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

June 5, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Jun-05 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 5 June 2008 Jeudi 5 juin 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PHOTO CARD ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LES CARTES-PHOTO

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

ONTARIO ECONOMY

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

ROAD SAFETY

MANUFACTURING JOBS

TUITION

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

VOLUNTEERS

CONSERVATION

CONSERVATION

BORDER SECURITY

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

PETITIONS

LORD'S PRAYER

HOME CARE

CHILD CUSTODY

SCHOOL FACILITIES

FIREARMS CONTROL

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

PROTECTION FOR MINERS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

LONG-TERM CARE

ANTI-SMOKING LEGISLATION

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ENDANGERED SPECIES

ISLINGTON JUNIOR MIDDLE SCHOOL

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

MAD PRIDE DAY

PUNJABI MUSIC

TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD

COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO.

PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL

HEALTH CARE CENTRE

CLIMATE CHANGE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

2076467 ONTARIO INC. ACT, 2008

2029652 ONTARIO LTD. ACT, 2008

FAIRNESS FOR FAMILIES ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LE TRAITEMENT

ÉQUITABLE DES FAMILLES

OMBUDSMAN AMENDMENT ACT

(HOSPITALS AND LONG-TERM CARE

FACILITIES), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'OMBUDSMAN

(HÔPITAUX ET ÉTABLISSEMENTS

DE SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉ

E) PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

CONSUMER REPORTING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES RENSEIGNEMENTS

CONCERNANT LE CONSOMMATEUR

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

HEALTHY SCHOOLS

CONSUMER REPORTING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES RENSEIGNEMENTS

CONCERNANT LE CONSOMMATEUR

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

HEALTHY SCHOOLS

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

The House met at 0900.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PHOTO CARD ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LES CARTES-PHOTO

Resuming the debate adjourned on June 4, 2008, on the motion for second reading of 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): Further debate?

Mr. Ted Arnott: I'm pleased to have this opportunity to rise this morning in the Legislature to speak to second reading of Bill 85. I believe that—

Interjection.

Mr. Ted Arnott: Yes, of course; I appreciate that.

I have to initially seek the unanimous consent of the House to stand down the lead speech by our critic, the member for Newmarket—Aurora.

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It's a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in the House this morning on Bill 85. This bill was introduced in the Ontario Legislature just a couple days ago, so the reality is that we haven't had a lot of opportunity for consultation with our constituents or input on this issue. But we have commenced debate on this bill nonetheless, and we have this opportunity to talk about the new Photo Card Act, the

long title being

An Act to permit the issuance of photo cards to residents of Ontario and to make complementary amendments to the Highway Traffic Act.

I first of all want to note the presence in the Legislature this morning of the Minister of Transportation, the member for St. Catharines. I've always enjoyed working with this particular member in his capacity now as Minister of Transportation. The member for St. Catharines is now in his 31st year of service in this Legislature, which is hard to believe. He deserves a great deal of credit for his longevity, his commitment and his steady dedication to this place.

Certainly his presence here at 9 o'clock this morning on second reading of this bill indicates his understanding of the parliamentary system and the respect that he shows for the opposition when he comes in to be part of this debate, to be present for this debate. It is something that is very much appreciated by all of us. We would hope that it would become a little more contagious with some of his colleagues, but certainly he provides a good example that they should emulate.

The member has been elected by his constituents I think nine times, which again is something that is a good example for all of us. The work that he does is something that is very much appreciated by his constituents and by all of us in this House.

I want to begin by saying a word of thanks as well to the good staff who work at the MTO licence-issuing offices in the province. There is an licence-issuing office in Fergus which is actually located just a few feet away from my constituency office. I've had the chance to get to know some of the staff over there. Because we're so conveniently located to each other, occasionally, when there's a disagreement with the issuing office by a constituent who has a policy issue with the government, the staff are able to send them over to our office so we get to hear about it at first hand. We certainly appreciate that.

There are a number of other licence-issuing offices throughout Wellington—Halton Hills, in Waterloo—Wellington and in my old riding of Wellington, obviously. I think that all of the staff who work at those licence-issuing offices do good work. They are courteous and professional and deserve a lot of credit. I think they work very hard for the wages that they earn. I think that's something that the minister perhaps has to look at too. I've heard over a number of years that the compensation for those particular staff has not really kept up with the rate of inflation.

