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

June 4, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Jun-04 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 4 June 2008 Mercredi 4 juin 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PHOTO CARD ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LES CARTES-PHOTO

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBER'S BIRTHDAY

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

ENDANGERED SPECIES

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

ROAD SAFETY

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ROAD SAFETY

SUBVENTIONS DESTINÉES

À L'ÉDUCATION /

EDUCATION FUNDING

YOUTH SERVICES

PROPERTY TAXATION

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

ENDANGERED SPECIES

PETITIONS

LORD'S PRAYER

LONG-TERM CARE

LORD'S PRAYER

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

PROTECTION FOR MINERS

FIREARMS CONTROL

HOME CARE

COMMUNITY SAFETY

LONG-TERM CARE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF FORMER PARLIAMENTARIANS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CLOTHING ALLOWANCES

MEN'S HEALTH AWARENESS WEEK

RURAL ONTARIO

CLIMATE CHANGE

RIDEAU CANAL FESTIVAL

ALDERSHOT

ADVANCED CORONARY TREATMENT FOUNDATION OF CANADA

ELDER ABUSE

EDUCATION FUNDING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWING INDUSTRY ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR L'INDUSTRIE

DU REMORQUAGE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

SENIORS' MONTH /

MOIS DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES

TOURISM WEEK

SENIORS' MONTH

TOURISM WEEK

SENIORS' MONTH /

MOIS DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES

SHEELA BASRUR

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

The House met at 0900.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PHOTO CARD ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LES CARTES-PHOTO

Mr. Bradley moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 85,

An Act to permit the issuance of photo cards to residents of Ontario and to make complementary amendments to the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 85, Loi permettant la délivrance de cartes-photo aux résidents de l'Ontario et apportant des modifications complémentaires au Code de la route.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The Minister of Transportation.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I rise in the House today to begin debate on new legislation that, if passed, would maintain Ontario's economic prosperity while improving access and opportunity for all Ontarians. Our proposed legislation, the Photo Card Act, is of importance to many Ontarians.

I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant for transportation, Mike Brown, the member for Algoma, who will resume debate on this legislation when I have completed my remarks.

I'm sure many of our members are aware that the western hemisphere travel initiative is almost completely phased in. Air travellers have been subject to the new rules since January 2007, and at our land and sea border crossings travellers from Ontario are already being asked to prove citizenship and produce identification documents when crossing the border.

On June 1, 2009, the US government will require all visitors to prove their citizenship using a passport or an accepted passport alternative. With just over half of all Canadians holding a passport, we want to make it as simple as possible for Ontario travellers to have access to a secure border crossing document. An enhanced driver's licence could be used as a passport alternative at all Canada-US land and sea border crossings. This will mean less traffic congestion at the border and fewer delays for travellers and commercial drivers.

Our borders are the economic gateways to this province and, as government, we must be responsible for keeping them safe, open and accessible. Every day more than 92,000 cars, and over 22,000 trucks carrying $650 million in goods, cross our borders. That amounts to more than $330 billion in trade every year with the United States, Ontario's largest trading partner. In fact, nearly 60% of all of Canada's trade with the United States passes through these borders.

If this legislation is passed, our enhanced driver's licence would offer the same privileges as the existing driver's licence and would include additional information needed to show proof of Canadian citizenship. We are taking the right steps to make border travel more accessible and help reduce congestion, potentially saving our economy millions of dollars.

We also propose to provide a photo identification card for Ontarians who do not or cannot drive. Like the enhanced driver's licence, our photo card could be enhanced for use as a convenient passport alternative.

Of course, Ontarians who choose to add citizenship information to their driver's licence or photo card would expect this information to be protected from those who should not have this information. That is why we have already recommended a number of key security measures to Ontario's driver's licences. Anyone who has renewed their licence during the past few months will have noticed these new, leading-edge security features, such as a laser-engraved photo and signature, a fine-line security background and a 2D bar code.

Making sure all these cards are issued legitimately is also critical to combatting fraud and identity theft. We propose to ensure the integrity of our licence and photo card issuing systems through photo comparison technology. This state-of-the-art technology would help us make sure multiple cards are not issued to the same individual under different identities.

The reality is that Ontario's driver's licence card is among the most commonly used documents for identification purposes. Proof of identification is frequently requested for everyday transactions such as opening a bank account or proving age for a senior discount. The photo card we are proposing today has been long advocated by groups representing people with disabilities and seniors. If passed, this legislation would improve access to many everyday services and conveniences. Like drivers, photo card holders would have the option of adding citizenship information to their cards.

This enhanced photo card could then be used in much the same manner as the enhanced driver's licence, serving as a convenient travel document for entering the United States.

Our government has worked closely with the Canada Border Services Agency and the US Department of Homeland Security to make the enhanced driver's licence and enhanced photo card programs a reality. And we have worked with Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner every step of the way. Most recently, the commissioner has spoken to the federal government and identified the need for federal officials to support the province in providing citizenship information on its cards. We support the commissioner and are committed to ensuring the protection and privacy of personal information, and we will continue to work with her throughout the development and implementation process.

Stakeholders such as the Canadian Council of the Blind, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, the United Senior Citizens of Ontario and the Ontario Provincial Police, for example, have contributed valuable input. Each of these organizations–and there are many—is to be commended for getting us to where we are today. We will continue to work with all of our stakeholders and counterparts to implement this legislation. Removing barriers to access enhances opportunity for everyone. So I again ask my colleagues today to support this legislation.

There is some history to this legislation, as members of the Legislature may be aware. I see my colleague from the Renfrew area here today. I was in the presence yesterday of his brother Mark Yakabuski, who is the president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada. What a distinguished individual and what a pleasant individual to deal with. I told him about his brother in the Legislature, and he was happy to accept the compliments and comparisons that were taking place at the time. But I know that all members of the Legislature are interested in this alternative.

The history of this is that after the attacks on New York City and Washington in September 2001, there was considerable and understandable concern about the fact that security would have to be increased significantly. What is actually sad about those attacks, among many things—the loss of life of course being the first and foremost, the loss of very expensive buildings and the damage that was done physically as well as the lives that were lost and the people injured—all of those are extremely significant and traumatic.

But in addition to that, subsequently what we have is a situation where there has been an obsession—and an understandable obsession—with security, particularly in the United States, where the attacks took place and the effect is most profound. As a result, the Congress of the United States passed a rather interesting act called the western hemisphere travel initiative. It was going to require, among other things, documentation that would be a passport or another secure document for anyone coming into the United States from another country or for American citizens returning to the United States.

By the way, I am encouraged, I might note at this time, that the state of New York is at the present time working on a situation similar to ours; that is, a more secure driver's licence for the purpose of entry back into the United States. And we in Canada have expressed a view that we would be prepared to accept that.

There was a very significant outcry for security measures. But when people who reside along the border, or within 100 or 200 miles of the border, understood the ramifications of demanding a passport and only a passport or another very secure document that was difficult to obtain and perhaps expensive—when this was determined to be a great imposition on people crossing the border, we had friends on both sides of the border who were talking about finding an alternative.

So this never was a fight between Canadians and Americans; or, in the United States, between Democrats and Republicans; or, in Canada, between our political parties—it was always a difference of opinion largely between those who reside along the border or within 100 or 200 miles of the border and those who were further into the interior, who did not perhaps appreciate the negative impact that such a provision would have. As a result, there were many of us who decided we would seek an alternative.

At the time, fewer than 25% of Americans happened to have a passport; 35% to 40% of Canadians probably had a passport. That meant that the majority of individuals did not have a passport. And it was unlikely that particularly those of us who reside near borders or have visitors from the United States coming to our areas—the member for Timmins—James Bay is here at the present time. He would have hunters and fishers who come up to his area from the United States, and other visitors who want to enjoy everything there is to enjoy in his riding.

He would know that it's likely that those who travel every year and business travellers would be in possession of a passport. But for those who are more impulse visitors or decided one year to do so, the fact that they would have to go through the process of getting a passport may have deterred them from visiting our province and our country. That is why we looked for an alternative.

I want to give great credit to our friends on the other side of the border who are allies of ours on this particular issue. As a result, in British Columbia they have a pilot project with an enhanced security driver's licence issued to some people on a voluntary basis, and correspondingly, in the state of Washington a similar circumstance exists where in a pilot project a more secure—enhanced, as we call it—driver's licence is accepted for crossing the border.

Premier McGuinty has met on many occasions with officials of the United States, including the Great Lakes governors, who are quite sympathetic to the position that all of us are taking on this issue. I think the Premier met with other governors as well in different venues in the United States and, in some cases, in Canada and discussed this particular issue. As well, I have had opportunities on many occasions to meet, in Washington and other venues, with officials from the United States government and with those who are sympathetic in the United States to the position that Ontario was taking.

Initially, I think there was an inclination to accept things. I remember there was a meeting of Prime Minister Harper, the President of Mexico and the President of the United States in Cancun, Mexico. When they emerged from that meeting, Prime Minister Harper said, "Folks, you'd better get used to it. This is going to be the law." I think perhaps on that occasion the import of that was not impressed upon the three leaders.

Even the President of the United States had said at one point in time that when he signed very detailed legislation, he may not have been aware of all of the potential implications of that legislation. Remember, it's a very comprehensive bill. And he was a governor in Texas, so he was a state governor who knew the importance of travel across borders.

Prime Minister Harper, I'm pleased, changed his position and the federal government changed its position when many of us along the border—I'm sure including members of the government caucus in Ottawa—recognized that we'd better find an alternative, we'd better look for an alternative, because the provision of a passport only would be very onerous. So meetings continued, particularly the provinces that were interested.

A year ago in April I went to Washington. Our officials, by the way, were very helpful and very accommodating at the Canadian embassy in Washington. On that occasion, I got an opportunity to meet with officials of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State in the United States and indicated that we in Ontario had developed the beginning of a more secure driver's licence—secure in terms of the security provisions within it. We enhanced security considerably, and from this basis we could add additional information which would be attractive, I thought, to them to use for going across the border.

I was very pleased that they were open to the idea and informed me at the time that the state of Vermont was looking at that. We now know that Manitoba and Quebec are looking at this opportunity as well. What our hope is and what I see happening is that states on the other side correspondingly will develop a system where an enhanced driver's licence is used for the purpose of crossing the border and then crossing back into the United States. Because if we were to require passports, that would be difficult.

It would have very significant ramifications for tourism and trade between our friends in the United States and ourselves. So meetings continued.

