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

March 5, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Mar-05 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 5 March 2009 Jeudi 5 mars 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POVERTY REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DE LA PAUVRETÉ

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

NURSES

MANUFACTURING JOBS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

L'ÉCONOMIE DU NORD /

NORTHERN ECONOMY

NURSES

TOBACCO CONTROL

NURSES

INFRASTRUCTURE

PROGRAM FUNDING

PESTICIDES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

SMALL BUSINESS

POINTS OF ORDER

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

DEPUTY CLERK'S ANNIVERSARY

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LONG-TERM CARE

RICHMOND HILL CENTRE

FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS

YORK SUBWAY EXTENSION

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY

MATTHEWS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

SKILLED TRADES

NURSES

JAMES PAGE MACKEY

JOE TORCHETTI

PROVINCIAL PURCHASING POLICY

MOTIONS

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

PETITIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

FIREARMS CONTROL

PUBLIC TRANSIT

MOTORCYCLE SAFETY

MOTORCYCLE SAFETY

PROTECTION OF MINORS

CHILD CUSTODY

BATHURST HEIGHTS

ADULT LEARNING CENTRE

PROFESSIONAL HOCKEY FRANCHISE

LUPUS

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(PUPILS WITH DIABETES), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(ÉLÈVES DIABÉTIQUES)

MUNICIPALITIES

HOLODOMOR MEMORIAL

DAY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR

LE JOUR COMMÉMORATIF

DE L'HOLODOMOR

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(PUPILS WITH DIABETES), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(ÉLÈVES DIABÉTIQUES)

MUNICIPALITIES

HOLODOMOR MEMORIAL

DAY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR

LE JOUR COMMÉMORATIF

DE L'HOLODOMOR

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(PUPILS WITH DIABETES), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(ÉLÈVES DIABÉTIQUES)

MUNICIPALITIES

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord's Prayer, followed by a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POVERTY REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DE LA PAUVRETÉ

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 4, 2009, on the motion for second 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: I welcome the opportunity today to discuss this important bill, the Poverty Reduction Act. I would like to state at the outset and preface my remarks with a solid and sincere statement that I welcome any opportunity to alleviate poverty to any individual or group of individuals in this province. The question in Bill 152, to my mind, is whether or not it goes far enough and encompasses enough people.

We all know that poverty plagues far too many Ontarians, and this number is increasing as more and more Ontarians lose their jobs. Every morning when I wake up and read the newspaper, every morning when I turn on the news, I see the sad reality of what is happening in Ontario: people losing their jobs. Yesterday, it was Hamilton. This morning's news was shutting down another shift in Windsor. Hundreds upon hundreds, thousands upon thousands of people are losing their job, and the spectre of poverty hangs over all of them.

We know that more and more Ontarians are being forced to rely on social assistance payments and that those payments have declined about 25% since 1994. So even in this time, even after all of this time of affluence, even after all of these years have gone by since 1994, people who are living in poverty and people who are on social assistance are seeing less and less money. We know from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives that the gap between the rich and the poor in Ontario has reached an all-time high, with the richest 10% earning 75 times more than the poorest 10%.

I'll put this into perspective of what is happening in Ontario. Those who are well off earn 75 times as much income as those who are our poorest. Our richest are 75 times richer than our poorest individuals.

We know from the Ontario Association of Food Banks that food bank use has been rising among working Ontarians and in fact most of the food banks report that the majority of people who come in to use their facilities and their services and who take food out actually have a job, sometimes two or three, but they cannot make ends meet. We know from Campaign 2000 that one third of a million Ontario children live in poverty and that Ontario has been called the child poverty capital of Canada. We know from the co-op housing federation that more and more Ontarians are at risk of eviction and homelessness, with 20% of Ontarians paying half their income in rent.

Last night, when I was here in the Legislature, there was a small get-together by the fair rental housing providers, and although we often do not see eye to eye, they told me anecdotally of the number of people who are coming in and simply giving up and telling the rental providers in Ontario that they will be moving out; they can no longer meet the rent.

Beyond these numbers, though, are the stories of individuals who live every day in a situation of poverty. I have lived in poverty; I lived amidst poverty all of my young life. I grew up in Regent Park. I have told this tale many times in this Legislature. It was a life of growing up and seeing people whose hopes were dashed, who never had a chance from the outset; people who had good minds and were skilled and talented, who were forced to leave school at an early age, who never really had a chance. Some of them succumbed to alcohol and drugs. Some of them went to jail. Some of them had disastrous early lives.

I remember those days, growing up there. I remember things that would be very strange and very foreign to people in this Legislature, and perhaps to those watching on television today. I remember growing up where you would see cockroaches and mice on a daily basis. I remember growing up where there would be urine soaked in the halls and you could smell it when you entered the apartment building. I remember the locked basements–they came every day around six o'clock at night and locked the basement so that people couldn't go down into the apartments, because they were afraid of what would take place down there.

I remember the scruffiness, and I remember most especially, in the neighbourhoods around Regent Park, that if they knew you were from Regent Park, you were often shunned.

I know how difficult it was for me, as a 14-year-old going to high school, leaving the security of the area at Lord Dufferin school and walking the couple of kilometres to Jarvis Collegiate, where the children and the young people were of a different class. They had money; they had social prestige. I know how insecure that made me feel in those days. If it made me feel insecure, I want to tell you it made my colleagues with whom I grew up in Regent Park feel even more insecure, because I was not a shrinking violet or a wallflower. I was willing to go out there and do what was necessary to get an education.

But I know it was a difficult time, and I know that what happened to me is happening thousands upon thousands of times across this province each and every day.

I had an opportunity to take up an invitation by the social housing providers in Toronto a couple of years ago. They invited all the members of this Legislature to spend a week in one of the Ontario Housing projects in or around the Toronto area. I took them up on it. I remember going to live at Jane and Finch. I went with my colleague Marilyn Churley. Together, we braved going every day to Jane and Finch, and back to this Legislature. We lived there. We lived in a place that, I know from media reports, people often consider violent, tough and anti-social.

But I want to tell you that what I saw there did not shock me. I saw all the same things of my youth. I saw cockroaches and mice. I saw leaking windows and leaking roofs. I saw buildings in states of extreme disrepair. I saw a place that nobody in this chamber would want to live in.

But I also saw people who held out hope, people who lived there who had hope, if not for themselves then at least for their children, and what they were trying so desperately to do in Jane and Finch. We went into a small, little room with dilapidated couches and things where young people in their teens would come—somewhere to go, somewhere to hang out. There was a wonderful woman, whose name I cannot now remember, who was there. She was considered the mother of Jane and Finch. She counselled the young people and helped them. She helped them to cook some of the meals.

For some of them, it was the only meal they got every day. An opportunity to learn and to listen—she counselled them to go back to school when they wanted to drop out.

I also saw some hope there, because I think that the city of Toronto was quite brilliant in what they did. They knew that the houses had to be repaired—the hallways, the walkways and everything else—and when they hired contractors they insisted that the contractors hire some of the local youth, so that those local youth, who had dropped out of school, who had no future, got a job. They got a job and they started to learn a trade. I watched a couple of young men sanding the walls and painting them. Probably, if they didn't do it themselves, they certainly knew who painted the graffiti on there in the first place.

But, you know, what happened after that was that they became protectors of the work that they had done and they dissuaded others from coming along and doing that kind of violence to the halls, to the walls and to the buildings. I saw a couple of young men who were being trained as stonemasons or to lay bricks, because there was some proper bricklaying in the courtyards, where people had taken the bricks out, and they were there to replace them. I'm confident that those bricks would remain in place today.

But I want to say that the despair there was enormous; the despair was enormous and it is continuing. In spite of some of the good things I saw, I know that most of the people who live in Jane-Finch, most of the people who live in Regent Park or Lawrence Heights or any of the dozens and dozens of places of poverty across this province, live daily in despair. I know that in my own riding one of the 13 areas that has been recognized by the United Way of Toronto is Crescent Town. I go there quite often.

I have represented Crescent Town continuously in various guises—as councillor, as mayor, as MPP—for the past 21 years. When I go there, I also see people hoping against hope that things will get better; again, if not for themselves, then at least for their children.

They know—but many of us don't—what it means to suffer the ongoing physical pain of hunger and sickness. They know about what it means to be ignored, judged and dismissed for what they don't have and for what they might never have. They know the shame of not being able to provide one's children with what other kids take for granted. The kids know how difficult it is on pizza day when you can't take in the quarter or whatever is required to participate. That is a life that few of us can really understand unless we have to live it or unless we've ever lived it at all.

But we must all understand that poverty not only deeply harms those affected by it, but it also harms and affects the society as a whole. It costs us financially in this province, and it has been estimated as up to $13 billion a year in lost government revenues and lost economic activity according to the Ontario Association of Food Banks. It also costs us at a much deeper level. Poverty and desperation lead to crime in our communities. Stark inequalities and injustice lead to anger and violence and undermine the trust of our communities.

If you want to look at the lowest rates of participation in the political process, I would suggest you go to the poorest communities, and that's exactly what you find. They are disenfranchised, they are disenchanted and they do not participate on a political level or indeed on many other levels. Economic insecurity breeds a preoccupation with oneself and one's family and undermines community solidarity.

We need to do a lot about poverty. The first thing that people want is government action. They ask me all the time, "When is the government going to do something about this?" Just as I was leaving here today I got a phone call in my office from a woman in Ottawa who is demanding action on ODSP. She is on ODSP, and she despairs that this bill is not going to help her. Almost 90% of Ontarians agree that the McGuinty government should reduce poverty by 25% over five years. I'm surprised it's only 90%; I would have hoped it was 100%. But everybody agrees that we need to reduce poverty.

Recent polls by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives indicate that over 80% of Ontarians believe that a recession makes it more important than ever to reduce poverty, and it would seem to me that that is precisely what this government should be saying and what they should be doing.

But I despaired a little. A couple of days ago in this very Legislature I had an opportunity to ask a question of the Premier. The Premier answered back, and I don't want to say I liked his answer, in honesty that poverty reduction in his plan will have to look at or have to be predicated on three things: a growing economy—and it's not—help from the federal government—and there's no help forthcoming from there—and a society that embraces that change. I'm still hopeful for the third aspect, but I think the other two cannot, and should not be, conditions for alleviating poverty at this time.

Second, the message from other jurisdictions is that poverty can be reduced through concerted government actions. I look to the province of Quebec in this particular regard. I thank the Library of Parliament because they prepared a wonderful little paper back in 2007 talking about poverty reduction strategies in both Quebec and Newfoundland. I would like to read into the record why I think the Quebec plan has been so effective and so superior to the one that is being proposed here in Ontario.

