes even less sense this morning. The Obama administration has made a bold move to discourage US subsidiaries in foreign countries from investing there simply on the basis of low local corporate tax rates. Since the corporate tax giveaway now threatens to cost Ontario revenue and jobs, when will this government do the responsible thing, reverse its course and call it off?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I can assure the member opposite we won't back off a policy that's going to rebuild the Ontario economy. And you know what? She ought to get her facts straight about what's going on. Like typical New Democrats, she doesn't have her facts straight. In fact, the Obama administration has provided corporate tax cuts.

We are simply moving in a balanced and prudent fashion across personal income tax—the member forgets $10.6 billion in personal tax cuts. Is she opposed to that? Is she opposed to giving our corporations a more competitive position to go forward on? Is she opposed to that? Is she still opposed to the child benefit which she has voted against repeatedly? Is she opposed to that? Is she opposed to the 25 in 5 Network, who supported this budget?

This government has a plan. That party's hopelessly lost in the past—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, I hope that the finance minister is aware of his plan to bring corporate taxes down to 25% when the US administration has it at 35%. How about that for a fact? Other jurisdictions are worried, Finance Minister; other jurisdictions are very worried. Governments in places like India and Ireland realize exactly what's at stake and that jobs are definitely on the line. The Obama administration is forcing them to reconsider their approach right now. That's what's happening. They are paying attention to what's happening in the US; why won't this government do the same?

Call off the $4.5-billion corporate tax giveaway and use the money to invest in jobs like those at Bombardier in Thunder Bay.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Well, I'm glad the member opposite finally gets it. In fact, the US corporate tax rate is 38%, and ours will be 25%, because we will be more competitive than Michigan, more competitive than Ohio, more competitive than Indiana, more competitive than Kentucky, more competitive than California.

The member opposite doesn't understand the breadth of the US tax code which provides a range of exemptions that encourage US firms to locate offshore. She can talk about the US all she wants. I'm going to talk about working families in Ontario. I'm going to talk about getting working people back to work. I'm going to talk about building the biggest and best economy we can have in the 21st century in Ontario. We'll beat them at their own game, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

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

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What the finance minister refuses to acknowledge is that the 10% giveaway is going to end up in the US Treasury; that's where it's going to end up.

My question now is to the Acting Premier. Dozens and dozens of women across Ontario are getting pink slips for having children, with employers using the poor economy as an excuse. What does this Acting Premier think of this discriminatory and deplorable practice?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I'd like to thank the member for the question. I also would like to thank the member—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd like to hear the answer, and I think that all the honourable members of the opposition would appreciate hearing it as well.

Minister?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Again, I thank the member for the support on the temporary help agencies legislation, unlike the Conservative Party, which would not support that.

I can say, as a husband and the father of two young children, that I know how important it was for my family and for my wife to know that she had peace of mind when she was at home taking care of our new babies. She had the support of a very good employer. As Ontarians start new families, they should not have to worry about unscrupulous employers.

Let's be clear: It is illegal for employers to discriminate against pregnant women in Ontario, and any employer who discriminates against a pregnant woman or a parent who is entitled to leave will be prosecuted. The employment standards have severe—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Vera Trevisanello, who is here in the gallery, is a new mom. Vera was expecting to return to her financial services job after her son was born, but just days before she was expecting to return to work, she was terminated.

Across Ontario, numerous women are telling the same story, and New Democrats are calling on your government—on this government—to hire more employment standards officers, to increase the number of annual workplace inspections and to educate employers—educate them—on the Employment Standards Act and human rights legislation. If this government is serious about stamping out this discriminatory practice, will it support what New Democrats are calling for?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I am very sorry to hear about anybody who has been discriminated against by an unscrupulous employer, and that's why we actually put $4.5 million more in this last budget to hire more employment standards officers. They are very well trained individuals.

Again, getting back to our employment standards, let's be clear: Anybody—any employer—who breaks the law and discriminates against a pregnant woman or someone who is on parental leave will be severely penalized through fines and even imprisonment.

I say to the member that we have strong laws here in Ontario. Anybody who feels they are in this situation, please contact the Ministry of Labour—our employment standards officers. This is top priority and it moves right to the—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Once again, this government talks the sympathetic talk but comes up short in enforcing its own legislation, and it's women who are paying the price in this province. If this government is serious about protecting women's rights and upholding Ontario's laws, why is it allowing women to be punished for having children?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Again, we want to ensure that all women—anybody who is on parental leave—are protected, and that is why we have very strong laws in Ontario. We have employment standards officers who are professionals and are very well trained.

I encourage anybody who feels they have been discriminated against to contact the Ministry of Labour employment standards officers. They will investigate, and if an employer is found to be treating an employee illegally, they will be severely penalized through fines and, as I said, even imprisonment.

We want to ensure that the employees, the hard-working Ontarians, are protected by our laws, and that's what we're doing. That's why we put $4.5 million more into hiring more officers to get out there and investigate, and we prioritized this—

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

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I have a question for the Deputy Premier. The government's new reverse Reaganism strategy has economists up in arms. Doug Porter, the new chief economist for the Bank of Montreal Capital Markets, said it "flies in the face of decades of evidence," the CD Howe Institute calls it "very dangerous" and many more voices warn of pork-barrel politics, unpaid loans and more economic mismanagement from the McGuinty government. Even the Premier acknowledged earlier this year that governments are a brake on growth. He was referring to red tape at the time, I believe.