I think they're an important part of the licence-issuing network, and with this bill they're probably going to have added responsibilities. I think that has to be taken into consideration with respect to their compensation.

I believe that transportation is one of the most important responsibilities of the provincial government. I was pleased, when I was first elected to this place in 1990, to be named by Mike Harris, our party leader at the time, as our critic for transportation. Actually, the very first words that I uttered in this Legislature were words exhorting and calling upon the New Democratic Party government of the day to make improvements to Highway 6, which bisected my riding of Wellington in those days. It still goes through Wellington county, north-south.

I'm pleased to see that over the years there have been some improvements to Highway 6, I hope as a result of some of the interventions that I've offered in this place, certainly strongly supported by the county of Wellington and by the staff at the Ministry of Transportation in London, the regional office.

I've made it a point to go and visit the staff at the MTO office in recent years. The MTO staff that I've met with for years—usually once or twice a year, making a special trip down to London to talk to them and express my ideas and concerns about the projects that need to be expedited in my riding—are very good staff as well. I know the minister appreciates their contribution.

I remember in the early 1990s, as the critic for transportation, calling upon the New Democratic Party government to proceed with the Red Hill Creek Expressway in Hamilton, something that the member for Welland understands and remembers well.

As well, I was an early convert to the need for graduated drivers' licences. When I was the critic for transportation that was an issue that I was working on. Of course, that was adopted by the government of the day and has now become a fact of life in the province of Ontario. I think most people would agree that the graduated driver's licence has been a very positive reform in terms of highway safety, especially for our young drivers. Our roads are safer. I think it's fair to say that lives have been saved because of that positive development that emanated from this place.

Bill 85, according to the minister in his presentation in this House when he introduced the bill, as well as his speech with respect to second reading of this bill—he talked about the tourism aspects of this issue. We all know and remember well the terrorist attacks that took place on North America on September 11, 2001. I recall the outstanding oratory that took place in this Legislature following those terrorist attacks. We had a day of debate in which we came together to condemn the attacks and to call upon the western world to come together and respond to them in the appropriate way.

I recall that day: We were all asked to speak for about two minutes, but it was probably the most outstanding day of oratory that I've experienced in my time in the Legislature. All of the speeches were excellent, from the heart, and responded to the need that we felt at that time.

Of course, in the United States, the direct subject of the attacks, there was a new cabinet responsibility created, the Department of Homeland Security. From the Department of Homeland Security there have been a significant number of initiatives to try to make United States citizens feel safer, one of them being the western hemisphere travel initiative, which has been talked about in this Legislature many, many times. The Americans feel they have to make their border more secure relative to Canada.

We recognize the sovereignty of the United States, and as much as we would like to ensure that our citizens have easy access to the United States, we have to recognize the sovereignty of the United States. They have the right to make their decisions as to how they're going to manage their side of the border. We have the right to make the decisions as to how we're going to manage our side of the border.

Given the fact that tourism has experienced considerable difficulty—in part because of the confusion, I would argue, at the border, where American tourists who in many cases might otherwise have come across to visit us here in Ontario and Canada already believe that they are going to have problems at the border. Some, I'm sure, believe that they have to have a passport now and don't understand that they can make a land crossing right now and get back home to the United States without a passport at this time.

I'm sure there's a great deal of confusion in the minds of a lot of them, and that's why we've called upon the provincial government to make that a focus of a marketing campaign, so as to clarify that issue for our American friends and invite them to come across. Of course we know that the deadline for the application of the western hemisphere travel initiative has changed on a number of occasions, but right now, if you're going to travel into the United States by air, you've got to have a valid passport.

As of next year apparently—unless the deadline changes again—June 1, 2009, there will be a requirement for some acceptable photo ID in order for people to get into the United States from across the Canadian border and of course for Americans who want to get home again.

This, I understand, is the impetus for this legislation, and the Minister of Transportation, who used to be the Minister of Tourism, understands this issue well. Certainly he was one of the leaders in Canada in pushing for the establishment of the allowance of another commonly used document. The suggestion was that we could ensure that the citizenship of an individual would be put on the driver's licence; I think he used the words "commonly used photo identification." I think he deserves a lot of credit for this, for moving forward in this regard.