From page 2 of this report: "Quebec's legislation establishes a 'national strategy to combat poverty and social exclusion' that 'is intended to progressively make Quebec, by 2013, one of the industrialized nations having the least number of persons living in poverty.' The act adopts a definition of poverty that goes beyond a simple relation to low income. Poverty is defined as 'the condition of a human being who is deprived of the resources, means, choices and power necessary to acquire and maintain economic self-sufficiency or to facilitate integration and participation in society,' a definition that integrates the concept of social exclusion."

"The action plan includes a comprehensive set of initiatives and programs to raise the standard of living of social assistance recipients and low-income earners, and to assist people in making the transition from social assistance to employment.

For example, the plan provides for the full indexation of social assistance benefits for those with significant work limitations; the creation of a participation premium for social assistance recipients who are able to work, as well as partial indexation of their benefits; the establishment of a work premium; an increase in the minimum wage; and a new universal refundable tax credit for low-income families with children.

Among other measures, the plan also includes initiatives to improve access to affordable housing, adapt the dwellings of people with disabilities, support employment for people with disabilities, facilitate the integration of immigrants and members of visible minority groups, continue to develop high-quality early learning and child care services, support young parents and children, facilitate the integration of young people into the labour market, support academic success and literacy programs in underprivileged areas, and promote social participation of seniors living on low incomes."

Skipping down a bit: "The government also indicated its intention to work with aboriginal groups to fight poverty and social exclusion."

This, I believe, is a comprehensive program. This is what I had hoped this government would have done. I was present on the day when the government announced its new policy and gave us this shiny booklet Breaking the Cycle: Ontario's Poverty Reduction Strategy. I know that the people who were there were well-meaning. I know that when they talked about ending poverty, they had that well-meaning thought in their hearts. But I was disappointed, and profoundly disappointed, and I remain profoundly disappointed because the only poverty reduction strategy that is evident to me here is one that is based on children.

Now, I'm happy that children are being helped. I am absolutely delighted. But when I compare what is happening here in Ontario to what happened in Quebec half a decade ago, I have to say that I find us wanting. When I compare what is happening here to what I see happening in other jurisdictions around the world, I find this strategy wanting.

The government of Quebec has succeeded in reducing their poverty rate from 19.3% in 1997 to 11.8% in 2005. That is a huge reduction. They went about it in a great way. They did not just isolate only a few of the poor as deserving. They did not say it is only children and people who have children in their families who are going to benefit from the poverty reduction strategy. They looked to everyone. They recognized that poor people, whether they have children or not, are in desperate need of help from their government.

I look at what is happening in other jurisdictions. The government of Ireland has succeeded in reducing its long-term rate of poverty from 5.8% in 2003 to 3.7% in 2005. The United Kingdom government managed to lift 800,000 children out of poverty between 1997 and 2005. All of these governments, every single one of them, developed and implemented comprehensive poverty reduction strategies to help achieve these results. They set public targets—I know this government has set targets too—and they set targets for all, for everyone. They set targets not just for children; they set them for everyone.

They also took action on a number of common areas. They increased social assistance rates. They invested in affordable housing and child care. They increased minimum wages. They invested in public education and employment training.

About three or four years ago in this province, community activists noticed other jurisdictions—Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador—were having success in reducing poverty through the development of poverty reduction plans. They feared that Ontario was falling behind and, in 2007, they put considerable effort to convince this government to change. I think they did a good job. Quite honestly, I think they did quite a brilliant job to get government moving in this province.

An impressive array of labour, faith, social services, health and anti-poverty groups came together to form a coalition to push the Ontario government to commit to develop a poverty reduction strategy. They were out there yesterday. I went out and talked to them yesterday and the day before yesterday. There was a little tent in front of this Legislature and there were some poverty activists. When I went out to talk to them, they told me they prayed for me. I was welcoming of that. They also told me they prayed for everyone else in this Legislature.

I'm welcoming of that as well, because what they want us to do is the right thing, and what I am asking this government to do is the right thing.

I think that the poverty reduction strategy that has been set out for children is a fine document. I guess, like the proverbial Oliver Twist, I am coming and saying: "I want more. I want more. I've got my soup bowl in my hand. I want more." The poverty activists were successful in getting the McGuinty government to publicly commit to develop and implement a poverty reduction strategy in Ontario, but I want more. What has been done or what is proposed to be done for children needs to be done for all of those others who live in poverty.

We are concerned that because it is not, it fails to include key actions such as improving access to affordable housing and child care and increasing social assistance rates and the minimum wage. These were all very successful actions in other jurisdictions. We have made it clear that the plan, as it currently stands, is seriously underfunded. We acknowledge the introduction of the plan and we recognize that it is a significant step in the right direction, but now we're asking the government to do more. We're looking at the economic turmoil of this province.

We are looking at literally tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of primary breadwinners losing their job or jobs and we're looking at a whole economic downturn that is going to affect not only children, but literally hundreds of thousands of hard-working people.

The government has responded, again, but we don't think it's enough. We believe that people living in poverty in this province and all Ontarians deserve more than that. To be worthwhile, it must actually lead to differences in poor people's lives in places like Windsor, which has the country's highest unemployment rate, in places like North Bay and Kingston, where poverty is increasing at an enormous and alarming rate.

Mr. Paul Miller: We're catching up.

Mr. Michael Prue: My colleague here from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek has just reminded me that Hamilton is fast catching up. With the layoffs announced at Stelco, or US Steel as it's now called, over the last couple of days, we know that poverty in that city is going to rise exponentially. To this end, we want to be constructively critical of the bill, for we do feel that as currently worded, it has significant weaknesses.

We need to monitor the indicators that measure the causes of poverty, not just the effects. We need to know what causes poverty. I do know it's not like Dickensian times where it's some moral weakness that you're poor. I never saw any moral weakness in the people who lived in Regent Park. I saw people who struggled; people with disabilities.

One of my neighbours, the couple were both blind. I remember that they struggled in their poverty. I remember single mothers who worked there, who were abused and had to get out and who looked after their children as best they could, and how they struggled in poverty. I saw people who were new immigrants who came and could not get jobs in their chosen field and who struggled at low-wage jobs and how they struggled in poverty. I saw a lot of hard-working people who worked in factories, who worked for minimum wage or near-minimum wage, who struggled in poverty too.

It is not a moral weakness, and we ought never to think that. We need to know why they are constantly stuck there and the causes of that poverty.

It requires government to regularly report on or review their plans in consultation with Ontarians, including low-income Ontarians. One of the things that despaired me, and I'm glad the minister's here today, is that there was a poverty consultation. She knows, and I think all the members of this Legislature know, how central and crucial this is to me personally.

I grew up there, and I promised myself as a very young man—because I was politically keen and active and wanting to get involved, even in grade 9—that one day, if I ever became a politician, I would do something about the place where I lived and the people who lived there and the people like me. I was disappointed, and I will state that I am still disappointed, that the poverty consultations throughout this government's time were by invitation only.

I was disappointed, when I attended myself as a member of this Legislature, to be denied access to the first four places that I wanted to attend to hear what poor people and others had to say.

We went out and we did our own poverty consultation. We went out and talked to poor people, and we especially invited those who lived in poverty. We made extraordinary efforts by providing food so that they could come. We offered subway tokens here in Toronto and car passes in Ottawa and in places so that people could come. We offered babysitting services so that single mothers could show up and tell us what it was like.

We heard from poor people, and what we heard did not surprise me at all: the hope in their hearts for their children and for themselves and the very common solutions that they thought could alleviate their poverty. But it requires a government to listen to them and to regularly report and review their plans in consultations with Ontarians, especially low-income Ontarians.

I'd like to point out again some more stuff about the Quebec model. It can be noted at the outset that the Quebec law comes in at about 6,500 words, not that words are all that important,

whereas Bill 152 is less than 1,000 words. Perhaps it is fitting that the Quebec law is six times longer, since the Quebec government invested about six times as much money in their strategy on a per capita basis as the Ontario government is proposing to invest in theirs. Of course, longer bills are not necessarily better. But in this case, the Quebec act is in many ways stronger and more comprehensive than Bill 152.

I want to speak about three ways in which this is true.

First, this sets no ongoing specific and strong targets for poverty reduction. It does require the current government to pursue its current 25-in-5 target, but it sets no minimal guidelines for future poverty reduction targets. In other words, future governments can choose to set poverty reduction targets as low as they choose. That's what's here in this bill. The 25-in-5 target might well become 5 in 25 in the future. Additionally, written into the

preamble to the act is the following escape clause—and this is what I talked to the Premier about the other day: "The implementation and success of the strategy will require the sustained commitment of all levels of government, all sectors of Ontario society and a growing economy." So there in this bill is the escape clause for this government. As the economic conditions worsen, as the federal government says they're not going to be participants or as the public say they're not willing to have their taxes raised, as invariably will happen, this government has set out in the

preamble of their own bill an escape clause.

The Premier has regularly stated that without economic growth and billions of dollars in federal money the province can't meet its 25% poverty reduction target. This was written into the poverty reduction plan that was released in December, and the bill reiterates these conditions.

One has to wonder, what is the use of enshrining a requirement to set targets for poverty reduction if that requirement is contingent on so many vague conditions outside the control of the government? Governments are begging off action all the time by blaming other levels of government. I hear it in this Legislature almost every day. I hear the government talking about the government in Ottawa. I hear the government saying, "Oh, that's a municipal concern." I believe that this is a concern to all of us.

In contrast, the Quebec poverty reduction law sets strong and precise targets for their poverty reduction strategy, namely to progressively make Quebec one of the industrialized nations having the least number of persons living in poverty by 2013. That is the kind of goal that is needed in Bill 152, not unspecified targets with escape clauses.

The second thing is that there is a problem in the lack of comprehensiveness of this bill. There is no requirement in Bill 152 that the poverty reduction strategies developed be comprehensive. From the start, the Premier and the minister have repeatedly promised a comprehensive poverty strategy for Ontario. However, as I have already mentioned, the government's current strategy focuses only on children. It ignores other groups at risk of poverty: seniors, youth, people with disabilities, women, unattached adults, people of colour, aboriginal people and new immigrants.

I had an opportunity, a day or two after the government released its report, to attend a news conference. It was held by the Colour of Poverty campaign. They released a report, and I would like to read a little bit from this report because it is chilling. It is absolutely and totally chilling what is happening to people in our society. The Colour of Poverty campaign starts out, "Greater Trouble in Greater Toronto—Child Poverty in the GTA (Report - Children's Aid Society of Toronto - December 2008)."

It goes on: "Poverty is racialized, that is, disproportionate to people of colour who are Canadian-born and newcomers. Among broad ethno-racial groups in the Toronto CMA, the 2000 LICO before-tax rates of child poverty were about"—and here's where it gets chilling—

"—one child in 10 in low income among global European groups;

"—one child in five for East Asian groups;

"—one child in four for aboriginal, South Asian, Caribbean, South and Central American groups;

"—one child in three for children of Arab and West Asian groups; and

"—one child in two for children of African groups.