Deputy Premier, is your new reverse Reaganism strategy based on a certain model, a particular study, a historical example? Is there a shining city on the hill where this system has actually worked, outside of Cuba or North Korea?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The honourable member just asked a question. I would like him to listen to the response.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, a number of those economists have endorsed the government's budgetary policy, its fiscal policy. I can point to Jack Mintz, I can point to the CD Howe Institute, I can point to senior economists with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

This government does have a variety of programs that are designed to create and attract new jobs to Ontario. In fact, we have a Toyota plant just outside of Woodstock that benefited from that. We have a variety of new industries related to renewable energy that are starting to build here in Ontario because of various programs that this government's offered.

These are difficult and challenging times. We will continue to put forward a budgetary and economic policy that will see us through perhaps the worst downturn in the economy since the Great Depression and make this economy bigger, better—

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: So these partisan, untrained media darlings on the government side are going to go out and pick the winners and losers in Ontario. For the lucky winners, or friends of the Liberal Party, this is great news. But for the losers, those companies who don't meet the hidden criteria, this is a disaster. Instead of competing on a level playing field, non-subsidized companies will only be up against the subsidized winners, but they'll also be paying them with their own tax dollars.

Why would any small- or medium-sized business, or loser, as you would call them, want to invest in a land where they are forced to subsidize their competitors?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I wonder if the member is aware of a company called Roxul Inc. in his riding, which received a $10-million loan to create or retain 232 jobs. Are you asking that that not be done? Mr. Barrett from Norfolk county: I wonder if he opposed the $7.15-million advanced manufacturing loan to Toyotetsu, which will create or retain 250 jobs. I wonder if Mr. Hardeman from Woodstock is opposed to the $8.7-million—

Interjection.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Yes, thumbs up; he supported it—an $8.7-million advanced manufacturing investment strategy loan to create 365 skilled jobs.

These members opposite have supported these particular applications into their ridings. This government is pursuing a balanced policy that will see Ontario through the most difficult challenge in the economy since the 1930s and our economy will—

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

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Labour. He refused to answer this question earlier. Let's try again.

At a recent public meeting hosted by the Minister of Labour, two women spoke of employment standards violations they experienced while employed by Liberal member of Parliament Ruby Dhalla. The question is, will the Minister of Labour, in his own words, "severely penalize" Ruby Dhalla or put her in jail?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I thank the member for the question. Again, what I have done, the Ministry of Labour has done and our government has done is reached out to many communities, to individuals that are working through a federal live-in caregiver program that we know is severely broken. We've heard their stories, and those stories are very concerning.

In those meetings, when we hear those stories, here's what we've shared with them: First off, we've established a 1-800 number with a support team to be able to take any claims that those live-in caregivers may have. We've also distributed employment standards information at all those meetings, so everybody attending those meetings receives information and the number to call, because we want to ensure that professionals that we have within the ministry are able to—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That's not helpful.

The member from Parkdale—High Park, supplementary.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: A 1-800 number is not an answer to the question. Magdalene Gordo and Richelyn Tongson said that they were required to work 12 to 15 hours a day for sub-minimum wage. They weren't paid properly and had their passports held by Dr. Dhalla. Yet you chose to do nothing, Mr. Minister of Labour, about these allegations.

In your own words, you've just said to this House that you would penalize a perpetrator and that you would see them put in jail. The question is: Will you stand up for the Liberal Party or will you stand up for workers in Ontario? Will you penalize Ruby Dhalla? Will you put Ruby Dhalla in jail?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I say to the member that within the Ministry of Labour we have dedicated, committed, professional, well-trained inspectors and officers. That's the message that I've always delivered at any meeting that I've gone to. We've—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Perhaps we could have a question period and let everybody just heckle back and forth. It could be very entertaining.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'm just going to keep letting the clock run. It's not harming me.

Minister?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Having listened to many of the stories that the live-in caregivers, the nannies, have shared with me, I picked up the phone many weeks ago and I spoke to Minister Kenney—this is a federal live-in caregiver program. I explained to him the shortcomings of this program, the challenges within this program, and how they need to be fixed. Unfortunately, Minister Kenney has not moved forward to fix this program. So what we've done here at the Ministry of Labour, in the government of Ontario, is to put in a dedicated team to help with anybody that feels that they've been discriminated against. We have—

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

TEACHERS

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: My question is to the Minister of Education, in regard to the Premier's award ceremony for teaching excellence that was held yesterday. These provincial awards were given to 20 educators and support staff for their excellent contribution to student learning and achievement.

I am proud to inform the House and congratulate one of my constituents for receiving an award for excellence in leadership. Chantal Bertrand is a teacher and a coordinator who is committed to helping everyone learn, from age 16 to 60. Throughout her career, she has worked to build community partnerships and collaboration on the introduction of courses that meet the students' needs, such as welding for women and computing for adults 55 and over.

Would the minister explain what else is being done to motivate and support our educators, as it has a direct effect on the success of our students?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, I want to congratulate all of the recipients of the Premier's Awards for Teaching Excellence, and I want to thank my colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell for attending the ceremony and staying and celebrating with all of those award recipients.

Support and respect are hallmarks of our relationship with educators in this province. We have worked very hard to make sure that the relationship is a good one. We've done things specifically in relation to teachers, like creating a new teacher induction program, providing new teachers with mentoring in those early years. We've made changes to the Ontario College of Teachers that have allowed more classroom teachers to sit on its council. We've also increased funding in the system by over $5 billion since 2003, which means we've increased the number of teachers by 10,500, despite the fact of declining enrolment.

So the awards ceremony last night celebrated—

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

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: Minister, I know that in addition to teachers, support workers also play a valuable role in furthering the achievement of our students.