Representative Louise Slaughter in New York state led the charge in the United States Congress in terms of trying to, first of all, postpone the date of implementation—that was done successfully—and then to look at other aspects which would make it less onerous. I commend her for her work. And there were many others—to be fair, there were many others. I remember one day phoning the offices of two people in the United States Congress, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska and Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Those are two individuals who probably don't agree on a lot of things in the United States Congress.

But here they were, they had co-sponsored a bill to delay the implementation. What would bring Senator Leahy and Senator Stevens—one a liberal Democrat, the other a conservative Republican—together on a piece of legislation? Well, geography did, because they both represented states which were adjacent to Canada, and they recognized the importance of movement of people between those two countries.

I was very encouraged when I saw that we had allies in the United States. I remember meeting with Governor Taft of Ohio; he was governor of Ohio when he was here in Toronto. We happened to be at the same tourism event. We had a lengthy discussion about the matter, and even though Ohio does not border directly on Ontario, he recognized the importance of the citizens of Ohio being able to visit here and then come back, and Canadians being able to visit Ohio and come back. There's been a long history of visitation between Americans and Ca-nadians.

Whether it's hockey teams travelling back and forth, marching bands that have appeared in parades on both sides of the border, friends visiting friends, business people visiting business people, sports fans attending events, there are a lot—

Interjection: The Cleveland Browns.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I hear mention of the Cleveland Browns. Many years ago, people used to travel to see the Cleveland Browns from a long distance; now, probably more the Buffalo Bills or Detroit Lions, because they're right on the border. But the Cleveland Browns would still have a large delegation of fans here. Correspondingly, Americans love to come up to Canada to enjoy what we have to offer.

We had to find an alternative. It wasn't easy. You will recall that early on there were US officials who said that nothing but the passport would be accepted. The ambassador of the United States said that, and he was being honest and up front, because that was the position of the administration at the time. I think as time evolved and people explained what could be used as an alternative, homeland security became more interested and more accepting, as long as all of the security provisions could be found within that document.

What is the advantage of the document? First of all, before I talk about the advantages of a licence rather than a passport, I'll go back. People can still get a passport; I must say that. If they want to get a passport, they can get a passport. If they want to get a Nexus card, they can get a Nexus card for crossing the border, or other special cards that require a lot of security checks. They can get that.

But I can say that the advantage of the licence is that it's a document that most people have in their wallet—younger people may not. I wrote to the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of the province of Ontario. I was given the responsibility by the government of Ontario as Minister of Tourism at the time to submit a document to the Department of Homeland Security indicating some of the changes we wanted to see.

One of the things I suggested—I wasn't by any means the only person suggesting this—was that children up to the age of 16 should be exempt from the WHTI provisions. Then I also suggested that those aged 16 to 18 who were travelling in groups—hockey tournaments, baseball tournaments, marching bands—under special conditions, as long as they had adult supervision and so on, should have the opportunity to be able to travel back and forth without a passport.

I'm happy to say that the United States government accepted both of those suggestions. I want to underline that I wasn't the only one who suggested them; I assure you of that. They would have received that kind of submission from many.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Don't be so shy about claiming credit.

Hon. James J. Bradley: My friend says, "Don't be shy about claiming credit," but I want to be realistic and say that I'm sure there are many others who were submitting the same idea.

What was encouraging was that they accepted the ideas that were submitted. But invariably the people along the border, when we met, whether they were tourism officials or business officials, said that a more convenient card is necessary. That is why we wanted to develop the enhanced security licence card as an identification piece to get into the US, and for those who don't have a driver's licence, to develop such a card.

By the way, there will be two possible cards for those not drivers. One will simply be for identification purposes when it's in place, but if you wanted to enhance it, if you wanted to put citizenship on it and accept the enhancements needed, you could do that as well. It would be the choice of the individual. What we require from the federal government—and I am very optimistic, because we've had co-operation from the federal government—is information that would be available on citizenship.

The privacy commissioner of Ontario has suggested that the federal government provide that to the provinces and not have a bank of such information in each province, that it would be better for the federal government to do that, and again, I'm hopeful that the federal government will indeed do that.

My friend Ted Arnott is across from me. He used to be the critic in tourism. I remember one day he got up in the House and said, "Well, why would you develop a card of this kind which simply makes it easier for Canadians to go into the US?" Of course, we do it because Canadians have asked that, but also we do it to encourage our American friends to correspondingly develop this card. I'm happy to say I read in a newspaper from New York state that as of Labour Day this year, New York state will have produced an enhanced security driver's licence that will be accepted for Americans going back into the United States.

I think we've seen some progress and some success. There isn't anybody on either side of the border who doesn't recognize the need for increased security. We also recognize, however, that we have a special relationship between Canada and the United States that should be enhanced and not detracted from. Senator Coleman from Minnesota, I believe it was, said, "We should not embark upon a war on terrorism by embarking on a war on tourism," or words to that effect, and that has been repeated in different ways. Why would we do this to ourselves?

The goodwill of people on both sides of the border—and I want to commend members of the United States Congress, the Congress presently elected who are sitting in the Senate and the House now, and members of state Legislatures, governors, senators and members of the administration who have modified their position when they recognized that the alternative we're providing is a reasonable alternative.

I want to say as well that this is only one alternative. People may choose not to get this if they wish, because the designation of citizenship will be on the licence. So this is voluntary on our part. In British Columbia, I should note that only 500 licences have been made available on a pilot project basis. We anticipate many more in Ontario. But what we have seen in some circumstances—and that is a choice that people make—is that some people who are close to the border have decided to get a Nexus card, as we call it, crossing the Niagara River. That requires quite a bit of background checking that takes place.

Or some people have said, "Look, I travel internationally; I want to get a passport." Both of those are fine. We're providing yet another alternative for people, and I think that's what they're looking for.

I suspect, and I've noted this in the House, generally speaking, that members of all political parties in this House have said that it is desirable to have this kind of alternative. I think we recognize—each one of us, from our three political parties—the importance of having that option available to us.

I indicated that I was going to yield the floor to my colleague the parliamentary assistant in transportation, the distinguished member from Algoma—Manitoulin, and I'm going to do so at the present time.

I encourage all members of the House to give this matter serious consideration and I hope support eventually. I look forward to reading the Hansard for the comments that are going to be made on it. I know they'll all be constructive and helpful, as members of the Legislature try to be constructive and helpful on matters of this kind. I hope eventually, though that's the choice of the Legislature, that this legislation will be passed into law, enacted and that the new identification cards—licences—will be available to the citizens of Ontario as an option to be used to enter the United States.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I rise in the House today to continue the discussion on important new legislation that, if passed, would help keep people and goods moving across Ontario's borders. I do not need to remind members of the House that our borders are gateways to this province, and as a government, we must be responsible in keeping them safe, open and accessible to help maintain a strong and prosperous economy.

Our proposed legislation, the Photo Card Act, is a step in the right direction. It supports Ontario's plans to improve the flow of trade and travel between our province and our neighbouring American states.

This proposed legislation would pave the way for the creation of secure photo identification cards for Ontarians, including an enhanced driver's licence card that contains citizenship information. A new, enhanced version of the Ontario driver's licence would become an acceptable travel document, a passport alternative, for Ontarians to use at all Canada-US land and sea border crossings.

If passed, our government will also develop a photo identification card for people who do not drive or who are unable to drive. Like the enhanced driver's licence, the enhanced photo card could be used as a convenient passport alternative, something that you could have in your wallet or purse.

Millions of US citizens visit Ontario every year. They come here to spend their hard-earned dollars. These visitors pour hundreds of millions of dollars into our province's economy, and we cannot afford to keep them away.

As many of us are already aware, the United States government has started implementing the western hemisphere travel initiative, WHTI, one of the key recommendations from the 9/11 commission report. The western hemisphere travel initiative is being implemented in stages. Since January of last year, travellers entering the United States by air have been required to present a passport or other accepted secure document proving citizenship.

Since January of this year, travellers crossing into the United States by land and sea have also been required to show proof of citizenship with their identification, such as a birth certificate. On June 1, 2009, all travellers entering the US will be asked to present either a passport or an acceptable passport alternative at the border.

As a province, we have to be ready. Our economy depends on it, and the people of Ontario depend on us.

A recent Canadian Tourism Research Institute study estimates that border delays cost Ontario more than $5 billion annually. Without new measures to deal with the new western hemisphere travel initiative rules, it has been predicted that Ontario could lose nearly 1.5 million US visitors every year unless we take action now—not to mention the added congestion at our borders if people cannot safely and freely cross.

The statistics speak for themselves: Right now, about 55% of Canadians hold a valid passport. Not everybody has a passport.

Ontario's long-standing position has been to support the US government's goals of improving security. At the same time, we want to have this happen in a way that continues to allow the efficient flow of legitimate travel and trade.

Many other states and provinces see a definite need to pursue their own enhanced driver's licence and photo card programs. Michigan expects to implement its program in early 2009. Manitoba intends to implement its program in the fall of 2008. British Columbia has already launched a pilot program of the enhanced driver's licence. Quebec is aggressively planning the implementation of a new card. New York expects to implement its program in the summer of 2008.

As a province, we cannot stand by. We must take action now. Ontarians need safe and secure alternatives so we can access our borders in time for the 2009 western hemisphere travel initiative deadline. Our neighbours expect us to move forward with our enhanced driver's licence and photo card programs to protect the safe and efficient flow of people and goods across our borders.

As an aside, I would just mention that I've had the opportunity, with many members from all sides of the House, to work with Americans in the states that border Ontario; in fact, states in the Midwest and eastern US in general.

I had the opportunity about this time last year to be in Washington, DC, with a senator from Indiana who was a co-chair of an international committee of the Midwest conference of American state legislators. We had the opportunity to visit senior officials of homeland security and discuss WHTI with them at that point and how we would deal with it, just to get their views on where they were in the implementation. Later, the next day, we also had the opportunity to talk to people at the state department.

There is a tremendous willingness in the US, especially along the border, as the minister said, to find acceptable alternatives. But when we were at homeland security, one of the interesting things, to me anyway, was that the next day people from homeland security were coming to Ontario to see if our driver's licences were secure—how we actually issued them, the actual technical way we produced driver's licences in Ontario. They came and they found that to be acceptable. At the time, it was the very next day they were coming here to Ontario to do that.

So we were working very hard on both sides of the border to make sure that we do have secure borders, but we also allow people and goods to move across the borders in a particularly efficient way.

I am the son of a customs officer at Sarnia who later was the manager of customs at Sarnia, so I know something about borders. I remember that in the early days—like most people who grew up along the border, we had family on both sides of the border—you could cross the border in a totally different way. I think the Speaker would know that; he's from near a border too. We all have people who move across the borders on a regular basis. In those friendlier times it was so much easier. But the world has changed, and we have to find methods of making sure that we can meet the realities of the world we live in. I think this particular legislation—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Was that before the Blue Water Bridge?

