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

November 2, 2006

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2006-Nov-02 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 2 November 2006 Jeudi 2 novembre 2006

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT (RAISING THE

MINIMUM WAGE), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LES NORMES D'EMPLOI (AUGMENTATION

DU SALAIRE MINIMUM)

STREET SAFETY

AWARENESS MONTH ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LE MOIS DE LA SENSIBILISATION

À LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES RUES

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT (RAISING THE

MINIMUM WAGE), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LES NORMES D'EMPLOI (AUGMENTATION

DU SALAIRE MINIMUM)

STREET SAFETY

AWARENESS MONTH ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LE MOIS DE LA SENSIBILISATION

À LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES RUES

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BROWNFIELD SITES

ANGELINA PAVAO

CORRECTION OF RECORD

VETERANS

PROPERTY TAXATION

ST. MARY'S HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETES

TORONTO EXPO 2015

KNIGHT'S TABLE

HOLOCAUST EDUCATION WEEK

ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE

VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

SPEAKER'S RULING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PUBLIC SERVICE OF ONTARIO

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS AYANT TRAIT À LA

FONCTION PUBLIQUE DE L'ONTARIO

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 28

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

REMEMBRANCE DAY /

JOUR DU SOUVENIR

CLERK OF THE ASSEMBLY /

GREFFIER DE L'ASSEMBLÉE

ORAL QUESTIONS

VEHICLE SAFETY

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE

NATIONAL CHILD BENEFIT SUPPLEMENT

TORONTO EXPO 2015

WOMEN'S ISSUES

EDUCATION

JOB CREATION

EDUCATION FUNDING

IMMIGRANTS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

VISITORS

CORRECTION OF RECORD

VISITORS

PETITIONS

GO TRANSIT TUNNEL

EDUCATION FUNDING

VISITORS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

CONSUMER PROTECTION AND SERVICE MODERNIZATION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

DU MINISTÈRE DES SERVICES

GOUVERNEMENTAUX

SUR LA MODERNISATION DES SERVICES

ET DE LA PROTECTION DU

CONSOMMATEUR

ROYAL ASSENT /

SANCTION ROYALE

MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

CONSUMER PROTECTION AND SERVICE MODERNIZATION ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

DU MINISTÈRE DES SERVICES

GOUVERNEMENTAUX

SUR LA MODERNISATION DES SERVICES

ET DE LA PROTECTION DU

CONSOMMATEUR

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT (RAISING THE

MINIMUM WAGE), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LES NORMES D'EMPLOI (AUGMENTATION

DU SALAIRE MINIMUM)

Ms. DiNovo moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 150,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000Â / Projet de loi 150, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d'emploi.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale–High Park): Let me start with a quote. It's from Dr. Charles Hastings, Toronto's first officer of health, founder of Toronto's first affordable housing in 1918, Spruce Court, housing that still stands today. He said, "Every nation that endorses a wage that does not afford sufficient revenue for the home, a revenue that will make possible development of a sound mind and body, is trampling on a primary principle of democracy."

Or perhaps one might cite the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which condemned our minimum wage in Ontario as "insufficient to enable workers and their families to enjoy a decent standard of living."

In 1989, all parties in Canada agreed to eradicate child poverty by 2000. Campaign 2000 still works tirelessly to hold us all to that promise despite the fact that child poverty has doubled in Ontario in that period of time. I rise in the House this day in their stead, representing the work of over 30 agencies in Ontario, unions and teachers' federations, children's aid societies, agencies like those represented here today: the Women's Counselling, Referral and Education Centre, the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, the Ontario Association of Social Workers, the Street Health Community Nursing Foundation and Canadian Feed the Children. Welcome.

I thought of Sandra as I learned of Ireland, that model of economic success that accomplished their success in part by raising their minimum wage to over $10 an hour and aiming to eradicate their own poverty, which they have in fact lessened to just 4%, something we in Ontario could only dream to aspire to with our 15% poverty level.

I thought of Sandra and Maheswary Puvaneswarran, another example highlighted in the Toronto Star, who worked two jobs and couldn't afford a sofa, as I learned that our minimum wage after deductions is actually less than welfare in this province when the cost of going to work is taken into account, the cost of child care, transportation, the loss of drug benefits. One woman with a child makes $7.75 per hour. Even if she made $8 an hour, that's approximately $1,440 a month. If she were on social assistance, she would make approximately $1,497 a month. I remember asking Sandra why she worked. "I want a better future for my children," she said.

This government prides itself on raising the minimum wage three times since being in office, at 30 cents per year. That means that in approximately seven years, Sandra and Maheswary would make $10 an hour, which by then would be even less, in effect, than they are making now. In fact, in 1972 when our minimum wage was $2 an hour, using the Bank of Canada's inflation calculator, our working poor were making the equivalent of almost $10 an hour then. Our poor are poorer than they were in 1972.

One might ask oneself the economic logic of forcing single parents, two thirds of them women, onto welfare. One might ask oneself, as Charles Hastings did in 1918, how a province calling itself democratic could expect its poorest wage earners and their children to use food banks to be able to pay the rent and feed their children.

Why doesn't this government raise the minimum wage to a living wage or to the most conservative estimate of the poverty line in Ontario? The answer we're given, and Sandra and Maheswary are given, is that this will hurt the economy and actually cost jobs. Back in the 1980s, when I was a small business owner, everyone I knew in corporate life paid our workers a minimum of $10 an hour. Study after study has also proven that, in fact, there's no correlation between the loss of jobs and raising the minimum wage, nor of a detrimental effect on the economy.

Card and Krueger's Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage and Goldberg and Green's Rising the Floor: The Social and Economic Benefits of Minimum Wages in Canada are but two examples of many studies that prove this. One needn't look to Australia, with its almost $13-an-hour minimum wage, or France or England or Ireland, as I've already done, but simply to these studies done right in Canada to see that minimum wage raises help economies.

Certainly, there is no argument that raising the minimum wage would help Sandra and Maheswary's economy and the other 1.2 million workers who make under $10 or the 200,000 mainly immigrants and women who make minimum wage now.

We remind ourselves that the argument against the abolition of slavery was that the American economy would be destroyed if slavery were abolished. When arguments are used for the economy, I remind our honourable members what the Toronto Star said in its editorial of October 19 when it came out in support of this very minimum wage bill: "In effect, they are arguing that the living standards of our poorest workers must continue to suffer for them to be able to hold on to their jobs."

A higher minimum wage actually helps the economy because it allows the 1.2 million making less than $10 an hour or the 200,000 at minimum wage to have a little bit more money in their pockets to spend. Those who are at the lowest end of the income spectrum, who can't afford cars, tend to spend their money locally in their immediate neighbourhoods. A higher minimum wage will help small business in that way, and also the increase will bring much-needed stability to employment.

Any small business owner who employs minimum wage workers will tell you that it's turnover that costs the most in lost productivity, in the fees paid to agencies, in training. When workers need two or more jobs to survive, they don't work as well. Sandra used to complain about how tired she always was.

The playing field will still be level. Most small businesses compete with other businesses in the province. Since everyone will be paying slightly more, one's competitor will be paying more as well. No one will gain a competitive edge as a result of this bill.

Finally, we have examples globally of countries like Ireland, who have proven that government policies addressing this in fact help to create the economic models we should aspire to, both for business and for the poor. They have proven that poverty keeps countries and provinces poor, both economically and morally.

But finally, the ultimate reason to raise the minimum wage is ethical, and it is also moral. Our children are paying for our current policy. Might I say -- and this is not partisan when I ask how many honourable members here would want to see their own children raised in a home where a parent tries to provide those children with food and rent and some quality of life on $1,400 a month or less. We know that poverty is associated with lower life expectancy, worse health, impoverished chances of advancement, and crime and violence in neighbourhoods, all extremely costly to our economy and to our children.

If the 13,500 children who use food banks in the GTA were our biological children, could we, would we, not do something about it? Not tomorrow, not in the seven or so years that at 30 cents a year it would take, but by acting now.

The Honourable Mr. Peters suggested yesterday that this government brought in the $8 an hour we in the New Democratic Party had asked for, but that was almost four years ago. Must we wait another even four years for justice for the Sandras and Maheswaries? Now is already too late in a moral and ethical sense, but any later than now would be absolutely unforgivable.

To my socially conservative brothers and sisters in this House, does it make sense to pay more in real terms for someone on welfare than someone who works 40 hours a week? To the socially progressive brothers and sisters in this House, does it make sense to condemn another and much larger generation to the ravages of poverty? They know better than anyone that one cannot pay the rent and feed the kids on welfare, and now, one cannot feed the kids and pay the rent even when working full-time.

We promised, all of us and all of our parties, to end child poverty. We know it can be done. We know how to do it. Let us begin with a simple and small step. Let us make history this morning and pass this bill to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. Can we afford to raise the minimum wage? The question truly is, can we afford not to?

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Phil McNeely (Ottawa—Orléans): I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak to this Employment Standards Amendment Act, Bill 150, that the member from Parkdale—High Park has brought forward.

On the one hand, I empathize with those holding jobs and not making a living wage -- single parents, many of them young mothers, trying to raise a family on their own. In Ontario, 191,000 workers earn minimum wage. That's an awful lot of families. Many are new Canadians trying to establish their families in Canada. About another million earn less than the $10 per hour. So I can understand the member bringing this bill forward. I think it certainly brings the issue forward in this province.

Our government promised to raise the minimum wage, and we did that. Just to go back historically, the Conservative government had it frozen for their full term in government. They cut nutritional supplements by $37 million. They cut social supports with a 21% cut in welfare rates. The NDP period in the 1990s was not one that they could be proud of either. The Conservatives, though, made war on poor people.

We raised the minimum wage. It hadn't been changed from 1995. It was $6.85 then, and it was $6.85 in 2003. On February 1, 2004, it was $7.15; in 2005, $7.45; on February 1, 2006, as it is now, $7.75. It will rise to $8, as we had promised, on February 1, 2007.

This gradual raise in the minimum wage allows businesses, especially small businesses, to adjust. Should we freeze the minimum wage as the Conservatives had done for eight long years? Absolutely not. We must be looking at what happens after February 1, 2007. So while I support the member from Parkdale—High Park and her endeavours to help those at the bottom of the pay scale, raising the minimum wage by $2.25 an hour would, in the long run, hurt many more low-income people than it would help.

I operated a small business for 35 years. We had from five to 100 people. Unfortunately, you have to compete as a small business. If we paid more than our competitors, we didn't get the business. We didn't get it then, and the businesses would be in the same position now. The competition is much more acute in 2006 and likely will not moderate in the near future.

As a government, we strive to keep the existing jobs in periods of low economic growth. The downturn in the United States, the offshore competition from the Third World and the high Canadian dollar all influence our job retention and creation. Higher minimum wage will surely cause job losses. As a government, we will evaluate what impacts -- both positive and negative -- that higher minimum wage will have and act accordingly. We have raised the minimum wage. We can evaluate the impacts of the last two to three years and propose future action.