"Rates of LICO-BT family poverty among two-parent families in 2000 range from between 5% for European groups to 29% for Arabic and West Asian groups. Rates of family poverty among female lone-parent families range from between 26% for European groups and 65% for African groups."

This is the great problem that I had on the day that this poverty report was released. I was perhaps the lone person at the news conference who did not effuse about how wonderful this was. I looked at it as a lost opportunity. Although I still welcome what is being done for children, I wonder what is happening to seniors, to our youth, to people with disabilities, to women, to unattached adults, to people of colour, to aboriginal people and new immigrants, and I am still disappointed.

I have spoken in this Legislature before—and I want to say it again today—about people with disabilities. People are disabled almost always through no fault of their own. Whether they were born with a disability or whether they developed one as a result of an accident or a disease, we in this province ought not to be treating them as people who are destined forever to live in poverty. In this province, ODSP rates are abysmally low. The maximum you can get in this province on ODSP is $999 a month or just short of $12,000 a year.

That is approximately $8,000 below the low-income cut-off figure, which defines poverty for a single person. Most people on ODSP have no children for whom they collect additional benefits. That should not surprise people when you understand that the disabled who were born that way or who became that way early in life generally do not have children—or if they had them, if they're older and they're disabled, the children are grown up, because disability often happens in older age. It is not surprising. So any poverty strategy that targets only children leaves them completely out.

When you look at a disabled person, you see how they struggle, how they want and need to belong to society. I have pointed out to this minister, to other ministers and to the Premier on numerous occasions, and I give the example again today, that the child born in this province with Down's syndrome grows up, and we attempt as best we can in society to give them the education and the training that they require in order to function as best they can, and we do, I think, a pretty admirable job. But that child grows up to be 18 or 19 years of age, and generally, the education system ceases to work.

I mean, I wish it didn't, but it does: It ceases to work. We can get them through high school, we can do that—and I'm proud that we can do that, because we couldn't do that when I was a young man, but we can today.

But then that young person wants to go out and contribute. They want to go out and get a job. They want to go out and do things and be somebody, and they go out and get a job. I have seen people stacking shelves, I have seen people sweeping floors, I have seen people working in McDonald's and in other stores. But the sad reality is, because we give them $12,000 a year for being disabled, this government claws back half of everything they earn.

I know that there's a little bit they get to keep at first, but after just a little, tiny period, they start to claw back everything that they earn so that you have to literally earn about $18,000 a year to keep the $8,000 that will bring them from $12,000 to $20,000 so that you can, in your life, live above the poverty line. I think that that is disgraceful in this province; I think it is absolutely and fundamentally disgraceful.

When I ask the Minister of Community and Social Services this question on numerous occasions, she says that it's not an income supplement plan, the ODSP—you can call it what you want—but I do say it is a plan that puts that person, through no fault of their own, in everlasting poverty, because trying as hard as they might, trying to fit in as hard as they might, trying to get that job as hard as they might and to work all the hours that can be given to them, they cannot ever hope not to be in poverty.

I've just given the example of someone with Down's syndrome, but it's equally true of many other diseases, it's equally true of many other afflictions: People want to contribute. Sometimes it's limited; sometimes it's very limited, that they can only go out a day or two because their physical health will only allow it or because of the work environment or their capabilities. But I don't want that money to ever be clawed back again.

I asked in estimates how much this government clawed back from all of the programs. It was about $850 million; that was the answer I finally got. It took, I don't know, 10 or 12 weeks for that answer to come forward. That's how much this government makes off the backs of the poor. They claw it back.

I'm suggesting that there should be something in this poverty strategy to end that. I would suggest it start with people who are disabled. The disabled should be allowed to keep the first $8,000 a year without having it clawed back, so that disabled persons do not have to live in poverty for the rest of their lives. I think that's a strategy that, if you went out on the street and asked people, every single person would agree with. Nobody wants the disabled to live in poverty. If they are capable of working and they can make $8,000 a year, I would like to let them keep it.

I don't feel good about knowing that $850 million is clawed back from all the groups and that at least half of that is clawed back from the disabled. I don't feel good, and I don't think this government should feel good. I think any poverty strategy has to look first and foremost at our disabled, because being disabled in this province and in this country means that you will live a life of poverty.

I also want to talk about our First Nations people. I've had an opportunity, since coming to this Legislature, to travel across Ontario. I have had a chance to go into First Nations communities that are accessible by road, and I've had a chance to go into many of those northern places that are not, places like Attawapiskat and Peawanuck and Fort Severn and Marten Falls (Ogoki), where the only way you can get there is by plane. You go into those places and see the poverty and the despair, and you see what is happening to our First Nations people.

Now, I know that some people opposite and even some on this side will say this is a federal jurisdiction, but I also know that we have an obligation. I also know that the province of Quebec has recognized the unique structure of our federation and the uniqueness of our First Nations community. They have endeavoured, notwithstanding that it's a federal jurisdiction, to do everything they can to alleviate our first peoples from poverty.

I go into places like Peawanuck and Attawapiskat and look at the enormous cost of everything. I told one of my colleagues, Mr. Zimmer from Willowdale, that the biggest education he was going to get in a particular town—I think it was Fort Albany at that point—was to go in to the Northern Store. That was going to be his biggest education, not the ramshackle houses, not the poverty, not the kids hanging around with nothing to do, not the lack of a good school. The biggest education he was going to get was going into the Northern Store.

He went into the Northern Store with me and came out with his eyes bulging, because in that location, a bag of potatoes that can be bought for $2 in Toronto cost $25; a bag of milk to give to your kids, which could be bought for $3 or $4 in Toronto, cost $30; two apples cost $12.

Do you know the only thing that didn't surprise him and didn't surprise me? The two things that cost the same as in Toronto were a can of Coke and potato chips—exactly the same. You wonder about the nutrition of those kids. If you go into the schools that had to be shut down—there's no money—because of the fumes from the diesel generators that were in them, if you go and see the electricity that is shut off every day, if you go and see that about 80% of the people live on some form of assistance and you look at that community, then your heart has to go out to them and you have to say, "Why do we have this poverty in Ontario?"

The line between Ontario and Quebec runs right down the middle of James Bay, just on the other side of Moosonee and Moose Factory. If you go to the other side of James Bay and look at the First Nations community, you will see a starkly different world. You will see roads and sewers and schools. You will see people in prosperity who have jobs. You will see costs that are enormously lower than on the Ontario side. The reason is that the government of Quebec has invested billions of dollars into those communities.

Part of that, I would agree, comes from the James Bay Project and the hydroelectricity and the need to get the communities on board. But they have continued to develop those communities to the place where they are very little different from southern Ontario, and the level of poverty and despair is not there.

When I look at this bill, I'm saddened to see there is only passing mention of First Nations communities. We cannot live and acknowledge and know of this poverty. I know it is hidden from most Ontarians. I know it's difficult for most Ontarians to hop on a plane and go to Marten Falls-Ogoki, Peawanuck, Fort Albany or Attawapiskat, probably names they couldn't even find on a map. It's difficult. But it exists and it's there and we know it. Everybody in this room knows it and there's nothing in here about that.

There's nothing in here really about the whole issue of new immigrants. I have also talked about this many times in this Legislature, the whole issue of people who come to this country. Some of them are fleeing violence; some are coming here for economic gain, not so much for themselves but usually for their children. They have hopes and dreams in coming to this country that their children will have an enormous opportunity in terms of education and opportunity.

When I worked at the immigration department for some 20 years, before I became a full-time politician, you could see at the airport and the landing sites that hope and gleam in their eyes; how they wanted to come here and make a success of themselves, yet that is not happening and I don't see anything in this bill to deal with that.

I have advocated and will continue to advocate that Ontario should take a much stronger position on immigration than we do. Other provinces, particularly Quebec, take a much stronger position, as does Manitoba, in helping to recruit new immigrants. Quebec even has its own grid system and visa officers, and there is nothing that would prevent Ontario from doing the same thing. I believe we should be doing that in order to bring people to this country and for them to know in advance that their skills and abilities will be recognized.

As the choosers of the immigrants, we are also the ones who assess the documentation they bring forward. We can do that while the applications are being processed, so that a doctor or a nurse or an engineer or a nuclear scientist in another world jurisdiction will know in advance that when they come to this country, when they come to this province particularly, their credentials will be recognized and it is more likely than not they will be able to work in their field and they will not then succumb to poverty.

I would suggest that the government needs to do that and it is a strategy that is not outside of this strategy of poverty.

The McGuinty government poverty strategy also fails to take comprehensive action on a full range of areas related to poverty. As mentioned, it fails to improve access to affordable housing and child care and fails to improve adequacy of social assistance rates. The rates are far too low. The rates are absolutely abysmal and I know when they were frozen for eight or nine long years in a row, huge—first of all they were reduced by 21% and then they were frozen for all of those years. People who live on those rates cannot do so, they cannot live. I would challenge any one of you to try to live on what is taken home.

Twice in my political career, once as mayor and later on as a megacity councillor, I took up the challenge of the Daily Bread Food Bank to try to live on a welfare diet for a week. The first time I did it for nine days because I wanted to prove that I could. The second time I did it for 10, again, to prove that I could, and it's a real stretch.

The first time, I was given $12 to feed myself for a week and it taught me some incredibly valuable lessons, the biggest one of which was when I went out as the mayor following a council meeting. A councillor's wife had had a baby and he wanted to take us out to celebrate, but I had promised not to ingest anything other than the $12 allotted to me. So when they came around with food and stuff, I declined. I did want to be part of the group though, so I had a Diet Coke.

To my chagrin, at the end of the night, because I had wanted to be part of the group and living the welfare diet, when the bill came for the Diet Coke in the restaurant, it was more than $2. I understood from that more than any other thing what it is to live in poverty and on welfare, because that literally meant the next day I couldn't eat. Because I had a Diet Coke in the restaurant and I wanted to be part of a group and belong, I couldn't eat. So the next day I didn't. That's the daily life of a person on welfare.

The second time I went on the welfare diet was a few years later, and because transportation and other costs had risen, I had $10 for 10 days. I ate a whole bunch of starchy things, skipped every breakfast and most lunches. Dinner was always the same thing. What was on sale that week was chicken legs for 79 cents a pound, and that's what I had. I had chicken every day. I made chicken soup. I did everything I could to stretch that $10. But both times, I lost four pounds in a week. This might be the new fad—go on the welfare diet.

Get rid of Atkins and all of those other people, just try to live on the welfare diet in Ontario. There's nothing in here about that. I am looking forward to a budget that actually does something about those who are on social assistance, giving them adequacy.