Mr. Michael A. Brown: No, it wasn't before the Blue Water Bridge. I thank the member for Timmins—James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I remember when they built it; I was there.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: In 1936; right. I digress.

Anyway, as I was saying, it was a different time. Now we need to find a document that works. I think that with the will of all members of the House we will find that solution. I'm looking forward to an interesting debate on second reading. There are certainly privacy concerns that need to be addressed. There are issues that will be raised that are obviously legitimate. I look forward to working with the members of the House to find a solution that is good for Ontario and good for Canada.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: I'm pleased to respond to the minister and his parliamentary assistant on Bill 85, the Photo Card Act. I commend the government for finally moving forward with this initiative. It's something that people have been looking for since 9/11, to remove some of the awkwardness that people encounter when crossing our common border with the United States.

The minister said a couple of things in his address yesterday about this being part of promoting a strong economy and that "Each year, millions of US citizens visit Ontario, pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into our ... economy." Further on he said, "This is about promoting tourism and working with our neighbours." I want to touch on that because the Minister of Transportation is a former Minister of Tourism.

I think that this government missed a great opportunity when our party—our leader, John Tory, and Tim Hudak, our finance critic—

Mr. John O'Toole: Ted Arnott.

Mr. John Yakabuski: —and Ted Arnott, our tourism critic—made some significant and specific proposals that would have enhanced our economy this summer from the point of view of tourism. This card is supposed to be all about tourism. Why aren't they adopting, or at least looking at, some of the changes that we have proposed, some of the initiatives, some of the enhancements, some of the attractions and promotion things that we had put forward, specific things with regards to tax exemptions for hotel rooms and attractions and stuff like that that would help bring more tourism dollars to Ontario? The studies are showing that we're suffering in that regard.

While this card is important—and, again, I commend the minister for finally moving on this; it's something we've been hoping for for some time, because people on both sides of the border have demanded it and expected it—they should be looking closely at what our party proposed with regard to promoting tourism in Ontario, and the dollars and the help to the economy that would mean. This card could be part of it, but don't forget, when the opposition proposes something, you can't just dismiss it out of hand.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I appreciate the comments that were made by both the minister and the parliamentary assistant. I thought it was a good summation of where we're at and where we're from. I'm going to get a chance in a few minutes to start the lead for the New Democratic Party and I want to talk a little bit about how we got here, what we're doing and where we're going. I'll get a chance to talk to that a little bit later.

A question to the parliamentary assistant or the minister, whoever wants to respond: One of the things that was not mentioned in the debate is how much this is going to cost from the perspective of the citizen. We know, for example, that we're now going to have three types of photo IDs. We're going to have the basic one for anybody over 12 who needs a photo ID as a means of identification. If the person happens to be a citizen, he or she will be able to get the enhanced, which is basically the photo ID with the civic information on it, that you're a Canadian citizen.

Then there is the combined one that has a driver's licence. For many people, this photo ID will be the only acceptable means of identification with a photo on it, and we want to make sure that we don't make the cost so exorbitant that it becomes an issue. For example, I'm a young 13- or 14-year-old or I'm somebody on a fixed income and I happen to live in Sarnia. I need that photo ID to get in the car and travel across with whomever, whenever we go across the border. Is the cost going to be so high that it will prevent people from getting it?

So one of the questions I want a response to is, what do we expect the cost will be for the purchase of the various types of photo ID?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: First of all, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Transportation and his parliamentary assistant for introducing this extremely important piece of legislation. I want to quickly talk about the aspect dealing with photo identification for those Ontarians who do not have a driver's licence. In the last few months, I have heard from many of my constituents in Ottawa Centre who have indicated that they do not drive, for various reasons—some are senior citizens, some have certain disabilities. This has put them in a peculiar position: They do not have a driver's licence, thus they do not have a valid photo ID, which is needed in many instances.

Recently, I received a letter from a constituent who highlighted several circumstances where a driver's licence is extremely important, and I just want to read those circumstances. She states:

"Without a driver's licence, it is difficult to:

"—board an airplane for domestic travel;

"—obtain or update an Ontario health card ... ;

"—obtain and update a library card;

"—open and close a bank account, apply for a mortgage...;

"—act as executor of a will and power of attorney;

"—obtain a marriage licence;

"—register children at local schools;

"—register for courses at local community centres;

"—borrow special equipment at events for disabled patrons."

These are some of the very key things in our daily lives that we need, and this particular legislation will allow those individuals who do not drive to get an enhanced photo ID card which then can be used, as we use our driver's licence, to ensure that they continue to lead and live a normal life. So I'm extremely excited that this particular piece of legislation is being introduced.

Once again, congratulations to the Minister of Transportation and his parliamentary assistant for taking this step. It is definitely going to help many individuals in my constituency of Ottawa Centre by giving them a proper piece of photo ID in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I'm pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the Minister of Transportation and his parliamentary assistant in their opening presentation on second reading of Bill 85. As we know, this bill was just introduced yesterday, so members have not had a great deal of opportunity to review its contents or consult with stakeholders. Our party has indicated support for this bill, and I'm sure that it's not going to have to receive extensive second and third reading debate, but there are important points that have to be raised.

When I got my Canadian passport a couple of years ago, my recollection is that I paid $75 for it, if I'm not mistaken, and it was for five years. I don't think the minister or the parliamentary assistant has indicated to the House this morning how much this new, enhanced photo card is going to cost. If it's going to be effective, it will have to be much less expensive than that. I wonder if it's going to be the same cost as a driver's licence. It's $60 or $70, if I'm not mistaken, for a three-year driver's licence and I expect that is based on the administration cost. So I think that is an important point that needs to be clarified in this debate.

I also want to put this in perspective in terms of the tourism industry, because the minister has made reference to how this will, in his mind, benefit tourism. The minister is a former Minister of Tourism, of course, and while Minister of Tourism he advocated for this, so he is obviously following through now that he is in a position to do so as Minister of Transportation. But the fact is, the western hemisphere travel initiative has been a challenge for our tourism industry in Ontario because the American tourists we hope to attract to Ontario need the passport to get back home.

That's where the confusion lies, unfortunately, and, of course, if this bill were to pass and if the government does create this new, enhanced photo ID card for Ontario residents, it doesn't directly solve that problem that we have in tourism. To some degree, I suppose, we can encourage the American states to follow our lead, but let's keep this in perspective. This doesn't help tourism today as much as we would perhaps be led to believe by the government.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): A response? The member for Algoma—Manitoulin and parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I want to thank the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, the member for Timmins—James Bay, the member for Ottawa Centre and the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. I appreciate the constructive comments that have been made by the members.

As we move forward in this debate, I think it's extremely important and one that the government clearly hopes all members will be able to support at the end of the day. I recognize the concern about the cost that has been raised by at least two of the members, and I want to tell them that the government believes this to be in the $35 to $40 range for five years. A $35 or $40 charge to the consumer that would be, I guess, amortized over five years, so to speak, is hopefully something that can be absorbed by most Ontarians. I think that's a consideration.

We should know, though, that for minors, that is, people under 16—I'm not sure of that number; I can check—there isn't a requirement that they have one of these anyway. The Americans have seen fit to allow young people travelling not to need this under certain circumstances. So, for young people, that shouldn't be a burden.

I think you have to recognize that we are working with other provincial jurisdictions, with American states and with the federal governments of both Canada and the US to find a document that is affordable, easily transportable—i.e., a driver's licence, so it's in your wallet anyway for most people—and that can be used to facilitate easy passage across the border.

I take your comments, though, under advisement and I appreciate the tone of the debate.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: First of all, I want to thank the Conservative and Liberal Parties for allowing me to go a little bit out of rotation here. Tomorrow would have been my normal day for the lead speech for the New Democratic Party, but seeing that another bill is in committee and I have to be there at the same time, I appreciate the co-operation in the House.

I want to say up front, because I want people to understand clearly where we are at as a party, that we are going to support this legislation. I think it needs to go to committee. There are a few concerns that have to be addressed and we probably can do that at committee. But I want to say up front that the New Democratic Party will be supporting this.

I want to talk a little bit about the context, about how we got here. This is probably the only debate where I have had a chance to actually speak out on this since 9/11. Unfortunately, we had that tragic day where the people in the twin towers and the people on the plane in Pennsylvania and the people at the Pentagon were killed as a result of terrorist attacks. Clearly I am not saying for two seconds that was a good thing. It was a terrible thing, it was a tragedy.

People shouldn't have to die in that way, specifically because people are unhappy about what's going on in the world, the current events and what's happening politically. You would hope that in this day and age we are civil enough that we can figure out more peaceful ways of dealing with a lot of these issues.

In fact, the American election is going to be about that to a certain degree because you have the view of Senator Obama, who is saying, "I think it's important that we talk to all people in order to open dialogue with other leaders about issues that may be sticky." For example, he talks about talking to North Korea. On the other hand, you have Mr. McCain, the presumptive nominee for the Republicans, who is saying, "No, you shouldn't do that." Clearly, the United States is going through this debate about it being better to throw bombs or talk to people.

I think I'll leave the American people to decide which way they want to go, but I know, as a Canadian citizen, we have a long history in Canada, and certainly in Europe, of diplomacy always being a better way of approaching these things.

It relates to this bill, and this is why I want to talk about this. After the tragedy of 9/11, President Bush needed to do something to retaliate and to be seen as doing something against the tragedies of the twin towers, and I understand that. He's an American citizen, his citizens were murdered, and he is the President of the United States and had to be seen as doing something. One of the things that he did was create the homeland security organization, and some of the steps they have taken since then have gone counter to the essence of a democratic society.

We, in North America, have been quite lucky. We've talked for years about Canada and the United States sharing the longest undefended border in the world. It is nothing for a Canadian or an American to cross from one side of the border to the other and goods and services to move from one side of the border to the other. Even though we are two sovereign and independent nations, the United States and Canada, we understand we have shared goals. We have an economy that is part of the North American economy and we need to do business as each other.

By and large, we don't see each other as enemies; we see each other as friends. Oh yes, there is always the rivalry between the hockey clubs and the baseball clubs and even some people's political views, vis-à-vis left and right, Canada being seen as a little bit more left and the United States being seen as probably far more right than we would like, as far as right-wing politics.