The member's bill is well-meaning, but if more people at the lower end of the economic scale are hurt than are helped by a sudden 20% increase in minimum wage, we must consider that.

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound—Muskoka): It's my pleasure to join in the debate today on this private member's bill put forward by the member for Parkdale—High Park, to increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour. I certainly understand that the member for Parkdale—High Park has the best interests of the working poor in mind when she proposes this bill, but I am concerned it will do more harm than good.

I note that she is also the small business critic. I certainly suggest she consult with small businesses around the province and get their perspective on how this will affect their business and how it will affect employment in their business, particularly.

I note that the reaction in today's North Day Nugget from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and they are certainly quite concerned. They state:

"Hiking minimum wage to $10 an hour would hurt small businesses at a time when they're under increasing pressure from a sluggish economy to remain competitive, says the group representing them.

"To that end, the Ontario members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business are hoping a private member's bill up for debate Thursday will die. The proposed legislation would bump minimum wage to $10 from the current $7.75.

"'The last thing that you want is to further ratchet up costs on businesses at a time when things are beginning to slow down,' said Satinder Chera, director of provincial affairs for the federation, referring to the weakening economy and the loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector."

I note, further down in the article, that the Premier is quoted, and he states: "'You've always got to be careful when you unilaterally hike business costs on businesses,' he said Wednesday as he entered his weekly cabinet ministers meeting." That, coming from Mr. McGuinty, who, after he was elected in 2003, in January 2004, effectively increased corporate taxes for large corporations by 27% as he didn't follow through with the planned decrease, and, in fact, increased the large corporation tax to 14%. So he certainly didn't follow his own advice, and we're starting to see the slowing economy.

I remember back to the days when, some 30 years ago, I had an economics professor at Ryerson -- W.H. Pope, Harry Pope -- who, I might note, ran twice for the NDP, unsuccessfully both times for the nomination, I recall. In those economics classes, he would show us graphs showing that increasing minimum wage results in fewer jobs being available.

I note a study from Dr. David Macpherson, who was looking at Arizona where their minimum wage is only $5.15, and they are looking at increasing it to $6.75. I'll quote from it:

"This paper by economist Dr. David Macpherson from Florida State University analyzes the proposed initiative to increase the minimum wage in Arizona from $5.15 to $6.75 in January 2007, and index it to inflation starting in January 2008. By using Current Population Survey data and labour demand estimates, this research shows that the proposed increase will be an expensive mandate on the employers -- and citizens -- of Arizona. Even more troubling, this enormous expense will do little to increase the quality of life for the state's poor -- and will greatly worsen conditions for those who lose their jobs following the increase.

"The poor targeting of this proposal is clear in the distribution of benefits -- and burdens -- that are anticipated from the increase. Nearly 70% of the benefits will go to families above the poverty line, with more than 25% of the benefits going to families with annual incomes of over $60,000. Unfortunately, the families living in poverty will bear the brunt of the attendant job loss, with 37% of the job loss accruing to families with annual incomes of less than $25,000. The least-skilled members in the workforce will also suffer disproportionately, with high school dropouts experiencing 29% of the job loss.

"Overall, the minimum wage hike is projected to cause 4,627 employees to lose their jobs, causing an annual income loss of $54.8 million for these employees. The leisure and hospitality industry will be particularly hard hit, bearing 66% of the job loss. Meanwhile, employers' labour costs would go up $87.4 million annually. The findings reported in this paper, and the calculation of the enormous economic cost of a mandated wage increase, ought to temper enthusiasm for a minimum wage hike, especially since the proposed initiative would confer most of its benefits on families who are not poor and impose a significant burden on those who are."

It's well-intentioned, but, as I say, this increase, especially a sudden increase, could do more harm than good. The fact is, a strong economy leads to higher wages.

Prior to being an MPP, I was in small to medium-sized business for many years. The fact is, when the economy booms, you have a tighter labour market and it's a necessity that you pay above minimum wage to attract employees, especially to attract good-quality employees. So when the economy is doing better, you're able to pay more and you have to pay more.

We need to address the other challenges that are facing the working poor. I note that the past PC government removed hundreds of thousands of working poor from paying any provincial income tax. So now hundreds of thousands of people do not pay provincial income tax, but as you start to earn more, there are huge roadblocks or stumbling blocks in the way to doing better, and we need to look at those. For example, there are very significant marginal tax increases as people and families start to earn more money. They run into some significant increases in the marginal tax rate they pay, which has the effect of keeping them poor.

We also need to do things like remove the health tax that was imposed by this government, one of the largest tax increases we've seen in recent years and one that the government, prior to being elected, said they weren't going to bring in. They said they weren't going to bring in any tax, as the Premier stated to the cameras in the election campaign.

We need to do what we can to support those who are earning minimum wage and the working poor to develop the skills to be able to increase their earning potential, to support apprenticeship programs, to support skilled training.

This past Friday, I was up at Shawanaga First Nation. I had a meeting with a councillor at Shawanaga First Nation. In talking with him, he described how his son is very keen to apprentice to be a plumber or an electrician but that he can't find an employer to take him on because -- well, we were speculating as to why he couldn't, but I think one of the problems is that there aren't the incentives necessary to make it worthwhile for the employers to take on these people who are keen to apprentice, keen to improve their skills.

If you become a plumber or an electrician, you're going to be earning some pretty good wages. So that's the sort of thing we need to do to improve the skills of those who might otherwise be earning minimum wage so they can earn far, far above minimum wage.

It's my feeling with minimum wage increases that we do need to increase the minimum wage; we need to do it, I would argue, every year. I would argue that we need to increase the minimum wage tied to cost-of-living increases, and we need to do it every year so that it's not a shock to businesses. But bringing in a sudden increase -- I don't know what the percentage is, but probably 30% -- at one time, especially at a time when the economy is slowing, could very much hurt business and cause major reductions in the number of people employed and thereby will actually do more harm than good.

I support the intent of the member's bill, and that is to help the working poor and those who need help, but I do feel that her bill would do more harm than good.

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto—Danforth): It's my pleasure to rise today in support of the bill put forward by my colleague Ms. DiNovo from Parkdale—High Park.

I find it extraordinary that we're having a debate on this -- no offence to my colleague. Frankly, it makes complete sense to do what she's proposing. She should be able to bring this in and simply have all-party consent, because it's entirely logical and entirely reasonable.

This society here in Ontario is set up and operates in the context of a country that is amongst the wealthiest in the world, at the wealthiest period in the world's history, and we're squabbling and debating about whether or not we will give the poorest of our citizens what really amounts to a small but fair wage increase? I find it extraordinary. Is this society poor? Is the economy over decades in decline, or is it rising?

I tell you, anyone who looks around at the BMW dealerships, at the jewellery stores on Bloor Street, at the high-end apparel stores, knows that this society is becoming richer and richer, with a 21% increase in incomes in Ontario since 1995. It is not getting poorer. But the poorest amongst us are getting poorer. They aren't getting their fair share, and it's the role of government -- this government, we the legislators -- to act on behalf of those who need to have that fair share.

There are real impacts to poverty, real day-to-day impacts in terms of people's lives and health, in terms of safety and security, in terms of potential for people to take full advantage of all that life has to offer. I used to chair the board of health at the city of Toronto -- a lot of people in municipal government have sat on boards of health -- and one of the things we talked about was determinants of health: What makes people healthy? What makes a society healthy? A key

part is making sure that people have an income that provides them with enough money to eat regularly and well, have a roof over their head and clothe themselves. The current minimum wage is not adequate to do that. The initiative taken by Ms. DiNovo will move us towards protecting the health of a big chunk of the population, a big part of which is children who deserve the protection of this government and the legislators in this chamber.

I want to say as well that in terms of safety and security in a society, to the extent that large numbers of people live on the edge of desperation and don't have adequate food and shelter, you encourage the growth of vandalism, of theft, because people become angry. When people are desperate, when people are constantly uncomfortable because they're not eating enough, when people are constantly overcrowded, you generate an anger that in the end is reflected not just within the four walls of that home but in society as a whole. If you want a safe, secure, peaceful society, you make sure that everyone has a decent life.

I'm running short on time, and my colleagues want to speak. But I want to just note, in terms of the question of job creation, that even the Toronto Star has written, "Poverty No Way to Preserve Jobs." You know what? Ms. DiNovo and the Star are right: Impoverishment of a part of our population is not a strategy for job creation. It's a strategy that is a dead end for our society.

I urge every legislator here, no matter what the instructions are from their party, to vote in favour of this bill.

Mr. Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward—Hastings): I am pleased to speak to this bill, but it is a very difficult one to speak to because I don't believe there's one member in this Legislature who is not concerned about child poverty and not concerned about their constituents and fellow Ontarians doing better. How we help those who need our help most is a very difficult issue. I have learned over the years that for every difficult question, there is usually a simple but wrong solution to it, and I believe this is a wrong solution. If I can use a phrase I like, I would describe this as the right medicine but the wrong dosage.

I'm not opposed to an increase in the minimum wage. The question is, is $10 the right number? I'm not an economist. I read and I respect the opinions of economists. But I can reflect over my own life, and when I was 100 years younger, I did grass-cutting for people in my community. I learned that I really didn't have the freedom to set any price I wanted because if I set my price too high, there was this kid down the road who would do it a little bit cheaper than me, so instead of my making the huge sum of about 50 cents, I think it was at that time, I made nothing.

I learned that the price I had to set on my work depended not on what I wanted or what I needed but on the marketplace; it depended on what the other people in my community were going to set as a price.

I have watched since then, particularly in my own community, and have observed how everything is interconnected. There is no separate, isolated issue we deal with, even in bills we deal with here in terms of a number of other bills and other legislation and other people they affect. So I look at my own community. I can have a small factory, perhaps, that manufactures items it exports from this province or perhaps even from this country, and just down the road is a corner store. Both have my constituents employed there.

It's tempting to think that the pay in those two places is not connected, that they're quite different jobs, but in fact they are connected. The salary or the wage or whatever is going to be paid at that small factory is influenced by what is being paid at its competitors in Ontario and in Canada. I would note that at $10 an hour this province would have the highest minimum wage in Canada, which is going to create some problems when competing with others.

You know, life was much simpler when I was 10 or 15 years old, because we bought and sold and did things within our own community and what happened on the other side of the world was not relevant to us. I can remember when we first started getting toys. If it said "Made in Japan," you knew they were junk 40 years ago, folks, but they're not junk now. Across the world, they make products that compete strongly with us.

So in terms of what the employer in Belleville or in Picton is paying, he or she has to take into consideration what is being paid in China or in Venezuela or in Japan or any other country in the world. And the wage they're paying over there, which influences the wage at my factory in my community, influences what's being paid at the corner store, because there's competition for employees. There's increasing competition for employees. So we have to consider that there is a point at which industry is no longer competitive.

There was a statement made here earlier in the debate that it's the job of the government to look after our citizens, and certainly I can see that from a strong perspective. But I would suggest, more so, that it's a role of government to provide opportunities for its citizens. I have no better example of that than the Dalton McGuinty education initiatives that we have seen take place, the number of opportunities that have been created for individuals to go to post-secondary that weren't there four and five years ago.