Last night, I heard about the wonderful achievements of Laureen Kuzyk, an educational assistant from Rainy River who is generous in helping students in need. She brings in used clothes and provides free haircuts to students having financial difficulties. She also provides tutoring for students who are struggling academically. She does this, and more, in a way that preserves their dignity and privacy.

We know that teachers aren't the only ones who are playing a

part in creating a welcoming and supportive environment for students. Could the minister tell us what our government is doing in regard to support and funding for our valuable education support staff?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We believe that support workers are an integral part of student success in this province. As the Premier said last night, everyone who works in our schools, all of the adults who work in our schools, are teachers. They touch and form the lives of our students.

Last night, we heard about support workers who coach. We heard about support workers who mentor students. They go way beyond the parameters of their job description to work with kids in the schools. The kids know them and relate to them. It was a great pleasure to be able to celebrate those support workers last night.

What we've done as a government is work with support-worker unions. This past year, we've managed to have provincial agreements with all of our support-worker unions, leading to four-year agreements for those individual units. We have increased support staff by 8,600, also in the face of declining enrolment. The celebration last night—

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

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question again is to the Minister of Labour, since I'm still not getting any answers. The minister has admitted that he got this information about Ruby Dhalla's nannies two weeks ago. He admitted as much to the House. Did he report it to ministry officials? These are Ontario's labour laws. What did the minister do about this egregious break of them?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Once again, I don't think the member heard the first time. The main thing we are doing is getting out and meeting with all the live-in caregivers and nannies. When we meet in these town halls, in these round tables, in these discussion groups, we hear many stories. Many of them are alarming. That is why at all these meetings we provide employment standards information. We provide information so that they can contact our officers. If there is a claim to be made—we have a dedicated team that is there to support them—they would call, make that claim and that dedicated team would be able to go in and investigate that claim.

These are professional, well-trained individuals. That is the right way to do things. Unfortunately, the—

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Again to the Minister of Labour: You are the minister. The responsibility stops with you. You heard the allegations; you did nothing, in your own words. The question is, will you penalize Ruby Dhalla? Will you put Ruby Dhalla in jail, according to your own standards, Mr. Minister—your own standards?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The member can puff and holler all she wants over there, but this government is on the side of Ontario workers—all workers. We are here to protect those live-in caregivers, and that is why we are reaching out to the community. That's why we're listening. We do hear some alarming stories. Most of those stories, I could tell you, stem back to a flawed, broken federal live-in caregiver program.

That's why, as soon as I started hearing the stories, I picked up the phone, I called Minister Kenney, and I said, "Take some national leadership on this; fix your program." That has not been done, so we have moved forward with a toll-free 1-800 number, with town hall meetings and with employment standards sheets distributed across the province in all our libraries, early years centres, through our schools, through advocacy groups, stakeholders—

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

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Ms. Laurel C. Broten: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, as you know, this week is Children's Mental Health Awareness Week, and today we are joined at Queen's Park by members of Family Service Ontario. As you know, FSO assists tens of thousands of individuals and families in communities across Ontario each year. They assist Ontarians with emotional, psychological, social, physical and financial struggles. I have seen the good work done by FSO first-hand when I worked with them to develop the government's domestic violence action plan.

Their presence in 27 communities across Ontario has made a significant difference around our province. In my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore, the FSO is headed by its executive director, John Ellis, and it plays an invaluable role by supporting families in need.

Minister, can you please tell members of this House how our government is working to support the important work being undertaken each and every day across our province by Family Service Ontario?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I want to thank my colleague from Etobicoke—Lakeshore for all the support that she gave through this review with regard to violence against women. I'd like to welcome to this House Family Service Ontario, who are with us today in the Legislature.

Family service agencies assist Ontarians of every age group and socio-economic level. In my ministry alone, family service agencies have benefited from a number of increases to violence-against-women programs provided by MCSS, including a $1-million enhancement to transitional and housing support programs and a $2.5-million enhancement to counselling programs. In the developmental services sector, 13 FSO agencies received a total of $7.7 million in 2008, and I want to thank family services agencies for their tremendous work and dedication to—

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

Ms. Laurel C. Broten: Minister, as I mentioned, FSO agencies cover a large spectrum of services, and I'd like to ask you specifically about mental health services and what our government is doing in this regard. Some of Ontario's most vulnerable citizens quietly suffer from various mental health challenges. In my work at the Gatehouse, I saw first-hand the effects that childhood abuse can have on one's mental health, and just yesterday I met with representatives from Etobicoke Children's Centre to discuss the challenges faced by this important sector.

Minister, many of the affected Ontarians fall under your watch. They may be ODSP and OW recipients or women fleeing domestic abuse. What action is our government taking to tackle the critical and often hidden issue of mental health?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Since 2004, this government has increased funding by more than $200 million to improve mental health services to build capacity outside the provisional institutional services setting. We have increased funding, to more than $270 million, to over 300 community mental health agencies in Ontario. This increased funding has expanded access to over 200,000 more Ontarians seeking mental health services and hired more than 1,100 new mental health workers.

The government has also established an advisory group on mental health and addiction to provide direction on the development of a 10-year comprehensive strategy for mental health and addiction. So yes, our government acknowledges that there is work to be done on the issue of mental health, and we will continue to support the—

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

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Labour as well. This is a very serious issue related to the possibility of Liberal favouritism with respect to the application of Ontario laws. Hopefully, he will try to respond to the specifics.

We have been advised, through the media, that he and his colleague, the Minister of Education, were advised at a public meeting by two individuals of serious violations of Ontario's employment standards laws by a Liberal member of federal Parliament. I ask him specifically: Did he not believe that he had an ethical responsibility, with respect to this concern being expressed by these two individuals, to act, and act at that moment?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I say to the member we have heard many stories, hundreds of stories, at all of these town halls and roundtable meetings that we've had. The vast majority of all the complaints and challenges that come from these stories are federally related.