What this has done, in my view, this whole debate about needing to increase security in the United States to protect ourselves from a possible terrorist attack, is fly in the face of what democratic society is all about and to require that citizens of those democracies, in Canada and now the United States, go through some added layers of scrutiny as far as exercising our rights as citizens in a democratic society.

I remember, and some of you would remember when you were younger, watching the 1950s, early 1960s TV shows where they used to depict the Soviet Union as a country where everybody carries a gun. Remember that? They'd be at the airports, and you'd see the security guys carrying the guns at the Soviet airports or somewhere in one of the eastern nations. The police were very present and there seemed to be a sense that there was paranoia on the part of the state about people's ability to move freely within their society.

I remember thinking back then, "Boy, that's really an overreaction." As a kid, I thought, "That's silly. That's not the way things should be. We should be able to move and come and go as we please as citizens. We're not a threat to our society. We are the society." Right? I would look at these 1950ish, 1960ish Cold War type TV shows or movies, where they were really showing the paranoia of the Soviet Union and how restricted in moving freely citizens had become within their own state, because the eye of government was everywhere watching them. I thought, "Never are you going to see that in North America. Lord! We're a democratic society."

Well, I fear since 9/11 and since homeland security and the term of President Bush, we haven't gone maybe as far as the Soviets had, but certainly we're moving in the direction of the state having greater and greater control on the people's liberty to move within their own nation and the freedoms that they enjoy as far as expression etc. We've seen, for example, both in Canada and the United States, legislation that was introduced that limits a person's right to a trial.

We have people who have been incarcerated in Canada for longer than would be normally allowed under the law, without any specific charges being laid, without any ability to defend themselves. Regarding the United States and what's happening in Guantanamo Bay—there may be legitimate terrorists there. I don't know. The point is that our society is built on the premise that everybody has a right to a trial, that you're innocent until proven guilty. That credo is especially true in the United States.

What I've seen since 9/11 is that we've become much more restricting of the rights of individuals, and that troubles me greatly.

I don't for one second say that there aren't acts of terrorism happening in the world and that governments shouldn't do things to protect themselves and expose and try to deal with those acts of terrorism before they happen. Quite the contrary: I think the state has a responsibility. But when you take that responsibility and move to restrict your citizens, I think you might have crossed over the line.

I'm not accusing the Liberal government and the minister of having pandered to the Americans. We find ourselves living next to a very, very large neighbour. As Tommy Douglas said, the relationship between Canadians and Americans is akin to a mouse sleeping in bed with an elephant. The mouse always has one eye open because it's worried the elephant might turn over.

That's a bit where we're at between Canada and the United States. Homeland security has decided that Canadian citizens will not be allowed into their country unless we have some means of identifying that these people are true Canadians and don't pose a threat to the United States. We're standing there on the other side of the border, shaking our heads, saying, "Listen, we've been your neighbour since our countries were born"—the United States in 1776, and Canada in 1867. We don't have a long history of lobbing bombs at each other and harbouring terrorists. Those things happen within the United States, as they can happen outside of the United States.

I would propose, despite this legislation and most other things that homeland security has done, that the United States is no safer than it was pre-homeland security measures, because if you're a terrorist and you want to take

an act of terrorism to the soil of the United States, it ain't going to be a photo ID from Ontario that's going to stop you. I don't like that, but that's the reality.

Again, I'm not speaking against this legislation. I'm just speaking to the point that we might have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, especially the Americans and our federal government to a degree. We're stepping into very dangerous waters when we start restricting people's rights within a democratic society to freely assemble and travel and to speak and to act out according to what they want, within the confines of our Constitution. Our Constitution says people have the right to assemble, our Constitution says people have the right to expression, and our Constitution says people have the right to a trial.

Where are we since 9/11? Much of that, especially in the United States and to some degree in Canada, has been somewhat limited.

I just wanted to start the debate by speaking to that a little bit.

Again, I don't accuse the government of anything. They didn't cause this issue. This is an issue where the President of the United States created homeland security, and they had to find something to do. They felt that somehow or other terrorists were coming in from Canada and that we were some sort of a threat, so they had to shut down the borders in some way. But I really think this is an overreaction.

The issue is, if they want to deal with the issue of terrorism, maybe they should start changing their foreign policy. My, that would be refreshing. Rather than sending in bombs and aircraft carriers and the Fifth Fleet as a response to political problems in other parts of the world, maybe the United States should try some diplomatic approaches.

If we take a look at the history of Europe, Great Britain used to be much what the United States is today. Great Britain, prior to the First World War, was the superpower of the day, and those Brits learned something over the years. They learned that, yes, they had a large navy and, yes, they had a large military, but they suffered lots of losses as a result of wars that they had with various nations. The Brits learned after a while, especially after the First World War, that diplomatic mechanisms were better for resolving some of these things than trying to resolve things militarily.

If you take a look at what happened after the First and Second World Wars, the Europeans took quite a different approach in the sense that they changed their foreign policy, not to make it reactionary but to try to be a little bit more proactive in dealing with some of these issues. Unfortunately, the Americans still need to learn that lesson. It's going to be interesting in this fall's presidential election because that debate should be prevalent, considering that Obama seems to have won the nomination for the Democrats and certainly Mr.

McCain has for the Republicans, and they both represent a different view on this issue.

I just wanted to start off the debate by talking about how it's sad that we have to pass this kind of legislation. I don't fault the Ontario government for doing it. If I were in government, I would have to do it as well. So I'm not for one second saying that the McGuinty government is kowtowing to the George Bush administration. The reality is that we live next to the Americans and we've got to figure out how to work with them. They have laws that say that they want this.

We need to figure out how to make it as non-intrusive as possible to our citizens, and that's what this legislation does: It tries to find a bit of a balance—where not everybody has got to run out for a passport—to having some means of identification that allows us to continue to travel to and from the United States with the least amount of trouble as possible. So, enough said about that. I just wanted to put that on the record because I think how we got here needs to be said.

As for the legislation—oh boy, where do I start? Probably the best place to start is to talk a little bit about what the legislation does, for those members who may not have had a chance to read the act—I did so last night—and the people who might be watching. The legislation is not a bad piece of legislation. I think there are a few things that we're going to need to take a look at at committee. Basically, what we're doing is we're creating a photo ID type of identification, tied to a driver's licence or others, to give people easier access to crossing the borders.

There are three photo IDs that you're going to be able to get under this legislation. You're going to have the basic identification, which is where a person aged 12 and over can walk into a Ministry of Transportation office and say, "I want photo ID." Currently, there are not a lot of ways of getting photo ID other than a health card, and a health card is not always accepted everywhere. So if you don't have a driver's licence and you need photo ID to do some of the things such as were talked about by the member from Ottawa—and you need photo ID for applications for everything nowadays, for credit etc.—this will be a way for people to get that.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: The LCBO.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The LCBO is a good example. You need photo ID when you're 19 years of age.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: They card you all the time.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I got carded at the airport one day, and I thought it was ridiculous. A 50-year-old guy goes to the airport to buy a beer and he gets carded. I thought, boy, this is wonderful. I said to the guy, "Do I look that young?" He said, "No. We card everybody." Anyway, that's a whole other story. I thought it was a compliment; it turns out he was carding everybody who came in.

Anyway, my point is that Michael Prue, our member from Beaches—East York, has raised this issue a number of times. I know he had sent letters to the Minister of Transportation on this particular issue and advocated, along with other members in this House, to basically create a photo ID through the Ministry of Transportation so that people who do not have driver's licences would have an ability to apply for a photo ID that they can use for identification. That's the first part that this bill does: It creates a basic photo ID card that has your picture, says where you live, who you are and identifies you.

So if you need to apply for a library card or buy a bottle of scotch or whatever it might be, you've got a photo ID in the event that you need one for application for whatever.

The second piece of information, the second type of ID coming out, is what's called the enhanced ID. That is for Canadian citizens who don't have a driver's licence or don't want a driver's licence and want to have a photo ID with their citizenship within the card. I believe that that card would not only allow them to use the ID within Canada, as far as the regular stuff—you know, going into the LCBO etc.—but it would also allow them to cross the border. In other words, I am the passenger in the car, I'm the passenger on the tour bus or I'm flying from city A to city B, from Canada to the United States. I would be able to use that, even though I don't have a driver's licence.

I think that's well thought through, because we need to recognize that it's not just people who drive cars who have the need to travel into the United States. On this point—having the enhanced card—I give the ministry credit for having thought that one through, because that was one of the things that concerned me at the beginning. I had some discussions with people about it. As Mr. Bradley said, I'm not going to take credit for it. I'm sure other people thought about this before me, but good. We've said it's not just drivers who need to travel into the United States, it's also citizens who don't have driver's licences.

The other thing is the combined card, which is basically that the person who does have a valid driver's permit will get photo ID and citizenship information on the card and get their driver's licence all in one, so that you can cross into the United States using your driver's licence. Rather than having a passport, a driver's licence, a health card and whatever else, you can just use your enhanced driver's licence, I guess I would call it.

I want to say that the reason we're doing this is because the government understands, as the opposition does, that the Americans have made a decision by way of homeland security, and we need to move towards trying to find some way to make it easier for the citizens of Ontario to travel to and from the United States without having to go through the bother and the pain of applying for a passport. Hopefully this legislation, once passed, if passed, will give Ontario citizens that right.

That's still to be determined to a certain extent, because the United States, being who they are and the way they operate, have not completely endorsed this, but at least we're moving forward with a few of the American states on this particular issue.

That brings me to a couple of concerns I have about the logistics of all of this. The first thing, and the parliamentary assistant spoke to it a little bit, is the issue of cost. Many people need to apply for the photo ID because it's the only means they have to identify themselves. The question I asked earlier of the parliamentary assistant was, "How much is this going to cost the individual?" I think the parliamentary assistant said it was between $35 and $40. For most people, that's probably not a big thing. For some more than others, it will be, especially if you're a younger person who is still at school.

You have a number of high school students who are over 16 who may have need of this card. For example, they may travel with their parents into the United States. I suppose mom and dad can pay, but it's still an issue of cost to a certain degree. The only point I would make is that I'll be interested in hearing at committee from the people who come to present on this issue. Do they think that's a reasonable number? On the surface it might be, but is it? The question becomes, once we get to committee, should there be a sliding scale for rates with regard to how much you pay for these cards?

For example, if you're a student, should you have to pay the same rate as an adult? There needs to be recognition that the person doesn't only have substantial expenses as a student—especially if they're in college or university, as far as loans they may need to get to school—but they don't have the income. So should we have a bit of a sliding scale on the fees you have to pay in order to get this card, this photo ID, or the enhanced ID or the combined ID? Should we have a different rate?

