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

December 6, 2007

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2007-Dec-06 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 6 December 2007 Jeudi 6 décembre 2007

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

(WAGE SECURITY), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(SÉCURITÉ SALARIALE)

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

(RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI (AUGMENTATION DU SALAIRE MINIMUM)

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

(WAGE SECURITY), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(SÉCURITÉ SALARIALE)

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

(RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI (AUGMENTATION DU SALAIRE MINIMUM)

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION

HOLIDAY SEASON

IN ETOBICOKE–LAKESHORE

LIVEABLE COMMUNITIES AWARD

AIR QUALITY

BRAMPTON HOSPITAL

FAMILY FRIENDLY REFORMS

EDUCATION FUNDING

QUILT OF BELONGING

HANUKKAH

WEARING OF T-SHIRTS

VISITORS

WEARING OF RIBBONS

VISITORS

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROTECTING CHILDREN AND YOUTH FROM SECOND-HAND SMOKE

IN AUTOMOBILES ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 VISANT À PROTÉGER

LES ENFANTS ET LES JEUNES

CONTRE LA FUMÉE SECONDAIRE

DANS LES AUTOMOBILES

VISITORS

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE

AND ACTION ON VIOLENCE

AGAINST WOMEN

ORAL QUESTIONS

RELEASE OF PSYCHIATRIC OFFENDER

GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS

EMPLOYEE WAGE PROTECTION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

VISITORS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

HIGHWAY 407

CHILD CARE

MEDICAL ISOTOPES

PROPERTY RIGHTS

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

LAKE SIMCOE

PETITIONS

FREDERICK BANTING HOMESTEAD

DIABETES TREATMENT

STEVENSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

IDENTITY THEFT

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

SCHOOL FACILITIES

HIGHWAY 26

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

(WAGE SECURITY), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(SÉCURITÉ SALARIALE)

Mr. Paul Miller moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 6,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 to provide for an Employee Wage Security Program / Projet de loi 6, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d'emploi afin d'établir un programme de sécurité salariale des employés.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr.Miller, you have up to 10 minutes. The floor is yours.

Mr. Paul Miller: The NDP has always been a party that puts working families first. We believe in a good job for everyone, because a good job is the best way to make sure that working women and men share Ontario's prosperity. In Ontario, manufacturing and forestry jobs are some of our very best jobs. But there is a problem in Ontario's manufacturing and forestry heartlands: a job crisis. Since July 2004, 174,000 Ontarians in the manufacturing sector have lost their jobs. In addition to this, more than 9,000 direct jobs in the forest products industry and about 35,000 indirect jobs have also been lost.

I'd like to throw a few more numbers out to show just how important manufacturing is to this province. Manufacturing jobs paid an average of $20.68 per hour as of August 2007. This is significantly above the average hourly wage of $18.42 per hour. In large part, this is due to the fact that nearly one in three manufacturing jobs is unionized. As well, these unionized jobs pay wages higher than non-union manufacturing jobs and generally provide a much richer package of benefits and pensions.

But those who have lost jobs are not just numbers. They're people: people with families, mortgages and car payments; people who work hard and play by the rules so that they can make a decent living. I believe that these decent hard-working folks are facing economic challenges that they haven't faced in the past. In fact, I believe that there are fundamental changes in the economy taking place that require innovative, activist government action now.

I believe that for more than a century, manufacturing strength became as much a symbol to Ontario as Niagara Falls and Algonquin Park and established the foundation of prosperity for the province and our working families. Now, amid changing global economic conditions and failed federal and provincial policies, that foundation is threatened to crumble.

I believe that the government must respond now. I believe that the government has to play an active role in protecting good-paying jobs, and when those jobs can't be saved, making sure that workers who have committed a lifetime—a lifetime, Mr. Speaker—to a company are treated fairly and are given every opportunity to return to the labour force in comparable good-paying jobs.

Here are just some of the policies the NDP has been fighting for for the past four years:

—a five-year guarantee of industrial hydro rates so that Ontario manufacturing and resource companies can count on stable, competitive hydro policies at a time when many competing jurisdictions have far lower industrial rates;

—a job protection commissioner to help at-risk companies overcome financial difficulties and save jobs;

—a buy-Ontario policy that would ensure that streetcars, subways and buses continue to be made right here in Ontario, resulting in the protection of thousands of good-paying jobs;

—tougher plant closure legislation that would ensure that everything is done to prevent a profitable plant from closing;

—pension protection that would make sure that workers get every penny they are owed from their pensions when their company becomes insolvent or goes into bankruptcy; and

—an auto fund that would have ironclad guarantees that government funds are not just ending up in head office bank accounts in Detroit or Tokyo without any real job-creating investments being made here in Ontario.

These are just some of the constructive ideas we've put forward, and to this list I am proud to add the employee protection bill. Before I address the specifics of my bill, I want to make it clear that this bill is in no way a substitute for the federal legislation that puts payments to workers at the head of the line when a company goes bankrupt. The NDP believes that companies shouldn't be allowed to unilaterally allow banks and suppliers to recover their money before workers see a single cent of what they are owed for what they have already completed. I repeat: We badly need federal legislation that reserves that order by giving priority to workers.

All over Ontario, companies are closing without paying their workers the monies owed to them. It would take far too long to go through all the companies that have left town without paying their bills in this province, but a very partial list of companies whose workers would have benefited from my bill are GenFast in Brantford, Amcan in Hamilton, Collins & Aikman in Mississauga, Mahle in Gananoque, Fincore in Toronto, and Hartford Fibre in Kingston.

The purpose of the bill is to create a fund that would compensate workers for unpaid regular wages, overtime wages, vacation pay and holiday pay, termination pay and severance pay. The fund works as follows: A program administrator would establish and maintain a fund to pay compensation to the eligible employees. The act empowers the administrator to charge employers sufficient premiums to maintain the fund. Where employees file a claim for unpaid wages, an employee standards officer will investigate the claim and will issue an order if he or she finds the claim is warranted.

The program administrator would determine the amount of premiums that are required to maintain the program fund and is empowered to establish premium rates that will vary with the kind of company. Employers must register with the program, administer and provide various statements relating to total wages and the employer estimates it will pay in a given year. This is a practical, doable proposal. In fact, something very much like what was established by the NDP government in 1991, and it was extraordinarily successful in compensating workers for unpaid wages. The fund was killed by Mike Harris in 1995.

In

summary, this bill is about people. It's about the people who have built and continue to build this province. It's heart-wrenching to be at a labour council meeting when proud, strong, middle-aged steelworkers break down while telling their story of how they've lost their jobs and how they can't even pay their mortgages, can't put food on the table for their families and are facing bleak futures with few job possibilities. Not only are the families facing such hardships, but to add insult to injury, there is no protection for their severances, benefits and hard-earned pension plans.

If we want to talk about the causes of the poverty in this province, let's look at the manufacturing job losses in this province and the poor treatment of these workers in their time of need. They were there paying their taxes and helping to build their communities and their province. Now it's our turn, as legislators, to protect them.

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: First let me very sincerely applaud and thank the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for his sponsorship of this bill in this Legislature today. This member has demonstrated in very short order that the people of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek are not going to be let down by their newly elected member of this Legislature, nor are the working people of this province. This first piece of legislation by this member underscores that in a most profound way.

I've got a problem because I really am concerned that people here in this Legislature, where the minimum wage is six digits plus, some of them don't really understand what being a working person means out there in the real Ontario. Like everybody else, a couple of months ago I was walking around my communities knocking on doors and saying howdy to folks, down in the south end. Not telling stories out of school, it was a somewhat low-income district; the housing prices there were modest. You knock on a door, like others, and, you know, sometimes you've got to wait a little longer, right?

The member from Hamilton Mountain understands that, Ms. Aggelonitis, because she was out there too. Sometimes you've got to wait a little longer, because maybe it's a senior and they had a little trouble getting to the door; maybe they were at the kitchen sink and they had to dry their hands. I waited a little longer. It was a woman who was, oh, in her early forties. She was still wearing the restaurant shirt—I know the restaurant—you know, with her name on top of the pocket. She looked tired. It was 4:30 in the afternoon.

I asked her, "You work there, huh?" She said, "Yeah." I said, "You look tired, ma'am, I've got to tell you." She said, "I am." She works a 40- and 50-hour week for sub-minimum wage because, you see, restaurant workers don't make minimum wage, because it's presumed that the tips will make it up. But I know the restaurant: It's not Jamie Kennedy at the Gardiner up the road here, where I know some of my colleagues across the way are inclined to wine and dine from time to time, and where an entree is 25 or 30 bucks and the tab at the end of a meal is 80 or 90 bucks a person.

Well, 10% or 15% of 80 or 90 bucks for a serving person is not shabby. But when you work where this woman works, and people are inclined to buy their $1 coffees or their $2.50 club sandwiches—because those are the kind of prices at this restaurant—10% or 15% of $2.50 really doesn't make up for the sub-minimum wage of that woman and workers like her who are on their feet all day. Talk about working hard. We work hard? Horse feathers. That woman works hard.

Let me tell you, working women and men across this province, in plants, in forestry, in farmers' fields, in the retail and service sectors, they work hard, and increasingly they are working harder and harder for less and less, lower and lower wages.

This Friday afternoon I am joining Howard Hampton—or perhaps he's joining me—down in Port Colborne. We're going to be visiting some workers who have been forced out on strike down at the Port Colborne Drop Forge. What's one of the issues? The company wants to eliminate the defined-benefit pension plan and—oh, dare I refer to the leadership shown by so many people in this Legislature?—replace it with a defined-contribution pension plan: not particularly impressive and not particularly meaningful for those workers who are aging and now have become fearful of their retirement rather than looking forward to it.

Then, I tell you, the worker after worker after worker, women and men, who have lost their jobs here in this province are forced into despair, and despair that I fear many members of this Legislature simply don't understand.

It's not just a matter of walking down the road and picking up another job, because, let me tell you, the change in lifestyle from a good manufacturing unionized job, a value-added job, a wealth creation job, where you might be making $20, $25 an hour—mind you, you're working hard for it—or sometimes you're making $17, $18 an hour, the transition in lifestyle for that family and community when that job gets downgraded to one of Mr. McGuinty's $8.25-an-hour jobs, I tell you it's dramatic.

New Democrats are going to be holding this government to account, because the despair out there across Ontario is growing, the fear is escalating, and the tragedy is compounding. Mr. Miller's bill today goes a small way to addressing that. I urge members to please support it.

Mr. Vic Dhillon: As parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour, I'm privileged to have the opportunity to join in this debate today as it relates to Bill 6, the Employment Standards Amendment Act (Wage Security), 2007.

Since 2003, one of our government's focuses has been job creation. We can proudly say that as a government, we have been able to add 327,000 net new jobs in Ontario, with the projection of another 270,000 new jobs in the next three years.

While we understand the motivation behind this proposed legislation, this bill is another example of the NDP's inability to draft public policy that works for Ontarians, and puts the growth of our economy at risk. Legislation like the Employment Standards Amendment Act (Wage Security), 2007, would put more pressures on business and could potentially put Ontarians out of work.