Many of the complaints we've heard about—here's what Minister Kenney had to say in terms of where they do fall under his responsibility: "If someone was working in a home who was here without a work permit appropriate for that job, that would be my ministry"—his ministry—"and so that should be reported to the officials of Immigration Canada. If someone was paid under the table without taxes paid, that should be reported to Revenue Canada. And if workers did not have their basic labour code rights respected, if they were forced to work 12 hours a day or something, then that should be reported to the provincial Ministry of Labour"—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: This isn't a federal problem; it's a Liberal problem.

Not too many years ago, your colleagues asked for the head of the Solicitor General when potentially a young offender was identified in this House—a federal law. They asked for the head of the minister and they got it.

Interjection: Who was it?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: You're talking to him. That's right.

Here we have an allegation of a violation of provincial laws. The minister is present. It involves a Liberal member of Parliament, and you sat on your fanny and have done nothing about it? You have to resign, step down, and let's have an independent investigation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: For all of this member's bluster, if you look at his record here in this House, he has voted against vulnerable workers time and time again, unlike this government that is putting protections in place to address vulnerable workers in the province of Ontario.

If all individuals, all groups, all stakeholders that I speak with—I always say, if there is an employment standards issue, if they would like to make a complaint, if they would like to make a claim, we have provided that information. But, as we can see from Minister Kenney's remarks and quote, that most of this falls to the federal government, as when it comes to Immigration Canada or Revenue Canada. So I ask that member to pick up the phone, call your member in Ottawa and ask him to show a little bit—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The member from Parkdale—High Park.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: The question, again, is to the Minister of Labour. Over two weeks ago, you received detailed information and allegations, Mr. Minister—they were not stories—regarding serious breaches of Ontario labour law. As Minister of Labour, what did you do with that information? Did you report it to ministry and labour officials and did you ask them to investigate or not?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The member is quite right when she says "allegations." I'm not going to comment on any particular case, but I can let the member know what I did do. At that roundtable, as we heard many stories, what we did is we provided information to every single person in that room. We encouraged them to call the Ministry of Labour. Nobody is above the law, I say to the member over there, and she should know full well, when it comes to the Ministry of Labour.

The employment standards office would take in a complaint or a claim and be able to address it with highly trained professionals who will be able to investigate. I would think that would be what the member would want: to have a transparent system where we have public servants who are highly trained—

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Again to the Minister of Labour: This is your responsibility. This is your ministry. These are Ontario labour laws that are being breached.

Again, I ask the Minister of Labour, what did he do? He had this information two weeks ago. Did he ask his officials to investigate this most egregious breach of Ontario labour law or not? Yes or no?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I say to the member that the ministry investigates independently of politics. The member may not like that, but we have a great employment standards office in Ontario that is doing commendable work. Those officers are out there every single day addressing claims.

What we've set up, because this is such an important issue and we've been hearing these alarming stories, is a dedicated team behind that 1-800 number. The 1-800 toll-free hotline has been in place for one week. We've received 120 calls, and three claims have been made through that 1-800 number. We are going to continue to work with the community to hear these complaints and do everything we can provincially to fix a flawed—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The member from Oak Ridges—Markham.

POVERTY

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. This morning, Bill 152, the Poverty Reduction Act, was debated at third reading, and it will go to a final vote just after question period. Prior to today's debate, the social policy committee received over 20 in-person presentations and also a number of written submissions. The opposition parties also put forward suggestions to strengthen the bill. In the end, the bill was significantly amended, including five amendments put forward by the NDP.

Can the minister please explain the changes made to strengthen the bill?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like to start by thanking the member from Oak Ridges—Markham.

Right from the beginning of the development of the poverty reduction strategy, we knew that we needed the participation of a wide range of Ontarians in order to develop the strongest possible strategy and the strongest possible legislation. That's why we consulted widely and welcomed people into the conversation who had never before felt heard.

That "all hands on deck" approach continued throughout the legislative process. I was very pleased to see the number and the quality of presentations to the standing committee. Many of the people who made presentations are with us today, and I welcome them. They are here to witness the historic vote that will follow question period.

We received some great suggestions for strengthening the bill, and we moved on a large number of them. We expanded the principles that future strategies must be guided by, by recognizing that women are at higher risk of poverty and more explicitly—

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

Ms. Helena Jaczek: It's good to hear how open this process was and of the government's willingness to make changes to strengthen the bill. This legislation, if passed, would enshrine in law an ongoing commitment on the part of the Ontario government to poverty reduction. It would require current and future governments to issue annual reports on the progress of the strategy, hold consultations regularly and issue a new strategy and target at least every five years.

Can the minister please expand on what this legislation really does to reduce poverty in Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The passage of this legislation marks the beginning of a new era in Ontario. Going forward, all governments of Ontario, regardless of their political stripe, will be required to consider poverty reduction to be a core responsibility. Just like health care and education, poverty reduction will be part of every government's mandate. They will be required to listen to people living in poverty and those who advocate for them. They will be required to measure their progress and set a target, and they will be required to report to the Legislature annually on how they are doing. The days of poverty reduction being an extra or, worse yet, ignored altogether will be behind us.

We wouldn't be here without the very, very hard work of many people, people who have joined in common cause to work toward a shared goal. To all of those who have played a

part in getting to this day, I say thank you. You have made a lasting difference to the health and prosperity of the people—

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

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: About seven minutes ago, I received an e-mail from the Minister of Immigration's office.