I saw the Toronto Sun today. The Toronto Sun likes great big huge headlines. They're talking about some doctor in Chinatown who is giving letters to people so that they can have sufficient nutrition, and "Isn't this a scandal?" I think the bigger scandal is that we give them $500 a month on which to live. It is not surprising that they can't eat. It's not surprising that almost everything they put in their mouths they get from friends, the Daily Bread Food Bank or one of the social agencies, or they go without. That's the bigger scandal to me.

I would like the Toronto Sun, if they're listening, to write a story about that. How does one exist on $548 a month if you're a single person? In the city of Toronto, it costs you that for a single room. There's nothing left.

We need to start looking at the welfare rates. I know that this government will stand—and they've stood before and told me they've raised the rates five times, and they have. They've raised the rates five times in six years. But they've raised them incrementally at such a low amount that it has not, at 9.2% overall, covered the cost of inflation in the last six years—it has not. So a single person today—not families—on welfare or ODSP is worse off than in the deepest, darkest days of Mike Harris, and that's pretty sad.

If you want to do something about poverty, you have to do something about those who live on assistance—ODSP, Ontario Works. I would suggest that since we're going to have so many people joining these ranks in the next year or two that we look at increasing those rates well above the rates of inflation. Inflation this year is only going to be 1% or 2%. Things are really bad; that's what's happening. I look at the inflation numbers; they're down around 1% or 2%. If the government comes back and gives 1% or 2%, then it's not going to alleviate all of the problems that have manifested themselves over the last many, many years.

Bill 152 lacks a requirement that the current or future poverty reduction strategies be comprehensive. It leaves open the possibility that future strategies will be even more restrictive than the current one in terms of which populations of low-income people are included and what range of initiatives are adopted. Quebec law does better.

It requires that a comprehensive range of actions be included in its poverty reduction strategies and it requires, by law, actions to: (1) promote access to employment; (2) strengthen the social safety net; (3) improve education; (4) provide work supplements for low-income workers; (5) improve the availability of decent and affordable housing; (6) improve access to early learning programs and child care for children; and (7) increase supports to seniors.

Quebec law ensures comprehensiveness both in terms of target populations and the range of government initiatives needed to reduce poverty; Bill 152 does not.

Quebec's law also sets clear goals that ensure that their poverty strategy gets at the causes of poverty by requiring that strategies reduce inequality, increase solidarity between citizens, reduce prejudice, and improve social and economic conditions. For example, the Quebec law states: "Action to strengthen the social and economic safety net must be aimed at ... raising the level of income granted to persons and families living in poverty ... to meet their essential needs."

The third key concern I have with this bill as it currently stands is its failure to forge new ground in ensuring citizen participation and public accountability. The McGuinty government has talked a lot about the importance of working in partnership with Ontarians on poverty reduction and in working in collaboration with low-income people in particular. However, Bill 152, as it currently stands, misses a wonderful opportunity to put in place new, more deliberative and meaningful forms of citizen participation. In fact, it calls for little beyond the usual tired ways of government consultation.

The model is still that the ministry decides when consultation is necessary; the government solicits information and input; and then the government officials go away and decide what needs to be done. That's the way it happens around here. Despite calls from the 25 in 5 Network, the government chose not to include new and more direct forms of accountability, such as a citizens' advisory committee, which the network called for. Nor did the government put in place a poverty reduction secretariat to coordinate action on poverty between ministries—another recommendation of the 25 in 5 Network.

Contrary to that, Quebec's law, in contrast, includes a number of innovative measures to increase transparency and public accountability on poverty reduction. It formed an advisory committee to advise the Minister of Employment and Social Solidarity on the planning, implementation and evaluation of the poverty strategy. This committee monitors government policies to ensure that they are moving the poverty reduction strategy forward. That's the job of the committee.

The act enshrines a social initiatives fund to promote the emergence of local strategies to fight poverty and social exclusion in designated priority areas. The fund stood at $16 million a year in 2004-05. I am aware that the McGuinty poverty plan includes a community mobilization fund, but it is only going to be funded at $5 million a year, and it is not enshrined in the legislation. So it's one third of what Quebec puts in—Quebec has fewer people than we do—and it's not enshrined in the legislation.

In addition, the Quebec law created a new research centre to provide reliable and rigorous information on poverty in the province to help assess the extent to which the government's strategy is actually reducing poverty. A further important requirement is that all ministers must consider and report on the potential impacts of new legislation or regulations on people living in poverty. This bill does not do that either.

In

summary, poverty reduction strategies and poverty reduction acts do have a significant potential to stimulate effective action to reduce poverty. But to actually have the intended impact, poverty reduction acts and strategies need strong targets. They need to be comprehensive. They need to ensure strong citizen participation and government accountability.

I am hoping that when this bill goes to committee, as it surely will, the government takes heed of what is being said in this Legislature, but more importantly takes heed of what the 25 in 5 coalition is trying to say, what the good people who are out praying on the lawn have to say, what the people who live in poverty have to say, and makes some meaningful changes. I welcome, as I said at the outset, that we are going to do something to help poor children. I grew up among many poor children.

I grew up with children who didn't really have a chance, children who came to school in dishevelled clothes, who didn't have enough food to eat, who were constantly sick or at risk of being sick, who dropped out of school at the end of grade 9 or grade 10 to go out and get worthless and meaningless jobs that paid minimum wage, because there was nothing else they could do. I don't want to see that happen again. So as I said, I welcome anything that is going to stop that kind of child poverty from continuing.

But I am also mindful and I am also asking the government to show some pathos, to show some pity for those who are living in poverty today who are not children. I have talked about the disabled. I have talked about our First Nations communities. I have talked about new immigrants. I think there's a very strong case to be made for senior citizens, and for all of those people who, through no fault of their own, are living in conditions of poverty that none of us in this room would want to live in, and in fact none of us do live in.

I am asking the government to make a fair bill—I'm not going to say a good one, but a fair bill; a good bill; an excellent bill. I'm asking for this government to look at what can be done, what needs to be done, and do not ignore a whole generation of people who live in poverty, a whole generation who are disabled, a whole generation who live in abysmal poverty in northern and isolated communities and on the streets of our big cities. Look at them and see what we can do to help them while we're helping children. We need to do that, and we need to be bold.

I will tell you, if you raise the social assistance rates and the ODSP rates by 10%, I will be over here clapping. I know not all members of the Legislature will be clapping, but I will guarantee you that I will be one of those who say, "This government understands it." This government needs to take that kind of bold initiative and this kind of bold step.

Every day I see what is happening in the stock market. Every day I read the papers about those who are losing their jobs. Every day I despair, if we are not going to take that kind of bold action, of the social turmoil that will result in this province.

March 26 is a key day. I don't know what's going to happen, but I do know what I heard from the Premier, again going back. He's looking for an expanding economy, which is not happening, he's looking for a federal government that is not supportive, and he's looking for people in Ontario to be supportive and do what they can. I believe that the last one is the only one that's there. I believe the last one: that the people of Ontario will support a government that takes this initiative even in trying times, even in deficit, even if taxes have to increase to make sure that those among us who live in such dire straits have an opportunity.

I ask the minister to do everything in her power to convince her colleagues in cabinet that this bill is not enough. I know in her heart of hearts she knows it's not enough. I'm asking that the effort be made to make this into a bill that will make all Ontarians proud and that will take literally hundreds of thousands of people off the poverty rolls and give them the kind of dignity, the kind of opportunity, that they have never before and that they can only dream of.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I want to start by thanking the member from Beaches—East York. This is clearly an area that drives him. He is here in politics to help those with less than they deserve and less than they need. I want to thank you for your passion, I want to thank you for your understanding, and I want to thank you for your ongoing commitment to making the lives of those living in poverty better.

I have to say that it is a refreshing contrast to some of the other speeches that have been made on this bill coming from the Conservative Party. I have been terribly disappointed at the lack of understanding and just the ignorance that has been expressed by members of the Conservative Party when it comes to this legislation, so I thank the member of Beaches—East York for taking the time to understand what it is we are trying to do.

We are starting with children. Reducing poverty in this province—it's going to take us a long time to get to where we want to go. We had a very difficult decision: Where do we start? We chose to start with breaking the cycle of poverty because, the member opposite knows, there are families in Ontario where there is an intergenerational cycle of poverty out of which it is very difficult to break. We want to give kids the opportunities to achieve their full potential. We had to start somewhere. Starting with kids is the right place to start. However, all people living in poverty will be better off as the result of this legislation.

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: I found the words of my colleague from Beaches—East York to be rather interesting, especially when he related his own experiences at trying to be somebody who lived in poverty for a day or even a week. It's not something that I've tried—not that I have not experienced poverty when I was a young boy. I'm pretty sure that you would describe my parents' conditions as being such, but they always hid it well from me.

There is no disagreement in this House, I don't think, on the part of any party that poverty is an issue for Ontarians and a growing issue, one that will grow exponentially, very sadly, over the next period of time. The issue we're discussing is how you address it, not whether or not it's there. I think there's a fundamental disagreement between the three parties on the way to go at it, not the fact that it should be done.

I take umbrage at what the minister has said in her response—albeit I acknowledge the fact that as a minister it's great that she's here and listening—to the comments about the Conservative Party, the party that I represent, being in some way ignorant about it.

The difference between the Liberal approach, which is too little, too late—and it's been on your watch, Minister, for almost six years, okay? You're not going to address poverty with a strategy that is weak; you're going to address it with one that's strong. It dovetails with pretty well everything we're doing and facing in Ontario now, with people losing jobs in the thousands. The Conservative Party's approach to this has always been, and remains, to preserve the dignity of the person at an individual level and to create conditions that allow everyone to earn a paycheque that allows everyone to have a job.

That's what the Liberal strategy doesn't address, and on the NDP side it's "Tax double, and we'll redistribute it."

You can't have it all of these ways. You've got to have it one way. I say the personal dignity route wins.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: First of all, when somebody does something or tries to do something that's decent, they should at least get acknowledgement. I do believe that the minister's heart is in the right place. I do believe they're trying to address children's poverty in the province. But I must concur with my colleague from Beaches—East York; he hit a real chord when he talked about the total poverty issue.

Speaking from my own personal experiences, I can remember in 1990, when I was on strike at Stelco, that we had a five-month strike. I missed mortgage payments. I had three little girls. I even went and got my cab licence and drove cabs 16 to 18 hours a day in Hamilton, with not a lot of business, due to the strike. I was lucky if I took home $30 a day for 16 or 18 hours. But I did it to feed my girls and keep my family together. But I could not even imagine what it would be like to live every day of your life in that situation. It would be just terrible. It creates social problems. It creates divorces.

It creates havoc in the community. In my community, 18% of the people are already below the poverty level—this was before the devastating news at Stelco—so I can only assume that it's going to get worse before it gets better.

This bill does not go far enough. To my colleagues from the Conservatives: You don't get by on dignity. You get by on help, you get by on a cheque, you get by on support from social services, and that definitely has to be addressed.