For my part, as the critic for tourism, I certainly was participating in this debate and I've met with a number, actually three or four, of successive US consuls general, the US consulate being just down the street on University Avenue. I've had the opportunity on a number of occasions to meet with them, talking about BSE, the issue that has affected our beef farmers, as well as this issue of the passport, and tried to do what I can, not having the travel budget of a minister being in a position to fly to Washington, DC, or to visit some of the adjacent state capitals.

But I did have the chance this March, actually, to travel to Washington, DC, with my family—I would add, at my own expense—for March break, so as to experience all that there is in Washington, DC. I also had the chance to tour the US Capitol and to meet with one of the congressmen, Representative Bart Stupak, a Democratic representative of the first congressional district in the state of Michigan, and we had the opportunity to discuss this issue.

I think all of us who have associations and opportunities to meet American lawmakers should be continuing to express the need for this sort of thing, and I know the Minister of Transportation would encourage this as well.

We know that this bill will allow the government to issue three new cards: (1) the combined photo card, (2) the basic photo card and (3) the enhanced photo card. The combined photo card will meet the applicable rules set out by the United States western hemisphere travel initiative, and these rules are expected to severely limit the types of documentation that would be acceptable for entry into the United States. We know that the combined photo card would be used exactly as one would use a regular driver's licence.

However, the card will also display certain information about the holder, such as that person's citizenship, and will be equipped with certain machine-readable features. The features would allow the holders to access the US by land and by water and, as we know and as I said earlier, air travel will still require a passport.

The legislation, I understand, authorizes the use of new fraud prevention methods by MTO when operating the combined photo card. These include photo comparison technology, to reduce the risk of any one individual obtaining multiple driver's licences or photo cards, and the sharing of information between Canadian government entities.

Our party's critic for transportation, the member for Newmarket-Aurora, on the day that the bill was introduced earlier this week, talked about the concerns that he has with respect to privacy. The Information and Privacy Commissioner apparently has expressed some concerns about how the information is going to be kept private for individuals. I hope the Minister of Transportation pays heed to those concerns, so as to ensure that the privacy commissioner is satisfied in this respect.

I'm glad the minister is here, because I want to bring to his attention another issue with respect to his responsibility as Minister of Transportation. It concerns another important issue with respect to transportation in my riding. The proposed Highway 24, between Brantford and Cambridge, has become a controversial issue, especially in Puslinch township, Puslinch township being the rural community just south of and adjacent to the city of Guelph.

Apparently, the Minister of Transportation had the opportunity to meet with the mayors of Brantford and Cambridge some time ago—it was on February 19, from what I understand—to discuss this issue. Of course, both of these mayors are strongly advocating for the new Highway 24 through a study process. The township of Puslinch is very concerned about it, because it goes through their area, and they have serious environmental concerns with respect to this issue.

This meeting was held on February 19, and when the township council became aware of the fact that the meeting had taken place, they were disappointed that they hadn't been involved in the meeting and expressed concern that they had been snubbed. Interestingly, this

article appeared in the Wellington Advertiser on April 18, and actually a couple of weeks later, on May 2, there was a letter to the editor which, to some degree, had privileged information in it that I would suggest no one would know about perhaps except the minister's office, addressing the concern expressed by the township. At the same time, I would suggest that it was a rebuttal of the township of Puslinch's concerns.

It was a letter of some length, three columns long, and interestingly, it was signed by the president of the Liberal provincial riding association of Wellington—Halton Hills. His name is Murray Gold. I think that what may have happened here is that someone in the minister's office was monitoring the media in the Wellington Advertiser, and, noticing that the ministry had been not overly criticized but mildly chastised for not involving the township of Puslinch in the meeting, fed privileged information to the president of the local riding association in order to rebut the concern.

I'm not sure how privileged this information was, but certainly I'm willing to share these letters with the minister. I know he would be concerned about it if anything untoward was happening in his office with respect to partisanship in this regard. I'm certainly concerned about it.