Interjection: Who are you talking to?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: To the Minister of Labour. About seven minutes ago, I received an e-mail from the Minister of Immigration. He said, "For the record, in case there is any confusion, Minister Fonseca has never raised the issue of Magdalene Gordo and Richelyn Tongson with Minister Kenney. Nor has he or his staff raised it with Immigration ... officials. Fonseca spoke to Kenney a month ago to talk about the program generally; they haven't spoken since and he's never discussed the case with us or our officials."

Would the minister like to correct the record? How can this province trust this minister when he tells one thing to the chamber and does another thing when he is outside of it?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I'm glad that the member called the federal Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Mr. Kenney, because I picked up the phone many weeks ago, if not over a month ago, and spoke to Minister Kenney about all the issues that we were hearing in all our round tables.

It would be inappropriate of me—and the member should know this, or ought to know this—to speak about a particular case, but what I can say to the member is in that round table meeting, I acted immediately. I gave information to those caregivers immediately. They got information to be able to call our impartial, independent investigators so that they can get to work on the case. That's how things are done here in a democracy. The member may not like that, but that is the right way to do things.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The minister has lied to this chamber.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment, please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Mr. Speaker, out of respect for you, I will withdraw.

The minister may want to clarify his comments so that he is not misleading this chamber.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): And I'd just ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment, please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I with withdraw out of respect for you, but perhaps his comments have been misinterpreted by this side of the House.

He has often said to us to call our friends in the federal government. He has told this chamber to call a 1-800 number. The fact remains that this minister, the Minister of Education and a whole lot of people over in the Mississauga-Brampton area got together and they were told something that was reported in the Toronto Star that they did nothing about.

I will ask again for the minister to step aside, call an independent inquiry into what Ruby Dhalla has done and to start upholding his own legislation that he brings into this chamber.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Again, I picked up the phone. I called Minister Kenney over a month ago. I explained to him all the issues that we were hearing in our round tables. Many of them, the vast majority of them, dealt with a flawed, broken live-in caregiver federal program. But when we have gone out and consulted with live-in caregivers, we've acted immediately. We've provided information so that individuals who feel that they have a claim can have an independent investigator go in and do their job—they are highly trained professionals—and help the claimant with that case.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): New question. The member from Parkdale—High Park.

Mr. Michael Prue: Ruby just resigned.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Mr. Speaker, we just got news that Ruby Dhalla has resigned her critic portfolio.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: The question is to the Minister of Labour. These are serious allegations—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The clock is stopped this time because I'm hearing it from the government side.

Member from Parkdale—High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: A question for the Minister of Labour: Your duty is to look after the labour rights of workers in the province of Ontario. Two weeks ago, you heard from women some allegations of phenomenal abuse. They were working 12 to 15 hours a day at less than minimum wage. Their passports were being held illegally. The question is, Mr. Minister, did you order your officials to investigate these serious allegations or not?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: We treat these cases very seriously, so what we did is, right away, immediately, we provided access to all of those who felt that they may have an employment standards claim. We encouraged them: "Call the number. We have a dedicated team of officers and investigators—independent officers and investigators." We want to ensure that those workers are protected, so that is why, over the last week with this 1-800 number—an outreach to the community—we've received 120 calls, and three claims have been made.

We are continuing to move forward with legislation and to bring legislation here to this chamber because of a federal program that is severely broken. I would hope that Minister Kenney would take some national leadership and fix—

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Again to the Minister of Labour: These women didn't need a 1-800 number; they had you and your entourage to immediately complain to. You didn't listen; you didn't report it; you didn't do anything about their allegations of abuse.

Clearly, the question is: Did you or did you not? We hear in the silence in the House that you did not. Are you going to admit to the House, Mr. Minister of Labour, that you did nothing to help these women in their allegations of abuse because Ruby Dhalla is a member of your own party?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: No matter which politician or individual is involved, I do not direct the investigators or officers. What I do, as Minister of Labour, is provide access, and we did that right away. We acted immediately. We provided that information so that that individual could call for more information and make a claim. We have a dedicated team there to help anybody who would like to make a claim. This is an impartial team. These are professionally trained public servants.

DEFERRED VOTES

POVERTY REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DE LA PAUVRETÉ

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 152,

An Act respecting a long-term strategy to reduce poverty in Ontario / Projet de loi 152, Loi concernant une stratégie à long terme de réduction de la pauvreté en Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1139 to 1141.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Ms. Matthews has moved third reading of Bill 152. All those in favour will please rise and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 78; the nays are 0.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the motion carried.

Third reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters):

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

This House stands recessed until 3 p.m.

The House recessed from 1144 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Guelph and page Cameron Hoey, I'd like to welcome his father, Steve Hoey, to the members' gallery today. Welcome to Queen's Park.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CATHOLIC FAMILY COUNSELLING CENTRE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Today, I would like to warmly welcome members of the Catholic Family Counselling Centre of Waterloo region to Queen's Park.

This organization, with its dedicated staff and volunteers, provides support for more than 25,000 people in our region each year by providing counselling services and programs such as Pathways to Education, employee assistance plans, Families and Schools Together and the family violence project.

This organization is dedicated to improving the lives of all people who come through their doors, and has been doing so for over 50 years.

The Catholic Family Counselling Centre exists so that people can find the strength, the skills and the confidence to deal with life's challenges and opportunities.

What makes this organization so successful is their ability to foster partnerships with community organizations, businesses and all levels of government.

This organization focuses on the why, never the why not. They continue to move forward, even during these challenging economic times, when organizations like this take on an even greater importance for community members.

This organization is led by Cathy Brothers. I can tell you that they have a dedicated, hard-working team of employees and volunteers who ensure that people receive the supports they need.