We need to create the opportunities for our citizens to be successful, but we need to ensure that we can remain competitive, because being unemployed at $10 an hour, I would suggest, is far worse than being employed at $8 an hour. A 25% increase in the minimum wage in one fell swoop would make life very, very difficult for businesses to compete. "Everything in moderation" is told to us from a health viewpoint, but I would suggest that applies to other things too.

I know I speak on behalf of my party in saying that we are concerned about child poverty and about incomes in Ontario, but we realize that we have to maintain a balance. We have to ensure that the opportunities are still there. If our businesses thrive, our citizens thrive, and vice versa. And I know I speak for my party when I say we are prepared to look at the minimum wage issue, but this particular bill I cannot support in its present form.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock): It's a pleasure to speak this morning to Bill 150,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, introduced by the member from Parkdale—High Park. I certainly congratulate her again on winning a seat in the Legislature in the recent by-election.

I appreciate the comments made earlier by my colleagues on all sides of the House, and I'm pleased to have the opportunity to share some of my comments in addition to those that have been made by my colleague from Parry Sound—Muskoka.

In my riding of Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, there's a huge dependency on the success of small and medium-sized businesses. I was pleased to recognize their vital importance in contribution during Small Business Month and Small Business Week, which just recently occurred. In Kawartha Lakes alone, the largest part of my riding, there are over 2,400 enterprises, with nearly 2,300 of those being referred to as small or mid-sized businesses, so it's quite safe to say that small business is the backbone of my riding. Most of those small entities are within the agricultural sector.

My riding is the third-largest agriculture employer in the entire province, with over 9,600 full-time and 5,800 part-time employees. The relevancy of this issue is the severe impact Bill 150 will have on those vital industries, such as the agriculture sector that I mentioned. Many of the businesses are small, family-owned farms that have been part of the fabric and culture of my riding for generations. There are already too many demands on Ontario's rural and agricultural communities and businesses.

According to my chamber of commerce in Kawartha Lakes, over 50 farms went out of business last year -- quite a startling statistic. Downloads like the Clean Water Act, which we've seen, are just adding more weight onto the backs of rural Ontarians who are already struggling. Many of the farm owners in my riding have other jobs and other means of income; they're working off the farm to supplement the losses.

Increasing wages is one more challenge. Businesses that can't sustain this are simply going to close their doors with this sudden increase. Forcing businesses to close shop as a result of government-induced increases to wages is counterproductive. It doesn't make the least bit of sense to drive small and mid-sized businesses out of business, literally, taking jobs away.

I came across an interesting statistic from StatsCan on a minimum-wage fact sheet from 2005. It has some interesting points I'll quote. Nearly half of all minimum wage workers are in the age group of 15 to 19, and a majority of those were either in school full- or part-time. Workers in agriculture may be compensated for lower wages through non-wage benefits such as free room and board. Almost two thirds of minimum wage workers live with their parents or another family member.

We've heard about job losses with closings in the manufacturing sector. Our caucus has mentioned this repeatedly to the House. It's a huge concern for all of us -- huge. When the Minister of Finance brought in his Economic Outlook last week, my colleague from Erie—Lincoln did a great presentation in the House discussing the concerns we have with respect to such growing economic uncertainty. This legislation, Bill 150, in my opinion really doesn't take to heart how much we need to be careful about artificially increasing the costs to Ontarians to run small and mid-sized businesses.

The McGuinty Liberals have dramatically increased the costs for businesses since 2003, including the minimum wage increase. To saddle our businesses with more burdens isn't sustainable, and on this side of the House we don't want to see more businesses closing their doors; we don't want to drive more small businesses out of the province. It's just too difficult as it is to run a small business in the province.

I don't question for one second the fact that lower-income workers aren't good, hard-working people and very valuable contributors to our communities. They are. These good people, often newer Canadians or Ontarians, many of them single parents, like all of us in the House, want only the best for their children.

I appreciate the member from Parkdale—High Park's intentions. There's no doubt that her commitment to help the struggling members of her community is why she is here as a member of this Legislature. But I think she would agree that most of these struggling members of our communities aren't looking for a freebie or a simple handout. What they're looking for are all the tools that will help them to succeed. That's where we as legislators step up our efforts, by providing those hard-working people with these tools.

As I said, Bill 150 places too much burden on Ontario's already struggling businesses to make a handout. We can't continue to lean on the backs of our small businesses in Ontario. What we need to do is look at other support programs and some forward-thinking initiatives. Handouts aren't the answer and they never have been.

Just last week I was thrilled to join people in my riding in the Job Connect Ontario facility. They opened their new offices. They're merging, community members working together, to find people jobs in their communities. The previous PC government brought in tax reforms for Ontario's hard-working families and took nearly 800,000 low-income earners off the Ontario income tax rolls. That's the type of forward thinking that provides a hand up.

A minimum wage increase isn't the answer by itself. We can't afford to see Ontario business saddled with an increased burden, so --

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins—James Bay): Sorry, I can't agree with you.

Ms. Scott: That's fine. That's why we're in different parties and have different opinions in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning on Bill 150.

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches—East York): I stand in support of this bill and in support of my colleague from Parkdale—High Park. Where I come from is probably a very different place than most of you. I come from a place called Regent Park. That's where I grew up. Every lesson I learned in my life I learned very early. One of the lessons was that the people who went to work and the people who struggled there worked for minimum wage and they worked in crummy jobs.

They worked in factory jobs, they worked in jobs where their health was at risk, where they often lost limbs, where they breathed in toxins, where everything bad happened, and they worked for minimum wage. When they left one job to go to another job, they usually left in order to try to better themselves. It might be a nickel an hour, it might be 10 cents an hour, but it was just barely above minimum wage. That's why they would leave and go from job to job. They would work horrendous hours and night shift and everything, trying to get out of that minimum-wage trap.

I looked at the small businesses and the businesses around there, and they often would compete. The biggest factor they had was trying to retain their staff, because people were forced to leave for what was in those days five cents or 10 cents an hour, and they had their problems too.

I look today: Who is it who pays minimum wage? We've heard people talking about the small business people. It is not the small business people alone who pay minimum wage. In fact most of them, if they are good small business people, know that they have to pay more than minimum wage to keep people, especially the good ones, working for them. Who is it who pays minimum wage?

The largest corporation, one of the largest in the world, is Wal-Mart. If you get this month's edition of the Economist -- I think every Liberal should read that. Sam Walton and his descendents brag about the fact that they themselves have driven down wages in the United States by 2%. They brag about that. If you look at the Wal-Mart stores that pay minimum wage in Canada, you will see that they have horrendous practices with their employees. I won't shop in that store. Nobody can work more than five hours in a row because then they have to let them have lunch. So they don't let them have lunch. And they pay minimum wage.

When you go out to McDonald's to buy a hamburger, remember that every one of those hamburgers of one of the largest corporations that's traded in Standard and Poor's 500 is made with minimum wage.

That's who it is. That's whom we should be aiming at. If the largest corporations in this country, if the largest corporations in the world, can pay and do pay minimum wage, we should know that they are doing it on the backs of the poor, the young, the immigrants, the women and the people who are desperate to try to find the money; who work five hours at Wal-Mart and run down the street to work five hours at McDonald's, knowing they're not going to get a lunch in either, just to try to make it.

My colleague is absolutely right. We need to pass this law. I am appalled, quite frankly, at the arguments I have heard. I respect all of my colleagues but I am appalled at the arguments. The Conservatives invent the clawback; the Liberals perpetuate it. The Conservatives stop workers and farmers in agricultural big-farm communities from forming unions; the Liberals perpetuate it. The Conservatives cut welfare rates; the Liberals cut the special diet allowances. I don't know how you're any different.

If you want to help the poor, this is perhaps the only thing you can do. I beg you to make a difference to poor people. Give them a living wage; give them an opportunity to provide for themselves and the dignity that comes with a job that doesn't force you into poverty.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Let me say at the outset that I will be supporting this bill, not only because I've represented the area of Parkdale for about 17 years, but also because I've represented some of the very same people that the new member from Parkdale—High Park represents. Congratulations to you, belatedly, on your election.

Who would not want to discuss this issue in the Legislature? Who wouldn't want to discuss how we can share wealth, our common wealth that we're a part of, with those most vulnerable families? So this discussion is very apt. But there are some questions I would like the member from Parkdale—High Park to answer if she possibly could. The questions revolve around the issue of repercussions. Are there any repercussions if the wage is going to be raised from $7.75 to $10, more than 23%?

The first question I have for her would be, has the member discussed this matter with members in other provinces? For instance, Ms. DiNovo said earlier that it's true that Yukon is paying a minimum wage of $8.50, I think it is. The Northwest Territories are paying a minimum wage of $8.25, and Nunavut is paying $8.25 as well.

I'm wondering, what are the repercussions if we're paying $10 here in Ontario? They're paying over $8 right now in the Northwest Territories, but what are the repercussions if we're paying more than they're paying? May it not be true that the reason there is an $8.50 minimum wage in our north is in order to attract the workers there? And I'm wondering, if we were paying $10, whether we would be attracting the same workers to stay and even attracting workers from other provinces to come to Ontario. I don't know. I'm asking her, what are these repercussions and has she thought about it?

Secondly, she says there is no relationship between the minimum wage and job losses. If that's the case, if there is no relationship between the minimum wage and job losses, then why are we stopping at $10? Why wouldn't we continue and say we'd take the example of Australia and Ireland and other places that are saying, "We cannot stop at $10. Why not stop at $13 or even more?" I wonder what would be the repercussions of that.

I hear other members from even our party, and certainly the Progressive Conservative Party, saying that there is a definite link between job losses and the minimum wage, no questions asked, and yet we hear that there are other places where this is indeed not the case. But I would like to find out, of course: Why stop at $10? I would like an answer to that.

My third question in terms of what are the repercussions of raising the minimum wage to $10 --

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity—Spadina): And that's a guy who supports this bill.

Mr. Ruprecht: I thought I would get some support from this party on this point, but they're beginning to heckle me. I think I made a mistake right here.

But let me ask you this: Why did the NDP not raise the minimum wage by 22%, 23% or 24% when they were in power? We know for sure that the same members who are in the opposite benches right now -- I'm looking into their eyes -- the very same members were there. They certainly, Ms. DiNovo, could have done what you propose to do. They could have taken this same example of Australia and Ireland and said, "Yes, we will follow in the same footsteps and raise the minimum wage to $13." They could have done it and they chose not to do it. Why?

The fourth question I have to ask is, and I hope she will consider that as well, and I know the NDP will consider this as well: Are there not other ways to help vulnerable families, vulnerable people? Why not link them up with the minimum wage as well?

Look at what the Liberals have done as an example.

Interjection.

Mr. Ruprecht: That's right. The McGuinty government has invested $10.3 billion annually for families on social services -- $10.3 billion. Families on social assistance with kids under six will keep all of the $1,200 per year they'll receive from the federal government.