What about children under the age of 16? Yes, they don't need to have this enhanced ID to travel into the United States, because they're going to exempt kids under the age of 16, but there are a lot of people—13, 14, 12, whatever it might be—who are going to need this type of ID for very basic things that we do within our own communities. Again, is $35 to $40 reasonable to them? I ask the pages: You guys are in grade 7 or 8. How easy is it to come up with 40 bucks? Pretty tough. You had better hope mom and dad have the money.

Again, I want to hear at committee, do we need to have a different rate for children under the age of 16? They are citizens as well. Just because they happen to be under voting age and under 16 years of age, they have to interact within our society. Many of them need ID for all kinds of different reasons; not necessarily for travel into the United States, but for basic applications for things they may need themselves, such as a library card, or identification to get into some events. Often photo ID is required. So should we have a different rate for kids under the age of 16?

When this bill goes to committee, I want to see if we're actually going to have those concerns raised: cost of the card for kids under the age of 16 and cost of the card for young people, especially if they're students. Should there be a different rate, and is the rate of $35 to $40 reasonable? I imagine it's going to be more for the driver's licence, I take it. I just assume that, because—

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The member from the government side is saying it's going to be the same for a driver's licence. I take it what that means is I will be able to renew my licence every five years. Well, that's not a bad thing, then. For me, I'm okay with that. It saves me the bother of having to do it every, I think, two years.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: Five.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Is it five? Okay, I thought it was every two. What do I know? It goes to show you can be in this place a long time and sometimes get it wrong.

For myself as a person who makes a very good salary, $35 to $40 is not an issue, but it might be for others.

The other issue in regards to the logistics of this thing is the whole issue of access, to be able to get the card. I didn't hear a response from the parliamentary assistant to the minister on that issue. The question is this: As I understand it, the minister was telling me that as we move toward this, should this legislation pass, there are going to be areas where these cards will be issued fairly soon. You need to put a whole mechanism in place in order to be able to do this. You have to have access to the federal database so that you can identify the person as a citizen.

Obviously, you need some sort of change to the computer systems that we have at the Ministry of Transportation of some type; I don't know.

Second of all, you're going to need the ability to have the photo taken. I understand there's also in this legislation, as I read through it—I forget which section; if I had my glasses, I would know, because I marked it off here—section 6, photo comparison technology. This is actually a good thing, and I'll talk about that a little bit later, where a picture is taken of the individual who does the application.

It is not only put just on the driver's licence or the basic card, but it's also utilized in order to identify the person in the future. If the person comes back for reapplication of a licence under another name, for example, they would compare the photos and they would know that this face belongs to Gilles Bisson. So I can't go in and apply for a driver's licence as John Doe and use that other ID for fraudulent reasons. I'll come to that a little bit later.

But my point is, does the ministry currently have the capacity to absorb the applications that are going to come forward from citizens in Ontario wanting to get this card? For example, where I come from in Timmins, as everywhere else, we have people who travel into the United States on a regular basis. Some of them are going to want to get this particular card, this combined driver's licence. So the question becomes, will I be able to apply at an MTO office anywhere in Ontario to get one of these cards, and will I be able to get it reasonably quick?

I understand that they're going to be doing this in regions closer to the border first. That's how it's going to basically unfold. So if these cards are available, one of the things that I think we need to talk about and look at in committee again is, does the ministry have the capacity to roll this out? Do we have the capacity staff-wise? Do we have the capacity technology-wise to roll this out?

I see the parliamentary assistant is nodding yes. I would remind you, though, and you're going to know what I'm talking about—

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Oh, you're agreeing. I thought you were saying, "Yes." Okay, I hear you.

But all of us know because we've gone through this fiasco for about a year over passports. When homeland security and the American administration changed the rules so that you needed a passport to enter the United States, our offices were swamped with passport applications. I happen to be in a joint office with my federal member, Charlie Angus, so we got them all. We got the ones who went to the provincial member and the ones that went to the federal member wanting to get passports.

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, there were the birth certificates but I'm not going to get there.

Mr. Mike Colle: And the birth certificates.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yeah, I know; I understand that.

But my point was that the federal government did not have the capacity to deal with the onslaught of passport applications. So people were coming into our offices, applying for passports and having to wait, in some cases, three and four months to get their passport, when they had planned a trip two months ahead. People were jumping this high as they were coming into our offices and saying, "What gives here? I've got a trip to Aruba in January. I applied for my passport in October. I should have got it by now. I don't have anything back. I will not be able to travel."

Our offices—I'd imagine it was the same with your offices—had to intercede with the post office, with the people who do the courier services, with the passport office. Their MP liaison in Ottawa—my God, their offices were swamped with calls, all because, when the federal government in the United States said, "You have to have a passport to come into the United States," the Canadian government, being Stephen Harper, did like that little bobble in the back of the car and said, "Yes, Mr. Bush. Everything you say, I will do." Anyway, that's my making fun of Stephen Harper. I'm obviously not a big fan.

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No, I'm a big fan of Jack Layton. You've got that right. Jack Layton should be the Prime Minister of Canada. I think he'd make a great Prime Minister. I'll tell you: We'd be far better off under a New Democratic government federally. I agree with the Liberal member for Oriole—whatever the riding is. Is it Oriole?

Hon. David Caplan: Don Valley East.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It used to be Oriole.

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: See—I go back a ways.

Anyway, I only say that the federal government did not have the capacity to deal with the increased applications for passports. As a result, Canadian citizens were put off because they couldn't get their passports in time. I'll tell you, we worked hard in our offices—Charlie Angus and myself, and our staff especially—at tracking people's passports.

I remember instances of having to call the post office on a Sunday to get them to open, because we figured out by the tracking number that the darned passport had arrived on Saturday night and was sitting in the post office, and people were travelling at 6 o'clock in the morning on Monday. So it was like a horror story, all because the federal government did not have the capacity to deal with the increased applications.

All I'm saying is: If this legislation passes at third reading and gets royal assent and Ontario citizens know that they can get these photo ID cards, I could well imagine that there is going to be an onslaught of applications. There are many people in Ontario who travel to the United States, and they're going to say, "Okay, let me see if I've got this figured out. Forty bucks for a combined driver's licence"—how much is it for a passport now?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: It's $75.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I thought it was more than that. It's over $100, I thought. But even if it's $75, my point is that the citizen is going to say, "Apply for a passport to travel to the United States at $75 or get my enhanced or combined driver's licence for forty bucks." The choice is going to be pretty simple.

I'm saying here today in the House—and remember: This is recorded in Hansard—the ministry had better have the capacity to deal with the onslaught of applications, because we will end up where the federal government ended up when it came to the passports. So on the issue of capacity, we need to do that.

The second issue is that we need to make sure that every MTO office that issues drivers' licences across this province has the capacity to deliver. I don't pretend for one second to believe I understand everything that has to happen logistically to make this happen, but they're going to need more staff. They're going to need the ability to take these enhanced photos that—what do they call it again? I always have to look at what it's called. It's called photo comparison technology. We're going to need equipment to make that happen. We're going to have to have our databases changed in some way etc.

I hope we don't end up in a situation where border communities have it available today and everybody else has to wait till later, because I can tell you that people in Barrie, Timmins, Sudbury and other places aren't going to be too happy, as the member for Algoma—Manitoulin well knows, and being an advocate for people in northern Ontario, he has some sympathy for what I have to say. So we need to make sure we have the capacity to issue.

The other thing I want to talk about before I get into a few other things is that I have been raising in this House the issue of the individual in Kingston who, unfortunately, drove a vehicle when he was impaired and, as a result of that, four people were killed. The man was charged with manslaughter and went to jail for a period of time.

The sad story is that once the person was released from jail, he walked into a Ministry of Transportation office and, depending on the version, either because the ministry or the court made a mistake or the guy fraudulently changed his date of birth—God knows which one it is; everybody has a different version—the person was issued a brand new driver's licence and went back behind the wheel and started to drive. The problem we have is that the person was caught solely because he was pulled over for a driving infraction, for an offence of some type.

When the police ran his licence number through the CPIC database, which is the federal RCMP database that's tied to everything, they caught this guy as a suspended driver, because he had been impaired and had a lifetime ban. Here's the interesting part: The same person walked into a Ministry of Transportation office, and that wasn't flagged.

That's pretty scary. It's pretty scary that you can walk into a Ministry of Transportation office, and either because of an error by them or because you fraudulently changed your first name—and that's easy to do. All you've got to do is go to the ORG, apply for a name change, have your name changed from John Doe to George Doe and you're a new person because the ministry database looks at the person's first and last names as the criteria when they do the search string.

One of the issues I've been raising in this House is that we need to enhance the way the Ontario database works so that those fraudulent applications for drivers' licences by people who either (

a) were suspended or (

b) are trying to get a driver's licence illegally can be caught. This legislation might give us an opportunity to deal with some of that. For example, this whole photo comparison technology I think is something that would have caught this particular case because a picture would have been taken of this individual in Kingston, whose picture would have been on file, and if he went in and applied as John Doe versus Randy Smith, he would have been caught because the identification would have been done through the picture.

The other thing we need to look at in the MTO database—there has to be some discussion. Listen, parliamentary assistant to the minister, this is simple. All right? You guys at MTO need to pick up the phone and call the RCMP. That's the federal police. You need to talk about how you're able to put a flag between your two databases because what happens is, if there's an offence that you're charged with and you lose your driver's licence—because it's a charge—it ends up in the CPIC database. Because it's either a provincial offence or it's a criminal offence, it ends in the CPIC database.

Any time you're charged with a provincial offence or a criminal offence, it ends up in the CPIC database, and all we need is a flag between those two databases. The MTO database has to flag the RCMP CPIC database to say, "This person's in the CPIC database," and that should then provoke a manual search on the part of the agent who is issuing the licence to find out why that is.

Now, we don't want to merge those two databases together because of privacy issues. There's far more information in the RCMP CPIC database than I want the MTO getting their hands on. Quite frankly, those are issues of privacy. But certainly, you have to have a flag, and if we had a flag between the RCMP CPIC database and the MTO database, if a person goes in who has been charged criminally or under a provincial offence and applies for a driver's licence, that would be automatically flagged by the MTO office.

If there was a ban on the driver's licence, we would know right away because the clerk would say, "Hold it a second. I've got to find out what's going on." They would make an inquiry in regard to why it is that person has been flagged. The question would be, "Has this person's licence been revoked, yes or no?" That's all we need to know. I don't know what the person needs to be charged with. It might be a criminal offence; that's none of my business. But the CPIC people can say, "No, the person does not have a revoked driver's licence." "Fine, we can reissue." End of story.