Again, welcome to all from Catholic Family Counselling Centre.

FAMILY COUNSELLING

CENTRE OF BRANT

Mr. Dave Levac: In good times and bad, up and down, and thick and thin, Ontario's success rests on the strength of its families. From time to time, every family needs the support of its neighbours and friends and, indeed, its community.

That is why the Family Counselling Centre of Brant is so central to the lives of the citizens of Brantford and Brant county and to all the family counselling centres in the province of Ontario.

For over 90 years, the Family Counselling Centre of Brant has made helping families, for a variety of reasons, its mission. That's because the Family Counselling Centre of Brant knows that strong families support a strong Ontario, and that Ontario is indeed stronger because of its great families. Partnerships are a key component of the Family Counselling Centre of Brant's mission, which partners with agencies across the board.

Please join me in recognizing the representative from the Family Counselling Centre of Brant, the executive director, Shelley McCarthy, who stands as an example of someone who is dedicated to ensuring that families in my riding receive compassionate, understanding and professional counselling year after year for many reasons—again, across the board.

Community mental health agencies like the FCCB saw an increase in funding to assist them with front-line delivery.

I would also like to remind members of this House, on behalf of the board of the Family Counselling Centre of Brant, Inc., the families they serve in Brantford and Brant county and all the agencies that we know are here today, that we invite you to participate in family services day. Please join these great people and these great agencies in attending the Family Service Ontario reception at Queen's Park at 4 o'clock in the dining room. We're glad they're here.

MAGGIE MCCREATH

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm pleased to rise today to pay tribute to my constituent Maggie McCreath. She received the 2009 June Callwood award of achievement. This award recognizes exceptional leadership, innovation and creativity in the volunteer sector.

The award is named in honour of the late Canadian journalist, author and social activist June Callwood, who founded more than 50 Canadian social action organizations. Each of the 20 individuals or organizations selected this year has made an outstanding contribution to their community and to Ontario.

Congratulations to Maggie McCreath, an outstanding citizen, an outstanding volunteer, my constituent and a recipient of the 2009 June Callwood Award.

I would like to respect Minister Chan, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, for coming to my riding of Durham and presenting this award.

COMMUNITY ACCESS

TO CHILD HEALTH

Mr. Paul Miller: Last constituency week I visited a number of organizations in my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, including Community Access to Child Health, or CATCH. When my staff and I walked into CATCH, we were greeted by the sights and sounds of children and parents laughing and playing. They were there for the parent and child interactive play group, just one example of CATCH's many excellent programs. Other services include a youth centre, a euchre club for seniors, a food bank and an after-school academic support program.

Unfortunately, there is only enough funding to operate the afterschool program for another four months. Funding should be provided for the whole school year, because the youth using this program have a more positive and brighter future as a result of these initiatives. Visiting CATCH brings home just how important programs like it are to the whole community.

It was especially impressive to see how involved parents, community members and volunteers are in CATCH. On our tour we saw volunteers making a healthy lunch for the parent and child interactive group. This lunch program was started by parents who saw a need for it, applied for funding and continue to operate it. CATCH's program project coordinator, Judy Kloosterman, explained that community members are active in organizing and running CATCH programs.

I proudly sponsor two T-ball teams on which many CATCH youth play.

Visiting CATCH and witnessing the dedication and hard work of staff and volunteers was an inspiring experience for my staff and me. I would like to thank all those who help to keep this valuable community group going. Thank you.

AMATEUR SINGING CONTEST

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: Last month, I and 400 guests had the great pleasure to attend the international Amateur Singing Contest by John Santos. It was a truly Canadian, multicultural event. What I saw and experienced touched me deeply.

The evening's program was designed to showcase the real talent of each performer. Mr. Santos, an accomplished music director, and his wife, Lisa, set the stage for a most supportive backdrop. John's music lifted the spirit of the performers to such heights which enabled all of them to soar, to give their best and to give of themselves. The audience too was thus transformed into a supportive and appreciative cast. The rhythmic music—sometimes soft, sometimes powerful, sometimes light—the colourful light and the uplifting, warm, melodious voices produced such a marvellous sound that time was forgotten and people didn't even want to go home. Some shouted, "More, more."

It was truly a night to remember. These finest are Canadians' pride and joy. They deserve to be recognized for their enormous talent, and I would be delighted to provide some opportunity so that they could launch their career and bring joy to lives, even to a wider audience here in Ontario.

I'm happy to introduce them to you and to the people of Ontario: the first-place winner in the junior finalists, Kayla de Brito; second place, Jordan Pereira; and Claudia Pereira, Melissa da Costa and Emily Ferreira. The adult finalists: George Rengifo, first place; Monica Cidade, second place; Sara Marques, Stephany Pascoal and Ramiro Lopez Sança. Thank you very much, and congratulations to all of them.

SMOKING BAN

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I rise in the House today to remind the Liberal government that the clock is ticking for Gator Ted. It was just over a year ago that my private member's bill was squashed by your government. Bill 42 was designed to close a loophole in your own anti-smoking legislation and set Ted Kindos free from your contradictory policies. Unfortunately, that bill didn't survive past committee.

Hope reared its head over a month ago when Minister McMeekin stood in his place and proudly stated: "This government is determined to make sure that we find a way to support Ted Kindos and small business people like Ted Kindos." The minister went on to say, "I do want to provide this House with assurance that being caught between a regulatory rock and a hard place is something that this government won't stand for, and we'll make sure that this is sorted out." As the King said, a little less conversation and a little more action, please. That would be good here, Minister.