Liberals ended the 60-hour workweek; we've introduced job protection; family medical leave for employees who wish to stay home to care for gravely ill loved ones; 15,000 new affordable housing units, homes and emergency shelters; 5,000 rent supplements; a 5% increase for homelessness and programs of emergency shelters; $8.5 million for student nutrition programs, which I think is one of the most important issues -- 84,000 more students are being served and that's a 45% increase in terms of nutrition in the schools; economic stability; a 5% increase in social assistance, and on and on it goes.

In short, congratulations. You've raised an important issue, and I will be supporting it.

Mr. Marchese: The member from Davenport stands up to say he supports the bill and then enumerates a long list of reasons why he's opposed to it, and he doesn't even realize it. He also says the NDP didn't do anything with the minimum wage. We raised the minimum wage in a recession, and he was here then. One wonders whether he was in fact here at the time.

It is so easy for those who are privileged to raise questions as to why the poor should not get an increase. It is so easy for Monsieur McGuinty to stand up and say, "We'd love to get it to 12 bucks, maybe even to 22 bucks, but you know there are implications on business." There are no implications for the poor, only on business. We worry about business but we don't worry about the working poor.

Where is the member from Davenport when you need him and all the other members in this Legislature when you need them? These members and others who are so privileged are able to sleep cosily at night in their nice homes and not worry about those who earn less than $8 an hour. It's so easy to be privileged, earn a good salary and sleep well at night, have good health and worry about business, while those who earn $6.50, $7.50 an hour have to struggle day in and day out.

We have growing food bank use in this province in a Liberal administration, as we had under a Conservative administration. The growth of food banks is happening in a good economy. Poverty is growing in a good economy under a Liberal administration and under a Conservative administration. Those who want to get into a housing complex project where it's affordable are waiting for the government to create it and help them with some subsidy, and that list is growing in a good economy under a Liberal administration.

The poor are less healthy than those who are privileged. We all know that. We don't even need a study for that. We say that we need to be competitive with those economies where some of those companies pay $2 a day. We want to compete with that? What kind of moral standards are we advocating for? When we in this country, where inflation is growing, have a problem with people just barely making enough to scrape by, how do we live with that?

So I don't appeal to the politicians here. The Liberals will vote for this measure even though they're opposing it today, at least those who are speaking. The people I'm appealing to are those who are watching this program, those individuals who are here today and listening to this debate. They're the ones who have to put pressure on those privileged individuals in this House. They're the ones who have to put pressure on business that's unwilling to pay a living wage.

If we want to deal with poverty, don't let the politicians deal with this. You've got to deal with it. You are the one who has to go in their offices and make a case as to why poverty is immoral in this country, as indeed anywhere in the world, and that we don't compete by bringing salaries down; we compete by making sure people are earning a decent wage. That's what keeps us human. That's what being human is all about. If we're not committed to that, we're committed to the lowest common denominator of an economy that I cannot support and you, some of you, good Liberals, should not be supporting either.

I hope the people listening will put pressure on this government to do the right thing and to support this simple motion for human decency, human living standards and human living wages put forth by our colleague from Parkdale—High Park.

Mr. Bisson: I really want to echo and I'd love to repeat all the things that were said by my colleagues, because I agree with Mr. Marchese and others who have spoken to this bill on the need.

The contribution that I want to make is this: I hear members on the Liberal side and I hear Conservative members saying, "We really worry about business." You know what? The Wal-Marts of this world, the McDonalds of this world, the Beaver Lumbers, the Home Depots -- they're not the ones that you've got to worry about. They are large corporations; they're not small mom-and-pop stores. Quite frankly, those people can well afford to make sure that workers are paid a living wage. For us to all of a sudden say, "Maybe we can't do this because it's going to hurt business" -- I say that is not the case.

In fact, there are studies that have come out taking a look at this particular issue. I have but one with me here, an entire volume that has been written about the myth and measurements of the economics of the minimum wage. The conclusion of it is, you can't afford not to, because you know as well as I do that the person living on minimum wage spends his or her income in that local community. Who benefits? It's the small business community. If I'm making 10 bucks an hour living in Timmins on minimum wage, I go buy at mom-and-pop stores in my community. The money stays there.

It doesn't go off to Bermuda in some savings account or a tax-sheltered account somewhere on the Cayman Islands; it stays in your local community. I say to members across the way, to say that you can't afford to raise the minimum wage -- this is a small-business-friendly thing because, in the end, the workers will pay that money back.

The other point that we need to make and we need to be clear on is the whole issue in regard to people's ability to go to work in the morning, make a decent wage and provide for their families. What's clear is, there are other jurisdictions -- the United States, which is not known as the most progressive social economy in the world, pays a higher minimum wage than we do here in Ontario. If George Bush can pay a higher minimum wage to workers in the United States, certainly to God we can, here in Ontario, treat our citizens well, the people who live in the province of Ontario, by making sure they get better than the minimum wage.

I say to my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, congratulations to my good friend Madam Cheryl -- Cheri -- DiNovo. Excuse me; I do that. I can't get nobody's name straight.

Laughter.

Mr. Bisson: It's an inside joke. I'm not going there.

I just say, congratulations, because this is work that needs to be done. What we do know is that minimum wage is something that affects the hardest-working people in the province when it comes to their ability to make an income. I think we need to do something to help them along.

The Deputy Speaker: Ms. DiNovo, you have two minutes to respond.

Ms. DiNovo: To sum up, first of all, to my honourable colleagues, really we're not talking about a raise in the minimum wage; we're talking about catch-up to 1972. We're talking about catch-up to what we used to pay workers in 1972 in real dollars, after inflation. That's what we're talking about: catch-up. We have built our economy on their backs. It's time to pay what's due to the workers in this province.

Second of all, I want to know how this move to raise our minimum wage to $10 is going to hurt Sandra, the woman I talked about who is making $1,300 a month, or Maheswary, who was making $1,100 a month, or the 1.2 million in this province who are making under $10 an hour. I'd like to know how it's going to hurt them. How is it going to hurt them to raise their salaries so they can pay the rent and feed their children? That's what we're talking about: feeding their children and paying their rent.

We're not alone here. As you heard Mr. Marchese say, we stand here in front of a cloud of witnesses in this province. We stand here in front of the mainly women and many immigrants who are cleaning our businesses, who are preparing our food, who are looking after our children. How are we going to look them in the eye? I ask honourable members, how are they going to look those people in the eye and say, "I did not support a $10 minimum wage"? Do you know why $10 and why not $15 or $20? Because that's the poverty line. We're talking about bringing people up to the poverty line by working 40 hours a week.

On what ethical basis can you deny this? I want to know how every MPP votes, and I'm looking forward to the Hansard, because when we ring those bells and bring those votes in, everybody will know how their MPP voted. I say, shame on anyone who votes against this bill, absolutely.

And it's not just the women; it's their children too. Their children will be watching. So I say, please, please do the right thing. Vote --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

STREET SAFETY

AWARENESS MONTH ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LE MOIS DE LA SENSIBILISATION

À LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES RUES

Mr. Kular moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 145,

An Act to proclaim the month of May as Street Safety Awareness Month / Projet de loi 145, Loi proclamant le mois de mai Mois de la sensibilisation à la sécurité dans les rues.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Kular, pursuant to standing order 96, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Kuldip Kular (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale): I wish to thank you for allowing me to speak today about an important issue that concerns us all. It affects all Ontarians, and that issue is the safety of our streets. Ontario's city streets are more dangerous now than ever before with more young drivers on our roads, the distractions of iPods, BlackBerries and cellphones, to name a few. The drivers today are left multi-tasking during driving.

Children no longer feel safe walking across the streets in their own communities, and sadly, many youths feel that in today's society it's better to carry a gun or a knife rather than a book. On our streets there's everything from traffic accidents to kidnappings to gang violence and graffiti.

But I'm not here today to speak to you about the dangers on our streets -- something we're all well aware of. I'm here today to ask that we recognize the numerous organizations out there educating the public, helping out our children and supporting our community to help our environment become safer for everyone.

The objective of proclaiming the month of May as safety awareness month is to recognize the dangers on our streets, to foster a change in our attitudes and behaviours surrounding street safety and to prevent any further tragedies from happening. This Bill 145 would recognize all existing safety programs in Ontario, from pedestrian safety to safe rail-crossing programs. These small steps we take today will undoubtedly set priorities and standards for tomorrow and will make everyone in Ontario feel safe and secure in their own communities.

Many people do not recognize the numerous programs in place helping to make our communities safer. Ontario is fortunate to have a number of programs that help this cause. Among some of them are the Block Parent program, offering children the reassurance that they can turn to their neighbours for help. The year 2003 marked the program's 35th anniversary. The mandate of Block Parents is to provide a network of police-screened, easily recognizable, safe homes for members of the community, especially children, to turn to in times of distress.

Another organization, the Crime Prevention Association of Toronto, formerly known as Crime Concern, understands that helping reduce crime is much more than physical security, locks and alarms; it's about educating the public about safety, developing partnerships, as well as creating a connection among all communities. CPAT, like the Community Police Liaison Committee, attempts to foster a connection between the community and the police. These programs try to encourage people to safeguard against street violence by promoting safety.

Some of the other programs include Neighbourhood Watch, a program where residents report noticed suspicious activities in their communities, not only to the local police department, but also to each other. The Neighbourhood Watch program holds Neighbours' Night Out, a chance for local community residents to gather together in a casual setting and discuss with law enforcers local issues that matter to them and affect their communities.

Most recently, the Toronto Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy, with the assistance of community residents, identified problem areas where street violence is likely to occur within a community. This program helps authorities to develop a strategy to target locations and people in an effort to reduce violence and restore a feeling of safety in their own community.

Take Back the Night, another program, is also a program that is designed to increase understanding of the issues of violence against women and children on our streets. Its goal is to make our city streets safer for everyone.

MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, is a well-respected and well-known organization which aims to offer support services to victims, heighten awareness about the dangers of drinking and driving, and save lives and prevent injuries on our roads.

There are too many organizations and programs within Ontario to mention them all. Each, in its own way, contributes to changes within their communities to make their communities safe.

Very recently, there have been plans to make over crosswalks in Ontario to give drivers an early warning stopping system and, by extension, to help save lives. It is suggested that the addition of white zebra stripes will add to safety on our streets. They are currently being considered by Toronto city council.

Over the summer, we had the chance to vote for the worst street. Suffice it to say, there were quite a few that made the list. The competition, launched province-wide, is now in its fourth consecutive year. Since its launch, the Municipal Roads Coalition has added numerous changes to our streets, including spotlighting on 46 offensive roads. By taking these safety and security measures, our streets will become safer.

Most people, unfortunately, recall Holli, the 11-year-old girl who was struck at an Etobicoke crosswalk last January. Figures show that two people die every day on Ontario's roadways and over 200 are injured due to preventable causes like distraction, drowsiness and speeding. It's unfortunate that it takes the death of a young child for us to realize that changes need to be made.