I wouldn't be surprised if I was criticized in this way through letters to the editor—perhaps that might happen from time to time—but I do take umbrage to a duly elected township council in our riding being criticized by the local Liberal riding association president, having received privileged information through the minister's office. I think the minister should be concerned, and I would ask that he investigate this.

I also want to talk about the roads and bridges funding that was announced just before the end of the fiscal year, the last week of March, before the provincial budget this year. We received feedback from a number of our municipalities, most notably the town of Erin, which was very concerned about how their number was calculated. I was told by the minister and other ministry officials that a formula was applied that was ostensibly supposed to be fair and not supposed to be partisan. Every riding was supposed to be treated equally, not the government members being shown preference vis-à-vis the opposition members.

However, the town of Erin was very concerned about the formula, because they felt that it had not been appropriate to meet their needs. They have a significant number of gravel roads, and I'm told that the gravel roads were given less than full weight in terms of the formula. The reason was that the ministry felt it was less expensive to maintain the gravel roads than the paved roads.

The town of Puslinch would argue with that and counter that with its own comments. I would encourage the minister to meet with representatives of the town of Erin, or at the very least have his staff contact them to listen to their concerns, to see if there's an opportunity in the future to ensure that communities like the town of Erin have their needs recognized if indeed new roads and bridges funding is forthcoming.

We also remember the grant program—I forget the official name—I think it was MIII. I'm glad the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal is here. I think it was called the municipal infrastructure investment initiative. I appreciated the support that came to my riding of Wellington—Halton Hills, to some of the municipalities at least, but again there were two that missed out. I've brought that to the attention of the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal. The township of Puslinch as well as the town of Erin unfortunately were not successful in terms of that particular program.

I would encourage the minister to ensure that there is an adequate mechanism to review the concerns of municipalities which feel that they've been excluded, to have a debriefing exercise so that they can be informed of whatever they could have done differently in their application so that next time they have a better opportunity to meet with success.

I'm glad to have this opportunity—because this is a transportation bill—to talk about some of the other transportation issues in my riding. It has been a very important issue that I've worked on for years. I continue to believe that transportation issues are ones that the government must make high priorities, because it's important for our economy and it's important for everyone who uses our roads.

This particular bill, Bill 85, while an important step forward in terms of the government's policy agenda right now, I think is also important to put in perspective. I said this earlier in the debate when I had a chance for a two-minute response. While we recognize that we need to do everything we can to try to encourage tourism in the province of Ontario, this photo ID card won't necessarily solve in one step the issue with respect to the American tourists who might otherwise want to come here but are going to have trouble getting back home if they don't have a passport.

I know that the Minister of Transportation is sincere when he suggests that if we take this step with Bill 85 to create this new photo identity card, it puts us on a stronger footing if we approach the other neighbouring American states like New York state, which I understand is looking at this as well. But we should be approaching Michigan, Ohio and some of the other neighbouring states to ensure that we can show them that this leadership is something that they can emulate too and that it's in their best interests if they proceed with this sort of initiative as well.

I did ask the government how much the card will cost for Ontario residents. That is not clear in the bill. I think we were told by the parliamentary assistant that it was going to be in the range of $30 to $35. I hope that the government will answer that question definitively before the end of this second reading debate, because I think that's obviously an important question. I'd like to know how long this card will be good for. Is it going to be five years? Is the cost going to be based on cost recovery or is it going to be seen by the government as an opportunity to enhance its revenue, perhaps yet another tax?

These are issues that I think are very important to be addressed by the government during the course of this second reading debate.

The last time I bought a passport I believe it was $75 to get the passport for five years. I would suggest that if this is going to be effective and something that people will want to buy, this new card would have to be considerably less in cost than the cost of a new Canadian passport.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions or comments?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I want to thank Mr. Arnott for his contribution to the debate today. As always, his contribution is very constructive and well informed. I think he raised a number of significant issues, and as the debate goes on we will want to ensure that the questions that he has asked are addressed appropriately.

He utilized a device that I'm told members have used from time to time to deviate a little bit from the debate, but at least—I must say this—it was about transportation. I want to assure him that all voices on the issue of Highway 24 are being heard equally and that the government of Ontario is very interested in these matters related to that highway, as are all of the local members. The government does not have a chosen position. We're looking at it in terms of the environmental consequences of any particular routing of the highway.