We don't want to give away the store, but I think priorities in both parties are a little mixed up. The people come first, not your—

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

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde: J'ai écouté attentivement les points soulevés par mon collègue de Beaches—East York. Laissez-moi vous dire que, lorsqu'il a référé au temps de sa jeunesse, les temps ont changé.

I keep saying that times have changed, and every one of us has a role to play.

La pauvreté du temps des années 1930, 1940, 1950 et 1960 est complètement différente de la pauvreté des années 2000. Il faut dire que dans les années 1930 et 1940, on pouvait s'assurer chaque matin que nous aurions trois repas. La nutrition était complètement différente. Les collations n'existaient pas avant le coucher.

Mais aujourd'hui la pauvreté est complètement différente. Aujourd'hui on s'aperçoit que les enfants se rendent à l'école le matin avec l'estomac vide. Personne ne vient les aider. Les parents n'ont pas l'argent nécessaire. C'est pour ça que le gouvernement McGuinty reconnaît l'importance de mettre en place ce projet de loi, pour essayer de réduire la pauvreté. Tous les cinq ans on va regarder de nouveau les progrès que nous avons faits, et c'est très important, pour que le gouvernement McGuinty puisse avoir l'appui des deux partis de l'opposition afin de pousser davantage l'importance de répondre aux besoins.

Il y a certainement des objectifs qu'on doit rencontrer. Lorsque je dis qu'on doit réduire la pauvreté par 25 % d'ici cinq ans, laissez-moi vous dire que c'est avec consultation et le rôle que chacun d'entre nous va jouer afin de venir en aide au gouvernement McGuinty et au projet de loi qui est débattu ce matin; que tout le monde joue un rôle d'importance pour atteindre notre objectif.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Merci beaucoup. I'll now return to the member for Beaches—East York, who has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Michael Prue: I would like to thank the Minister of Children and Youth Services and my colleagues from Thornhill, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek and Glengarry—Prescott—Russell for their comments. It seems readily apparent to me from their comments that all of them listened to what I had to say. So this is a good thing.

To the member from Thornhill, though, you know he talked about the dignity of the person. I agree that dignity of a human being is an absolutely essential aspect for each and every one of us, but I asked him to reflect on the thought of the dignity of a person or how difficult it is to have dignity when one lives in destitution, when one lives in poverty, when one lives in hopelessness and in disease, when you are sick all the time because you don't have the proper food, when you don't have the opportunity to get a good job—that try as hard as you might, you cannot escape from that grinding and crushing poverty of the place where you live.

I asked him to think about that dignity of the person. It is that which I am talking about and that which I want the minister and others to reflect upon as well. That's why people need a hand up—not a handout but a hand up—in order to get out of that, to get an opportunity to develop themselves. I do agree that they have to work at it, too. We all agree they have to work at it.

In terms of taxing double, the accusation, never did I say that I would tax people double. What I'm saying is that this government and all governments have to have priorities. I believe that this is a priority whose time has come. It can no longer be allowed to fester. If there is a priority in this upcoming budget cycle on March 26, I believe that that priority has to be poverty, and I will judge that tax bill and that budget on March 26 by what it contains on this issue and this issue alone.

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

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: I move adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Second reading debate adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Orders of the day. I recognize the Minister of Culture.

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: There is no further business this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): That being the case, this House stands adjourned until 10:30 later on this morning.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. David Zimmer: It's my great pleasure to introduce Wendy Yan, who's in the gallery here. Wendy is the proud mother of page Xiao Yan Guo, who is over here. Xiao Yan is a student at Bayview Middle School in Willowdale. She has come to observe her daughter participate in the proceedings. Welcome.

Mr. Peter Shurman: I'd like to introduce some people in the west members' gallery. Tariq Haji is one of the pages in this session, and his parents—Farhana Haji, his mother, and Hanif Haji, his father—and Alysa Haji, his sister, are all here to support him. I'd like to welcome them to the gallery and congratulate Tariq on the wonderful job that he has done as a page.

Mrs. Linda Jeffrey: I also am lucky enough to have gotten a page. Zaman Dubey has been here as a page for the last couple of weeks. His parents have come to observe him this morning: his father, Zakir, his mother, Asma, and his brother, Abbas. Welcome.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Today in the government gallery, I am expecting from my deputy minister's office Peter Evans, Michael Dougherty, Tina Lee, Deeple Vyas and Melanie Lucas. They are great people who work with me every day, and I'm delighted that they're going to be here today with us.

M me France Gélinas: I'm pleased to introduce Lee McKenna from the Association of Ontario Health Centres, who's in the gallery, as well as Heather Brown from the Ontario Nurses' Association.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Vaughan and page Arjun Gandhi, I'd like to welcome his mother, Hema Gandhi, his father, Sanjay Gandhi, and his sister, Anjali Gandhi, sitting in the east members' gallery today. Welcome.

We have with us in the Speaker's gallery His Excellency Tomaz Kunstelj, Ambassador from the Republic of Slovenia to Canada, accompanied by the Honorary Consul General of the Republic of Slovenia at Toronto, Mr. Joseph Slobodnik. Please join me in welcoming our guests to the Legislature today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NURSES

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Health. Today, nurses from across Ontario have travelled to Queen's Park because they are very concerned that your policies are forcing hospitals to lay off nurses, eliminate nursing positions and not fill vacancies. They're also concerned that you broke your promise to hire 9,000 more nurses.

Minister, will you take action today to stop the elimination of nursing positions in our hospitals, and will you commit to funding at least 3,000 new nursing positions in your 2009-10 budget?

Hon. David Caplan: I want to thank the member for the question because we on this side of the House feel that nurses are an incredible cornerstone of our health care services. In fact, it's their expertise, their skill and their dedication which have meant so much for us to be able to drive down wait times, to be able to engage in new models of family health care, like nurse practitioner-led clinics, which we have moved to. That's why this government and the commitment of this Premier to hire 8,000 nurses in our first term has been a promise fulfilled.

In fact, so far we are at almost 10,000 nurses hired in the province of Ontario. And, yes, the member is quite correct: We do have a plan to hire an additional 9,000 nurses in the province of Ontario. We are proceeding with that; I can confirm that for the member. It is perhaps going to take us a little bit longer than we had originally anticipated, but I do want to assure this member and all members of the House that we are proceeding with hiring an additional 9,000—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Despite all the blubber and the rhetoric coming from the other side, I would suggest to you that the nurses have come to Queen's Park today to protest because they do not feel that the government policies are creating the new nursing positions that were promised, and they're also concerned about the firings throughout the province.

We've seen 72 nursing positions gone from the Rouge Valley Health System. Sault Ste. Marie: five critical care RN positions; two oncology. Quinte Health Care cut the equivalent of 45 full-time nursing positions. Cambridge will eliminate 30 full-time—and it goes on and on.

Mr. Minister, if your government is not cutting nursing positions, then why have these nurses travelled to Queen's Park today to protest your cuts?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, nurses are being hired today in the province of Ontario. If you were to go to one of the job sites, Workopolis for example, you will find somewhere between 300 and 400 positions for nurses in the province of Ontario today.

In fact, the record of this member and her government, when they were on this side of the House just a few short years ago—a quote from Premier Mike Harris: "Just as hula hoops went out and those workers had to have a factory and a company that would manufacture something else that's in, it's the same in government," Harris told reporters before a cabinet meeting when referring specifically to nurses. In fact, that member was a part of a government that fired nurses in its first year, to the tune of 6,300 nursing positions lost in the province of Ontario.

I'm happy to contrast that record with the record of success of this government in hiring over 10,000 nurses today in the province of Ontario—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: It's obvious that this minister is incapable of dealing with the crisis at hand.

We are very proud of our record. Between 1999 and 2001, we created 12,000 more nursing positions—nursing positions that we have been recognized for by the RNAO.

However, today the nurses are here to protest your policies. It's time for you to assume responsibility and not go back years and years and years.

I say to you today, your Premier said he would not fire nurses. I've got the quotes right here.

Do you not know, Minister, that the research that ONA has states that every patient added to the workload of a registered nurse increases the rate of complications and patient deaths by 7%? That's what your policies are forcing hospitals to do.

I ask you again on—

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

Hon. David Caplan: Nothing could be further from the truth. And the only one who is proud of the record of the previous government is the member opposite.

In fact, Linda Haslam-Stroud, president of ONA, said on February 3, "In the mid-1990s, the Conservative government likened RNs to 'hula hoops' and fired more than 10,000 of them, setting the stage for today's nursing shortage."

We need those nurses. We need them in our hospitals, in our long-term-care homes, and in our community.

I note for you, just yesterday the member's colleague was saying we are spending too much, that we should be cutting those positions, that we've hired too many people within the public service of the province of Ontario. I disagree with those comments.

I think Conservative members need to have best-before dates on all of the statements they—

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

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is to the Minister of—Economic Development. It's such a remote concept in this province, I have trouble with it.

Minister, in 2005—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Halton.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Minister, in 2005 I put an opposition day motion before this House calling for an immediate plan to deal with manufacturing job losses in Ontario. The resolution called for meaningful job action in hard-hit places like Hamilton, Welland, Guelph, Windsor and other Ontario manufacturing towns. The resolution passed that day in 2005, but the resolve of your government failed. Since then, we have seen nearly 300,000 manufacturing jobs lost across the province, with a large number added this week. Today, we heard about 1,200 more jobs lost in Windsor, one of those hard-hit cities the Premier and yourself promised to protect in 2005.

Minister, yesterday the Premier said he was not responsible for job losses in Hamilton. You will probably say that you can't do anything about the 1,200 workers laid off today in Windsor. If this is your stance, Minister, what is it that you can do for the hard-hit people of Ontario?

Hon. Michael Bryant: The member raised the events of yesterday in Windsor, and obviously, for the people affected who were on the third shift at Chrysler, it's a very difficult time. It was anticipated since last August, but that doesn't make it any easier for those workers. It was actually one of the last plants on the continent in which there were three shifts. Obviously, we're hoping that the second shift will have enough production that some of those people will be able to continue to work.

We also, with respect to US Steel, see the impacts of the drop in auto sales.

What does a government do? Probably the best contribution that provincial and federal governments can make for the auto industry is the work we're doing to try to create and support a viable auto industry. Probably the best thing we can do for the steel industry is to create more demand and increase supply by providing assistance to the auto industry, and that's exactly what the provincial government is doing right now.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Boy, that's faint hope for people in the manufacturing business in Ontario.

Minister, you have two ministers in your cabinet from Windsor. You would think they might urge you to come up with a plan to save these jobs. The minister of trade is probably too busy spending taxpayers' dollars in fancy hotels overseas; the Minister of Finance would rather be in Toronto creating a record budget for the province of Ontario.