Holli symbolizes what we are trying to prevent and, one day, eliminate: death on our streets. With all the organizations and programs in Ontario, we may just one day accomplish this. With the multitude of programs dedicated to promoting street safety, there is no telling how many lives have already been saved.

In my own riding of Bramalea—Gore-Malton—Springdale, a total of 6,157 people -- both pedestrians and drivers -- were involved in collisions; 16 of those were fatal. This is to say, 16 lives could have been saved.

In Brampton, we have the Safer Communities—1,000 Officers Partnership program, which is a key part of our government's plan to foster safer and stronger communities within Ontario. When the project initiated, these new officers went out to patrol our streets and help prevent crime and make our communities safer. With the help of this program, we have safer and more educated communities.

That's why I have brought this bill forward. I would like to have support from all the members of this Legislature.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto—Danforth): First of all, I would like to thank the member for bringing forward this bill. I had an opportunity to meet him in the course of travelling around Ontario on Bill 43. I thought he had some very useful observations on what we were hearing and what was going on in Ontario.

I have to say, even though I will be supporting the bill, I think the scope of the bill is a bit narrow. When we talk about crime and safety on our streets, we have to talk about a much bigger picture. Let's face it. What are the sources of crime? Simply operating Neighbourhood Watch programs -- and I've been involved with them in my time over the last few decades -- is not enough. Frankly, our police, as capable as they are, as well trained as they are, cannot in the end make our streets safe.

Unless we deal with the roots of crime, unless we deal with the roots of other safety issues that have been raised by the member, we aren't going to have the safety on our streets that we need, that people in this province deserve.

So I want to talk a bit first about the sources of crime, and I would hope that the member, if he's successful in bringing forward this bill, will honour not only those who fight to organize communities against crime but those who fight for food banks, who fight against child poverty, who fight for increasing the minimum wage; in fact, those who fight to address the root causes of crime. I will talk about those briefly.

Obviously, poverty contributes to crime. Anyone can look around the world and see that in situations where you have great poverty, you tend to have more theft, you tend to have more vandalism; you tend to have crimes that grow out of need and out of desperation. I've had an opportunity in the last while to talk to friends of mine in new Canadian communities, people who come here who have credentials, who have experience overseas and find that in Canada their skills, their experience and their credentials are not recognized.

They tell me about the corrosive impact on their families, the loss of respect they suffer in dealing with their children because they are not able to provide as had been hoped. So one issue that has to be addressed is this whole question of ensuring that when new Canadians arrive here, they have the job opportunities and the recognition for their skills and credentials that they deserve.

Now, I'm not saying that everyone who comes here who faces hardship -- I'm not saying that everyone who is born here who faces hardship -- engages in crime. I think it speaks to the human spirit that it's a small percentage of the population that ultimately engages in what one could call destructive activity. But frankly, if we don't substantially address those social roots of poverty, if we don't address the difficulties faced by new Canadians, we breed destructive behaviour, we breed anger, we breed desperation and thus we breed things like vandalism, theft and drug addiction.

Racism: Racism in this province, in this country, is soul-destroying. Look at what happens to many black youth who are disproportionately unemployed in this province, disproportionately unemployed in other parts of Canada. For them, it means that they don't see a route ahead that takes many of them to a secure future, to an established home, to a career they can be proud of, and it opens the door for them to be exploited by those who are drug dealers and who offer a way of life that results fairly quickly in money coming in, even if that money comes in by way of drug dealing.

People are forced into a corner through racism, and although the number is small, they are drawn into a life of criminal activity that feeds insecurity and danger in our cities.

Minimum wage: We discussed this during the last hour. To the extent that people are paid by some of the largest corporations in the world a wage that keeps them a good chunk below the poverty line, we feed desperation, we feed pain, we feed hunger, we feed want, and thus we feed insecurity on our streets. If we are going to actually have public safety awareness month, then we have to talk about what creates that lack of safety.

Poverty is an issue that has to be addressed, and to the extent that this government doesn't address it, I look forward to using May as a month in which I can raise these issues and point out the lack of action on the part of the government to actually deal with the root causes.

When we think about crime, we have to recognize that it isn't just one source, that there are a variety of sources that contribute to dangerous or destructive behaviour. Child abuse: When children are abused, it can create an anger in that child that comes out in anger at others -- the words "inappropriate behaviour" understate it -- and can result in people being explosively angry in a way that is very dangerous for society. Swiss psychoanalyst Alice Miller wrote a series of books in the 1980s and 1990s about the impact of child abuse on criminal behaviour and the link between the two.

We should never forget that when we don't protect our children, when we don't have the right kinds of services in place, when we don't create a culture in this society of being child-protective, we sow the seeds for future dangerous activity. We sow the seeds for people to be self-destructive. We sow the seeds, in some instances, for drug addiction, because when people are self-destructive, when they carry that burden of anger and pain through their lives -- what's the term they use? -- they self-medicate. It doesn't matter whether it is legal or illegal; they self-medicate.

We -- and I have to repeat this -- still should be astounded at the strength of the human spirit, because so many are poor, so many are abused, and so few actually engage in criminal behaviour. But if we really want our streets to be safe, Neighbourhood Watch is not enough. We have to go to the roots.

It's interesting to me, because I'm dealing right now with problems in my riding with the fallout from drug addiction. A number of people in the south end of my riding, for whatever circumstances, and I don't know everyone's story, are drug-addicted, and those people engage in behaviours like prostitution, breaking and entering, robbery, theft. Frankly, there are some who stand up and say, "We can't get at what caused this problem in the first place, but we can help those who are drug-addicted now," those who have spoken out for methadone therapy.

I know it's extraordinarily controversial, but it was interesting to me, in the course of reading about methadone and drug addiction, to look at a publication by the government of the United Kingdom put out in the last few years. They looked at the impact of methadone therapy on drug addicts and their criminal behaviour: Breaking and entering, street theft, robbery -- dramatic reductions in those kinds of criminal behaviour when people who were addicted took a drug that dramatically reduced their addiction, reduced their need to get that particular drug.

It reduces the amount of income they have to bring in and reduces the amount of criminal activity. So I think if we have safety awareness month, we have to honour all those who fought against drug addiction, who fought for reasonable therapies and support for people who are drug-addicted, who fought to provide the methods and the substances to get them off addiction and back onto the straight and narrow.

In my riding, the Oasis centre was set up about 15 years ago by a businessman who had become an alcoholic. He had lost everything. He rebuilt his life to the extent that he opened a storefront, and drug addicts and alcoholics came there to straighten out their lives. I have to say that in terms of road safety, people on the road who are not drunk, in terms of people who are no longer dependent on drugs to get through the day and thus don't have to engage in any kind of crime, those who fight against addiction deserve a tremendous amount of respect and recognition. So Mr.

Kular is right: We need to recognize those in our community, in our neighbourhood, who have put forward Neighbourhood Watch, but we need to recognize those who actually go out and stop people from engaging in behaviour that feeds later criminal activity.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be sharing my time with my colleague, so I'll wrap up there. But I want to say that May has to become a roots of crime awareness month, and I know that that's a theme we will be weaving into this when this bill is adopted.

Mr. Jim Brownell (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh): It's certainly a pleasure for me to stand in the House today to support my colleague from Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale. I know that he has been an advocate in this Legislature and in his community for safe streets, for the safety of his community, and in bringing this bill forward, a bill that recognizes that we do have problems. He stood here today and indicated that in his community, in my community, in all our communities we do have problems. But we also have to work with those who help to bring an understanding that something has to be done.

I look at this bill as being an education bill, an awareness bill and a bill that's supported by so many organizations in our communities.

As I was sitting here just a few moments ago, I saw students walking into the gallery up here and I heard a little movement behind me. It brought me back to the time when I was teaching, in the 1970s, at a school in Cornwall, where a lady by the name of Mrs. Dobbyn came into the school. She was quite concerned about safety on the streets. She had three daughters, Carolyn, Jennifer and Linda; I taught all three.

She told the school community at a meeting one night about the problems that that part of Riverdale was having with regard to bullying on the streets, and this thought that there might be people doing things to children and young people. She wanted a safe haven for these people. She investigated the Block Parent program, brought that idea forward and, along with the community police from the city, she set up and established the first Block Parent program in the community, in the city of Cornwall. That program has multiplied throughout my riding.

I certainly know that when I moved schools -- I moved to Long Sault Public School and taught there for 20 years. Once again, when I got into that community I saw another group of parents who were interested, who had seen the positive effects of that program in the city of Cornwall. They decided that they wanted to put together a Block Parent program in that school community, not only for the school community but for young people in general to know that when that sign is in the window of a house, it's a safe haven; there's a safety network there for them to go to. So I watched that develop.

This is what I see as being part of this bill. The member from Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale indicated the objectives, three of them recognizing the dangers on our streets, and he commented about those: to foster a change in the attitudes and behaviours surrounding street safety and to prevent further tragedies from happening. But he went further, recognizing the existing safety programs that we have out there. I look at the Block Parent communities that he commented on, and he commented about Neighbourhood Watch.

I spent 14 years in municipal government and I watched as our smaller communities -- I come from a large rural riding -- were feeling greater occurrences of theft and whatnot. The OPP, which was always at our meetings, indicated too -- and I look at one neighbourhood, the neighbourhood of Bonville. I think it was Rosedale Terrace too, if memory serves me right; it was a little while ago that I was reeve of the old Cornwall township, which no longer exists. I remember the community coming, and the suggestion was: Why not establish a neighbourhood watch?

It's a great program where people watch out for one another, and this is what this bill is going to do. It's going to promote and it's going to recognize the volunteers. It's the volunteers who really are the backbone of these programs. It's going to recognize them and give them the opportunity of knowing that throughout Ontario we've set aside a month to understand the problems and to recognize the good work that they do.

I do want to say, and I'm glad to have had the opportunity to add a few remarks, congratulations to the member from Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale for his advocacy in wanting safe streets in our communities.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): I'm pleased to be able to make a few comments today about Bill 145,

An Act to proclaim the month of May as Street Safety Awareness Month.

I guess there are a couple of things I want to say about the title of the bill and about the bill in general. First of all, street safety comes in many, many forms. Whether or not there are drug dealers on the street, people with guns and gangs out there on the streets -- that's one aspect of it. The other part of Street Safety Awareness Month, of course, is the people who break the law while they're driving their vehicles, like street racing, people who drive aggressively, drive under the influence of alcohol. All these types of things are part of Street Safety Awareness Month as well, as far as I'm concerned.

I think it's so important a topic, the fact that we would talk about an awareness month, that I think, really, we have to look at this particular area. I think every day of the year should be Street Safety Awareness Day. I don't know whether we can actually identify one particular month, whether it works out well or not -- I'm not sure -- but I can tell you that we do want our streets safe in Ontario. Throughout Canada, we want our streets safe every day of the year.

We want our communities to feel safe, we want our people to feel comfortable, whether they're shopping, going out in the evening, taking their family for a walk. Whatever it may be, we want to make sure that the citizens of the province of Ontario feel safe every day.