I'm probably not even supposed to respond to something that's on the edge, but I want to give him every credit that there was about transportation. I'm glad he has a good relationship with the folks in the licence-issuing office in his area, and indeed that is a very significant service that people provide in those offices to the people of Ontario.

The member has raised a number of significant issues, and if I had a significant amount of time, I would address some of these matters. What you see in a bill and what subsequently is part of the whole passage of a bill are two different things. It's not that there's any deception in this regard, but I think the member legitimately asked some questions that during the debate we will ensure that we answer before the bill is given final consideration.

Mr. Norm Miller: I'm pleased to add some comments to the speech from the member from Wellington—Halton Hills on Bill 85, the Photo Card Act, 2008. He did raise a number of concerns to do with the bill. I think we're generally supportive of a new photo card. This bill would enable three new cards. One is a combined photo card, which would basically be your driver's licence, and it would be enhanced with more information, I guess the idea being to be recognized by the United States to make it easier to cross over the border.

Then there'd be two other cards: a basic photo card for those who don't have a driver's licence, and an enhanced photo card which has more information on that basic card. I do have questions about why you need three. Why wouldn't it just be two cards, and why aren't they all enhanced?

I note also that the privacy commissioners have concerns to do with this and I think that their concerns need to be addressed. But obviously it's important that we make it as easy as possible to cross the US border for the sake of our economy and for the sake of tourism in this province. It's my feeling that this year is going to be a very challenging year for tourism in the province of Ontario, with the combined effects of the high Canadian dollar, gas prices and the slowing US economy.

Those things are all combining to make for what I think is going to be an extremely challenging year in tourism, which is why I think the government might want to pick up on the opposition's idea of removing the sales tax over the course of the summertime. I think that idea can be a real shot in the arm for tourism in the province of Ontario this year through the summertime, which is prime tourism season in Ontario, and right at a time of the business cycle when it's really needed. I hope the government will give serious consideration to removing the PST—John Tory's idea—and take that idea and run with it.

It will make a difference to the economy this summer.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I'm honoured to get the chance to comment on the speech from the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. I think it's very important, and it's been mentioned many different times. He has asked many questions, and I guess he, as a member of the opposition, has a right to raise those questions because he has to answer to his constituents. But in general I think this bill is very important for all the people of Ontario and has been raised many different times, through him and his colleagues. It's good for the tourism industry because it will allow many different people to travel between the United States and Canada without any problems.

Hopefully, when I get the chance to speak, I'll explain myself more and show what's important in this bill—

Mr. Peter Kormos: You'll have that chance in five minutes. Then you can speak for 20 minutes.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I will have that chance, definitely. It's important to show my support of this bill because it's an important initiative to allow people from the United States or Canada to travel without any hesitation. As you know, sometimes when you go to apply for a passport, it takes forever, and sometimes people are uncomfortable carrying their passport.

The member from Wellington—Halton Hills mentioned the cost. I think that our intention as a government is not to profit from this initiative but just to make it easy and accessible for the people of Ontario. Hopefully it will be applied only to the cost—whatever the cost of the card—for the clients or the people who want to travel between Canada and the United States. So as I mentioned, hopefully I'll get the chance to speak in a few minutes and I'll speak in detail about the importance of this bill.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I want to commend my colleague, who made a great articulation about Bill 85, the Photo Card Act. He's our critic for tourism. He does a great job of that and has brought forward some suggestions to the Liberal government. We were hoping that they may take them in. I know he made another plug, and so did my colleague from Parry Sound—Muskoka, about the relief this summer that some of our tourism operators need to try to get more tourists to the area.

This bill is the Photo Card Act, and we certainly support the intent, because what we're trying to do is keep our border traffic moving. Of course, Americans have a long history of coming across the border to Canada to holiday and to take in our great province, but unfortunately the number of American tourists who have been coming over of late has been diminishing. They feel they need the passport already. There's confusion. They don't want long lineups on the border, which they see on TV shows. That has been hampering their ability to come across the border and their desire to come across.

We need to reinstate that we are welcoming the American tourists. How can we do that? Well, there are three new cards proposed here and the intent is certainly great to keep the border traffic moving. We have some concerns about this bill, but we certainly support it in principle.