In fact, in the past, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has strongly opposed this idea of a wage earner protection fund. Their argument was that this fund would increase the burden of payroll taxes and that well-run firms should not be required to subsidize the poor business practices of others. Our government recognizes the challenge that employees, companies, unions and communities face when a company closes, and we have taken action.

Through the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities: I remember earlier this year, Minister Chris Bentley visited Sheridan College in Brampton, and I was quite impressed to see what Sheridan College is doing in terms of training students in modern state-of-the-art machinery—I don't know what the technical term was—in the machine shop tooling business, because there are a lot of companies in my riding that do have employment for these people, and I know of a few of these businesses that have problems recruiting skilled people. I made a point of mentioning that to the president of Sheridan, and I commended him along with Minister Bentley for all the good work that they are doing.

Through the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade: The NDP called our trade mission to China and India junkets. But what happened? Last year, TADA from India opened up in Mississauga and created 300 good jobs. That is just one company out of the many that we contacted while we were in India with the Premier, and there are many, many more that are looking to do business. So what we are doing to progress in Ontario, the NDP is calling a junket. What a shame. And they are saying they care about Ontario and employees and job losses.

Getting back to this bill, under the current Employment Standards Act, enforcement of employee wage claims policies are in place. Currently, the policy of the ministry in the context of a claim from an employee whose employer or former employer is bankrupt or insolvent is as follows: The ministry first accepts a claim and does their investigation. They appoint an employment standards officer, who further investigates, and if there is any entitlement, a proof of claim is issued. In the case of a privately appointed receivership, an order to pay wages is sometimes issued against an employer.

So there are provisions already in place. The Employment Standards Act also provides that related employers and directors may also be liable to pay entitlements owing to employees. As such, they may be made the subject of orders under the Employment Standards Act.

Also, this is federal jurisdiction. There is already a bill at the federal level, Bill C-12, which has passed second reading in the Senate. I don't know what the NDP is trying to accomplish here. Bill C-12 is aimed at protecting employees' wages and would largely accomplish the objectives of this member's bill, making it redundant. Bill C-12 would help employees who unfairly lose out on wages when an employer files for bankruptcy or is put under receivership.

The Ministry of Labour is committed to continue to work with our federal government on the implementation process to ensure that the Ministry of Labour's current policies and claims process under the Employment Standards Act interact smoothly with the federal program.

This bill is redundant. The NDP doesn't know what they're talking about in terms of formulating policy for Ontarians. It's for this reason that I cannot support this bill.

Mr. Peter Shurman: I would like, first of all, to congratulate my friend from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek—who, like me, is a newcomer to this House—for being the first person up with a private member's bill in this session. It's some testimony to his conviction. Congratulations.

For me and for our party, this is really a question of philosophy. I can speak with some degree of knowledge to this, because I've been a private businessman myself—a private business owner—and I know what it is to feel the pressures of that particular position.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: God forbid you should have to pay your bills.

Mr. Peter Shurman: That's right: You do have to pay your bills.

But what this bill proposes is to create yet another fund for NDP cradle-to-grave care of everything they think is wrong with this province. Employers—and at one time, almost, myself—have caved in under the financial pressures and more and more are feeling financial pressures that cause that because of the economic conditions we face today, which include a fluctuating dollar, globalization, the high business tax rates in the province of Ontario, high electricity costs in Ontario—things that haven't been addressed, for example, in the throne speech—and the list goes on and on.

What happens is that businesses fail, become insolvent, go bankrupt, shut down and leave, as the case may be, and it's a very sad thing to see. But nobody looks at what's behind it. It's bad business and it affects the people who own the business as much, if not more, than the employees.

What's being proposed in this bill is, "Let's pile another imposition on these companies in bad times, so that they have to pay more money into a fund that ultimately is for distribution to employees." The federal government already has legislation on the books that prioritizes employees as primary creditors. Perhaps, as my friend suggests, this is not strong enough, and perhaps the feds should consider strengthening that legislation so that there is primacy for employees in the distribution of whatever comes from a bankruptcy. However, this is not a provincial matter.

This bill views the corporate world as, in one word, "bad" and employees as "good." I have seen the bad side as a small business person. I have faced insolvency. I've had the bank come to my door and say, "We want a collateral second mortgage on your house," and I've had the absolute negative feeling of going home to my spouse and saying, "They want a collateral second mortgage on the house," and looking at it from the standpoint of not only putting 100 or 150 employees out of work, but perhaps not being able to pay the mortgage myself. I got by that one; some companies don't.

Before we pass legislation that says, "Pay yet another tax, Mr. Employer," because that's what this fund would be, "and another brick to the thing that's causing you to fail," we have to look again and perhaps see it as a function of the federal government to ensure that there is priority for employees when a business fails and not lay it on the step of the employers.

M me France Gélinas: Today, I'm pleased to rise to support

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act 2000 to provide for an Employee Wage Security Program. This amendment to the act would put working families first. Ontario is going through a manufacturing and forestry job crisis right now. It doesn't need to be that way, but our government being what it is, here we are in a crisis, and with a job crisis, workers and their families suffer. The NDP believes that we can do something to lessen that suffering by amending the Employment Standards Act.

We believe that government has a role to play in protecting good jobs, and, when those jobs cannot be saved, in making sure workers are treated fairly and are given every opportunity to return to the labour force.

Aujourd'hui, mon collègue, M. Paul Miller, présente un projet de loi qui modifie la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d'emploi afin d'établir un programme de sécurité salariale des employés. Saviez-vous qu'en Ontario aujourd'hui, il est possible pour une compagnie de fermer ses portes et de foutre le camp sans jamais avoir à payer le salaire, les vacances, le temps supplémentaire ou le prime de séparation qui sont dûs à ses employés? Cette pratique est beaucoup plus courante qu'on ne le pense et c'est ça que le projet de loi va changer.

Ce projet de loi va garantir à tous les travaillants et travaillantes en Ontario que si jamais ils se retrouvent dans une situation non enviable, que leur employeur s'en va, ils n'auront pas à subir le traitement que j'appelle « tourner le fer dans la plaie », que non seulement tu perds ton emploi, mais en plus, tu ne te fais pas payer ce qui t'est dû. Ceci n'est pas acceptable et le projet de loi vise à changer ça.

As my colleague Paul Miller has explained, the purpose of the bill is to make sure that employees are compensated for unpaid wages, overtime, vacation pay, termination and severance when a company closes. Isn't it incredible that in this day and age, legislation like that doesn't already exist and that some companies are allowed to up and leave without paying the workers the money that they owe them? Well, it's happening right here in Ontario right now.

J'espère que les membres de tous les partis verront l'importance de protéger les travaillants et travaillantes de l'Ontario.

I, for one, think it is high time that such legislation be put into place so that people never have to go through that kind of hardship again. I hope that my colleagues would agree.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I'm delighted to have the opportunity to provide some remarks this morning on Bill 6. I certainly want to welcome my new colleague to the House, the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. I know that with his background, he'll certainly make a contribution to discussions in this place.

I represent the riding of Peterborough. Peterborough is the home of a diverse manufacturing base. We have everything from General Electric, which has the headquarters for its nuclear products division in Peterborough, to Quaker Oats, which is a world-renowned supplier of food products, breakfast cereals, to the North American market. We're very proud of those industries, along with Siemens Milltronics, which is a world leader now in manufacturing calibrated instruments throughout North America and in several other markets.

We do know that over the last number of years, the appreciation of the Canadian dollar from 63 cents US to, a couple of short weeks ago, when it hit a historical high of US$1.10, has put tremendous pressure on Ontario's manufacturing base. Certainly, it has put pressure on manufacturers in Peterborough.

Over the last year or so, we did lose MasterBrand Cabinets, which was a manufacturer of kitchen and bathroom cabinets. In that particular case, those jobs were moved to Winnipeg, Manitoba, where MasterBrand has a much larger facility to get those kind of production runs that are needed in order to achieve the economies of scale to stay competitive in the North American market. But I must commend MasterBrand Cabinets, because they certainly treated those departing employees extremely well.

They worked with the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities to provide a transition to allow them to renew their skills, to take advantage of additional employment opportunities in the Peterborough area.

Over the last number of years—I wanted to thank my colleague the number from Northumberland—Quinte West and the RED program, which provided some $900,000 in financial assistance to establish a manufacturing training program in the riding of Peterborough. I'm pleased to report this morning that 2,000 employees have now been through that program in order to upgrade their skills for the respective businesses that they work at in order to keep those businesses competitive.

But I want to touch upon, today, an area of manufacturing that's very important to my riding in Peterborough, to the community of Port Hope and my good friend the member from Northumberland—Quinte West to Mississauga and the people in Cambridge, and that is the nuclear industry, which employs so many individuals at high-paying manufacturing jobs in the province of Ontario. I said at the opening of my remarks that we have 500 employees directly related to that industry in my riding of Peterborough.

I had several meetings during the campaign with my good friend Mike Keating, who is president of local 524 of the Canadian Auto Workers in my riding of Peterborough. He looked upon my friends opposite, who certainly are not supportive of expanding that particular industry in Ontario and Canada in order to retain those manufacturing jobs.

Let me put it in perspective. The people who are members of CAW 524 who work in GE Peterborough—their salaries are about $30 per hour, including benefits, the kind of jobs in my riding that allow those individuals to go to Jack McGee's Chevrolet-Oldsmobile to buy a new Chev Impala that is manufactured just down the road in Oshawa. It gives them the kind of economic base to go to my good friend Steve Cavanagh, whose family has owned T.J. Cavanagh appliances for some 90 years, so they can buy that new fridge and stove and sustain the local economy in Peterborough.

I'd be remiss if I didn't get it on the record that the last four projects that AECL were involved in in China were on time and on budget. That addresses the myth that gets perpetuated around here that these nuclear stations cannot come in on time and on budget. In fact, with the new development of modular construction, helped develop by engineers in Peterborough, when these projects go ahead, they use modular construction, where the modules are produced in Ontario and then transferred to the site, where they're assembled to start generating electricity.

We do know here in Ontario that to keep businesses operating and keep the lights on, we need 14,700 megawatts of base power, and we know that generating electricity from nuclear sources allows us to meet that demand of 14,700 megawatts of baseload capacity on a daily basis.

So when we want to defend manufacturing jobs in Canada and Ontario, I don't think we can pick and choose. I think we try to look after all the manufacturing base in Ontario and the key investments that we need to make in terms of the AMIS program, the advanced industrial manufacturing program, which has provided those financial resources needed for manufacturers in Ontario to refine their product base in order to stay ahead of the curve.

It's interesting: That's the real challenge that we have, with the appreciation of the Canadian dollar, the fact that China and India and Brazil are now becoming economic colossi and are challenging certainly not only Canada but North America, and how we must make those key investments to make sure that we can remain competitive. We've been doing that on a priority basis through a number of programs that we believe will achieve results.

The other thing: We keep investing in elementary, secondary and post-secondary education to make sure that we have a workforce in Ontario that meets the needs of the future.