The government has put our small business people on life support, between your economic meddling and your HST disaster. You need to get to the bottom of this now, as you promised to do. You need to take a stand and decide which one of your policies Ted Kindos is obligated to follow, and instruct your ministry to back off.

Someone is milking the system here, and it isn't the hard-working small business people. They're trapped in a nightmare. If I were you, Minister, I would take the King's words to heart.

LISGAR GO STATION

Mr. Bob Delaney: I rise today to share with my colleagues a new green energy addition to our new GO train station in the great community of Lisgar.

Last month, on Earth Day, I joined the Minister of Transportation and Mississauga Ward 9 councillor, Pat Saito, as we inaugurated the Lisgar GO station wind turbine's entry into service.

Lisgar station was selected for GO Transit's first-ever wind turbine because of wind patterns and speeds in that north Mississauga area. The turbine can produce about 50 kilowatts of power in moderate winds of 11.3 metres per second, and is estimated to generate about 80% of Lisgar GO station's electrical power.

Also on display at Lisgar were two of GO Transit's environmentally friendly transportation options: a 78-seat double-decker bus and a 45-seat hybrid bus. Both were equipped with a bike rack.

On average, 100 cars in GTA traffic carry only 115 people. One 12-car GO train can carry nearly as many people as 1,600 cars. This reduces both traffic congestion and air pollution as well.

Lisgar is not only Ontario's newest GO train station, but it's also Ontario's greenest as well.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Bill Mauro: It appears that both of the opposition parties have found religion when it comes to mass transit in Ontario. Just yesterday, we heard a Conservative member tell the Legislature that he had discovered the importance to Thunder Bay of the recently announced city of Toronto contract that went to Bombardier. This apparent epiphany is a bit difficult to listen to. That member and that government while in office publicly announced that they were no longer in the public transit business. Predictably, for eight or nine years, nothing happened through the TTC.

Then there's the NDP, those wonderful front-runners, who, when they see an issue that has legs and might be successful, like to appear to be on the front end. But only a little over a year ago, this issue was so unimportant to the NDP that they did not even include mention of it in their election platform materials.

The report card on this is very clear: a Liberal platform in 2003 that committed to get back into public transit, a policy that has led directly to two major contracts landing in Thunder Bay—one for $700 million, with 200 million provincial dollars, creating 300 new jobs for five years, and just one month ago, a $56-million contract, with 100% provincial money, for 20 new GO Transit buses.

I've been working on, and will continue to work on, the recently announced $1.2-billion contract—which has the possibility to grow to $3 billion—that can create several hundred new jobs at Bombardier.

Our Liberal government, through Dalton McGuinty, has been supporting mass transit in Thunder Bay and creating jobs there since 2003. We welcome the recently converted—

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

CERTIFIED GENERAL

ACCOUNTANTS OF ONTARIO

Mr. Bruce Crozier: I'm rising today to have a few words about my good friends at Certified General Accountants of Ontario. I'm not sure that you know, and maybe it doesn't matter to many of you, but I'm proud to be a life member of the CGA in Ontario, and to help them remind you of what service they provide in this province. They are, of course, involved in corporations, in education, in government as well, and certainly provide a great service in public practice and with non-profit organizations in the province.

But that's not the whole reason that I'm standing here today to speak to my colleagues in the Legislature. Each of you would have received an invitation from Certified General Accountants of Ontario to attend a reception starting at 5:30 today in rooms 228 and 230. I do hope that each of you will take the opportunity to stop in, say hello to my colleagues and enjoy their company for a little while.

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his office.

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Todd Decker): The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour did assent:

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 in relation to temporary help agencies and certain other matters / Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d'emploi en ce qui concerne les agences de placement temporaire et certaines autres questions.

An Act respecting a long-term strategy to reduce poverty in Ontario / Loi concernant une stratégie à long terme de réduction de la pauvreté en Ontario.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 98(c), changes have been made to the order of precedence on the ballot list for private members' public business, such that Ms. Horwath assumes ballot item number 19 and Mr. Hampton assumes ballot item number 28, and Mr. Arnott assumes ballot item number 16 and Mr. Shurman assumes ballot item number 73.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 171

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I want to draw to the members' attention that a co-sponsored bill appears on the Orders and Notices paper that contravenes standing order 52, which states, "No motion, or amendment, the subject matter of which has been decided upon, can be again proposed during the same session."

Bill 171,

An Act to provide property tax deferrals to low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities, standing in the name of Mr. Shurman, Mr. Kormos and Mr. Sergio, is substantially the same as Bill 78, which was lost on second reading earlier in the session.

Therefore, as was the case yesterday with respect to Mr. Yakabuski's Bill 174, I find Bill 171 to be out of order and have directed that it be removed from the order paper.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs. Julia Munro: I beg leave to present a Report on Agencies, Boards and Commissions: Ontario Infrastructure Projects Corp. (Infrastructure Ontario) from the Standing Committee on Government Agencies and move the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mrs. Julia Munro: As Chair of the Standing Committee on Government Agencies, it is a pleasure to table the report of the committee. The committee undertakes reviews from time to time of the operation of selected agencies, boards and commissions of the province.

This report of the committee reviews and commends the work of Infrastructure Ontario and makes recommendations on how they may improve some of their approaches and procedures. Topical areas covered include enhanced public disclosure; infrastructure and economic development; innovative building design and infrastructure projects; and the management of the Darlington nuclear procurement project.

Our committee wishes to express its appreciation to the senior staff of Infrastructure Ontario and all witnesses who appeared before us during the public hearings on this agency.

I would like to thank committee members for their contributions to the review process, as well as legislative staff: Douglas Arnott, the clerk of the committee, and Jerry Richmond, the research officer.