I know the privacy commissioner has some comments. I want to speak too, for the few seconds I have left, about tourism. It certainly has been hurting the resorts in my riding of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, which rely heavily on tourism. The Minister of Transportation is shaking his head. I'm glad he is aware of that. It's quite a soft market, they say, and we have lots of vacancies. So if anyone is planning a holiday, come up to Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I appreciate the invitation and I hope to spend some time in that beautiful part of the province this summer too.

I want to thank the Minister of Transportation, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, the member for London—Fanshawe and the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock for their response to my opportunity to speak here this morning, and especially to pick up on the point that was made by my colleagues to encourage the provincial government to give serious consideration to our proposal, which we brought forward in good faith, to encourage the government to suspend the retail sales tax on accommodations and attractions this summer.

I know the Minister of Transportation, as a former Minister of Tourism, would understand how this might benefit the tourism industry. I'm sorry that the current Minister of Tourism suggested that it was nothing more than a Band-Aid, that it wouldn't really do very much.

I had the chance to speak in the House about this yesterday and I quoted some of the industry response to our proposal. Clearly, the industry believes that this would be a positive benefit to them with respect to the challenges they are facing this summer.

My colleague mentioned the high Canadian dollar, the skyrocketing price of gasoline, the confusion at the border, an ineffective marketing campaign by the government of Ontario. All of these things are coming together at once, and the initial reaction of the tourism industry to the May 24 weekend was to let us know that they believe this summer they are going to be facing serious difficulties. Obviously, we have to do something.

This isn't something that hasn't been tried before. In fact, our government did this when we were in power after the SARS situation, to ensure that tourism was encouraged in Ontario, and at that time it worked. So I submit to the government that it would work again and it would be a positive development.

It's often suggested that the opposition parties are too negative. We have a role to oppose in the Legislature—and that's an historic role—but we also have an obligetion to bring forward constructive suggestions. This is one of them that the government should listen to and heed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Now I get the chance and the time to speak in detail about this bill, and also about the importance of this bill.

Bill 85, to enhance drivers' licences in the province of Ontario, I think is a very good initiative. I want to commend and congratulate the minister, who has been working very hard for a long time on this issue in order to find a solution for people crossing the border with the United States. I understand that after September 11 the Americans raised so many different issues about security, about people crossing from Canada to the United States or vice versa.

I think it's important to them to see that the people who come to their nation are safe and secure and that they are not going to cause any trouble to the safety of the United States. I think it's an important request. That is why we, as a government, are taking an important step towards achieving this goal.

The most important thing is to create a comfort zone with the Americans, which I think they've asked for for a long time, because it's important to them. If they want to welcome people to the United States, it has to be safe, not criminals or terrorists. That's why our government has taken what I think is a very important and practical step to eliminate fear and to create a mechanism to allow people to access the United States without any problems, so that the Americans are comfortable with our strategy.

The most important thing is also to create a driver's licence and enhance the driver's licence. Of course, this enhanced driver's licence has a lot of personal information about the person: his or her citizenship and background information required for the security of the United States. That is why the citizens of Ontario, if they wish, can apply for this driver's licence. It's not mandatory; if you want it, you can apply for it. The cost, as has been mentioned many different times, is between $35 and $40.

I heard from the minister and the parliamentary assistant that those costs are not to raise money as extra funds. The cost of this one here is only to cover the cost of the card. As you know, those technical cards cost money, cost employers to put the pieces together etc. So this costs only $35 to $40 per card.

But I think it's important for all of us. It's important because this card contains a lot of information. Also, when you go through the border, the border officer can swipe the card and know all the details about the person. It basically has more information, similar information to a passport.

A passport, as you know, is a little bit big. Not many people are comfortable carrying the passport back and forth. That's why the small magnetic card has all the information, similar information to that passport. You can put it in your wallet. It's easy to keep in your wallet all the time. It's like a credit card, like a Visa, like whatever. It's small like a driver's licence; it's driver's licence-sized but has more information in it. Also, the people who don't want to have this card can have a passport or a regular driver's licence.