I'll talk about the challenges. Research In Motion, which manufactures the BlackBerry—one of the principals of that company is a Peterborough native, Jim Balsillie. I've heard him from time to time—in fact, every six months they must reinvent the little BlackBerry that we have to stay ahead of the competitive curve. I think that does provide an example for other manufacturers in this province of the need to stay ahead of the curve, to keep reinventing products that will meet the market demand throughout the world. That's critically important.

But why was Research In Motion so successful? It was the entrepreneurial talent of one Jim Balsillie and his partner Mike Lazaridis, but frankly, they took advantage of the University of Waterloo, the key investments that have been made there not only by this government—I always believe in giving credit where credit is due; the previous Conservative government of Ontario made strategic investments in the University of Waterloo. Out of that came the BlackBerry product, which now gives Ontario and Canada an international reputation. Those are the kinds of examples I think we need to champion and be involved with.

Secondly, I also want to talk about another company in my riding of Peterborough, FisherCast Global. There's another interesting, innovative company. For years and years and years, they have been involved in zinc die-casting in the Peterborough area, but they found out over the last number of years—again, manufacturing jobs that pay $25 and $30 an hour, the kind that sustain an economy—that companies in Brazil, India and China can now make zinc die-cast products more competitively than we can here in Ontario.

Smart company that they are, FisherCast are now reinventing themselves to get into magnesium die-casting, to be one of the world leaders in producing that product. We know that the auto industry, which is looking at ways today to remain competitive, is looking at introducing more and more magnesium die-cast products, because magnesium as a material is both harder and lighter, which allows car companies to increase fuel economy and, in fact, reduce their environmental footprint.

Again, those are the kind of companies that we need to get out there, that we need to make those investments in and champion. That, I believe, is the appropriate role for government to play. In fact, we have been demonstrating clearly over the last four years—

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

Ms. Laurie Scott: It's a pleasure to speak this morning in this 39th Parliament of Ontario and to congratulate the new member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek on his recent election and on presenting the first private member's bill to be discussed in this session. Good for you; congratulations and welcome.

Bill 6,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 to provide for an Employee Wage Security Program: I think the timing of this discussion on this type of program is interesting, seeing as how in this House already this week we've talked extensively about the economy and the numbers of manufacturing business sectors that are struggling in these tough economic times. The leader of our opposition party, the member from Leeds—Grenville, spoke of over 150,000 job losses in the manufacturing sector alone that we've had in this province. It's a critical time in our province right now.

Earlier this week, on Monday morning in a terrible snowstorm, I held a round table for business leaders, chambers of commerce, local business development associations and representatives from the city of Kawartha Lakes, and they are hurting. Some retail stores have a third of the business they should have. This time of the year, especially, they're laying off staff, not hiring staff.

There are many factors involved in that—certainly, the high cost of the Canadian dollar is one of them—but when you see that they're letting staff go at this time of year, you know how much of a struggle it is for small businesses to try to keep themselves afloat, with high energy costs, taxes and, as I mentioned, the Canadian dollar.

In the manufacturing sector in Lindsay alone, unfortunately, I've had two closures within this year: Fleetwood manufacturing, which manufactured RV trailers, hundreds of jobs lost; and in the last six weeks what used to be Bonar Plastics and now Promens, it was called, announced the closing of their doors and another loss of 80 jobs. When you talk about the size of the community of the city of Kawartha Lakes, around 75,000 people, that's a lot of job layoffs. That's a huge economic impact for our area.

I'm phoning the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. There's a contact there in human resources to work with the companies. We've opened a couple of offices in which the employees can come in and get some human resource guidance training and on what's available to them.

It's just a tremendous challenge that I don't think this government can ignore anymore. The times here are not going to get better. We've heard prediction upon prediction from many financial institutions about the not-good projections that are to come. So it's time for this government to take heed that they need to take this seriously and do what they can to help our employees and to help our employers as well.

Small business, the entrepreneurs and the manufacturing companies are already responsible for so many, many things. First of all, they supply the jobs in the first place and they pay wages, employment insurance, vacation, holiday pay and sick pay. You can go on and on with the extensive list they have of what they're paying for. There are many, many good employers out there who are fighting for their employees and fighting to keep their companies going so they can provide the jobs for their employees.

So when this legislation suggests to me that the businesses and manufacturers aren't already doing enough, that concerns me, because they are working and trying to survive, providing jobs, and making the best of the economic situation that has been put before them. They're already overburdened. When this is a new tax on business and job creation—I think the new member from Thornhill hit it on the head when he said, "We don't want to go down that path as a principle of our party." New taxes are coming in: another burden on employers.

We have to be very, very careful that we don't crush any more employers—more employers go out; less jobs are there. We want to provide a climate for these employers to grow, prosper and provide jobs. This bill concerns us in that this will just put another burden on our employers and will drive more of them out of our province.

We should be focusing our efforts on trying to reduce the red-tape burden on small businesses. We think this bill we have before us this morning will only add to that burden.

There's no question that Ontario's economy is hurting. I would be remiss not to mention the agricultural sector and the burdens that they've been facing for many of the past several years, but especially right now with the hog and pork industry and the tremendous, critical time that they're facing.

I praise the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek on his first private member's bill, but we certainly have a lot of concerns on this side of the Legislature in regard to the content of this bill.

I want to thank you for the time allowed this morning by this debate.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It is indeed my pleasure to have a few remarks on the bill introduced by my new colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, Paul Miller. I'm very thrilled to have yet another New Democrat elected in the Hamilton area. People might know that we now have several New Democrats, both at the provincial level and at the federal level, very strongly representing the issues of the people of our community.

Of course, that is reflected in this very first effort of our new member, Mr. Paul Miller, who brings to the House today a private member's bill that really speaks to the issues that are being faced by workers in our city. I have to congratulate him for that. He ran a campaign that spoke to the hard-working families of Hamilton, and his first order of business was to bring a bill forward that basically reflects what he heard from them. What he heard from them was story after story of tragedy. He explained that in his remarks, and I'm going to reflect on that too because that's my community too and those are the same stories that I heard as well.

It's absolutely wrong to have a situation where workers work extremely hard and where they, day after day, week after week, year after year, toil in these factories and where, through no fault of their own, at the end of the day, the company ends up closing, maybe taking its orders and its work south of the border to its other plants.

I'll describe a situation where exactly that happened in a community close to ours, where, through no fault of their own, the money that they're owed—this is not money that's coming off of some place where nobody knows why people might think that they should expect this money; this is money that they earned. This is severance pay, in some cases. These are wages, in some cases, that have not been paid. This is sometimes overtime pay that has not been paid. This is real dollars that people have earned and deserve and, by the laws of this province, are entitled to.

So I don't know why anybody here would say that these workers and these families for some reason have to bear the burden of the companies that they work for breaking the law when they happen to go out of business. That is what's happening: They're breaking the law. They're not providing the workers the wages, the severance and the vacation pay that they are entitled to in the province of Ontario. And that is just wrong.

I hear my colleagues here in this House talking about the sympathy for the companies. Certainly everybody has sympathy for the companies. But let's face it, these companies are going off and setting up shop or taking their business, in many cases, to other plants in other jurisdictions around the world, and leaving our workers hanging out to dry, leaving these families in a situation where in many, many cases, in fact the vast majority of cases, they lose their homes.

The stress and anxiety that is caused in these families is absolutely enormous: divorces, kids who can't go to college all of a sudden because the money is not there anymore. Let's not pretend that this bill does anything but provide the appropriate amount of justice for the workers, who through no fault of their own are being denied the very basic things that they deserve like the wages that they worked for and the severance pay that they have entitled to. That's what we're talking about here. What the heck is the problem with that?

There is a company—and my friend from Brantford will know about this company—named GenFast. It had a plant in another jurisdiction across the border. It decided that notwithstanding the fact that the Brantford plant was more productive and had better-quality production, they were going to move their business, all of their orders, to their American sister plant. The problem was that there were a number of outstanding orders that still existed at the GenFast plant in Brantford.

They told those workers, "You do what we need to do and we'll pull together and we'll get those orders filled and we'll make sure that we can at least as a company fulfill the obligations to our customers, to our clients." Well of course, they want to that, they want to keep their goodwill as a corporation. Obviously that makes sense.

What they never told the workers is that all that overtime they put in, all that extra work they put in to save the company's good reputation, to make sure that none of those orders were not fulfilled—they never told the workers that at the end of the day they were going to shut that plant and walk away and not pay the workers the overtime that they earned while trying to help the company in its adjustment. You tell me that that's fair and you tell me that that's right and you tell me that that's the kind of province that we're happy to live in. That is just wrong.

I congratulate Mr. Miller. He has done an excellent job in bringing forward this bill because it is about everyone. It's not just about one sector of the economy. And I can tell you that those workers who worked at GenFast certainly are not spending money in the local economy in Brantford the way they were when they were gainfully employed and working hard at GenFast. There's many, many plants that have the same history. In Hamilton we can name them off very quickly: Rheem Canada, Camco and Amcan. I know the member had mentioned a number of them in his own speech as well.

Levi's—I mean the list goes on and on for the Hamilton community only. Across the province it's the same story. It's time for this Legislature to acknowledge and recognize the fact that workers have a right to the kinds of compensation that are guaranteed by the laws of this province or that at least should be at this point in time.

Mr. John O'Toole: I'd like to extend my congratulations to Mr. Miller, the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. Your first bill, your first time in the Legislature—I commend you as your background would lead you to bringing this forward.

Your colleague from Hamilton as well mentioned the importance of employment standards. I think all of us here would admit that the employer has legal and legislative responsibilities under the Employment Standards Act as it exists today with respect to holiday pay, overtime, hours of work and severance provisions. I think that's the issue here. Quite honestly, this government is not following the current legislation and enforcing the act as it exists.

Even taking a cursory look at this bill, Bill 6, an Acto to amend the Employment Standards Act, I am wondering if it is actually in order. I'm on my own on this one, but I say that because it requires the government to create a position, which is a program administrator, and it provides some ability to collect revenue and make sure there are reports filed. In private members' business you are not allowed to require the government to spend money. That's one of the provisions of private members' business, but I'm sure legislative counsel know what it's about.

But what does it mean to me and my constituents and the people of Ontario? In the riding of Durham, I am just recently going through a lot of calls and anguish about the very same issue facing a very large corporation, in both cases General Motors. I'm reading a release by Chris Buckley, who is the president of the CAW, Canadian Auto Workers, Local 222—this is from August, this past summer—about the announcement of General Motors slashing 1,000 jobs, and it could be as many as 1,200 jobs. Mr. Buckley goes on to say he was shocked—and I understand he is shocked.

Imagine how those individuals, those families, are shocked, especially when this takes effect on January 1. Merry Christmas. Mr. Buckley goes on to say that the "layoffs will have a trickle-down effect in the community, impacting about 7,500 other jobs linked to GM." That's in the hospitality and other sectors. Thank you very much, Dalton McGuinty, for no plan—7,500 families; probably as many as 10,000 individuals affected by the plight of the economy.