Had you listened in 2005, the people at Chrysler in Windsor might still have jobs. But you frittered away the good times. You set us up for disaster with your tax-and-spend policies, and the continuing inaction is making things worse.

Minister, tell me, tell the people of Ontario and tell the people in Windsor, Hamilton, Guelph, Oshawa, Kitchener, Welland and all those other great manufacturing towns, under your leadership, is this the end of manufacturing in Ontario?

Hon. Michael Bryant: It's thanks to the members for Windsor that there's a future in Windsor and there's a future in the manufacturing industry in the province of Ontario. There is no way in the history of this province you have had two MPPs in Windsor, and all the MPPs representing Windsor from this party, who have fought for their communities harder than these MPPs you referred to.

The Minister of International Trade is travelling around the world to bring investments into all parts of this province, but you can bet she works very hard to bring investments into Windsor. The Minister of Finance, making investments in the advanced manufacturing strategy and through the Next Generation of Jobs Fund, has seen millions of dollars invested directly into companies, leveraging hundreds of millions of dollars of investments that create jobs in their communities and communities across this province. So don't tell me that we don't have the best members for Windsor, because we do.

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: If the future of Ontario is based on what Windsor is doing today—it's got the highest unemployment level in Ontario—then Ontario is headed down the wrong road, if that's your answer.

Minister, you pretend to understand the severities of these issues, but your actions or inactions do not fill me with confidence. Instead of dealing with the big questions that your Premier talked about over Christmas, you've reverted to your usual routine of ignoring the economy again. Instead of actually dealing with issues like red tape, high taxes, competitiveness and productivity, your government would rather talk about young offenders housing, cosmetic surgery—worthy subjects surely, but not right now. Right now, we need a plan. Right now, we need leadership. Right now, we need some reprieve for the people of the manufacturing cities of Ontario.

Minister, will you commit today to a serious change in your economic approach? Do you realize that you can make a difference if you try?

Hon. Michael Bryant: In fact, the member talks about a plan. It's the plan that the member voted against. It's the plan that put into place investments in the advanced manufacturing sector that led to a loan commitment of $10 million to Roxul Inc. Where's Roxul Inc? It's in Milton, to the member who asked the question. An investment and a loan commitment of $3 million to Procter and Gamble Inc. of where? In Brockville, in Leeds—Grenville. We also have investments in Koolatron in Brantford, for the MPP for Brant. We have investments, in Oxford and Cambridge, in Toyota Canada.

This government's economic strategy, amongst other things, involves direct investment of industry funds into businesses. It's something that that member calls "corporate welfare" and this government calls "economic investment" to allow and jump-start companies so that they can jump ahead of their competitors. We stand for that economic stimulus and you voted against it.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The leader of the third party.

Applause.

Mr. Howard Hampton: If some people believe in a diversion strategy, it won't work.

My question is for the minister who claims to be the minister for industry investment in the province. Two days ago, 2,100 jobs at Stelco in Hamilton—gone; 261 jobs at Vale Inco in Sudbury—gone; yesterday, 1,200 jobs at the Chrysler minivan plant in Windsor—gone. The common thread: While the McGuinty government has been handing out hundreds of millions of dollars to some of the world's largest corporations, the McGuinty government has been getting no investment guarantees, no job guarantees and no product guarantees.

The result: While the corporations get hundreds of millions of dollars, tens of thousands of Ontario workers get the pink slip. Minister, how does the McGuinty government justify handing out hundreds of millions of dollars to global corporations while the same corporations give their Ontario workers the goodbye slip?

Hon. Michael Bryant: Yes, the member is citing companies that have announced layoffs—US Steel—very, very significant layoffs; brutal news for Nanticoke and Hamilton. As well, the news yesterday at Chrysler with respect to 1,200 people affected on the third shift, as I said. It was anticipated, but that's of cold comfort to the people of that community, some of whom we hope will be involved in the second shift.

This government has made investments in small, medium and large enterprises. In every circumstance that we do so, we do it in order to grow the economy, and we do it through a process that I know the member voted against, but it's a process that allows these companies to see those investments, leverage those investments into larger investments and expand their footprint. It has resulted in significant expansion as a result of this, and at the same time—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: The McGuinty government says that handing out hundreds of millions of dollars to global corporations has resulted in significant expansions. About the only significant expansion we see is the expansion in the number of workers who are unemployed, and that is the sad truth. This is the same old thing you've been doing now for five years: handing out the money, holding press conferences telling everyone in Ontario, "This is going to be wonderful, this is going to be fantastic," and then five months later, six months later, 1,000 workers get laid off; 2,000 workers get laid off; 3,000 workers get laid off.

When is the McGuinty government going to go back into the meeting room and say to itself, "This strategy of handing out hundreds of millions of dollars without job guarantees, investment guarantees and product guarantees isn't working"? When are you going to rethink a strategy that obviously hasn't—

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

Hon. Michael Bryant: I know that the member wouldn't want people to think that, in fact, the circumstances at US Steel, for example, involved the government making investments and then there being a change of circumstance. In fact, that is not the case. US Steel is a company that previously in Hamilton was Stelco. It was a company that the government, yes, intervened in to try and save the company, and saved it, thanks to the workers and, as well, some investments from the provincial government. As a result of that, pensions were saved—pensions were guaranteed. Those pensions are being paid and will continue to be paid, just as the obligations to the province will continue to be paid.

The leader of the third party can't have it both ways. You can't complain when we make investments in corporations that have jobs in Ontario and then complain when we don't make investments in those same corporations, but we will continue making those investments, and we will continue growing the economy where we can grow the economy—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: Well, I would say to the McGuinty government, "You can't have it both ways." We support making investments in Ontario's industries. We've been advocating for four years that the McGuinty government take a look at the forest sector and the destruction of jobs that is happening there.

But let's look at US Steel. US Steel got $150 million. Did the McGuinty government get an investment guarantee? Did it get a job guarantee? Did it get a guarantee that US Steel would consider even other alternatives before simply laying off? No, you didn't. As a result, 2,100 workers in Hamilton are staring at unemployment now.

Again, when is the McGuinty government going to rethink its strategy instead of simply handing out money to global corporations? When are you going to demand product guarantees, job guarantees and investment guarantees so workers don't get a pink slip six months to a year later?

Hon. Michael Bryant: Well, the role of the provincial government in 2006 with Stelco was to move in and guarantee the pensions. It was to provide assistance for those people. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single individual receiving that pension today as a result of that deal who would say that that was not in the best interests of those people and that community.

I want to assure those people that the pension obligations will continue to be paid. Certainly, I want to assure this House that the obligations to the government of Ontario will continue to be paid, and we will make sure that these legal obligations are met.

At the same time, we need—and I know the member would want to support this—management to come to the table, which they have not to date, and work with labour, work with the union and work with the workers to come up with alternatives other than simply the layoffs, including early retirement. It's something I've spoken to Leo Gerard about, and I know it's something that US Steel is going to want to get on very—

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

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Howard Hampton: Again to the minister: The minister talks about US Steel. It seems to me when $150 million was handed out to US Steel, the government could have insisted, "Look, if you're facing layoffs or you're facing a declining economy, this company will consider other measures than simply laying off. This company will consider work sharing. This company will consider those kinds of measures." Those are things that you were in a position to demand of US Steel before you handed out $150 million.

The question is, why doesn't the McGuinty government go to the table and demand these things? Why are you so happy to hand out hundreds of millions of dollars to global corporations and get nothing for Ontario workers?

Hon. Michael Bryant: The fact is that, had the government not made the intervention, nothing would have gone to those pensioners. Those pensioners would have looked at this bankrupt company and said, "There goes our pension." Instead, this government intervened to guarantee those pensions. That investment, that loan that the Ontario government made, because—and I'm happy to spend the entire question period talking about what the provincial government did to save the pensions of people in Hamilton in the dealings with Stelco in 2006. I'm happy to continue to have this question period on this front.

The investments were made to save the pensions. As a result of that, the pensions were saved. Notwithstanding the brutal news by US Steel recently, the pension money will continue to flow, and we will certainly make sure that the pensions continue to flow because that deal in 2006 was about the pensioners.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: Well, we will see in due course how guaranteed pensions are. But, again, I want to return to the 2,100 workers at US Steel in Hamilton and at Lake Erie who are now out on the street—out on the street. At the same time, the corporation that's putting them out on the street got $150 million of Ontario taxpayer money. The McGuinty government can turn all kinds of circles and somersaults trying to avoid this, but this is the reality. It has been the reality with General Motors at $235 million; it has been the reality, sadly, with Chrysler, which got $77 million; it has been the reality with Ford, sadly, which got $100 million; and it's the sad reality with US Steel.

The question remains: When is the McGuinty government actually going to insist on some measures—product guarantees, job guarantees or an Ontario-first strategy? When is the McGuinty government—

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

Hon. Michael Bryant: The province came to the table. We insisted upon pension guarantees, and we got pension guarantees. That's what we went to the table to achieve, and that was what was achieved.

I think that the member is underestimating the productivity of those workers at US Steel. Remember, 4,000 people at US Steel plants across the United States in the last few months have seen shutdowns—some temporary, some permanent. Four thousand US Steel workers saw that happen before this bad news hit Canada. That is a testament to the productivity of those workers. That is a testament to the knowledge and skills of those workers, and it's because of that that there is certainly a lot more potential at those particular plants than a number of plants in the United States that have already faced a closure.

Again, I would urge the member to support this effort to get management and the workers together to try—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: Some days, I can't believe what I'm hearing from the McGuinty government. This is a steel plant that functioned throughout the Great Depression. This is a steel plant that continued to function through the very deep recession of 1981 to 1983. This is a steel plant that continued to function through the last recession in the early 1990s.

Today, the McGuinty government is saying, "They should be thankful they were only laid off and shut down now." Again, is this the full measure of the McGuinty government jobs strategy: "Be thankful that you held on to your job a few weeks longer than someone else somewhere else"? Is this the McGuinty government jobs strategy: hand out hundreds of millions of dollars to global corporations, then watch as they lay off tens of thousands of Ontario workers? Don't you think, Minister, that Ontario workers and Ontario citizens deserve something more, something better from the McGuinty government than this?

Hon. Michael Bryant: The strategy is, in addition to providing assistance to the companies in this extraordinary circumstance with respect to the auto industry, to provide direct investments into businesses. Yes, some of them are multinational businesses; no question about it. Some are homegrown businesses here in the province of Ontario. Regardless, they create wealth, they create economic activity in the province of Ontario, and they create jobs. The member is standing up and he's trying to drive this theme through that the government of Ontario should not be making investments in multinational corporations.

Firstly, that's wrong. Secondly, these multinationals create jobs. I can tell you, the people who are working at US Steel want to be working at a multinational corporation right now. That's why we need to get management and labour to come to the table and look at alternatives. At the same time, the government will continue to make investments in multinationals and otherwise—

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

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Minister of Finance: Minister, families in my area in Stoney Creek, Glanbrook and Niagara are reeling from the devastating news of 2,100 job losses at Stelco and 111 job losses at Court Valve in Beamsville, on top of the 800 John Deere losses happening this year.