Besides that, some people can use this photo ID for many different things. If you want to go to a bank, if you want to go to different government offices, you can present this ID because this ID has all the information needed for whatever reason. Also, if you are below age and you don't have the right to drive yet, there is another photo-ID-enhanced card for people who are below the eligible age to obtain a driver's licence. As this enhanced card has all the information about the person, they can access the United States the same way as with their driver's licence.

I'm proud to be a part of this province. In the province of Ontario we have a lot of tourist sites. It's beautiful; it's amazing. As parliamentarians, sometimes we get the chance to travel with committees across the province—

Mr. Peter Shurman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Quorum, please.

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Lisa Freedman): A quorum is present, Speaker.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: We are proud of our province. We're proud of our tourist sites in Ontario. So our job as a government is to create all the means, goods and ways to attract more visitors to come and visit the province. As I mentioned at the beginning, my friend the member for Niagara Falls told me that almost five million people visit Niagara Falls on a yearly basis. Most of those visitors come from the United States, whether to visit Niagara Falls or to enjoy the recreation facilities in Niagara Falls.

Also there are many beautiful sites, whether in Ottawa, Chatham-Kent, Strathroy, London—many places—Orléans, Windsor and Toronto. This province has beautiful, natural sites that attract many people from across the globe to come to visit.

Many people are talking about the departure of manufacturing from Ontario and that we have to rely on different alternatives. We have to promote this province.

That's why our Premier appointed the member for Vaughan, the Honourable Greg Sorbara, to commission a study to see how we can promote our tourism in the province of Ontario, how we can create some way to tell the people about this beautiful province, how we can tell them to come visit and be comfortable and be happy, and also to create some way to tell people about our natural resources, our natural sites, which we enjoy on a daily basis in the province of Ontario. But we have to promote it, not just nationally but also internationally, especially with our neighbouring country, the United States.

I was watching TV not long ago and I was seeing those movie stars, the Hollywood stars. They are coming to Ontario, they're coming to Toronto to shoot their films, because they think we have all the sites that give them the tools and the way to produce some of the best films in the world.

So that's why I think we have a lot of things to be proud of, we have a lot of places that we can be proud of, but the most important thing is how we can promote those sites, how we can tell the people of Canada, how we can tell the people of the United States and tell the people of the world about Ontario: about the parks we have, about the lakes we have, about the heritage buildings we have, about the theatres we have, about the movie theatres we have, about our environment, about our valleys and beautiful sites which we enjoy on a daily basis but don't pay much attention to. These places, I think, will be important to all the people to come and see.

That's why our Minister of Transportation wants to work hard to create a way to allow people to come and visit without any trouble and without any problems. Most of the time, we take things for granted, and sometimes, when we travel, we get lazy. If we think this place or that place or a certain location is going to cause us some kind of problem or difficulty or create extra work for us, we don't go visit it. But when we create accessible ways, I think we'll be attracting more people.

This is the importance of the idea of an enhanced driver's licence, and it's important for us, as Ontarians, to increase the tourism industry, the commercial industry, the transportation industry, because we rely a lot on those areas. They support our economy big-time.

As I mentioned to you, when I was meeting with the transportation industry not a long time ago, they told me that they haul almost $200 billion on a yearly basis from Canada to the United States. So can you imagine if we delay that transportation industry? They pay for mileage, they pay per hour, and also some products are perishable products, or they sometimes haul animals through the border, like chickens, hogs, beef, and those animals cannot tolerate the heat; they cannot tolerate the cold.

Also, the drivers' licences is a very innovative idea. I was, at one time, interviewed on the radio in London on AM 980 with John Wilson, as all the MPPs and MPs have the chance every month to go on the show and listen to the people of Ontario and answer questions. And the most important thing was that people were asking about those drivers' licences a long time ago. They were asking how come we cannot create, with the advanced technology we have today, some kind of card or tool to allow people to visit the United States fast and quick and to come back fast and quick.

Sometimes people are hesitant to travel to the United States because you may have to sit for five, six, seven hours at the border waiting for your turn to come, and especially in cold weather and hot weather it's very difficult. As you know, when are you driving in the summertime, the air conditioning does not work when the car is sitting. It doesn't work well. So it's difficult and inconvenient for many people.