A real person in the news this week locally in Durham—it's dated November 30, from the business

section of this week. It reads, "Trish McAuliffe"—she is pictured here, a young person—"shuffles through newspaper job advertisements, looking for her next step of employment." The

article goes on to say, " ... the high Canadian dollar hurting exports, lack of future production, the downsizing of shifts and plants in Oshawa—the couple," that's Mr. and Mrs. McAuliffe—"will be permanently laid off by the end of the week." She goes on, describing her future as "bleak". Thank you, Dalton McGuinty, Merry Christmas.

He seems to have no plan. If you look at the fundamentals in the economy, the conference board and all five top banks have said Ontario's GDP growth is going to slip by 0.6% or 1.6%, which means billions of dollars of lost revenue; that the province is going to be 10th in Canada in terms of productivity and prosperity.

I have another

article here, and this is worthwhile. This is about my constituents and the work that is going on in the community to protect the vulnerable economy that we have in manufacturing—over 150,000 jobs lost. This

article is in the same paper that I just quoted before, November 30, the business week section. It reads, "Action Centre Opens for Lear Layoffs" today.

"Facing their last day of work" today "some 350 workers at Lear Whitby are now facing the pressing question: What's next?" What's the plan, Premier McGuinty? They go on to say:

"According to Heather McMillan, action centre co-ordinator, the average age of those laid-off from Lear is 39, meaning there are few retirees among the group." These are families—39. Imagine where they would be. I can just imagine the demise and the hopelessness of feeling. So it is about employment.

I commend Mr. Miller for saying, first, that there is a fiduciary responsibility of employers to comply with the Employment Standards Act that exists today with respect to severance, hours of work, entitlement to overtime. That is not the dispute here. What we don't need is more bureaucracy; we need the Ministry of Labour, under the new minister, to simply do their job. Mr. Duguid is the new minister. He's young, potentially inexperienced, and I'm not sure he has the full gravitas of Mr. Miller's Bill 6 here.

But it all comes down to the plight of the economy, the weakness in the manufacturing sector, and no plan by Dalton McGuinty. It's getting worse, not better. The evidence I've just read from my riding—and Ms. Scott, from Victoria—Haliburton—Brock has said the same thing, and Mr. Shurman, has said the same thing. The evidence is on the table.

I'm putting to you, the Premier: What plan do you have for the province of Ontario, which is now almost dead last in this country? It's discouraging to the families I've cited here to think that it takes a brand new member, Mr. Miller, to come up with at least some idea that says, "Enforce the legislation that exists today."

I'm disappointed, as usual. There's no plan by this government.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: In the few seconds left to me, I want to congratulate my new companion from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, and also say a remark about our new member from Thornhill. He talked about cradle-to-grave social services. Yes, that's exactly what we stand for in the New Democratic Party, and we're proud of it. Look at Sweden, where they actually provide that as well as a vibrant manufacturing community.

What they're saying is, "Banks first, workers last."

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Paul Miller: I'd like to thank my esteemed colleagues, but back to business. The government claims they're going to help the people of Ontario create jobs, attract business, stimulate the economy. Are they now saying that they don't care about the thousands of Ontarians who are facing financial ruin? Are they now saying that they don't care about the people who create the wealth for these owners? Is there no responsibility to the people who have spent their whole lives in these industries?

The erosion of our base industries is happening—foreign-owned companies all over this country and this province, flourishing in their own countries. If things are bad in Ontario, these companies are going to pull out and they're going to go back to their native countries and they are going to leave people out of work here. That's going to happen.

I'll give you an example. My colleagues mentioned that they were concerned about the burden on business. I'll tell you about the company that I worked at—Stelco in Hamilton. Stelco in Hamilton was in trouble. In our humble opinion, the company was undervalued at $150 million. It was bought by Tricap and Appaloosa, financial institutions. They bought it for $150 million. They brought up a CEO from the States, a Mr. Mott, to take over the operations, and nothing was done or changed in that company as far as new investment, new equipment—nothing.

In 18 months they sold that company to US Steel for $1.1 billion, a 740% profit for Appaloosa and Tricap. Who suffered? The people in Hamilton, the people who were laid off, the people who were forced into early retirement because of threats of closure.

These are the things that are going on our province that my colleagues on the other side are ignoring. You need to think about the people of this province—the little guy. That's what the NDP stands for—the little guy.

With all due respect, I'm extremely disappointed in the response of the—

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

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

(RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI (AUGMENTATION DU SALAIRE MINIMUM)

Ms. DiNovo moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 7,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 / Projet de loi 7, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d'emploi.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Ms. DiNovo, pursuant to standing order 96, you have up to 10 minutes. The floor is yours.

Applause.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Thank you to all the honourable members. It's a pleasure to stand and speak about a phenomenal campaign, the campaign for a $10 minimum wage. At the pleasure of the House, I'd like to outline a little bit of the history of that campaign.

It started, really, in 1989, when all parties in our federal government decided that they wanted to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. Of course, that was a phenomenal disaster and failure. Here we are, in 2007, with heightened child poverty. But the phoenix that grew from those ashes was a group called Campaign 2000. They are still very much active. They were the ones who initially, as far as I could find out, put forward this idea of a living, $10-an-hour minimum wage.

I want to say—and I'm going to repeat this many times in the next 10 minutes—that the reason for $10 an hour is that this is the poverty line. That is to say that if you are earning a wage that is less than $10 an hour, you are earning a wage in poverty. The McGuinty government has put forward a staged increase of minimum wage, at every stage of that increase—we're now only at $8 an hour—the person earning that amount of money is earning it in poverty.

This is a government that says they want to do something about poverty. Here's a simple act of political will that would make a huge difference, and that is to bring the minimum wage up to the level of poverty. This would affect 257,000 across our province who are making minimum wage; that's only $8 right now. It would also further affect almost a million people who are earning $10 an hour or under. They also would be affected. There, you would automatically and almost immediately raise those families out of poverty.

From the start of Campaign 2000 and then when I was elected, I came to this Legislature knowing that I wanted to do something about those that I'd worked with in ministry, those hard-working families who are using food banks, unable to pay the rent at the end of the month and still working full-time, sometimes two jobs. I had the luck and good fortune, as I've had this time, to introduce a private member's bill very soon after I was elected. I went to our leader Howard Hampton and said, "I want to introduce a bill for a $10-an-hour minimum wage," and he said, like a good leader, "Go for it." I went for it.

Not only did I go for it, but Toronto and York Region Labour Council took up the campaign under the direction of John Cartwright, and the Ontario Federation of Labour took up the campaign under Wayne Samuelson and others. We took that campaign across Ontario. Fifteen thousand e-mails came into this Legislature, every single one of them demanding a $10 an hour minimum wage now. That happened as well as significant polling across this province—as well, I might point out, a by-election loss for the McGuinty government in York South—Weston, in part because of the $10-an-hour minimum wage campaign.

Then, and only then, did we see this government move. Certainly, they were not speaking about the minimum wage back last year in October, but they were speaking about it in the new year. Why? Because of the loss. Why? Because of the polling. Why? Because of the phenomenal e-mail campaign and the campaign around Ontario to build support for this.

So that's a little bit of the history. Then, of course, we all know what happened. They brought in this incremental increase: $8 now, going up next year, going up the next year after that, and then finally $10.25, three years from now. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to point out that in eight days, this government gave themselves a 25% pay increase—eight days for the government and for the cabinet committee that sits looking at poverty, and three years for the poorest members of the working families of this province. So I contrast one with the other.

Certainly, we're looking at facts here, facts about poverty that are not mine alone. I'm going to read from the Ontario Federation of Labour's fact sheet about the minimum wage campaign:

"A single parent working full-time at minimum wage in Ontario would have an income $6,676 dollars below the poverty line.

"Today's minimum wagers receive 20% less in real wages (adjusted for inflation) than they did 30 years ago."

I remember my father in the 1970s speaking about soup lines, talking about kitchens opening up, talking about people sleeping on floors of churches, and I said that that could never happen in a place like Ontario. Well, it certainly is happening and this is one of the reasons why.

"If minimum wages increased at the same rate as Canada's gross domestic product ... the minimum wage would be $12.44 per hour.

"The campaign to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour would enable a single person working full-time in a large urban center to reach the poverty line"—as I've already said.

Contrast this, of course, with our CEOs, who are making record incomes. The average CEO of a major corporation in this country now makes $9 million a year. "Start the clock at midnight New Year's Eve and compare Canada's best-paid CEOs to the average minimum wage earner. By the afternoon of January 2 the CEO has made as much as a full year's wages for a minimum wage earner." Again, that's not from our research department, that's from the Ontario Federation of Labour.

One of the arguments I know I'm going to hear from this assembly is about incremental increases in the minimum wage—always, I remind this assembly, keeping those wage-earners below the poverty line. What are the arguments? You always hear it's going to hurt small business. I was a small business owner. I paid a $10 minimum wage back in the 1980s. Certainly, the minimum wage campaign saw phenomenal support from small business owners across this province.

The problem for small business owners is not the wages they pay; it's the taxes they pay. That's why I introduced a resolution in the last session to reform the business education tax. This government talks about it, but it still hasn't walked about it. That business education tax has still not been reformed. That's what TABIA and other small business organizations are asking for: tax reform.

So $10 an hour is not an issue of small business; it's an issue of the big box stores. It's an issue of the McBusinesses, those businesses that are not home-grown, that come into our province, that pay sub-standard wages to workers, minimum wages to workers, and then take the profits outside this jurisdiction. This is forcing them to reinvest. In fact, it's good for the economy.

Other jurisdictions where they have raised the minimum wage have shown this and proven this. Santa Fe, for example, in the States raised their minimum wage 65% in one day. Did their business or economy suffer? No. In fact, it improved. We have a petri dish around this in the States. Washington State next to Idaho: Washington pays the highest minimum wage in the States, Idaho the lowest. Guess which economy is growing and vibrant? Washington's, not Idaho's. So yes, minimum wage does affect the economy, but not in the ways that the opposition has brought forward.

It actually improves the economy, because those who make minimum wage do not take vacations in the south. They do not drive cars out to the malls, because they don't have cars. They spend their money at local small business in their communities.

To increase the minimum wage across the world has been shown to help the economy. Where is minimum wage higher than it is here? In many, many places in the developing world. In the United Kingdom, it's almost C$11; France, C$11; Australia, C$11; Ireland—there's a jurisdiction this government should look at if they're serious about the poverty issue; there's a jurisdiction that halved and then quartered their poverty rate. How did they do it? In part by raising the minimum wage. In Los Angeles, a worker can earn up to an $11 minimum wage. In Santa Fe, as I've already said, it's US$9.50 an hour. And guess what?

Even in Canada, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and British Columbia all have higher minimum wages than we do in Ontario.

We in Ontario, as the United Way has so clearly and graphically shown, are now the poverty province in Canada, and Toronto is the poverty capital of Canada. How do we address this? We don't need another cabinet committee. What we do need is action. One of the actions we need right away is an immediate increase to the minimum wage to $10 an hour.