That's one reason why our leader, last year on December 11, 2005, released his Time for Action report. You can remember the summer of 2005 and the terrible tragedies we had with the number of young people in our communities who lost their lives due to guns-and-gangs violence and the use of illegal handguns. I can tell you that that report has gone over very well. We've encouraged the government to try to adopt a number -- I believe there were 22 recommendations in that report.

I know that shortly after that terrible disaster on Yonge Street last year, when that young lady lost her life in that shooting on Boxing Day, in early January, the Premier identified that he would proceed with trying to put all the 1,000 new police officers in place by the end of this current year. That was the number one recommendation that John Tory had made in his report: to ensure that all of those police officers were actually put on the street by the end of this current year. Hopefully, that will happen.

We're keeping a close eye on that, but, as you know, Caledonia is overtaking the policing stories in Ontario. At the same time, we will closely monitor that to make sure that there are actions in place that will not allow something like that to ever happen again.

I know that across the province, as well, on a lot of our streets we have our community safety zones. I know that even in rural Ontario we have safety zones for basically dealing with aggressive driving. I'm not so sure that something like that can't even apply to people who are charged with criminal activity in safety zones across the province. For example, if someone was caught in possession of a handgun in a particular area, the zone may be -- I'm just making a suggestion, but the fact of the matter is that you may have a higher fine or a higher penalty, even if they were caught in a normal zone.

As we proceed through this bill and proceed through the legal system, when we actually charge and penalize people for the activities in breaking laws on our streets and roads in communities, we have to look at one thing: Is the court system working for them? I can tell you that in my area of the province we have the worst court backlogs, some people say, that we've seen in the last 40 years.

Right off the bat, if we're going to apply to have a Street Safety Awareness Month, we certainly have to make sure that when people are charged with criminal activities in these areas, they're not stuck in a rotating court system, the sort of catch-and-release court system we've seen in Ontario over the last two or three years. We absolutely have to have the proper justices of the peace and court officers in place to handle the backlog that's happening. I believe it's happening not only in the area I represent in the province but in other areas as well.

I don't have a lot of other comments to make on this, other than to say that obviously anyone would want to support a Street Safety Awareness Month, but we have to look at it in a broad spectrum and say, "How far does this go?" We want to make sure that in whatever we do in the province of Ontario, the actions by our justice ministries reflect the fact that we want our streets safe every day of the year and for the general public to be aware of those actions every day of the year.

With that, we will be supporting the bill, but we want to make sure that if it does get to committee, all these issues I brought up, like the court backlogs and the community safety zones, those sorts of things, are all brought out as areas that we could consider to be very important to the effectiveness of this bill.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale—High Park): Of course, I too will be supporting the bill. I hope my honourable colleague returns the favour and supports my bill at the turn of the hour.

Just to pick up where my colleague Mr. Tabuns left off, talking about some of the root causes of the crime we find on our streets, I want to talk about my own riding of Parkdale—High Park. We have people here from Parkdale—High Park. Welcome. It's an amazing place to live. It's also a place not without problems. One of the problems we see in Parkdale—High Park, whose root cause again is poverty, is drug addiction. I want to talk about the response to drug addiction that I've heard in this House. Drug addiction is not a crime; it is a health problem, and if we were to deal with it as a health problem we wouldn't have drug addiction. That's first and foremost.

Where have our detox centres gone? In our riding, most of them have been closed by cutbacks to our health care system. I know that our police, who do a wonderful job, are not social workers, don't want to be social workers, but are put in the place of social workers, because they have to arrest people, they put them in prison, they get out, they're back on the streets again. Why? Because they're addicted. So we need programs. We need rehab beds. We certainly need detox centres. Right now, in my riding there's not one detox bed for a woman who has an addiction problem.

That's the root cause of a lot of the crime that happens in Parkdale—High Park. How do addicts support their habit? They do break-and-enters, they do petty crime of all sorts. The sex trade is an offshoot of this as well. Again, this is a health issue. We need to take it away from our law-and-order folk and give it to where it belongs, and that's to our hospitals, to our rehab centres, and fund them so that they can deal with it. That's number one.

The other thing I would like to mention is child poverty. As Mr. Tabuns mentioned, this is the root of all crime, ultimately. I have seen children playing in the corridors of buildings in south Parkdale, playing on the streets and in the driveways. Why? Because there is no place else to play. There is no green space that they can access easily and safely. Their parents are working two jobs just to make ends meet, so the supervision is lax as well because they don't have child care.

So how do we combat crime in the future? We provide child care spaces. How do we combat crime in the future? We provide a living minimum wage. That's why, in part, I brought my minimum wage bill in. We also provide housing. We have 122,000 households waiting for affordable housing right now. We have 67,000 waiting for affordable housing in Toronto. This leads to overcrowding, to unsafe conditions, unsafe houses, slum landlords and the like. We need to address the housing issue immediately if we want to address the crime issue too.

In the minute remaining I want to say, kudos to all of those incredible people who do make our communities safer; kudos to our social workers who work long, hard days, many of them for slightly more than minimum wage because of underfunding; kudos to our health care workers, many of whom are supplemented by volunteer workers because their institutions don't have the money to pay for salaries; kudos to our pastoral care workers. Many in my past profession of ministry work long hours, and they work them because they have to, providing the missing social work in their neighbourhoods.

Kudos also to our legal aid workers; these are all hard-working folk in our community, many of them supplemented by volunteers because the funding is just not there. Kudos of course also go to our police. By the way, this 1,000 new police in the community just brings our policing up to where it was about 15 years ago. We still have fewer police in community policing roles in our neighbourhoods than we did a long time ago because of the increase in population, so they represent actually less of a percentage to population than they did when I grew up in this city.

Kudos to our firefighters as well, because I know they're the ones usually first on the scene. Ms. Horwath has a wonderful bill that's going to aid them in their work.

Kudos to all of these people and kudos to safety awareness and Street Safety Awareness Month, absolutely. Do we want our communities safer? Of course we do. How do we go about it? That's where we differ, and that's a crucial difference. Let's get rid of the root causes of crime; let's not just apply a band-aid.

Mr. Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): "Street safety is a fundamental right of all citizens," said Devon Fermoyle, president of the National Capital Area Crime Stoppers, when contacted about this bill and his thinking.

He's absolutely correct, of course. Social violence and its ripple effects on our collective psyche take an enormous toll in modern society. The trauma caused by the threat to a person's safety cannot be underestimated. Victims of crime and negligence pay a terrible price, but so do all of us, as senseless suffering is magnified through TV news and other mass media, creating either a paralysis of fear and despair or a reaction of anger, often leading to more violence. In many ways, these once-removed reactions in observers of preventable violence can never be fully known but clearly are negative and costly.

This bill to heighten awareness of street safety will, it is hoped, not only reduce the number of accidents and needless crimes and, therefore, those disturbing images and stories in the news, but will also arm our wider population with the tools they need to feel safe and secure where they live and work. I believe the partner agencies in my city of Ottawa will respond enthusiastically to this bill.

In Hintonburg, an area of which I've spoken previously in this chamber, a war between the lawful and the lawless has brought the community to the point of marching in the streets to fight back the effects of drugs and prostitution, slum landlords and biker gangs. Hintonburg is a classic example of a crisis situation bringing out the best or the worst in people, and consequently, the community association is arguably one of the most active in the whole city of Ottawa. Not wishing to make a virtue out of the mother of invention, necessity does have a way of getting us focused. Street safety is a daily issue in Hintonburg, and the community associations there welcome such a bill.

I'm glad to announce that September 21 was the official launching of the University of Ottawa Institute for Crime Prevention. I would also like to recognize other organizations in the Ottawa area that deal with crime prevention: Crime Prevention Ottawa; Ottawa Block Parents; Neighbourhood Watch; Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Ottawa chapter; Citizens for Safe Cycling; the Elizabeth Fry Society; the United Way; the YW/YMCA; the Boys and Girls Clubs of Ottawa and the National Capital Area Crime Stoppers, among many.

From another perspective -- pedestrian/traffic safety -- Professor Barry Wellar at the University of Ottawa evaluates the pedestrian-friendly quotient of our intersections from a walking safety perspective. His work has helped raise awareness not only with pedestrians themselves but city of Ottawa transportation officials as well about which intersections are most dangerous to cross. We need to be aware and walk defensively, according to Dr. Wellar. This bill, of course, would promote defensive walking and more pedestrian-friendly intersections.

Although overall traffic offences have decreased in the last couple of years in the Ottawa area, there's been a considerable rise in traffic offences relating to the dangerous operation of motor vehicles in parts of the city. This is a reminder that no road is free from conflict; hence, this is the purpose of this particular bill, to remind people of that.

In 2005, the province announced funding of over $250,000 to the Council on Aging of Ottawa and, as a result of that, the support for investigative teams and grant programs to examine the hate crimes/extremism investigation team related to racism in the streets etc., which has been very active.

Traffic-calming measures: In addition, speeding often results in fatalities, injuries, traffic collisions and property damage. There is a whole variety of mitigating circumstances such as speed bumps, which slow down, in intensive neighbourhoods, vehicles that would otherwise be going too quickly.

There is the whole question of issues relating to security: adequate lighting in our streets, keeping lamps working, installing more street lamps in laneways, alleys and dark places, and closed-circuit television etc.

Finally, I'd like to point out that neighbourhoods themselves have a role to play in strengthening the fabric by having street parties, community picnics, community garage sales, Canada Day events, community tournaments, pancake breakfasts etc.

In conclusion, this bill helps educate people on how they can reclaim their communities by working in conjunction with existing community groups and organizations and promoting old and new programs year-round.

In closing, I commend my colleague the member from Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale and his insight in presenting this important initiative, which I will be supporting.

Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): I'm pleased to rise to address this proposed bill by my colleague. Of course, we don't anticipate that anyone in this place would not support this proposal. I want to, however, address some specific areas that I believe we should all be concerned about when it comes to the issue of street safety.

First and foremost, I believe we should have in mind the safety of our children throughout our communities. There's nothing more devastating to a parent or to a community than to hear, for example, that a child is missing. As the bill proposes that this House and our communities across the province would recognize those organizations in the province who take on the responsibility of street safety, I want to take this opportunity to highlight the work of Child Find Ontario, with which I trust all members are familiar.

Child Find is an organization that assists in the search for missing children when the alert goes out. It is dedicated to delivering education and awareness programs around the issue of children's safety. It also sponsors fingerprinting sessions throughout the province. These are clinics that are organized. We have all seen them, perhaps in malls and at various events across the province. What takes place at these clinics is that children are actually fingerprinted on the spot.

The kids then receive these kits that parents take home in the event that a child should go missing, so that immediately there is that evidence of the fingerprints available to police so that they can do their work. I want to commend the work of Child Find and celebrate the good work that they do and encourage people within our communities to support that work and to take advantage of that opportunity.