It would be a very simple thing to do. So I really encourage the provincial government, under the leadership of Mr. Bradley and Mr. Brown, to contact their federal counterparts to talk about how we're able to flag the CPIC database back to the provincial MTO database. That would catch it and we would know for sure at that point between what's in this bill and what could be put into this bill when it comes to security and what happens with the CPIC database. We know that we would not have a repeat of what happened in Kingston.

I end this particular issue by just saying this: The minister, the other day, in response to my question, said, "Oh, well, you know, this was like a one-off. This was a one-in-a-million kind of thing." I'm sorry. There are a lot of people out there who have drivers' licences who shouldn't have them. Let's not kid ourselves.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Don't mention my name.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No, I will not mention the member's name.

It is not that hard to go out and get another driver's licence. We know, for example, that there are people who get drivers' licences illegally, and we've seen it through some of these issuing offices that we have out there now that have been privatized. Basically, for a fee, you can bypass the process and get yourself a driver's licence. That person may not be a safe driver. We have a system in Ontario where we want people to go through a process to make sure they're safe behind the wheel.

In the case of persons being banned or having their drivers' licences revoked for whatever reason, it's not all that difficult to get another one, as we learned through this case in Kingston. All it took was a different year of birth on the person's application, and so be it. I just say we need to make sure that we fix this, and there are two ways of doing: part of it in this legislation and the other part of it in the flag between the CPIC database and this one.

I want to talk about a few of the privacy issues. It comes back to what I was talking about earlier in regard to our friend Mr. Bush, the President of the United States for the next seven or eight months. I said earlier it's unfortunate that the United States has become much more restrictive when it comes to what its citizens can and can't do since 9/11. We understand the tragedy of 9/11, and I don't diminish that for one second. That was a tragedy. It was clearly

an act of terrorism and should not be condoned. That's not my point. But as a reaction to it, we have limited people's rights within the United States, and in Canada to a certain degree.

One of the problems with this legislation is this whole radio frequency identification technology. I understand why they want to put it on the enhanced card or the combined card so that when you're driving up to the border you would be able to go through a little bit quicker. The problem is that this stuff doesn't turn off. It has a range of probably hundreds of feet, but the signal that comes off the card is always on. You cannot turn it off. What happens if a store or individuals are able to figure out how to tap into that frequency? There's a legitimate privacy concern.

I'm not saying this is going to happen, but let's put forward a couple of scenarios. Wal-Mart decides that they've figured out how to track people by tapping into this frequency. That's a lot of information: "How many times do people come back into our stores? What time are they coming in?"—all of that kind of information. I'm not saying Wal-Mart would do it, but I'm using them because they're the biggest target. They're the biggest general store, so why not pick on them? I'm not going to pick on ma and pa in downtown Timmins, right? That wouldn't be fair.

My point is, you could end up in a situation where somebody figures out how to tap into these frequencies and is able to track what individual citizens are doing in all kinds of ways that we don't want to have happen.

I think when we go to committee—and I don't want this bill to rush through committee. We need to have this bill in committee this summer, to give some people a chance to think about this so that we're able to look at this issue as to how we can make sure that if this RFID technology is used, which is these signals within the cards—the idea is that you would have a driver's licence that would have a chip in it and then the chip would basically alert the border patrol that you're coming and let you through a little bit quicker. But can that technology be used by others for what it was not intended to do?

We can all stand here in the House and say that will never happen, but we know there are all kinds of unscrupulous people in our society. Certainly to God, I'm not for utilizing that technology for bad reasons, and I don't think anybody in this House is. So I say we need to make sure that we are able to look at that issue a little bit closer at committee. I look forward to having experts come before us and talk about that particular part of it.

The other thing is the information that MTO will be collecting, because they're not just going to be doing what they do now. When I go to the MTO office and apply for my driver's licence, they get my name, my middle name, my last name, my date of birth and my address. There is going be a little bit more information than that on the cards, obviously citizenship information. We need to make sure that the databases are secure. Again, I don't know if they will or will not be. I'm not saying they're not, but I think we need to ask the question.

It's a very legitimate question to ask the ministry as it comes before a committee: "What steps have you taken to make sure that the additional information we're now going to be getting is made secure?" We remember what happened in the FRO under the Conservatives. Do you remember that one, where they closed the Family Responsibility Office in Sudbury and everybody else's regional offices, and they took all that information and put it in boxes inside a building in Downsview? There was a lot of information that was unsecured.

This stuff was out there for people to see: court records as far as how much a person had to pay, what the conditions of visitation were. All that information was there. Anybody could have grabbed that.

I want to make sure when we're in committee that we ask the ministry, "What steps are you taking to make sure that the information you currently have and the information you will be getting is made secure so that within the ministry there are proper safeguards for this information not to be leaked or not to be viewed by other people who shouldn't be seeing it?" Clearly, we need to do that.

On the last part of the security—I just stopped there because I remembered—it would be good to get the privacy commissioner to come before our committee. We should be asking the privacy commissioner, quite frankly, to look at this legislation—we should be making that request through the committee—and for her to come back and to tell us what she thinks. That's what the privacy commissioner does, and she has the staff to be able to do that.

If we're going to be providing this type of card and technology to the province, I think we as legislators need to do everything we can to make sure that we protect the privacy of individuals. I see the parliamentary assistant is agreeing with me.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I am.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yes, I see you're agreeing, and other members. I look forward to that happening, and we need to make sure that we hear from the privacy commissioner in order to make that happen.

I just want to end on this particular point, and that's the role of committee. Sometimes—and we don't do this for the wrong reasons—we think we understand our legislation far more than we do, if you know what I mean, as parliamentary assistant, critic or minister. I read the legislation, as the member did, and I think I somewhat understood it. But who knows, right? There may be something I misread. Often what happens is that we hurry the stuff through the committee process.

For example, we got Bill 41, the speed limiters legislation, going to committee tomorrow. You will know, as parliamentary assistant—you're getting the same e-mails as me: "How come I didn't get a chance to present? The cut-off date was Tuesday for presentations" etc. So often what ends up happening is that by the time the public hears a bill is coming, and they decide to apply to committee to come and have their say, they end up being barred out because the process has been truncated and sped up.

All I'm saying to the minister and the parliamentary assistant in this case is that this is legislation that I don't think we should be hurrying up too much. I don't have a problem with passing it. It'll be fine to get second reading this spring and get it into committee for the summer. We may or may not need a lot of committee time, but what we do need is an adequate amount of time to let Ontarians know that this legislation is coming, to reach out to people who know more about security and privacy issues than we do, so that they're able to come before our committee and give us their best advice about how we make this bill work in the way we intend it to.

I tell you now, as a member of the New Democratic Party and the critic for transportation, we're not going to hold this up at third reading; we don't have any intention of doing that. And we have no intention of holding this up in committee. But we need sufficient time to give people notice. We may only need one or two days of committee time. I don't know; it'll depend on the requests. But I don't want to be in a position, as we were with the Bill 41, the speed limiters bill, where people feel that they didn't get enough time to make application to present to committee. So on this legislation, I think we need to be able to do that.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: That's some nerve on your part.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The reality is, I wasn't available Friday for the subcommittee meeting. I understand that.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: What about the other times?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The first request I had was last Friday, just so you know. That was the first request.

So the point—the regional deal on Bill 41, as I understood it as the whip—was that Bill 41 was actually going to travel in the summer. That was the original deal as I understood it, so this was not even on our radar screen. So a lot of people are feeling a little bit left out.

I'm just saying, let's not repeat that with this bill. I want to put it clearly on the record, as the critic for the New Democratic Party, that this bill should have adequate time for the public to be notified. People should get adequate time for notification for when this bill will be in committee. A day or a week is not going to be enough. We need to make sure that this thing is posted. We need to reach out to the privacy commissioner and others to let them know that we need them to come out and to give us some learned advice about what this bill can and can't do and what we should change, and then bring the bill back for third reading this spring.

With that, I want to thank you. That's all the time I need in this debate. I look forward to the questions and comments.

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

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I'll just take a minute or so to make some comments on the statement by my neighbour here from James Bay.

I want to say up front that I think he's very sincere in his debate. I think the questions that he raises are, in part, legitimate. I'm delighted to see that, in general, we are in agreement that this has to be done. It's things like this that arise from time to time through a change in world conditions, I guess, if one must say.

I think both the minister and the parliamentary assistant have acknowledged that it's going to go to committee and there'll be that opportunity for the public to give that input.

Not just on this particular issue, but on many other issues it's very important that information comes from the ground up, because those are the folks who are going to be lining up, whether it's at the liquor store or a border crossing, or even when they go to register for college or university and they don't have a driver's licence—some of the challenges that I know my office hears about sometimes regarding not having proper identification.

Right now, even for those minor incidents where identification is needed when people go to those offices, they don't know if they have the right type of identification that could put them through, and normally that leaves a lot of frustration.

So I'm delighted we're moving forward on this. Is it going to fix all the problems? Probably not, but I think we're all heading in the right direction. I'm delighted to support the comments that were made and also to try to move this ahead as quickly as we can.

Mrs. Julia Munro: In the brief moment that I have, I just want to suggest that, to me, the issue is the balance of the issues around privacy and the challenges of security. I think that it's incumbent upon the government to use the best and the newest technology at their disposal to be able to provide a secure system, and that's why there's a general recognition of the need for the government to go forward in this. But I also would agree with the previous speaker about the importance of making sure we have it right, that we are not creating a system that puts people's privacy at risk.

It is through the process of public comment and public hearings that we are able to understand some of the challenges that a bill such as this provides.

I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that at the end of the day this has to meet the test of con-fidence at the border. It has to be something that in fact does what it says it will do in a way that is cost-effective.

We recognize the importance of that balance of privacy, the security of our records and also the broader issue of security for our borders. I think that making sure those things are guaranteed by this legislation is really the essence of the debate here.

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde: Ça me fait plaisir de participer à ce projet de loi tellement attendu par les Ontariens et Ontariennes. Ce projet de loi permettra l'obtention de deux différentes cartes, tout d'abord le permis de conduire avec une photo ainsi que les renseignements nécessaires. Le gouvernement McGuinty propose la mise en circulation d'un permis de conduire spécial plastifié, sur lequel figureront des renseignements sur la citoyenneté. Ce permis de conduire spécial deviendra un document de voyage acceptable, un substitut de passeport, pour se rendre aux États-Unis par voie terrestre ou maritime.