We could talk about poverty in the more general aspect. There's material poverty, and then there is spiritual poverty—I might say spiritual bankruptcy. We have in the McGuinty government a spiritually bankrupt government. This is a government that is poor; this is a government that refuses to act on a simple request from anti-poverty organizations across this province. This is how we asked them to act: We asked them for an immediate raise to a $10 minimum wage now, indexed to the consumer price index so that those who are working make the poverty line and are not below it.

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

Mr. Vic Dhillon: Again, it's my pleasure to speak on this bill, introduced by the member from Parkdale—High Park.

The McGuinty government is making a real difference in the lives of Ontario's lowest-paid and most vulnerable workers. We have been phasing in the minimum wage increases over the last four years. We have balanced the needs of Ontario's low-income workers with the need of Ontario's businesses to be competitive.

When I was doing research to speak this morning, I found that many economists agree with our position that the minimum wage has to be phased in gradually. Now, I don't think it takes a sophisticated economist or other professional people to come to this conclusion. During the last campaign, there was a volunteer on my campaign, Sumeet Dhir, a grade 11 student. He really put it in a good way when explaining our stand on the minimum wage issue. He explained to one of my constituents what the impact would be on a cup of coffee, on a meal at McDonald's.

If you raise the minimum wage immediately by 20%, 25%, that's going to raise the cost of a meal, the cost of a cup of coffee. That really hit home, and I said that this is not a really complicated issue and think we have it right by slowly phasing in the minimum wage.

I don't know where the NDP has been for the last four years. They forget to mention that the minimum wage was frozen for nine years; not one single increase for the nine years before our government took office. We've increased the minimum wage every year, an increase of 17% since 2003.

I also want to mention that these jobs at restaurants, which generally pay minimum wage or a little bit above minimum wage, provide good experience for new immigrants. I remember my family, a lot of whom immigrated in the late 1970s and early 1980s, earning the minimum wage at that time—$1.65, $3.25; I don't know the exact amount. But that was a foot in the door to gain the Canadian experience that employers demand of new immigrants.

It's crucial that we phase in the minimum wage gradually. I don't see the sense of increasing the minimum wage one day and then issuing a pink slip the next day. That's essentially what this is about; that's essentially what would happen.

I think that maybe the NDP should take a page out of their counterpart's book in Manitoba, where they have decided to gradually increase the minimum wage. As a matter of fact, the member conveniently and selfishly leaves out the other 12 territories and provinces, with whom we are in line or even have a higher minimum wage than. Saskatchewan is at $7.95. She only mentions Nunavut as one territory that has a minimum wage higher than Ontario. That's one out of so many. I'll mention Prince Edward Island—their minimum wage is $7.50; Nova Scotia, $7.60; Newfoundland, $7. So we are in line, and we do have a very competitive minimum wage.

The way we're facilitating and increasing the minimum wage is the right way to go. Not just economists, as I said before, but normal people understand that. It's another poor policy that the NDP have put together. Like I said before, it's handing out a pay raise one day and giving these same people a pink slip the next. It doesn't make sense. It's for these reasons that I will not be supporting this bill.

Mr. Frank Klees: I'm pleased to participate in this debate. On the surface, the call for an immediate rise in the minimum wage to $10 sounds, perhaps, fair. I'm sure that every one of us experiences daily circumstances within our own communities where individuals are living in poverty. The working poor are finding it more and more difficult every day to make ends meet.

However, I do not support this bill and will not, and I want to set my reasoning forward for the consideration of members. The reality is that there are businesses every day—and we tend to speak about businesses in the context of some of these debates as the evil ones, those who would want to oppress the workers of this province. Seldom is there consideration given to the fact that every day, people get up in the morning and they go to open the doors of the businesses in which they have invested every single penny of their earnings or life savings.

Every single day, there are employers who do so not only for their own benefit but for the benefit of keeping others employed in their communities, and that's becoming more and more difficult as well.

The simplistic solution is not to simply say, "We will increase the minimum wage overnight and that will solve all the problems." In fact, it may well create additional problems for many others, as warned, for example, by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. It states this, and I want to read this into the record: "Immediate increase of minimum wage to $10 an hour would significantly impact the business owners in areas such as agriculture, retail, restaurant and food services, tourism and hospitality, forcing many to lay off staff." What we don't want to do is give the province of Ontario medicine that will kill the very people it was intended to help.

I think what is needed is a very balanced approach. Quite frankly, I think the staggered implementation of an increase in the minimum wage is in fact the right thing to do. I don't defend this government very often; I have serious disagreements with their approach to managing the affairs of this province. But in this particular case, not only do I believe that a staged implementation is the appropriate way to deal with this, but I would also suggest that where the government failed was to more broadly consult with stakeholders so that we can have broader support for the rollout of this implementation.

I have to take this opportunity, while I think of it. While I disagree very much with this government many times, and I don't defend it, the comment that the member made in her debate about the spiritual bankruptcy of the government, and implying—government is the people who sit here, government is not some innate body, and I would question, what is the greater sin? Is it to be spiritually bankrupt or to be self-righteous?

I think what we need to do as we have our debates here is to recognize, particularly in private members' business, that we're all here—none of us has given our lives to the calling of public service for any other reason but that we want to do what is right. We may disagree in terms of how we get there, we may disagree on the policy approach, but I don't think we should be going in the direction of making a judgment call on the motivation of the people who sit here.

I think the degree to which we can at least find common ground on what the intent is, we can have a much more deliberate debate in terms of how we get there.

I want to speak very briefly to one of those sectors that the chamber of commerce mentioned, and that is the agriculture sector, just to show members what the effect of the proposed policy is on one narrow sector of the agriculture industry, the greenhouse industry.

We had representatives here last night. I think the member probably accepted her three poinsettias from the industry. Here's what that industry is facing. Ontario's greenhouse industry provides over 20,000 jobs, with a total annual payroll of $285 million. The increase in the minimum wage immediately to $10 for this sector will cost them an estimated $40 million in additional payroll. Labour is the most significant component of that industry's financial statements. Forty percent of the total operating structure of that industry is payroll.

If the member's proposal were to be implemented as she proposes, this industry would face not only layoffs, but I can tell you that what they'd face is the shutting down of many small businesses across the province. There may be those who say, "That's fine; that's business." No. Every shutdown of a business means that you create unemployment; not underpayment, not underemployment, but unemployment for many thousands of individuals who rely on that income.

This is only one example of one industry. The other is tourism. As a former Minister of Tourism, I can tell you that as I crossed the province—I'm sure it's the same today; in fact, the pressures are even greater today in many respects than they were a few years ago. The tourism industry and the hospitality industry are pleading with the government, and would plead with the member, not to accelerate the minimum wage because they cannot sustain that impact on their industry, given the fragile state of their industry.

What should be done? Broader consultation, I believe; staged implementation, I believe. I also believe—the member referred to it—that the government should be taking much more seriously lightening the tax burden on those businesses, not only small businesses, but small, medium and large businesses. We are one of the most highly taxed jurisdictions in the G8. That's where the relief should come from.

I believe that many businesses—as the member said herself, she was in business and she paid $10, which was above the minimum wage, long before there was a requirement. My experience, and I'm sure that of other members as well, is that most businesses in our community are paying their employees beyond the minimum wage. The minimum wage is a backstop. But for some industries, it is survival. Because of the competitive implications of a global economy and a dollar that continues to fluctuate, nobody seems to know from one day to the next the competitive factors their businesses are facing.

In conclusion, I want to simply say that I think we are all on side with the member in terms of wanting to ensure that people in our communities can, in fact, earn a wage under which they can sustain themselves and their families—that is the objective—but I don't believe this proposal is how we're going to get there.

Mr. Michael Prue: I'm rising today to speak in favour of this motion. That will probably not come as much of a surprise to members on the government side, nor the members from the former government on the opposition side. A $10 minimum wage is an idea whose time has come. It is an idea that has been floated for a long time, and it is one of the cornerstones of those who believe we can eradicate poverty.

If you want to eradicate poverty, you have to be able to allow people the means to do so. You cannot eradicate poverty at $8 per hour, as the present minimum wage is. Simply do the math. If you work 40 hours a week, you make $320; if you work 50 weeks a year, you make $16,000. It's pretty simple: $16,000 leaves you about $5,000, $6,000 or $8,000 below the poverty line, depending on where you live in this great province of ours. So you ask people to go out there, put in a hard day and a decent day's work, and live in poverty.

There are some who think that's okay because, as the example was made, small business needs to survive, or as the example was made by my friend from Brampton West, this is an opportunity for immigrants to get their first job. Quite frankly, I reject both of those arguments. I reject those arguments because I have spoken to my constituents. Perhaps my riding is not as rich or as well off as some of the ridings of those who have already stood in their place to speak.

I know that the people who have spoken to me, whether they be students struggling to get an education, whether they be new immigrants, most especially those who are women—because the majority of people who are working at the minimum wage belong to those three categories: they're young, they're new immigrants or they are women—are the people who are being forced by this government and by our Legislature to live in poverty.

If you look at where the poverty exists, and I'm speaking quite specifically about the city which I know best, the United Way says that there are 13 pockets of poverty, and one of the most persistent is in my riding. It's a place called Crescent Town. It is largely made up of young people, new immigrants, visible minorities, and women. That's who lives there, and they are poor. They constantly ask me, when I go there, to try to do something. The keenest thing that they liked in the last election was our call for a $10 minimum wage. These are not rich people.

These are people who are looking to give a hard and honest day's work but want something for themselves; they want to be lifted out of poverty by doing so.

I also have spent some time in Jane-Finch. I had an opportunity, as some of those who were in the House the last time know, to live there for nearly a week. I lived with people in Jane-Finch in public housing. It was not unique to me, because I grew up in public housing.

But what was very telling is that those people who are living in poverty wanted much more—the young people who hungered for a job, who hungered for something to do, who hungered to fix up their community and live in decent surroundings, and those people looking for a decent job, a job that will lift them out of poverty, that will pay more than $10 an hour. They are not looking to work at a place that relegates them to continuing and ongoing poverty, a place from which they are trying to escape.

I heard the argument about small business, and yes, I am sure that there are some small businesses who would feel a cash crunch having to raise the minimum wage from $8 to $10. But it is not the small businesses who are telling me that this is going to be difficult. Wal-Mart Canada is telling me this is going to be difficult. McDonald's is also telling me this is going to be difficult.

As the finance critic for the NDP, I can tell you that you can go on to Standard and Poor's, you can go on to the Toronto Stock Exchange or to the American stock exchange in New York and the Fortune 500, and you'll find both of those corporations. Some of the largest corporations in the world want me to continue $8 an hour because that's what they want to pay their workers. Well, I have no time for that. I have no time for the wealthiest corporations in the entire world pressuring this government, pressuring this Legislature, and talking about keeping it at $8 an hour.

If you want to know who can afford to pay it, they can. I have no sympathy whatsoever with their arguments, and I have no sympathy with a government that continues to listen to them.

I shop every week at No Frills. That might surprise some of you. There's a wonderful man named Mr. Dickie who owns the local No Frills.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Is that where you buy all the candy?

Mr. Michael Prue: I buy some of my candy there.