While we're speaking about street safety, the next issue that comes to my mind is the issue of street racing. While I commend the honourable member for bringing this forward, and rightfully so, I want to ask the member and all members of the government why, when I brought forward a private member's bill that would deal with this issue of street racing, members of the government chose not to provide their unanimous consent to ensure that that bill was passed into legislation before our summer break when we had an opportunity to do that.

I speak to this because Rob and Lisa Manchester, who are my constituents, came to their death through street racing. This was a young couple who have a young child now orphaned as a result of the criminal act of street racing. My bill that I proposed to this House was designed to empower police officers to do on-the-spot licence suspensions for anyone who, in the mind of the police officer, is even potentially involved in street racing, to ensure that the message is given to everyone in this province that street racing is not going to be tolerated in Ontario.

For a Liberal government that through Bill 52 is prepared to strip a driver's licence from a young person because they're truant or because they drop out of school but whose members were not prepared to give unanimous consent to pass a piece of legislation that would strip the driver's licence of someone who is potentially a criminal for having caused a death or serious injury as a result of street racing, I find it unbelievable.

This is where I believe people become cynical about politics as a whole. They hear the rhetoric, through debates such as we're having this morning, about how we want to address the issue of safety and street safety, but when it comes to actually doing something, when it comes to actually implementing legislation that has some teeth, that has some benefit, that can actually make a difference, we begin to play the partisan game and we say no.

So I call on members of this House, on members of the Liberal backbench and of cabinet and on the minister, that, as we will support this bill this morning -- and I will -- I would ask that they also give consideration to revisiting the street racing bill to ensure that we do what we can do as legislators to save lives.

Also, in that context, I want to bring to the attention of the Legislature a program called Road Watch. I would encourage the public to go to the Road Watch website. I think very few people are actually aware that this program exists. It allows individual citizens within our communities to complete a citizen's report on anyone they observe driving erratically or dangerously. That report is then sent in or faxed in to the local police station. Individuals are then researched by the police station, and they will receive an information letter from the police advising them that they have been reported.

If there is more than one such report on any given driver, they will actually receive a visit from a police officer at their front door to caution them that they have been observed driving dangerously. This is the kind of initiative that we can take within our communities to exercise responsibility as citizens. Again, I want to encourage and thank those individuals, because this is largely done on a volunteer basis by citizens within our communities, for this initiative.

In closing my remarks, I say to you one more time, can we not call on this government to go beyond the rhetoric of simply saying we're going to recognize a month of the year as street safety month, do something substantive and pass the street racing bill that will once and for all empower our police officers across this province to deal with this deadly issue that has claimed so many innocent lives? Today, Allison Hickey and Mark Radman are still suffering the effects of the accident in which they were involved as a result of street racing. Lives are changed forever because of this act. Let's take the opportunity as a Legislature to do something about it.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Congratulations to Dr. Kular to proclaim May Street Safety Awareness Month. The program will have a positive impact on safety in our streets. He has included some of them. In fact, he has indicated that there are a number of programs such as the Block Parent program, the Neighbourhood Watch program, the Toronto anti-violence intervention strategy, the Take Back the Night program and the Mothers Against Drunk Driving program. So there are a number of these programs which are very effective.

But these programs are not enough to ensure that street crime is being mitigated. We need to look at the programs of prevention, the programs that will deal with the causes of crime, as was indicated earlier.

One of the main causes of crime in my riding has to do with drug addiction and prostitution. In some cases, our police will arrest a drug addict 20 times over, and he or she will be back on the street very quickly. I have written to Police Chief Blair to check out the Vancouver model. In Vancouver, when a drug addict is arrested, a social worker is automatically assigned to that drug addict to take him to a hospital or to a rehabilitation program or even to a one-to-one talk to see how that criminal or how that addict can be helped. That, I think, is a great model, and we should look at it.

The police chief has written back to me. He says that it's under study; it's under examination. I just hope that we'll take that step in the right direction to ensure that this program will be implemented right here in Toronto.

The prevention program that is really very much important and very much effective is that program which starts at home and that program which starts in the schools. The largest indicator of a child's future success is his or her sense of self-worth. When a child feels that he or she is able to move within their environment and structure it and has a sense that they can actually access it, has a sense that, "Yes, I'm important in my school; I'm important in my home; I'm important in my environment" -- when he or she gets that sense, then you're beginning to create a good citizen with a sense of civic duties.

The McGuinty government has recently instituted -- and this is where we have to give the Premier a great deal of credit. We're talking about a program in our schools that has to do with character development. What could be better than to start in the schools -- start at home, but start in the schools with character development: a program where a child is being indicated, where a child is being shown, how best to help each other, how best to have a program in school where they can move around with each other, where they can be amongst their peers and help out?

In my riding of Davenport -- which, of course, started actually in Parkdale -- I had written to each school principal and I said to the principal, "Mr. or Madam Principal, you give me the best two students in your school whom we can show off to the community.

Give me the best two students -- the students who have a sense of civic duty, the students who will help each other in terms of kindness, respect for other people's feelings, being helpful towards younger children and the elderly, and conducting themselves in a responsible fashion towards their teachers, their parents and their peers." This program that we had produced there was well-received because we had shown those two children of each school to the community. We said to the other children, "Look at these two kids here on our platform.

These kids whom we present to you, the community and to the other children are the ones that we think you should emulate. You should emulate their characteristics. Be kind to each other, help each other, be good to the teachers and listen to your parents." These are the kind of character tools that can be useful when we want to include that program in terms of mitigating crime in our streets.

I want to thank the member for indicating how we can be effective in ensuring that we have safety in our streets.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Kular, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Kular: I just want to mention that with all Ontario's organizations and projects dedicated to educating the public on street awareness, I believe it is time to recognize their contributions and efforts to our community. The month of May, which holds Police Week, is ideal for recognizing the efforts by all these various community programs and initiatives in fostering safe streets within our great province of Ontario. I want to thank all these organizations for their hard work and dedication to be a part of helping our residents live in a safer community. A safer community is a strong community.

Before I close my remarks, I want to thank all the members of this Legislature who made their speech and for their input in recognizing those organizations. I want to thank them.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT (RAISING THE

MINIMUM WAGE), 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LES NORMES D'EMPLOI (AUGMENTATION

DU SALAIRE MINIMUM)

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We will first deal with ballot item number 57, standing in the name of Ms. DiNovo.

Ms. DiNovo has moved second reading of Bill 150. 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. It's carried.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale—High Park): I ask that this be sent to the committee on estimates.

The Deputy Speaker: Ms. DiNovo has requested that this be sent to the standing committee on estimates. Agreed? Agreed.

STREET SAFETY

AWARENESS MONTH ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006

SUR LE MOIS DE LA SENSIBILISATION

À LA SÉCURITÉ DANS LES RUES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 58, standing in the name of Mr. Kular.

Mr. Kular has moved second reading of Bill 145. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr. Kuldip Kular (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale): I request a recorded vote.

The Deputy Speaker: I didn't see five members standing. It's carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, this bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr. Kular: I would like to refer this bill to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Kular has asked that the bill be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. Agreed? Agreed.

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 1159 to 1330.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Greg Sorbara (Minister of Finance, Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I have a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, signed by his own hand.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): The Lieutenant Governor transmits supplementary estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 2007, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BROWNFIELD SITES

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock): I rise today on behalf of John Tory and the PC caucus and would like to welcome members from the Cement Association of Canada. I was pleased to take

part in a very informative luncheon session, where we were treated to some fascinating presentations. One of the main themes was brownfield redevelopment and the fact that the intent and integration for revitalization in Ontario is here, but this needs to be supported by policy -- directly from the Cement Association of Canada.

Which leads me to once again correct the record of Liberal inaccuracies and their relentless effort of saying anything to get elected. The McGuinty Liberals continue to take credit for things they haven't done and to blame others for things they have done. The member from Brant, during a lob-ball question to his minister, clearly refused to be straight about who should be getting credit for beginning the work on brownfield redevelopment.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, seemingly very willing to play ball, went along with this and suggested that they are the first government to take action on this work. What he failed to tell hard-working Ontarians is that he and his government are taking credit for the work done by others. To be accurate, the Brownfields Statute Law was passed in 2001, with direction to ministry experts to start work on regulations.

It's a shame that this government can't be straight about such an important economic and environmental policy as brownfield redevelopment and runs roughshod over the truth. The member from Brant has mentioned to come to his riding for a cup of coffee and discuss brownfields. That offer sounds interesting for no other reason than to see if it's possible for a McGuinty Liberal to get to the bottom of a cup of coffee without breaking a promise.

ANGELINA PAVAO

Mr. Kuldip Kular (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale): I'm pleased to rise today to acknowledge the achievement of an exemplary citizen in my riding of Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale. Angelina Pavao, 20 years old, recently placed in the top 10 for the Miss Brampton title and was awarded Contestant of the Year by the Canadian Scholarship Pageant. During her running, she tirelessly promoted her platform: STRD -- Stop Teen Reckless Driving.

Although she did not win the Miss Brampton title, she still continues to promote her cause in Brampton today. She has been acknowledged in the National Book of Canada. Angelina knows far too many people who have been injured -- and sadly, have even died -- as a result of reckless drivers on the road. For Angelina, this cause is clearly a personal one and really hits home. This is one of the main reasons she continues to reach out to the community to speak about the responsibilities of driving.

I believe it's individuals like Angelina who make a difference in the community by standing up and speaking about stopping reckless driving. She is a positive influence on other youth. It's my pleasure to stand here today and congratulate Ms. Angelina Pavao on her achievements and for being such an outstanding citizen of the city of Brampton.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Mr. Ted Chudleigh (Halton): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: On Tuesday, October 31, in responding to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade's statement on Kellogg's new plant, I mistakenly cited an incorrect fact. To correct the record, the company Maunco Sanitation is thriving and doing well and not in fact slated to close, as I was led to believe prior to making the statement. I have since double-checked my sources and confirmed that they are not closing. I am very pleased to correct my record.

VETERANS

Mr. Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): Each year in the riding of Simcoe North, communities host several Remembrance Day events, such as banquets, parades, school visits and memorial services, leading up to the celebration of remembrance on November 11.

For the second year in a row, I am pleased to have veterans from my riding visit Queen's Park on the day that we as provincial politicians pay tribute to those men and women who put their lives on the line to protect the freedoms that we enjoy as Canadians. Today we have in the Speaker's gallery Mr. Bob Hamelin, Mr. Bert Reynolds and Mr. Marcel Duval from Penetanguishene Branch 68, Royal Canadian Legion; and Mr. Frank Graham, Mr. Bernie Hamelin and Mr. John Calhoun from Midland Branch 80, Royal Canadian Legion.

Accompanying the veterans is my colleague the town of Midland deputy mayor, Jim Downer, nephew of former MPP Wally Downer. Ladies and gentlemen, I would appreciate it if you would give them a warm welcome.