I move adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Debate adjourned.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I believe we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I move that, notwithstanding standing order 52, private members' notice of motion number 89, standing in the name of Mr. Yakabuski, may be called as ballot item number 14 on Thursday, May 7, 2009.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

TAXATION

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas residents in Burlington do not want" the McGuinty 13% "sales tax (HST) that will raise the cost of goods and services they use every day; and

"Whereas the" McGuinty "13% blended sales tax will cause everyone to pay more for gasoline for their cars, heat, telephone, cable and Internet services for their homes, and will be applied to house sales over $400,000; and

"Whereas the" McGuinty "13% blended sales tax will cause everyone to pay more for meals under $4, haircuts, funeral services, gym memberships, newspapers, and lawyer and accountant fees; and

"Whereas the blended sales tax grab will affect everyone in the province: seniors, students, families and low-income Ontarians;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the McGuinty Liberal government not increase taxes for Ontario consumers."

I support the intent of this petition and I give it to page Grace.

PROFESSIONAL HOCKEY FRANCHISE

Mr. Dave Levac: This is called "Make it seven: Support the move of the Phoenix Coyotes to southern Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Jim Balsillie of Research in Motion has put in an offer to purchase the Phoenix Coyotes and move them to a location in southern Ontario; and

"Whereas there are a number of outstanding communities that could host this NHL franchise, like Kitchener, Waterloo, Hamilton, Mississauga, the city of Vaughan, Peterborough, Brampton, Brantford and Oakville; and

"Whereas an NHL franchise in southern Ontario would generate over a billion dollars annually to the GDP of the host community, in everything from arena construction, ticket sales, television and media revenues and team merchandising;

"Whereas an NHL franchise would create thousands of jobs in construction, in the hotel and restaurant industry, in tourism, marketing and promotion; and

"Whereas the hockey fans in southern Ontario are known to be the most loyal, supportive and knowledgeable hockey fans in the world; and

"Whereas the NHL Players' Association supports more opportunities for their players in this great southern Ontario hockey market; and

"Whereas the existing NHL owners should recognize the incredible contribution made by the citizens of southern Ontario to the success of the NHL over the last 75 years, and would be wise not to ignore these loyal fans and supporters;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to fully support bringing the Phoenix Coyotes franchise into a southern Ontario community, and call upon the NHL board of governors not to block the shifting of the franchise to a host community in southern Ontario."

PROFESSIONAL HOCKEY FRANCHISE

Mr. Mike Colle: I have the same petition, but I'm going to summarize a bit.

"Whereas Jim Balsillie of Research in Motion has put in an offer to purchase the Phoenix Coyotes and move them to a location in southern Ontario; and

"Whereas there are a number of outstanding communities that could host the NHL franchise, like Kitchener, Waterloo, Hamilton, Mississauga, the city of Vaughan, Peterborough, Brampton, Brantford, Oakville"—they would all make a great home. St. Thomas, Ontario, could be considered too;

"Whereas the NHL franchise would create thousands of jobs in construction, hotel and restaurant industry, tourism, and marketing and promotion; and....

"Whereas the existing NHL owners should recognize the incredible contribution made by the citizens of southern Ontario"—especially the ones in Toronto who have been suffering for so many years with the lousy team they have—"to the success of the NHL over the last 75 years and would be wise not to ignore these loyal fans and supporters;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to fully support the bringing of the Phoenix Coyotes franchise into a southern Ontario community and to call upon the NHL board of governors not to block the shifting of the franchise to a host community in southern Ontario"—hopefully Vaughan.

PENSION PLANS

Mr. John O'Toole: I have a number of petitions here which read as follows:

"Whereas General Motors has contributed significantly to the Ontario and local economies and was a significant contributor to the pension benefits guarantee fund (PBGF); and

"Whereas the General Motors of Canada salaried pension plan fund (plan 0340950) is severely underfunded due to the government's lack of responsibility in allowing policies (regulation 5.1, 'too big to fail' legislation) which permitted GM to underfund the pension" in the first place; and

"Whereas GM is experiencing severe financial problems and there is a potential for bankruptcy; and

"Whereas, unlike stakeholders such as vendors and suppliers that accept the risks associated with business, GM retirees and surviving spouses entered into their GM pension plans in good faith, based on the understanding that the funds set aside on their behalf would be secure; and

"Whereas GM's salaried employees contributed a percentage of their annual income to pension plan 0340950 and were permitted only limited contributions to RRSPs due to the federal government's CRA discretionary RRSP restriction for defined benefit plan members" and contributions;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, support the GenMo salaried pension organization in petitioning the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to honour its commitment to totally fund the pension benefits guarantee fund; and

"That, in any approved restructuring plan of General Motors of Canada, provision be made that General Motors fully fund pension plan 0340950, and that General Motors continue to provide lifetime benefits to retirees and surviving spouses in accordance with employment entitlements and" requirements under the agreement."

I present this on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham and beyond.

PROFESSIONAL HOCKEY FRANCHISE

Mr. Jeff Leal: I have a petition today: Make it seven: Support the move of the Phoenix Coyotes to southern Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Jim Balsillie of Research in Motion has put in an offer to purchase the Phoenix Coyotes and move them to a location in southern Ontario; and

"Whereas there are a number of outstanding communities that could host this NHL franchise, like Kitchener, Waterloo, Hamilton, Mississauga, the city of Vaughan, Peterborough, Brampton, Brantford and Oakville; and

"Whereas an NHL franchise in southern Ontario would generate over a billion dollars annually to the GDP of the host community, in everything from arena construction, ticket sales, television and media revenues and team merchandising;

"Whereas an NHL franchise would