He came up to me and he told me that he is very supportive of a $10 minimum wage. He, in fact, pays his employees more than $10 an hour, and he told me the financial difficulty he has because the government keeps it at $8. Just down the street, one block away, Wal-Mart has just opened up a new superstore right in Scarborough, and they've hired people at $8 an hour, and they have cut all of their prices below his. Although No Frills is a pretty cheap place to shop—that's why I shop there—you can go to Wal-Mart and get it for less.

He is very angry at this because he does not want to cut the wages of his employees down to $8 an hour so that he can compete. He wants them to pay a fair wage so that the people who work in that store don't have to go to the food bank, because that's what Wal-Mart does: Wal-Mart calls the people out and says, you know, "We're giving you a job, but here is also the address of the local food bank." It's part of their hiring policy. They tell them flat out, "What we're going to pay you isn't enough to live on." So the people in that grocery store at Wal-Mart who get $8 an hour can't even afford to shop there.

That's the reality.

This government needs to do three things—and I told the new minister in a congratulations letter I sent to her that the time for study has passed. She needs to do three things immediately. If she does those three things, you can continue to study and do whatever you want.

The first one, and the most important, is to increase the minimum wage and make it a living wage. And that, to my mind, is $10 now.

The second thing is that you need to increase Ontario Works and ODSP so that people are no longer living in poverty. Forty per cent of the people on ODSP and OW are children, but those on ODSP—and just separate that out for a minute—are people who doctors and the government agree are unable and not likely to ever work. We are continuing to leave them in unmitigated and terrible poverty throughout their entire lives because, through medical faults, none of which is their own, they cannot work. I haven't heard anything about that.

I told her, as well, to end the clawback. If ever there was a disgraceful policy of this government and the previous one, it is that one. It is the most disgraceful policy I think that has ever come out of this Legislature. For the government not to end that clawback, to continue to take the money from those poor children, is reprehensible.

I told her that after she's done those three things, she can study what she wants and this government can study what she wants because half of what will undoubtedly be recommended will already have been done.

You can study about building some affordable housing. I heard the minister the other day say that they've built 6,000 units of affordable housing. We had to go through freedom of information to find out how many were actually built, those that are under $700 a month in rent. That is, somebody who is actually making more than $10 an hour would pay up to $700. How many were actually built? Two hundred and eighty-five is the answer. So the affordable housing is not affordable—not to people who earn $8 an hour, not to people on Ontario Works and not to people on ODSP. You've built 285. That needs to be done, but study it if you need to study it.

By all means, study the dental plan, because I think you'll find that the one you've come forward with isn't enough.

In the meantime, I'm asking you to do this: I'm asking you to do what is decent, do what is right, do what is honest and allow people who work hard to earn enough money to survive. And for the edification of the member from Brampton West, I think all of those new immigrants, whom he spoke so highly of and whom I speak so highly of, would be very pleased to get a new job that paid them enough, that they in fact came to a land where they were valued and where they earned enough to feed their families.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I'm pleased to have the opportunity this morning to make a few remarks on the private member's bill that's been brought forward by the member for Parkdale—High Park.

First of all, I want to recognize the mayor of Peterborough, Paul Ayotte. In the 2006 municipal campaign, one of his key planks was to put together a poverty task force in the municipality of Peterborough. Mr. Ayotte was elected and shortly after his inauguration he brought forward this task force that's been looking at a number of alternatives to address this very serious problem that we have in communities right across Ontario and indeed in my riding in Peterborough.

I would also like to compliment my colleague the member from London North Centre. All poverty groups in the province of Ontario recognize her leadership previously as the parliamentary assistant when she went around the province and put together a number of facts and suggestions. Now she's the new Minister for Children and Youth Services, a real bright light on this file, not only in Ontario but throughout Canada. She's put together a dynamic cabinet team that will be looking very closely at a number of positive suggestions that we'll be able to implement very quickly to address this issue.

In fact, as a government, over the last four years we've increased the minimum wage from $6.85 to $8 an hour, and indeed, we've put a framework in place to move it up over the next three years to $10.25 an hour.

It's interesting—and I listened very carefully to the third party—that indeed many anti-poverty advocates suggest that the spiral of poverty in Ontario actually started in 1993 with the Hampton-Rae government when they froze ODSP rates in 1993, compounded—

Interjections.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Well, these are the facts—compounded by eight years of the slash-and-burn policies of the current official opposition. Those are the facts, and when you read the facts, four members, one excluded—the member from Welland, of course, got booted out of cabinet, so I can't put the blame on him—but the three other members who are currently still members of that caucus indeed rubber-stamped that decision to freeze ODSP rates in 1993. Frankly, it would be refreshing if they would stand up once in a while and apologize for that decision that was made in 1993.

That's history, and we'll move on to what we're doing. One of the key initiatives that we brought forward in our budget of spring 2007 was the Ontario child benefit. What's really interesting is that the opposition party, the third party, of course voted against that budget. But when they were asked during the campaign if they would get rid of the Ontario child benefit, no, sir.

They intended to keep it in place because we know, as the late June Callwood said before her untimely death, that the Ontario child benefit is the most progressive piece of legislation and program brought in in Ontario in the last 40 years. We're proud to stand by that as it increases significantly over the next number of years, coupled with the increase in the minimum wage, coupled with the dental program we're going to bring in for low-income families. Our colleague, the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, over the next little while, will be bringing forth the details of that program.

Let's look at the profile of who is receiving the minimum wage currently in Ontario: 74% are 24 years of age and younger; 54% are between the ages of 15 to 19; 37% between these ages are in school and living with their parents; 16% are between the ages of 20 and 24; 30% are 25 years of age and older; and 5% are 55 years of age and over.

I heard the member from Newmarket—Aurora talk about the hospitality industry. When we break this down even further, we find that 30% work in the accommodation and food services sector and 34% work in the retail trade sector. Combined, 64% of minimum wage earners are in those two categories. We know that with the appreciation of the dollar, these two sectors certainly have had margins now that are very thin, and we have to recognize that a sudden dramatic increase of the minimum wage would have really serious, devastating impacts on those two particular areas.

When I have the opportunity to talk to both business and labour groups in my riding, they are fairly consistent that we're going to phase this in on an incremental basis over the next three years to $10.25. That allows the business community to do the appropriate planning, to start to factor it into their business plans for the next three years. While some of them don't accept that, they do at least know that on an incremental basis, in March of the next three years, the minimum wage will be increased to $10.25.

But you just can't take that policy in isolation. As a government, we're moving forward on a number of fronts, through the cabinet committee meeting, to really address poverty head-on. I would appreciate the third party—I'm sure they will be supporting the Premier of this province when we champion Ontario to look at some fundamental reform of the EI insurance fund here in Canada, which has accumulated today to some $54 billion. We know that the current situation discriminates against Ontario, and we look forward to them standing up and supporting our Premier as we go to Ottawa to get a better deal.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I'm pleased to join this debate, and I congratulate Ms. Cheri DiNovo, from Parkdale—High Park, for bringing forward this legislation. Although I probably support it—the $10 minimum wage came up, of course, after faith-based schools and 20 other issues, at all-candidate meetings in my riding, and to be consistent, I told people who attended those meetings, the local media and the public that we all want to see people earn a fair wage. But I do worry about the implementation of an immediate increase from $8 to $10 in the minimum wage, and so I somewhat agree with the approach the Liberal government is taking in terms of phasing it in.

My family ran small businesses all my life. We owned a tavern in Loretto, Ontario, and a general store, and my father owned appliance stores in Alliston and Newmarket and Barrie prior to that. We certainly know what it's like to meet a payroll and to have the bank knocking on the door when you can't meet your payroll, and we certainly know what it's like to be in small business.

When Mr. Sorbara was finance minister and this issue first came forward from the NDP in a forceful way, I did tend to agree with his comments. Our first jobs as kids in Alliston—you could either work in the Alliston Dairy Queen or the Alliston IGA, and I worked in the Alliston IGA for four and a half years. Back in those days, all our mailboxes fit on one wall in the local post office, and I think we had 850 people actually registered in the town of Alliston, and now, in the whole area of New Tecumseth, there are some 22,000. So a lot has changed in the last 30 years.

But I note that Mr. Sorbara said that most of the people on minimum wage tend to be either new Canadians or students. In fact, I pulled Morley Gunderson's February 2007 report out of the library, and he points out exactly that: First of all, a very small percentage of the workforce is actually on minimum wage, and again, they tend to be students and new Canadians, people trying to get their foot in the door, maybe the first time, into the Ontario—

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Entry-level wages.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Entry-level wages. Thank you very much, I say to my colleague from Halton.

Fifty per cent of minimum wage workers are teens or youths who live with their parents and 31.4% are couples. But in that group, almost 70% have spouses who are employed in jobs above the minimum wage.

Canadian evidence suggests that a 10% increase in the minimum wage is likely to reduce the employment of teens by 3% to 6%, and there's further evidence that if you did an increase as large as what is proposed by the honourable member, you might see reductions between 7.5% and 15% in teen employment.

Again, my worry would be that if we did such a large jump—over a 25% increase—jobs would immediately be lost, and that would be unfortunate. The greatest dignity you can give a human being is the opportunity for employment. That's what I believe, and I spent my years in university studying those issues.

Finally, I think John Tory had a good suggestion, which he indicated both in this House and in an op-ed piece or letter to the editor in the Toronto papers a few months back: We should really set up an independent commission, bring social activists, students, large and small employers and government together, and try to take this whole issue out of the political arena. It seems to me, in my 17 years here, that it comes up every year. It's a political football. The government is always on the defensive whenever the issue comes up. There is not a lot of science that goes into it.

I note that this would bring Ontario to among the top, if not the top, minimum wages in the country, which would make us uncompetitive, once again at a time of huge job losses, including 1,000 manufacturing job losses in my riding of Simcoe—Grey and the Collingwood area over the last 18 months.

I don't want to see more people out of work, and I want to see opportunities for young people to have jobs. I'm the critic for training, colleges and universities, and certainly, in meeting with students on a regular basis, they don't have the employment opportunities I had when I went to the University of Toronto. I was employed here. I started as a driver for a cabinet minister, and worked at two of the libraries at the university. I was a bar bouncer at the local pub at the university.

There were tons and tons of jobs for students back in the mid-1980s, and they don't have those same opportunities, and tuition fees have gone through the roof since then. So I just say to the honorable member that I appreciate her passion for this issue and her party's passion for it, but you need to bring in some common sense.

I also represent an agricultural community where this would be devastating if it came in overnight and the agricultural wage was adjusted accordingly. They just had a celebration for Jamaicaian workers in my riding, who do a lot of the work. They had a recognition celebration for them at Blue Mountain recently. Certainly, while I'm sure they'd all like a higher wage, they also appreciate the jobs. They come here from other countries to help us out in our agricultural sector.

With that, I wish the honorable member good luck and congratulate her on her re-election.

M me France Gélinas: I'm pleased to rise in support of my colleague Ms. Cheri DiNovo, MPP for Parkdale—High Park, and her Bill 7,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act to increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour—now. When you work full-time at minimum wage, you make $16,000 a year. If we give you an increase to ten bucks an hour, you will make $20,000 a year. You'll be barely above poverty.