Oui, nous savons que, actuellement, selon l'information reçue, à compter du 1 er juin 2009, toutes personnes n'ayant pas un passeport ou une carte telle que proposée par le gouvernement McGuinty ne pourront pas se rendre aux États-Unis par voie terrestre ou maritime. Actuellement, nous savons que par la voie des airs, il est obligatoire d'avoir un passeport. Cette carte sera vendue au coût de 40 $. Si une personne doit obtenir un passeport, le coût actuel régulier est de 85 $, et je crois qu'il y a une augmentation.

Mais l'important de ce projet de loi est l'obtention d'une carte d'identité pour une personne n'ayant pas de permis de conduire. Nous savons depuis longtemps que l'ombudsman de l'Ontario a fait des recommandations au ministère des Transports demandant à ce que le gouvernement McGuinty se penche sur cette demande faite par les aveugles, par exemple, et aussi par les étudiants et étudiantes de l'Ontario n'ayant pas de permis de conduire. Mais cette carte sera à la disposition de tous les Ontariens et Ontariennes qui n'ont pas de permis de conduire, et ils pourront l'obtenir afin de se rendre plus facilement aux Etats-Unis.

Mr. John O'Toole: I am very pleased to respond to the member from Timmins—James Bay. As has been indicated, I believe this side of the House, the opposition party, is in support of Bill 85.

That being said, you look at the bill here. A couple of points have been made. I just recently had to renew my driver's licence, and today's driver's licence was $74 for one year, $148 for two years. So I know that.

I'm wondering now, with this new ID attached to a driver's licence, how much it's going to be. I'm a little bit worried, without too much accountability and openness here. The Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Finance just love to get your hand in your pocket. Before we concede complete agreement on this—because it is the right thing to do—how much is it going to cost? Every time they do something over there, it costs more.

The economy right now is troubling. In fact, this doesn't solve, as the minister said, some of the problems of the transborder issues. Americans coming in here won't have one of these cards and they'll have to have a passport to get back, under the rules. So American tourism will not, as has been suggested, actually be improved. Tourism is extremely important as we enter this season.

Mr. Tory and our party came up with a plan, which was to remove the retail sales tax on Ontario hotels and attractions for the summer months. We have a plan here that would have stimulated tourism this summer. Perhaps it's separate from this Bill 85, which is a bill that really allows the Minister of Transportation and the McGuinty government to issue one of three types of identifications. We have no idea what it's going to cost to set it up, how much it's going to cost for the consumer to purchase. And is it really going to provide any real support for tourism?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Timmins—James Bay, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I appreciate the comments made by the various members who actually supported most of what I had to say. I will only repeat that I think the important part of this thing is that we need to make sure that privacy issues are dealt with so that the information that MTO has on these new driver's licences or photo IDs is not misused. I think we need to make sure that we have the privacy commissioner come before our committee in order to deal with this, so that we can have the expert advice of her office about how we make sure that we safeguard the information and how we utilize these new cards in the future.

I guess the last point is that we need to really make sure that we have time in committee to deal with this. Again, I want to be real clear to the minister and the parliamentary assistant. I'm not asking for extensive public hearings on this. What I'm saying is that we need to post it out there so that people can see it, so they have sufficient time to be able to figure out that this is coming, that we be somewhat proactive in our approach—that we reach out to some people as a committee who we think might be interested in this issue, and then basically allow them to decide if they want, or not, to present to committee.

We may in the end only need a day. We may only need two or three. I don't know. I just want to make sure that we get this right, as we move forward. As I said earlier, it's unfortunate that we need this type of identification in Ontario. The Americans have basically forced this on us, so we have no choice but to deal with it. Nonetheless, if we're going to do it, let's make sure, as humanly as we possibly can, that we get the legislation right and that we make sure that citizens' right to privacy is protected so that it's not misused in any way.

With that, I want to thank you for this time in debate and I look forward to the time we'll have on committee for this particular legislation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The time for debate is adjourned.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome some guests here to the chamber today.

On behalf of the member from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex and on behalf of page Chris Jefferies: I'd like to welcome Andrew Jefferies, his father, Rosanna Jefferies, his mother, Daniel Jefferies, Alexandra Jefferies, Donnajean Jefferies, Jim Jefferies, Tony Basacco and Lena Basacco.

On behalf of page Ellen Tomaino: Sitting in the gallery today are her mother Julie, her father Mike, her sister Heike, brother Jay, brother Willi, grandmother Faith Tomaino, grandfather Peter Tomaino, her aunt Christine Walker, cousins Sarah Walker and Matt Walker and cousin David Petriw.

As well, on behalf of page Murray Fallis: His mother Wendy McQuaig and his grandmother Lois Fallis are in the west members' gallery.

On behalf of the member for Mississauga—Erindale, I'd like to welcome to the House today the grade 5 class from Edenrose Public School in Mississauga. They are visiting the Legislature today.

As well, a belated anniversary yesterday to the class of 1999, of which I am a member, elected nine years ago. To all those members who arrived nine years ago yesterday, congratulations.

MEMBER'S BIRTHDAY

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of all members of the House, I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Burlington, Joyce Savoline, on her birthday today. Happy Birthday.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Premier. It has to do with what is clearly an economic crisis bearing down on our province. The first quarter of this year saw Canada's economy shrink, primarily because of the difficulties this province is facing. The massive job losses we've seen in the auto industry just in the last few weeks tell us that the situation is escalating. As a first step towards what we believe should be happening in terms of the tabling of a mini-budget before we rise for the summer, are you prepared to direct your House leader to work with opposition House leaders to

schedule an emergency debate on the state of the economy at the earliest opportunity?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It would seem to me that every question period, every opportunity we have with the media and during the course of various debates in this Legislature, we have an opportunity and indeed a responibility to talk about the economy. I'm pleased to engage in this right now.

One of the things I want Ontarians to understand is that there is a profound difference in terms of our approach when it comes to growing this economy and their approach. They believe that for every complex problem there's a neat and tidy solution. That is not the case when it comes to the economy. You cannot simply cut taxes and expect that that's going to generate economic growth. They didn't close that GM car plant in Mexico yesterday because of high corporate taxes. They didn't close it because they thought that the labour costs were too high.

The world is a little more complex, and it's high time that my Conservative friends come to grips with it. You need to do more than just cut corporate taxes.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: It's regrettable that the Premier continues to use this kind of platform for political rhetoric and to attack the opposition parties rather than try to find some way of approaching this in a united and constructive way. He stands up here day after day and attacks the opposition for raising very legitimate concerns. His rhetoric is small comfort to the families in Windsor and Oshawa and elsewhere throughout this province who are losing their jobs under his watch and under his policies.

What we're suggesting here today is an opportunity to discuss this, give everyone in this place an opportunity to have input, move forward, bring in new policies, new approaches. We want to work with you in a constructive way to address the real challenges of this province. Why won't you do that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: If that were so, then you would think that at the House leaders' meeting, which just concluded a few moments ago, the representative for the Conservative Party might have raised this very issue. That was not the case. Instead, they chose to do that within the context of a highly charged question period. I understand that's their right to do so, but I think it undermines their credibility in this particular regard.

Here's the real issue, and we need to expose this to the light of day: They want to cut taxes in the province of Ontario by $5 billion. That is not going to help businesses that are struggling today. They are not paying corporate taxes today because they are struggling—certain parts of the sector. Furthermore, they're not prepared to acknowledge that cutting $5 billion out of our revenues means cuts to our schools, cuts to our hospitals, cuts to the programs that protect the most vulnerable, and cuts to protections for our environment. They're not prepared to acknowledge that. I am, and I won't go there.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: This is another repeat performance, and a disappointing one, to say the least, especially for people who are losing jobs across this province and the communities and families who are being impacted by those job losses and plant closures.

The Premier tries to suggest that we're only approaching this from one perspective. My colleague from Oshawa, Mr. Ouellette, stood in this House yesterday and offered a number of positive alternatives to look at in terms of addressing the ongoing and long-term challenges in the auto sector in Ontario. Once again, you showed utter disdain for proposals and real opportunities to move forward here in a co-operative way.

We're asking you once again to involve this assembly. Show that it means something to you, that the people in this place have a role to play. Let us have input, and based on that input, bring in a mini-budget and we'll address these problems going into the future in Ontario.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Here's another fundamental difference between our government and the opposition: We believe that one of the most important things we can do in this period of our economic history—while we can't guarantee jobs for all Ontarians that will be there in perpetuity, what we can do is work as hard as we can to guarantee the employability of our people. That's why we've lent such a strong focus to education. That's why, in our recent budget, we committed $1.5 billion to further enhancing training opportunities. That's why tomorrow, in fact, I'll be announcing some of the specific details about our second-career strategy.

We believe it's really important to help people who have lost their jobs to get long-term training opportunities, something that has not been available not just here in Ontario, but anywhere else in the country. They voted against that provision. Again, they would rather cut taxes and allow people to flounder on their own. We think we've got a responsibility to help and we will continue to do just that.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: As you can well imagine, families in Oshawa are devastated about how the closures are going to impact them. Workers are rightly out there demonstrating their displeasure with the agreements to try to make changes there. And it's not going to end there. I would let the members know that the internal documents I am in possession of talk about the St. Catharines powertrain plant and what's going to happen there.

Yesterday, Premier, the questioning was to try and find out the details of the funding agreements on the transfer of funds. It was supposedly based on employment. Is that employment based on internal employment or external employment? And how is it going to be in the plant or outside the plant? First, we heard it was a grant; then it was a loan; then it was a 50-year loan; then a 30-year loan; and then $100 million and $175 million. Premier, can you let us in on what the actual funding agreement is?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I will allow the Minister of Economic Development and Trade to speak to some of the details to this.

Let me just say this at the outset, and I know the member opposite understands this: We have been working hard with a variety of auto manufacturers. They have demanded of us—and we think this is perfectly reasonable from their perspective—that we treat the individual agreements with some commercial sensitivity. The folks at Toyota don't want their arrangement known to the folks at Ford, the folks at Ford don't want their arrangement known to the folks at GM, and then Honda as well. So we intend to respect that.

I can say, though—and this is the fundamental difference; I want to draw the line once again—that we believe it's important on the part of our government to sit down with CAW workers, auto workers and auto manufacturers in the province of Ontario, and to enter into a competition with the US to ensure that we land new investment. What we need to know on the part of the Conservatives is whether they continue to support our being in competition with the US, our working with the CAW and our working with our manufacturers to ensure that we land more new investment to create more new jobs for Ontario workers.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The General Motors truck plant closing is going to have a devastating effect on Oshawa, and in fact on all of the communities in Durham region. In addition to the workers who are going to be laid off, there's going to be a huge spin-off effect, which is going to relate to other businesses relating to the auto industry, as well as the hospitality industry. These are real people with families to feed and mortgages to pay.