It was largely from the wallets of working families and seniors like these that you raked in some $27 billion in increased revenue over the past five years. Now as they lose their jobs, they learn that you took all of that money and blew it out the door, leaving no cushion whatsoever for when times got tough, plunging us into the deepest deficit in our province, surpassing even the fiscal ineptitude of Bob Rae.

Minister, not only is this an extraordinary failure in leadership; isn't it an extraordinary betrayal of these folks who worked hard, gave you more money and find now that you have no plan to bring jobs back to our province?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To those people who have lost their jobs in Hamilton and my home community of Windsor, we will continue to work to find solutions to the challenges they face and we certainly won't turn our backs on them at this point in time. They join workers in Michigan, Indiana, England, France, Germany and China who are losing jobs hand over fist. I don't think anybody buys for a moment that we are going to be exempt from that reality.

In fact, where we saw remarkable growth in taxes over the last few years was in corporate taxes, not personal income taxes, and that was due to rising profits. We invested that in health care and education. We paid down debt. We eliminated the previous government's deficit. That was—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Let's review, Minister, the McGuinty economic record at the five-year point. We learned that despite the $27-billion tax windfall, you've plunged our province into the biggest deficit in our history, surpassing even Bob Rae. We have, under Dalton McGuinty, become a have-not province, and we have a have-not Premier when it comes to any ideas to get us out of it. Unlike Dalton McGuinty's outdated tax-and-spend policies that chase jobs from our province, we on this side believe that the best way out of deficit and have-not status is to grow our way out through private sector job creation.

Sadly, with your WSIB tax hike, your energy rate increases and audits, and your goal to close down temp agencies that are trying to place folks in the few remaining jobs that there are, Minister, aren't your job-killing policies actually going to make Ontario's deficit worse in the coming years?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Governments around the world are accumulating very substantial deficits in the interest of stimulating employment. This crisis is not going to end shortly. There are no quick fixes, and to suggest that we will be exempt from that is, I think—I spoke to the head of the union at Chrysler yesterday, both the local as well as the national, as well as one of my neighbours who lost their job. I think they understand that this goes well beyond the kinds of pat hyperbole that the member opposite offers. We will put forward a plan, we will take that to the people, and we will continue to build a better, stronger and more prosperous Ontario for everyone.

L'ÉCONOMIE DU NORD /

NORTHERN ECONOMY

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre du Développement du Nord et des Mines. Des résidants du nord de l'Ontario ont vu les moulins à papier et à scie à bois fermer l'un après l'autre avec des effets dévastateurs sur leur famille, les travailleurs et la communauté. Pendant ce temps-là, notre demande sous l'accès à l'information a découvert que 75 % du fonds de prospérité pour le secteur forestier et le programme de prégarantie est demeuré dans les coffres du gouvernement pendant que le nord de l'Ontario perdait des milliers de bons emplois. C'est l'industrie minière qui a alimenté l'économie du nord, mais maintenant c'est cette industrie qui perd des emplois.

J'aimerais connaître le plan du gouvernement pour l'économie du nord de l'Ontario.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thank you very much for the question. I appreciate it very much. Certainly we are incredibly conscious of the challenges that are facing the northern Ontario economy, particularly in the mining sector, which I'm responsible for, and the forestry sector under Minister Cansfield. I can tell you that we continue to work incredibly closely with the mining companies. The announcement earlier this week of further job losses at Vale Inco, 261 job losses, was devastating. I think it's incredibly important that we recognize that the global financial crisis has had a great impact on the mining sector as well.

We are pleased to be able to say, though, that through work we're doing on the northern Ontario growth plan, which I'm co-chairing with my colleague, the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, we are developing an economic blueprint for the north. We had an incredibly important gathering recently, the Think North Summit, bringing northerners together, recognizing that during these challenging times it's even more important that we develop an economic plan for the north. With the growth plan, we—

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

M me France Gélinas: The economy in northern Ontario is shrinking. According to the Sudbury Star, Sudbury alone lost 3,550 direct and indirect mining sector jobs since last fall. This government has let down forest workers, their families and northern communities by holding back 75% of the money that was supposed to support that industry through difficult times. Now, mines are laying off hundreds of workers. In my riding alone, in Nickel Belt, 1,000 people lost their jobs in the last month. There aren't that many jobs in Nickel Belt; 1,000 jobs hurts lots.

What is the plan of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines? What is the plan for the mining sector?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Again, I very much appreciate the question. We are incredibly aware, obviously, of the challenges that are being faced in the mining sector. Certainly there were extraordinary economic opportunities there in the past that are being impacted by the global financial crisis and the job losses. You illustrate the number there, and it's very, very difficult.

I can tell you, having just attended the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada convention in Toronto this past week with 18,000 delegates from all across the world, 100 jurisdictions, there is still very much a belief that, indeed, we've gone through difficult times before, the mining sector has been down, and it's going to be back up again. There's no doubt that, with the commodity prices being where they are, except for gold, those challenges are there. But there is still real optimism. I spoke to so many people who believe that indeed we're going to be back.

Certainly, we're going to continue to work very, very closely with our mineral development strategy for the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines to see a prosperous future. Mining will continue—

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

NURSES

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: My question this morning is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Time and time again, we hear about the shortage of nurses in this province. That's one of the reasons why in 2003 the McGuinty government pledged to hire an additional 8,000 nurses and why in the 2007 election the government committed to adding 9,000 more nurses over the coming years.

Yet in these difficult economic times, I know that some nurses in my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga and across Ontario are concerned. They want to know that their hard work is appreciated by this government. They want to know that this government will hire nurses, not fire them as previous governments have done. I ask the Minister of Health, is he truly committed to the nurses in Ontario?

Hon. David Caplan: I'm glad the honourable member asks this question. It gives me a chance to express my appreciation not only to the more than 100,000 nurses who are keeping our province's health care system strong, but to their leadership, who are here with us today in the gallery at Queen's Park. I welcome you here today.

Our hospitals, our long-term-care homes and our family health teams are thriving because of the expertise, skills, diligence and dedication of our nurses. Our government and I are absolutely committed to increasing the number of nurses working in this province. According to the most recent data from the College of Nurses of Ontario, we've hired 9,669 nurses since we were elected in 2003. That's almost 10,000 nursing jobs created in the province of Ontario.

Today, I am pleased to tell you that the College of Nurses of Ontario is reporting that there are officially more than 1,300 nurse practitioners entitled to practise in the province. According to the college, in 2003, there were 535—

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

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: There are currently a number of hospitals in Ontario attempting to balance their budgets. Like this government and like many Ontario families, hospitals are trying to figure out how to thrive in difficult economic times. Many of them are working closely with their LHINs to find solutions that will not compromise patient care, examining ways to maximize resources and capitalize on the expertise of highly qualified health care professionals. Occasionally, this may mean that nurses have to change jobs, and some of them could end up in positions that require more training.

Can the Minister of Health tell this House what the government is doing to support nurses through this difficult economic transition? What is the government doing to ensure that nurses land on their feet?

Hon. David Caplan: I want to tell my honourable colleagues about an initiative that was created back in 2005 to help to address this specific issue. We invested in a $40-million strategy called the nursing retention fund. In fact, it's managed by our three major nursing partners. This fund provides additional resources to help hospitals retrain and retain nurses. It helps nurses build on their skills and train for more specialized positions. It's designed to help safeguard nursing jobs when Ontario hospitals seek to reorganize, reallocate or redeploy resources.

I want to encourage more Ontario hospitals to take advantage of this fund, because the applications that have been submitted to date—I know more hospitals and nurses could benefit from the opportunities that this fund can create for them.

We want to empower Ontario hospitals to strengthen and develop their nursing staff as they reallocate their resources, and this fund is designed to do just that. I think it's a promising solution, one that will—

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

TOBACCO CONTROL

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is for the Minister of Health Promotion.

In a recent RCMP document, lab reports showed that bagged cigarettes with unknown names, manufactured offshore, contained a lot more than tobacco. The report shows the bodies of small insects, insect larvae, insect feces, all embedded in the tobacco used to make the illegal cigarettes smoked more and more frequently by underage smokers. So not only is the rapid rise of illegal tobacco product use by underage persons being recorded while you try to sell the no-smoking message, but these kids are smoking things that have no business being sold anywhere, much less outside the law and near schools.

Is the minister aware of these horrific ingredients in what Ontario's kids are smoking, and will she commit to this Legislature and the people of Ontario that she'll start doing the job to which she was appointed?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I'll refer the question to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Certainly, the short answer to the question is yes. That's why we on this side of the House discourage anyone from buying illegal cigarettes. That's why our provincial police services and our municipal police services across the province of Ontario are actively engaged with the RCMP and with international police services to minimize that amount. And do you know what? We look forward to the continued co-operation of the RCMP, the OPP and international police services so that we can get rid of this scourge.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: To that list of ingredients, I think we can add baloney.

Recent statistics—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just ask the honourable member to choose better words and try to maintain decorum. You saw what it did.

Mr. Peter Shurman: It was a joke; I withdraw it.

Recent statistics say that despite all of the minister's efforts, the Smoke-Free Ontario Act just isn't working. Over 50% of all tobacco sales in Ontario are now illegal. Last year when I raised this subject, it was about 40%.

Stakeholders say you're telling them that your objective is to eliminate smoking altogether, and if that's true, perhaps saying so publicly is appropriate.

You are not protecting Ontarians, especially our young people, who can purchase illicit cigarettes and other tobaccos in strip malls, parking lots, near most schools. The plan is no plan.

Minister, will you or will you not undertake to ensure that you are doing what you say? Will the McGuinty government apply the law—

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

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Let me tell you that it isn't baloney when you get the international—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just ask the honourable member to listen to what the member from Thornhill just said. He withdrew the comment. Don't start it back and forth.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I withdraw, Speaker.

I think it's very, very important that the member over there, who purports to be such a champion, remember the fact that the ingredients in those cigarettes can do an individual a great deal of harm, and so it is important that he understand that the RCMP, the international police services, the Ontario Provincial Police service, every border municipal police service, every municipal police service in Ontario, take this as very, very important.

We know that 90% comes across the border. We're doing everything to ensure—

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

NURSES

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée.

The Ontario Nurses' Association is marching to Queen's Park to deliver a message to the McGuinty government. ONA was forced to launch a media campaign called Cutting Nurses, Cutting Care to try to stop the McGuinty government cuts to nursing positions and nursing hours of care, which threaten patient care. ONA has received notice of hundreds of cuts to nursing positions and expects the numbers to balloon as Ontario health care facilities grapple with balancing their budgets. The minister talks about job offers on Workopolis. My question: Is the minister denying that nurses are being laid off?