People will have you believe that it is students living at home who work for those wages. This is not the case. Sure, there are students, but they are students who work to pay for their tuition. There are young families with children who work for those wages and there are new immigrants working for those wages. But they are mainly women and they are women with families working for $16,000 to $20,000 a year, if they're lucky enough to work full-time.

I'm proud to say that the city of Greater Sudbury passed a unanimous motion to call on this government for a $10-an-hour minimum wage right now. I'd like to thank Councillor Claude Berthiaume, who brought that forward to our municipality. I'm also proud to say that 52 other municipalities in Ontario have passed motions asking for an increase of the minimum wage to $10 an hour now. How can 52 municipalities in Ontario, United Ways and the Association of Ontario Health Centres all have it wrong?

People will have you believe that doom and gloom will happen. This is working on our ignorance. The research papers are there. The economists who have lived through an increase of the same magnitude, about a 25% increase in minimum wage, have shown that this is not the case. The doom and gloom, the loss of jobs, the massive layoffs—none of this happened. What really happens is that you lift a poor family out of poverty. This is something that this government should do.

I would also like to correct my colleague there, Jeff Leal, who thinks that the government is not clawing back the national child benefit. I say that you should talk to a few families on OW, Ontario Works, or on ODSP. They know that the clawback is happening because they lose that money every month.

Je suis fière d'être ici aujourd'hui pour appuyer ma collègue, M me Cheri DiNovo, qui essaie de modifier la loi pour faire augmenter le salaire minimum à 10 $ de l'heure tout de suite. Une famille qui travaille au salaire minimum en ce moment fait 16 000 $ par année. À 10 $ de l'heure, ça va augmenter à 20 000 $ par année. Les gens voudraient nous faire croire que ceux qui travaillent au salaire minimum sont les étudiants qui veulent se payer des gâteries, mais ce n'est pas ça du tout.

La vraie realité, c'est que oui, ce sont des étudiants qui essaient de payer leurs études, mais aussi ce sont des jeunes familles avec des enfants, des nouveaux arrivants en Ontario, mais surtout ce sont des femmes avec des enfants qui vivent dans la pauvreté.

Si on augmente le salaire minimum à 10 $ de l'heure, ces gens-là, leur vie va changer. Je suis très fière de la ville de Sudbury, qui a passé une proposition de façon unanime pour faire augmenter le salaire minimum à 10 $ de l'heure maintenant. Saviez-vous qu'il y a également 52 municipalités en Ontario qui ont passé la même proposition, qui demande au gouvernement de faire augmenter le salaire minimum à 10 $ de l'heure maintenant?

Comment ça se fait qu'il y a 52 municipalités qui demandent ça, que Centraide demande la même chose, que l'Association des centres de santé de l'Ontario demande la même chose? C'est parce que la recherche a été faite. Le désastre, le cataclysme, les pertes d'emplois massives—tout ça, ce sont des tactiques pour nous faire peur. Ce qui va vraiment arriver—les économistes ont fait leur travail—c'est qu'on va sortir les gens de la pauvreté. Ça, c'est quelque chose que le gouvernement doit faire tout de suite.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I want to say I'm happy to join in this debate on the bill moved by the member from Parkdale—High Park.

Most of us have just gotten out of an election campaign, and all of us have had the opportunity to speak to our constituents and the small businesses in our area. I just want to share with you some of the thoughts that these businesses have passed on to me. A lot of the small businesses said that they don't support the request by the NDP for an immediate increase of the minimum wage to $10, for the one reason that it would immediately create a domino effect in their business. The person who is making minimum wage today going to $10 would mean that the person who is making $10 would have to go to $12, etc.

What that would mean to them is an immediate change in their profit margin and they would have to look at price increases for all the things they deal with. I think none of us have really considered that effect on business. At the end of the road, what you will see is that a business will actually terminate the employment of some of their employees and we would have higher unemployment.

Many years ago when I worked in the private sector, I was preached upon many times that money is not a motivator. It is a temporary motivator. So that when you get something, it only lasts for so long.

I will share with you an experience that I had in the recent election. I was in a debate at a high school during the last election and the NDP candidate harped on the issue of the $10 minimum wage. There was a complete roar from the students in the school, and I thought, I'm in trouble because all the students support this particular issue. Unfortunately, when the student vote took place on election day and the results came out, I came out ahead of the NDP candidate. I was totally surprised.

About a week later, I met with some of the students in my office because they were asking me to come back to the school. I did ask the question, "There was this huge uproar when the NDP candidate raised the issue of the $10 minimum wage. Can you tell me why it is the vote might have gone the way it did?" I was actually told by every one of the five students meeting with me, "Mr. Balkissoon, we support your government because we believe you have presented to us in the entire debate a very balanced approach to running government and business and the people, education and housing and daycare. This is why many of us students supported your position."

So I say our government has embarked on an incremental way of increasing the minimum wage. We believe it's the best way to do it. We also believe that the minimum wage is not the issue facing poverty; it's a much more complex problem. Our government, through the Minister of Children and Youth Services, has a cabinet committee that is going to deal with this complex issue.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Thank you to all of the honourable members for all of your input. I want to address a few issues.

First and foremost, the jury is in. Over 20 studies have been done, and these are not computer model studies. These are studies of actual jurisdictional experiences where the minimum wage has been raised—in some cases, as in Santa Fe, where they raised it 65% overnight, raised substantially, more in fact than we're asking for with this bill. All of those studies show that it does not lead to unemployment; it does not lead to increased bankruptcies. In fact, it leads to a healthier economy. Again, I talked about a number of jurisdictions. The United Kingdom: They clearly didn't suffer.

Ireland did not suffer when they raised their minimum wage to about C$11 an hour. And there are others. We could go on—Australia, another one as well.

We live here in Toronto, in Ontario, in the most expensive city in Canada. So the fact that we could be trailblazers in terms of a living wage—that doesn't upset me, that encourages me. Thirty-three per cent of our food bank users are working poor, working families. One in six children in Ontario live in poverty, one in four families in Toronto live in poverty, and one in two families headed by a single parent live in poverty. This is the backdrop for this discussion.

We are not having this discussion in a vacuum; we are having this discussion in the face of those who work 40 hours a week and then have to use a food bank and can't pay their rent at the end of the month. These are the people, polls have shown in our own province, who overwhelmingly favour a raise to the $10 minimum wage immediately. And that's not enough; that's just the beginning.

As to the member who talked about an incremental increase, I wish we had put that into effect when we raised our own salaries 25% in this House in eight days. We're asking for the same consideration for the poorest families among us, the same consideration you showed yourselves to the poorest working families in this province.

Let me be very clear: If this bill is defeated this day, the McGuinty government is immediately condemning 257,000 to continue to live in poverty—those who make $8 right now—and up to another million who make under $10 or $10 on the nose. That's who they're condemning to poverty with this action.

So I ask you again, please support this bill. Break ranks. Be the one who stands for justice and against the common. Do the right thing.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The time provided for private members' public business having expired, we shall now deal with ballot item number 1, standing in the name of Mr. Miller.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

(WAGE SECURITY), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(SÉCURITÉ SALARIALE)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Miller has moved second reading of Bill 6. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

Second reading agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 96, this bill will be referred to committee—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member has asked that consent be given to send the bill to the standing committee on general government. Agreed? Agreed.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

(RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI (AUGMENTATION DU SALAIRE MINIMUM)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Ms. DiNovo has moved second reading of Bill 7. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1158 to 1203.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): All those in favour, please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): All those opposed, please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 11; the nays are 33.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I declare the motion lost.

Second reading negatived.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): All matters relating to private members' public business having been dealt with, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1206 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members' statements. The member from Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock, please. I'd just remind all the visitors and guests here in the Legislature today that you are welcome to observe, but I ask that you not partake in applause or cheering. That is left for the 106 members on the floor. If it does persist, I would have to clear the chamber. So I welcome everybody—it's a pleasure to have you here—but we need to make sure we follow the standing orders.

The floor is yours.

ONTARIO LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Randy Hillier: On behalf of my constituents, I extend congratulations on your election to the Speaker's chair.

I would like to welcome and extend my appreciation to the many members of the Ontario Landowners Association who have travelled from across this province to attend today's proceedings. They started as a group of four people around a kitchen table in Lanark county. They are now a province-wide association 20 chapters strong.

The OLA promotes the principles of democracy, natural justice and strong local government, and represents the interests of the rural community. These people are the heart and soul of Ontario. Their honesty, determination, self reliance and independent lifestyles represent the true heritage and our unique culture here in Ontario. They also know that the true role of government is to prevent injustice, not to create it. It is an organization I know well, made up of farmers, loggers and small business operators; people who earn a living from their lands and who are the foundation of their communities.

I ask all members to join me in welcoming the people of rural Ontario into their House here at Queen's Park.

HOLIDAY SEASON

IN ETOBICOKE—LAKESHORE

Ms. Laurel C. Broten: Winter is definitely in the air in Ontario, and with the start of winter comes the rush of the holiday season. But in spite of this busy time of year, my community of Etobicoke—Lakeshore has not slowed down at all. In fact, it's working just as hard as always to make sure that the holiday season is enjoyed by all.

I want to take the opportunity today to thank the many organizations and volunteers in Etobicoke—Lakeshore that work hard all year long, and especially at this time of year, to bring the festive season to our neighbourhoods.

First of all, I want to thank, under the leadership of Liz Porritt and her team, our annual Etobicoke Santa Claus parade on the Lakeshore, again a great success last weekend. Thousands came out to enjoy the day by taking

part in the parade or watching along the parade route, and everyone enjoyed a day of music by local bands, decorative floats, of course, and the grand finale of Santa Claus, affectionately known as Ho-Ho around my house.

As well, our local BIAs and residents' associations are always very active in bringing the joy of the season to us, including the Kingsway BIA, which presented the cavalcade of lights. As well as the Mimico BIA and the Mimico Residents Association hosted a tree lighting at Storefront Humber, under the leadership of Bob Polden and his team. Tonight, we will see the Village of Islington BIA's tree lighting ceremony at Dundas and Burnhamthorpe.

The holiday season in our community is extremely successful because of the hard work of dedicated community groups and volunteers. On behalf of my community, I say thank you and happy holidays.

LIVEABLE COMMUNITIES AWARD

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: Over the years I have always maintained that great things are happening in Oshawa. Today I'd like to pay a special tribute to the community of Oshawa for recently receiving an international award of recognition. Just last week, the city of Oshawa achieved a gold award at the 2007 International Awards for Liveable Communities in a review held in London, England. Municipalities which receive this award are recognized as being in the top 15% of sustainable and liveable communities worldwide. In addition, Oshawa placed third in its population category for cities of 75,000 to 200,000 people.

The delegation from Oshawa presented before a renowned international panel along with 50 other countries.

The Liveable Communities Awards are backed by the United Nations Environment Programme and focus on the enhancement of the environment and the quality of life in the community. The panel's criteria consisted of community sustainability, healthy lifestyles, environmental practices, heritage, landscape enhancement and planning for the future. I am proud that our community of Oshawa is able to stand out on the world stage and be recognized for its dedication to these practices and its vision for the future.