But there is something that the Premier can do. There are going to be up to $35 million in penalties that are to be paid by General Motors pursuant to your agreement with them. Will you commit today to directly reinvesting those funds back into our communities?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think it's important to note that the Premier reported yesterday that coming very soon is taking that step with our new skills development program. When that party that is asking a question today was asked to vote whether they were interested in assisting people who need to be retrained for new jobs, that party in opposition was opposed to that and voted against it.

What is really important today is that the community of Oshawa—they are hurting today. We are worried about those families and we want those families working. This government will continue to do everything it can to help GM succeed. We know that these are challenging times for GM today. We know that we want more investment in the future. For these members today, I ask them, will they stand up for GM? Because we will have opportunities again with this company. We want to be there for GM and we're going to count on—

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

Mr. John O'Toole: My question is also to the Premier. Everyone in the region of Durham, in fact, those associated with the auto sector, know there's a serious challenge. There's a real challenge for you, Premier, a real opportunity for you, to show compassion and leadership. In fact, our opposition leader, Mr. Runciman, has said today that we should have a discussion on this. It's such an important question. Let's not just politicize it.

What I'm asking you to do today is, do you have a plan to bring together the CAW, Chris Buckley, as well as the president of General Motors in Canada, and provide a forum and some leadership to find a solution, not just for General Motors but for the families, the employees, and for the province of Ontario? Do you have a plan to bring them together to find a solution, or is this just going to be more political finger-pointing?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think we do have to be clear that today we are thinking about the families in Oshawa that are affected by the General Motors announcement. Our first concern is for the workers on the line at the truck plant in Oshawa. When we call Buzz Hargrove and say, "What can we do?" Buzz Hargrove tells us that we have to help land new investments.

So when these members opposite stand to ask the question of us, I ask the question of them, will you be there to support General Motors when they need help the most? When we want to support those families through our new retraining programs for workers who are being laid off, will you support those initiatives? Those will be key.

Let me say too that there are challenges and there are successes: yesterday's Ford announcement and yesterday's Honda announcement. We—

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

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton: To the Premier: Yesterday's announcement that General Motors is permanently closing its truck plant in Oshawa is simply tragic. It's tragic because the workers there have won literally dozens of awards for productivity and for excellence. It's tragic because 2,600 of those workers are now being shown the street. It's tragic because the McGuinty government, with much boasting and chest-thumping, gave General Motors $235 million without getting any job guarantees for the workers.

My question is this: Why did the McGuinty government let down thousands of Oshawa workers when you gave General Motors $235 million and obviously didn't get any job guarantees?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I always appreciate the question. I think it's worth listening to what Buzz Hargrove had to say about this issue. He said:

"In contrast to the federal government's inaction, the Ontario government has been doing its best to support auto investment and employment.... Without provincial support (including its participation in GM's Beacon project), the situation facing the industry today would be far, far worse."

I can't tell from one day to the next where the NDP stands on this issue. They say they are in favour of supports for the auto sector, but when there is some kind of setback, when they closed a plant in Mexico, two in the US and one in Ontario, they say we should never have offered assistance in the first place.

We are not backing away from making difficult decisions to find new opportunities to support the auto workers in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Howard Hampton: The Premier is mistaken: It's the Premier who thinks you can give $235 million to General Motors and you don't have to worry about job guarantees for workers. I say if you're going to give $235 million to General Motors, you'd better get some job guarantees or it's a bad deal.

But it's not just that. The McGuinty government changes its story just about every day. When this deal was first announced, General Motors workers and other auto workers were told that it was going to guarantee their jobs across Ontario—thousands of jobs. What do we find now? No job guarantees. When it was first announced, we were told, "This is an investment. This is a grant." Now that it doesn't look so good, suddenly the Premier says, "Oh, it's only a loan."

Premier, here's the end question: Do you think it's a good deal that General Motors—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: GM itself has admitted that it may very well just have put itself in breach of the agreement which we entered into. They have specifically acknowledged that.

I understand from my good friend opposite that he believes that the only thing we need to do is cut corporate taxes. He needs to get in touch with the Mexican workers at the plant in Mexico and speak to them about that, because they think they've got the lowest corporate taxes on this side of the world. He also thinks that the issue here is labour costs, that the people at CAW are getting paid too much. Again, he needs to get in touch with the Mexican workers to find out about their position on that particular score.

The fact of the matter is, we have entered into a number of agreements. There were some job guarantees associated with that. There are going to be some financial consequences that will flow from that. We will not become reluctant to continue to compete on behalf of the auto worker in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Howard Hampton: The Premier seems to spend a lot of time talking about what may or may not happen in Mexico. I think the Premier should get in touch with what's happening to workers here in Ontario who are losing their jobs by the thousands under the McGuinty government.

But I want to get an answer to the question. In my view, a deal that gives General Motors $235 million of the people's money and then allows General Motors to lay off thousands of workers is a bad deal. My simple question: Does the Premier still think it was a good deal for workers at General Motors and Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: If I've got to make a choice, I'm with the Canadian Auto Workers, I'm with Buzz Hargrove and I'm with the families who are supported by those jobs.

My friend the leader of the NDP might not like to acknowledge this, but the competition out there is pretty tough. There was a US southern state that came to the table in connection with a potential Kia investment and put down $1 billion. At the end of the day, we cannot win if it comes down to money alone. Fortunately, we have quality and productivity on our side; we have public health care on our side; we have good infrastructure on our side; we have cultural, relentless innovation on our side; and we have, perhaps best of all, a government on the side of Canadian auto workers, their families and this industry in our province.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton: To the Premier: The Premier wants to pretend that he's on the side of workers, but General Motors not only has taken advantage of the McGuinty government and $235 million of public money, but they signed a collective agreement a couple of weeks ago saying they weren't going to do this. So if the Premier is on the side of the workers, what is the Premier going to do to force General Motors to live by the terms of the collective agreement they signed?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The leader of the NDP well understands that there is a very important relationship to be found between the two parties to this agreement. I know they are going to pursue some difficult conversations at this point in time.

But rather than insinuate myself into that process, what I want both sides to know, what I've told Buzz Hargrove, what I've told CAW workers individually, what I've told the president of GM North America, what I've told the presidents of Ford and Daimler, with my visit to Fiat, with Honda and Toyota—I've told them all we are prepared to sit down and work as hard as we can to land new investment in the province of Ontario.

Rather than insinuate myself into a difficult situation between the CAW and GM at this time, what Ontario taxpayers need to know is that we're going to find a way to bring both sides together to ensure there is a bright and promising future for the auto sector and auto sector jobs in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Premier, the workers in Oshawa have heard all those words before and they know all too well how empty those words are. They know what they heard only three years ago, that giving General Motors $235 million was going to guarantee their jobs and thousands of other GM jobs. It turns out that promise was completely false.

Premier, it comes down to this: General Motors has got $235 million of the public's money; workers are out the door. General Motors made a commitment to the auto workers that they were going to sustain jobs. They made that commitment just two weeks ago. The auto workers want to know what you are going to do about both of those things, or don't you care, really, about their jobs, when it comes right down to it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It's becoming more and more obvious to me that the leader of the NDP has not had real contact with any CAW workers of late, because when I've had that contact with them, one of the things they seek continual reassurance on is that we will continue to fight for the auto sector in Ontario, that we will continue to do everything we can to land new investment. Of course, we regret the fact that so many workers have lost jobs, but the fact of the matter is that we continue to do better than any other jurisdiction in North America.

Something that was overlooked yesterday was the announcement of a new product coming out of the Ford plant. Something that was overlooked yesterday was a new announcement for a Honda parts plant. Around the corner, we've got a new Toyota assembly plant that will begin work on a full-time basis. There is some room for some real optimism. I think the last thing we need to do right now is to somehow pull back and decide that we can't participate in these kinds of ventures, because what auto workers are looking for us to do is to show—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: Premier, what workers across this province want is a government that's actually prepared to stand up to GM, rather than simply doling out the money and watching them lay off workers.

I was in Oshawa just a week and a half ago. I was at a workers' action centre talking with workers who have already lost their jobs, who are looking at the prospect of losing their homes, who don't have another job to go to. They know that the 2,600 jobs that are going to go at the truck plant will mean another 10,000 jobs in terms of parts. They hear all your promises. They see all your photo ops. They see all your empty announcements. What they want to know is, when is the Premier of Ontario going to stand up to General Motors and start standing up for workers who are losing their jobs?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The fact of the matter is, we are clawing back money from GM. There's no dispute in that regard, none whatsoever.

What I should tell my colleague, as a matter of interest, is that at the Ford announcement yesterday they launched a new product in Ontario and took on 500 new workers in that regard. There was a reporter—

Mr. Howard Hampton: This would be the muscle car.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Now my colleague says that he's against the new product. That's why I said at the outset, it's hard to figure out from one day to the next, from one question to the next—is he suggesting that we should pull that product off the assembly line and put those workers out of work?

I want auto workers to know, there's only one party in this Legislature which is firmly in their corner. We'll do everything we need to do to make sure that we land new investment with this party and this government.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is for the Premier. Premier, a few weeks ago, I asked if your government would honour your agreement with forestry partners to provide for a long-term regulation under the Endangered Species Act which would recognize forest management plans. You indicated that your government was turning its back on forestry partners and your previous commitment and would not honour its word. Since then, the Ontario Forestry Industry Association has been working on a new stewardship agreement, and they have had a legal opinion that indicates the act would allow such an agreement.

My question is this: Will you agree to negotiate a stewardship agreement in the interests of ensuring that northern communities don't become an endangered species?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I'm pleased to be able to respond. First and foremost, we must take credit for having the Endangered Species Act, which is in fact the most significant act in North America for the protection of species at risk.

The Premier was very clear in his letter to the forest industry that we would in fact integrate the Endangered Species Act into the forest management plans. I have said that repeatedly. So what we're able to do—we have 46 of those plans, soon to be 47—is sit down with the industry over the next year and do exactly that. We've been working with the industry. It's not difficult. They have a good track record. They already deal with 21 of those endangered species, and we look to build on what has already been an excellent track record. So we find that this is consistent with the approach we've been taking, and I'm looking forward to working with the forest industry.

Mr. Norm Miller: I guess that's why the Ontario Forestry Coalition has made the trek down here from northern Ontario to have a press conference today. They are so happy with the way things are going.

More than 230,000 jobs are at stake here. We just can't afford to lose these jobs. This province has attained a world-renown