There are a number of stories we could tell about these gentlemen. They have volumes of information concerning the great wars. But I did want to repeat one comment that Mr. Bob Hamelin from Penetanguishene had mentioned to me. He said that on two separate occasions during World War II, he had the opportunity of meeting Dwight D. Eisenhower on the battlefield, and in fact one time served Dwight D. Eisenhower rabbit that they were cooking out in the trenches. So I just want to say that is one story. It's a great opportunity to pay tribute today to these very special people.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Ms. Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): In August, the Ministry of Finance sent letters to property owners in unorganized areas telling them the McGuinty Liberals would be reforming the provincial land tax. The many constituents who called my office after receiving this letter were not fooled by the word "reform." They believe this means the McGuinty Liberals will increase their provincial land tax, even though many of these same property owners don't receive any services from the provincial government at all.

The letter claimed that any new revenues that may result from the changes would be used to support services in the north. Again, my constituents were not fooled. Many of them have camps with no electricity or with electricity they paid to put in themselves. They have a road which they also paid to put in and maintain themselves. They don't have street lights or garbage pickup. They want to know why they will be hit with a tax increase when they aren't getting and won't be getting access to provincial services.

The letter also said the Ministry of Finance would be holding public hearings in the near future to inform these property owners about proposed changes to the provincial land tax. The ministry has now brought in the proposed changes through Bill 151. My constituents wonder, what happened to the public hearings that were promised "in the near future," and why are the McGuinty Liberals moving forward without ever having heard from the property owners who will be directly affected?

These concerns are real and my constituents are correct. They should expect a big tax increase with no increase in services, and they are right to wonder how fair that is.

ST. MARY'S HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETES

Ms. Judy Marsales (Hamilton West): I rise in the House today to congratulate the wonderful athletes from St. Mary's High School in Hamilton West.

On Tuesday, I received an email from dedicated coaches John Ivinac and Sean Kiely asking if we could celebrate and acknowledge these wonderful athletes. Their hard work and dedication won them the provincial championships in 2000 and 2006. They received the provincial bronze medal in 2003 and 2004, were the Spectator Cup champions three of the last four years, and in 2006 became the city champions and moved on to play in the OFSAA championship. Playing seven games over two and a half days was physically draining for all the teams, but the St. Mary's senior girls' soccer team persevered and were crowned the Ontario high school AAA champions and captured the gold.

I would like to celebrate, please, Devyn Cuncic, Daniella Berlingieri, Rebecca Rewi, Jenna Bihun, Michelle Spadafora, Meaghan Nederveen, Vanessa and Jessica Bonomo, Carla Randazzo, Dana Bentzen-Bilvist, Megan Coskey, Hayley Marler, Micayla Drysdale, Emily Clarke, Kelly Williams, Jenny Vaughan, Brittany Paglia, Caitlin Bettiol, Daniella Genovese and all of the wonderful athletes from St. Mary's.

I commend these students, their teachers and coaches, and all of the athletes across Ontario whose practice, commitment and hard work fulfill a dream that all young people achieve. We celebrate St. Mary's.

TORONTO EXPO 2015

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo—Wellington): In spite of the best efforts of the city of Toronto and the proponents of Toronto Expo 2015, I've been told the bid is dead, and the McGuinty Liberal government has to assume responsibility for pulling the trigger.

More than a week ago, I stood in this House as the PC critic for the Minister of Tourism and called upon the provincial government to work co-operatively with the city of Toronto and the federal government to recognize the potential economic benefits which would have been realized across the province, to set aside their partisan differences, prioritize this challenge, share the responsibility and work together to send the strongest possible bid for Toronto Expo 2015. But no, this was too much to ask of this McGuinty Liberal government, for they're in election mode.

They are taking the advice of an American political sleaze merchant, James Carville, who is telling them to attack, attack, attack. They have brought federal-provincial relations to a new low, such that co-operation becomes next to impossible.

This provincial government will say anything to get elected, including contradicting the truth. They are entirely abdicating provincial leadership by blaming the federal government for all of their shortcomings, and today's disappointing news about the Expo bid is yet another example.

John Tory said today, "Ontario needs a strong Canada and Canada needs a strong Ontario." I couldn't agree more. But if they keep this up and continue to poison the relationship with the federal government, we're in for a long year of partisan bickering leading up to the election where little benefiting the people of Ontario will get done.

Mr. Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In the statement just made, the member made some inferences to the truth that are inappropriate in this House. I'd like to see if it can be withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): I didn't hear anything that was out of order, but if the member chooses to withdraw, you may.

KNIGHT'S TABLE

Mr. Vic Dhillon (Brampton West—Mississauga): The Knight's Table, a charitable restaurant in my local community of Brampton, needs our help to keep serving meals to those less fortunate. It isn't a lack of food that could close the Knight's Table; it's funds for utilities, rent and supplies.

The people of Brampton have been very generous in giving food and their time, but what the Knight's Table needs now is your lunch money. Consider sharing your lunch money, no matter how little, to feed Brampton's hungry. The Knight's Table serves mostly the working poor, people who are having trouble making ends meet. They serve breakfast, lunch and dinner to roughly 100 Bramptonians and operate a food bank that serves over 500, 200 of whom are children, which should be very bothersome to us all.

In the past, I've been proud to help the Knight's Table find a new home and provide computers and equipment for their employment program. I've seen first-hand the vital service and the difference the Knight's Table makes in people's lives.

Despite their hardship and with your support, they're hopeful that things will change for the better. I have committed a modest personal donation. I hope you will give what you can, too. Donations can be sent to the Knight's Table, 116 Kennedy Road South, Unit 6, Brampton, L6W 3E7, or online at knightstable.org.

HOLOCAUST EDUCATION WEEK

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): Last night marked the beginning of Holocaust Education Week, the world's most comprehensive annual Holocaust education program. Sponsored by the UJA Federation's Holocaust Centre of Toronto, Holocaust Education Week, which runs from November 1 to November 9, is celebrating its 26th anniversary with more than 100 programs in many venues across the GTA.

We are fortunate to be hosting several of those programs in my riding of Thornhill. These include a candle-lighting ceremony and remembrance of Jewish war veterans at Shaar Shalom Synagogue, presentations by Holocaust survivors and educators at Netivot HaTorah and Leo Baeck day schools, and the screening of the award-winning documentary March of the Living at the Chabad Lubavitch Markham campus.

The Holocaust was a terrible tragedy, a horrific event in which over six million Jewish men, women and children lost their lives. In honour of those who were lost, it is our duty to create more public awareness in order to develop a comprehensive understanding of the past and recognize our responsibility for the future.

In that spirit, I'm pleased to remind all members of this House that in September the honourable Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, with the support of the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Holocaust Memorial Centre of Toronto, announced funding for the Holocaust Memorial Award. This award encourages young people to express lessons learned from the Holocaust.

Holocaust Education Week is an excellent opportunity not only to increase awareness of the atrocities of genocide but to promote acceptance and tolerance of diversity within our communities and throughout Ontario. I would like to thank the UJA Federation of Greater Toronto for organizing this event. I encourage everyone to take the time to participate.

ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE

Mr. David Zimmer (Willowdale): Today marks 100 years since Alzheimer's disease was identified by medical scientists. Unfortunately, Alzheimer's disease and its victims continue to be a growing presence in our society. As Ontario's population ages, so do the number of people who succumb to this disease, which robs them and their families and our society of remembrance of things past. Statistics Canada estimates that approximately 420,000 Canadians are living with Alzheimer's. Of these, 155,000 live in Ontario. In less than 25 years, the number of Canadians is expected to jump to 750,000.

As a former president of the Alzheimer's Society of Canada and as an MPP representing a riding with the third-largest senior population in Canada, I'm very much aware of the impact this disease has on individuals, families and our communities. Organizations like the Alzheimer's Society of Canada are making great strides in the battle against this disease. Vaccines, new drugs, treatments and other diagnostic tools are on the horizon.

I encourage members of this House and all Ontarians to help us write the final

chapter in the fight against this disease. Please contact your local Alzheimer's Society and see what you can do. Support them.

VISITORS

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): Following up on the excellent note of my colleague from Willowdale, I wonder if all members might join with us in welcoming our guests from the Alzheimer's Society and thanking them for the dedication they show to our loved ones in Ontario.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Speaker, Niagara Centre page Annaliese Ionson wants you to say hello to her parents, Michael and Karen Ionson, here in the gallery, as well as her godmother, Donna D'Angelo, here from British Columbia.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins—James Bay): I would like to welcome in the gallery, from Kapuskasing, Alderman Dave Plourde, who is here with his wife, Christine. Their daughter, Breanna, has had a wonderful six weeks as a page here in the Legislature. They will be bringing her back to the community of Kapuskasing tomorrow. Let us welcome them.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): It is appropriate to bring to members' attention that this is the last day for this particular group of pages. They have provided us with excellent, mature and first-rate service for the last number of weeks. Join me in expressing our appreciation.

Mr. Gilles Bisson (Timmins—James Bay): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: A friendly motion that we double their pay.

The Speaker: Introduction of bills is coming.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Yesterday, the member for Leeds—Grenville, Mr. Runciman, introduced Bill 157,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act with respect to salaries in lieu of retirement credits. Upon reviewing the bill, I have determined that it would cause an expenditure of public money out of the consolidated revenue fund, contrary to standing order 56. Accordingly, I have directed that the bill not be printed and that it be deleted from the Orders and Notices paper.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PUBLIC SERVICE OF ONTARIO

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 /

LOI DE 2006 MODIFIANT DES LOIS AYANT TRAIT À LA

FONCTION PUBLIQUE DE L'ONTARIO

Mr. Phillips moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 158,

An Act to revise legislation relating to the public service of Ontario by repealing the Public Service Act, enacting the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006 and the Ontario Provincial Police Collective Bargaining Act, 2006 and making complementary amendments to various Acts and by amending various Acts in respect of the successor rights of certain public servants / Projet de loi 158, Loi visant à réviser des lois ayant trait à la fonction publique de l'Ontario en abrogeant la

Loi sur la fonction publique, en édictant la Loi de 2006 sur la fonction publique de l'Ontario et la Loi de 2006 sur la négociation collective relative à la Police provinciale de l'Ontario, en apportant des modifications complémentaires à diverses lois et en modifiant diverses lois en ce qui concerne la succession aux qualités pour certains fonctionnaires.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The minister may wish to make a brief statement.

Hon. Gerry Phillips (Minister of Government Services): I'll make a comment under ministerial statements.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I move that the standing committee on justice policy be authorized to meet outside of its normal meeting times for the purpose of conducting public hearings on Bill 107,

An Act to amend the Human Rights Code, and that the standing committee on regulations and private bills be authorized to meet outside its normal meeting times for the purpose of conducting public hearings on Bill 124,

An Act to provide for fair registration practices in Ontario's regulated professions.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? Carried.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 28

Hon. James J. Bradley (Minister of Tourism, minister responsible for seniors, Government House Leader): I move that the October 25, 2006, order of the House referring Bill 28,

An Act to require the taking and analysing of blood samples to protect victims of crime, emergency service workers, good Samaritans and other persons and to make consequential amendments to the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 and the Health Protection and Promotion Act, to the standing committee on regulations and private bills be discharged and that the bill be referred instead to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Is it the pleasure of the House that