This truly is a testament to the prudent people of Oshawa, community leaders and associates. I am proud and honoured to be able to work together with such resourceful partners to build a sustainable community for present and future generations. Congratulations once again to His Worship Mayor John Gray, city council and to our great city of Oshawa for achieving such a prestigious award.

AIR QUALITY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I'm sure it would shock people to know that the McGuinty government is breaching Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights. The Ministry of the Environment has failed to meet crucial deadlines for responding to concerns about industrial smog in Hamilton.

Thanks to the diligent efforts of Environment Hamilton in partnership with north Hamilton residents, the government's failure to follow the rules is not going unchecked. This dedicated group used the Environmental Bill of Rights to ask the ministry to review provincial operating certificates for the ArcelorMittal KOBM melt shop. By law, provincial ministries have 60 days to respond to applications for reviews made under the Environmental Bill of Rights; the ministry's deadline for responding to this complaint was September 4. Here it is, three months later, still no compliance.

This is very frustrating for the people of Hamilton who care very deeply about the environment and deserve strong government support and action to clean up the ongoing air quality problems. It should send a disturbing signal to the entire province that this government is asleep at the switch on environmental files. I would like to commend Lynda Lukasik, Lorna Moreau, Environment Hamilton and all the residents who, like me, are committed to pushing the McGuinty government to the wall for environmental action on our concerns.

Hamilton has been rained on by greasy soot. Its waterways were poisoned a toxic chemical fire that this government refuses to investigate. The damaging industrial air pollution is thick while the powers that be turn their backs. I implore the government to finally act.

BRAMPTON HOSPITAL

Mr. Vic Dhillon: On October 28 of this year, a long-awaited dream of Bramptonians became a reality, and that was the opening of Brampton Civic Hospital. Hospitals are the cornerstones of communities, and no community understands that better than Brampton.

Building a brand-new hospital is rare for any community. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those involved, including the Osler board, Osler staff, physicians, nurses, volunteers, foundation members, Minister Smitherman, my colleagues in Brampton, members of the LHIN and, last but not least, the community for all their hard work and support throughout the years. Together we did what we dreamt we could do, and I could not be prouder.

But our work is not done. Our government recognizes that the health care needs of Brampton and Peel are growing, and that is why this government, this minister and all of my colleagues in Brampton have been and will be committed to the redevelopment process of Peel Memorial Hospital. My colleagues from Brampton and I will work hard with this government and the minister, but we can't do it alone. That is why I would like to encourage all Brampton residents to participate in the Central West LHIN's public consultation process for Peel Memorial Hospital.

Your direct participation in this process will help shape the programs and services in both hospitals that will ultimately result in better health care for all of us.

I would like to once again thank the community, its stakeholders and the minister for their ongoing leadership and commitment to health care in Brampton.

FAMILY FRIENDLY REFORMS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: No one in this place, regardless of gender or political affiliation, should have to choose between being an effective representative in this place and being a good parent. Unfortunately, that choice is often before the members of this assembly.

This place was created over 200 years ago, long before women had the right to vote, long before men took on greater parenting roles, and long before the diversity of this great province was reflected in this Legislature. That's why I have been relentless in calling for family friendly reforms at Queen's Park. Our families make sacrifices for the Ontario of tomorrow, as much as we do. It's time we recognize that.

All corners of this House have advanced ideas: reducing evening sittings, bringing a daycare and a prayer room on-site, and creating a spousal association.

My dad was a politician for three decades before he died. He taught me a very valuable lesson. He said, "You'll inherit a constituency, and it's your job to make it a better place than when you received it." That holds true for 107 members in this Legislative Assembly, who are blessed to hold a seat in the 39th Parliament. While it means that we must make our communities a better place, it also places a duty on us to modernize this Legislature, while respecting its traditions. We are the stewards of this House, and I urge all members to support this resolution later today.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Over the past few weeks, I had the opportunity to meet with trustees and staff from the Peel District School Board and the Dufferin-Peel Catholic school board to discuss the progress we have made in our education system and the challenges that we face in the future.

As a former educator, I know first-hand about the importance of investing in education in order to create a highly skilled society. That is why I rise today to commend our government on the new investments in education announced in the throne speech.

In my riding of Mississauga—Brampton South, households with young children will benefit from our government's plan to work toward full-day learning for four- and five-year-olds. Full-day learning will ensure that hard-working parents have access to quality child care for their children at an earlier age.

Our government is also willing to continue to improve the funding formula and invest an additional $3.1 billion annually in our schools.

I would like to congratulate the trustees and staff at the Peel District School Board and Dufferin-Peel Catholic school board for choosing to work with our government in a spirit of co-operation and mutual respect. I look forward to working with both school boards to ensure that we have the best possible education system.

QUILT OF BELONGING

Mr. Jim Brownell: As many of you know, I take great pride in the ethnic diversity of my largely rural riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. Today, I would like to speak about an art project that was produced in my riding that perfectly symbolizes this cultural mix so characteristic of both Ontario and Canada.

It is called the Quilt of Belonging, and it is a tapestry that was started after a local group of artists, under the leadership of Esther Bryan, learned that there is at least one person from every country in the world living in Canada. The tapestry contains almost 300 beautifully embroidered blocks, each weaving the story of the cultural or ethnic group it represents.

With the help of hundreds of staff and volunteers from across Canada, the tapestry took five years to complete—truly a labour of love. I had the opportunity to view this masterpiece last spring in my riding, and I can tell you that it is magnificent.

After a brilliant launch at the Museum of Civilization in Ottawa-Hull, the Quilt of Belonging has toured the country and is now being enjoyed by people around the world. The people of Houston, Texas, were so impressed that their mayor, Bill White, proclaimed October 31 of this year Quilt of Belonging Day in that city.

The piece has touched many on its tour so far, with its ability to bring to life both our own heritage and that of our fellow citizens. It celebrates the cultural richness of the riding, the province and the country.

When the Quilt of Belonging finally settles after its tour, I encourage you to enjoy this remarkable piece that is original to Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry but is destined to become a cultural touchstone for all Ontarians.

HANUKKAH

Mr. David Zimmer: Today is the second day of Hanukkah, also known as the Festival of Lights. Hanukkah commemorates the religious and military victory of the Jewish people against the Assyrian oppressors some 2,000 years ago. At that time, Jews in Judea, now Israel, were forbidden to practise their religion under Assyrian occupation. Although vastly outnumbered, the Jewish people, led by Judah Maccabee and his four brothers, rose up and fought against King Antiochus and his army. After three years of fighting, the Maccabeus reclaimed the holy temple in Jerusalem.

Tradition holds that when the Maccabeus entered the holy temple, they found only enough oil to light the menorah, the most important object in the temple, for one day. However, when the Maccabeus lit the menorah, it burned not for one day, but for eight days. Today, Jews around the world continue to celebrate this miracle through prayers and the lighting of the menorah on eight consecutive days. The light of the menorah has come to symbolize freedom, religious tolerance and peace, something all of us in Ontario value.

On behalf of the Ontario government, I would like to take this opportunity to wish the Jewish community of Ontario a very happy Hanukkah celebration.

WEARING OF T-SHIRTS

Mr. Randy Hillier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: This afternoon, we are privileged to have members of the Ontario Landowners' Association in the galleries. I rise today to seek unanimous consent of this House that those present be permitted to wear their distinctive shirts that signify their membership in this very important organization. I seek unanimous consent that they be permitted to do so today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Mr. Hillier is seeking unanimous consent of the House for his guests to wear their T-shirts. Agreed? Agreed.

VISITORS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd like to introduce my mother-in-law and father-in-law, who are in the west gallery. My mother-in-law is celebrating her birthday today, so could we welcome them to the House?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Welcome, and happy birthday to you.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent to wear white ribbons for the national Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Hamilton Mountain seeks consent of the House to wear white ribbons. Agreed? Agreed.

The member from Sault Ste. Marie on a point of order.

Mr. David Orazietti: No, Speaker, not on a point of order; to introduce a bill.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for Toronto—Davenport—no, Toronto—Danforth.

VISITORS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I too will get a T-shirt, Mr. Speaker—with my riding on it.

I rise to welcome Wolfe Erlichmann from Frontenac and Donna Dillman, on the 60th day of her hunger strike against a uranium mine in Frontenac. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Welcome again.

VISITORS

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I would like members to warmly welcome a group of people who are in the forefront of mitigating climate change. In fact, they are establishing the Climate Project—Canada, the Canadian arm of Al Gore's global Climate Project. They are Shelley Kath, Georgina Bencsik, Michael Homsie, Ric Cuthbertson and our very own George Chuvalo, who in his fight against drugs should also be congratulated.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would agree with the member and thank him for introducing his guests.

A special welcome to George Chuvalo, a great Canadian and somebody that we can all be very proud of. Mr. Chuvalo, as we know, has been involved in a number of initiatives over the years. I've had the opportunity to meet him in the past. My mother grew up here in Toronto and he lived next door to my mother. His family didn't have a television in the 1950s. My mother's family had a television, and George Chuvalo used to come over and watch the fights with my grandfather. He remembered that when I spoke with him earlier today. It's a real honour to have you here today, George.

Applause.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROTECTING CHILDREN AND YOUTH FROM SECOND-HAND SMOKE

IN AUTOMOBILES ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 VISANT À PROTÉGER

LES ENFANTS ET LES JEUNES

CONTRE LA FUMÉE SECONDAIRE

DANS LES AUTOMOBILES

Mr. Orazietti moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 11,

An Act to amend the Smoke-Free Ontario Act to protect children and youth from second-hand smoke in motor vehicles / Projet de loi 11, Loi modifiant la Loi favorisant un Ontario sans fumée afin de protéger les enfants et les jeunes contre la fumée secondaire dans les véhicules automobiles.

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

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for a short statement.

Mr. David Orazietti: The bill seeks to amend the Smoke-Free Ontario Act to prohibit smoking in vehicles when a person who is less than 16 years of age is present.

The objective is to protect children and youth from intense levels of second-hand smoke. Research shows that children are especially susceptible to the harmful effects of second-hand smoke and are more likely to suffer from cancer, heart disease, asthma and a number of other respiratory illnesses. Each hour that a child is exposed to second-hand smoke in a car is equivalent to the child smoking a pack of cigarettes.

An Ipsos Reid poll today indicated that 80% of Ontarians support this type of legislation. I want to thank leading health care advocates in Ontario for being here today and for expressing their strong support for the bill. Hopefully, members of the Legislature will support it as well.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We've got a couple of guests that I'd like to introduce: first, a member of the 36th Parliament from the riding of Prince Edward—Lennox—South Hastings, Gary Fox.

Mr. Fox, welcome back to Queen's Park.

Also, we'd like to recognize His Worship Sam Sullivan, Mayor of Vancouver, who is here today. He's been in Toronto to promote the 2010 Vancouver Olympics and the 2010 Paralympics.

Your Worship, welcome to Queen's Park.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Statements by the ministry? The Minister of Children and Youth Services.

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE

AND ACTION ON VIO