Hon. David Caplan: Under the NDP government, in fact, 3,000 nursing positions were lost. I certainly acknowledge the history of my colleague opposite. Under this government, 10,000 nursing positions have been created in the province of Ontario. The future for nurses in the province of Ontario is equally bright. We are going to continue to hire nurses. The member should be familiar that in Sudbury we began the very first nurse-practitioner-led clinic in 2007. This clinic is providing care to 2,000 patients who previously did not have access to family health care.

These are the exciting opportunities that we are creating for nurses within a hospital environment, within long-term care and within the community. We will be driving out an additional 25 of these nurse-practitioner-led clinics, the next—

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

M me France Gélinas: Maybe I should have tried my question in French because I didn't seem to get an answer. In the last election, the McGuinty government promised 9,000 more nurses, but he said that the promise would have to wait. In order to maintain good quality care with our aging population, we need a minimum of 3,000 new nurses this year. Instead, nurses are being laid off and patient care is suffering. My question again: Is the minister denying that nurses are being laid off right now?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, I will quote from the RNAO Queen's Park 2009 backgrounder: "Based on College of Nurses of Ontario figures from 2004-08, government met its promise to add 8,000 nursing positions."

In fact, we are adding an additional 9,000 nurses in the province of Ontario. As we speak, there are nursing positions that are open. We are looking for nurses to be able to fill those positions anywhere on a daily basis, from 200 to 300, and sometimes even more, every single day. We need nurses. We need them in our hospitals, we need them in our long-term-care homes and we need them in our communities. Their skills and expertise are our cornerstone to better health care, to lowering wait times and to the better care that Ontarians expect.

I have extended an offer in my hand to the leadership of the Ontario Nurses' Association and the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario to work with us to be able to provide—

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

INFRASTRUCTURE

PROGRAM FUNDING

Mr. Reza Moridi: My question is for the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. Minister, everybody is talking about the need to invest in infrastructure. My constituents and I understand the significant infrastructure needs that many municipalities are facing. One of the ways that the government can help to address these pressing infrastructure needs is through investing in our health care infrastructure.

In my community of Richmond Hill, we have had the good fortune to recently see a new chronic kidney disease program open up as part of the phase one redevelopment of York Central Hospital. This investment will mean that people in my community will get treatment closer to home and will benefit from this expansion and renovation. Minister, what are you doing to improve health care infrastructure in Ontario?

Hon. George Smitherman: Over the course of the last several years, our government has increased approximately threefold the amount of annual investment that we've had available in the province of Ontario related to infrastructure, and health infrastructure has played a very crucial element of that. In fact, in the last five years we've constructed more new hospital facilities or initiated more construction than just about four or five governments in the province of Ontario before that added together. And the pace continues, at a very torrid one indeed.

At present, in our alternate financing model, we have more than 20 new projects that are under way in a variety of communities. I know that the local construction in Richmond Hill is being met with good acceptance. The point of the matter is, we've made a lot of progress already, but we certainly expect to continue moving forward and bringing new hospital infrastructure to communities all across the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Reza Moridi: Minister, I know that there are many communities across the province that would benefit from these projects. My constituents recognize the need for these important investments in health care infrastructure. However, my municipality and others across the province are also experiencing problems with aging infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and water and waste water facilities. During times like this, we recognize that we need to do everything we can to support our local economies and invest in those projects that will create jobs and improve our quality of life.

Minister, what are you doing to improve other types of infrastructure in the province and create badly needed jobs in our communities?

Hon. George Smitherman: At present when we look at all of the infrastructure investments ongoing in the province of Ontario, we see 100,000 people in the province working to contribute substantially to its rebuilding—stimulus yes, perhaps in the short term, but transitioning our infrastructure to being able to support the strong economy of the future.

Recently, working with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, we had our communities component announcement, where the federal government, provincial government and municipalities teamed up: $1 billion of additional funding for 289 projects across the province of Ontario.

We're looking for opportunities, working in partnership with other levels of government, to continue to make investments in the essential infrastructure: water, waste water and roads. In the member's very own riding in Richmond Hill: $5.8 million through Investing in Ontario, $2.25 million in the Pioneer Park stormwater management project and $1.9 million for local roads and bridges.

PESTICIDES

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of the Environment: At a time when Ontario needs a plan for business, this minister is knowingly and intentionally shutting down businesses and shutting down jobs across the province. In fact, with his publication of 250 pesticides banned yesterday, he has essentially knowingly created serious difficulties for businesses across the province. In fact, his colleague the member for Oak Ridges—Markham agrees, and agrees with the industry that many of the pesticides that are on this list should not be there.

She wrote him a letter dated February 20 in which she asked him to revisit this issue. I'd like to know from the minister, has he read Dr. Jaczek's letter of February 20, and why did he not take her advice on this important issue?

Hon. John Gerretsen: It's unfortunate that this member and the vast majority of his caucus did not support this bill, which is doing something very necessary for our children who play in our front yards, our backyards and schoolyards. What we are doing is we are taking away unnecessary risks that children should not be exposed to.

I would prefer that he would align himself with the words of Dr. David Suzuki, who said, "We congratulate the Ontario government for raising the bar on protecting people and the environment from needless pesticide exposure." I would prefer that he would take the position as taken by the Canadian Cancer Society, which said that they congratulate the Ontario government "for passing strong regulations supporting the Cosmetic Pesticide Ban Act."

I would prefer that he would take the position that the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario are taking when they say—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: No one in this House opposes banning pesticides that are harmful—no one—but I will align myself with the words of Dr. Helena Jaczek, a Liberal member of this Legislature who is a former medical officer of health for York region. I'll read the letter, which obviously the minister has not read. She says, referring to only one of those, "Imidacloprid would be affected by the ban.... Health Canada concluded that the human health and environmental risks" associated with its use are acceptable.

She goes on to say: "This suggests that the current view of [it's] health implications by the provincial government is worthy of reconsideration." She goes on in the letter and encourages the minister to take a scientific approach to this issue.

Why will he not listen to the former medical officer of health, his colleague sitting across the floor? Why will he not—

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

Hon. John Gerretsen: We did exactly that: We took a very scientific approach with respect to all of the products that we have banned. What Health Canada basically says about any of the individual products is that it's an acceptable risk. We believe that it's much better to take a precautionary approach and not allow any of our children to be subjected to unnecessary risks. There also haven't been enough studies done to look at the cumulative effects that all of these pesticides have on the human body, particularly on young people.

This is the right way to go. The people of Ontario agree with us, and I would only hope that the members of that caucus would agree with us as well to deal with this unnecessary risk that our children should simply not be exposed to.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just remind the honourable member that we have a practice in this chamber of not dealing with points of order during question period.

The honourable member from Parkdale—High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. A recent report by the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association and the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada painted a bleak picture on affordable housing in this province. One in five tenant households spent more than 50% of their income on rent. The affordable housing waiting list is now at a shocking 124,000 households. In 2003, the McGuinty Liberals promised 20,000 new units of affordable housing.

One election and six years later, less than 10,000 units are occupied, with another 3,000 in the planning process. Why won't this minister finally take responsibility for this government's lack of contribution to our housing stock?

Hon. Jim Watson: One of the last times the honourable member asked the question, she referred to the $100-million investment that this government put into repairing housing as "meagre." I don't know about you, but on this side of the House, $100 million, which was the single largest investment in housing repair in the history of Ontario, is extremely significant, and it's helping individuals and helping improve their lives.

Just this last month—340 units were occupied in December 2008 and in 2009, including 31 units at Vaughan Road in Toronto; 11 units at the youth and family resource centre in Windsor; 12 units at the Melco-Campbell in Windsor; 213 home ownership units and 64 northern units. We have invested $734 million in a joint program with the federal government. We're proud of that investment and we're proud of the fact that this government pressured the federal government into getting back into the affordable housing—

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: The Liberals love history.

Despite the fact that we got no federal help, during the NDP government we built 70,000 new affordable housing units. The report suggests the recession will make this crisis even worse. In 2007, more rental units were lost to demolition than were created. Now is the time to build affordable housing. The NDP's stimulus plan calls for an additional 7,500 units this year alone to meet the desperate need and to create jobs. There's a 21-year waiting list for affordable housing in Peel region. Is that how long it's going to take for the McGuinty government to take housing seriously and make a waiting-list-busting investment, finally?

Hon. Jim Watson: On the eve of the NDP leadership, let me quote one of the delegates who appeared on November 15 in Sudbury at the all-candidates' leadership questions. She said, "I'm going to preface my question by saying that the mailings I've received from the Ontario NDP ... have, more often than not, not mentioned housing and homelessness." Where is the NDP on housing and homelessness? They talk an awful lot about it. This government acts. We brought in the rent bank, which so far has prevented 16,000 evictions in the province of Ontario. We also brought in the lowest rental increase in Ontario history.

Every single time we've brought a progressive measure to help in the battle against homelessness and to create more affordable housing, the NDP talk a good tale but they vote—

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

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, specifically about the repair of social housing here in Ontario.

A year ago in the budget, our government committed $100 million to social housing repair. The city of Toronto received $36 million. The NDP member for Parkdale has called this investment of $100 million a meagre investment; $100 million is no meagre amount of money. Certainly, that investment in Toronto and in other communities across Ontario has made an impact on repairing social housing.

Minister, what's the status of this investment in the repair of social housing in Ontario?

Hon. Jim Watson: Let me begin by thanking the honourable member, a former chair of community housing in the city of Toronto, who did excellent work before he got here to the Legislature and who continues to be a great advocate for those individuals seeking affordable housing, not just in his own riding of Willowdale but throughout the city of Toronto.

When the province announced funding for repairs and renovations, a total of $36 million went to the city of Toronto. When the NDP, in their last platform, talked about money to Toronto, they wanted to invest just $30 million. We've already increased, by their base level—$36 million.

These investments have reduced the backload for capital repairs in Toronto significantly from $300 million to $200 million. I congratulate the city of Toronto for using funds—$75 million from the sale of Toronto Hydro Telecom—to put into affordable housing. That's the kind of partnership we're very proud to be part of.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. David Zimmer: Minister, in these very tough economic times, the need for affordable housing is even more urgent, more critical. In Toronto and throughout the GTA, I hear many stories about families struggling with the cost of rental housing. These families are struggling with difficult decisions, often ones beyond their control. They're hard-working families trying to provide the best for their children, a good education for their children, a safe, clean place to live and, indeed, hope for the family. Sometimes, through no fault of their own, it's difficult or impossible to make ends meet.

Minister, what are we doing to help these Ontarians in need of housing?

Hon. Jim Watson: The NDP may laugh at these kinds of questions because, quite frankly, they're embarrassed by their own track record. Even their own members are criticizing the NDP f