I think by creating this tool, this card, we are helping people with fast and quick access to the United States and we are helping our economy continue to be prosperous. We wish the economy of the United States would get better. Our economy will be getting better. It's important for us to continue this good relationship with our friends in our neighbouring country, the United States.

I think it's important for all of us to support this initiative because it's important for all of us. It's important for our economy, it's important for our tourism, it's important for a good relationship with the United States and it's also good for the people of Ontario. I'm privileged and honoured to be a part of a government that is thinking about all these details, all the means and ways to help people have access, to live a good life and to travel without any problems.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments?

Mr. Peter Shurman: Just a brief response. I'll speak at length to the bill itself in a couple of moments, but in response to my friend from London—Fanshawe who talked about a variety of issues that in one way or another interface with this bill, he made a comment concerning the possibility of equipping trucks that engage in trans-border commerce with chips that could be very easily encoded with the contents of the truck and all kinds of information that would facilitate border crossings.

It might be of interest to this House and the member to know that this is done routinely by CN Rail when they put their trains together so that the assembly of trains—and I'm talking about huge trains with hundreds of cars in them—can be measured instantaneously, electronically, as they go by. I think he brings a good point forward which might well be worthy of consideration by the transportation ministry going forward because it would facilitate border crossings. I congratulate him on coming up with that.

In terms of his comments on tourism, again, I think on behalf of all sides of this House, it behooves us to consider the implications of anything we do, whether it be the enhanced cards that we're discussing today or any incentive that can bring people to move from their homes to some other place, whether they be Ontarians or whether they be people who are crossing our borders.

Contrary to statements issued yesterday in this House by the tourism minister, I think that going forward, we have some worries. Some of them may well lie with this government and others may not, but the fact of the matter is, everybody has to endure $1.30—probably soon $1.40, $1.50—gas. There are a lot of things that come into play here when we talk about moving vehicles from one jurisdiction to another.

I congratulate the member from London—Fanshawe on what he had to say and I think some of those comments are very worthy of consideration.

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I also want to commend the member from London—Fanshawe on his thoughts in terms of the enhanced driver's licence. He talked about how some people are reluctant to carry a passport, and I agree. I know for myself, the worry of losing it or having it taken from you is certainly considerable. It is a little bulkier than the driver's licence, so you really want to make sure you hang on to it. You don't always have it with you when you need to have it with you, but a driver's licence is something you carry with you all the time.

One of the other advantages this proposal in this bill has is that it will also act as a photo ID card. One of the things that does happen for people who don't have a driver's licence—and there are many people who do not have drivers' licences—is that when they're asked for a photo ID, they have nothing. Or if they're asked for two pieces of photo ID, they may have their OHIP card but they have nothing else. So this gives them an opportunity to have one more piece of photo ID that has all the information they need to have inside that card, so that again becomes enhanced identification for those people.

I'm also very aware of the fact that many border states are considering like legislation. That's very important if you look at my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, where we have a large tourism component. When you're along the lakes—Lake St. Clair and Lake Huron—and you have communities like Grand Bend, which are renowned summer resort areas, the opportunity to have people flow into our province from the border states is very important.

One of the issues for a lot of tourism in my communities is the fact that we rely very heavily on the American tourists; we want them to come to our communities, we want their dollars, we need them to be there, and this certainly will enhance that opportunity as well.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I'm pleased to follow the comments of the member from London—Fanshawe on Bill 85, the Photo Card Act. Certainly it's been spoken about quite a bit since 9/11, and the world has changed dramatically. People's identifications are drastically important in how we move around the world. We're kind of trying to get in line with what the US is going to require. I know that the member from Wellington—Halton Hills mentioned that the dates have changed several times for the identification requirements to go across the border.

I think that, in a sense, is a good thing in that the Americans realize how vital it is to keep the flow going back and forth, and we certainly see this also. It's their requirement, to get back into their country, that proper identification and the passport qualifications be brought forward. It's nice, in a sense, to see the two countries working together in this respect.

But, as I had mentioned in some previous comments, there already is a lot of misinformation on the American side that they need a passport to get back and forth now, so they're not coming up to take their weekend fishing tours, not coming up to our sporting events to watch the games, and it is impacting them. We see that the Buffalo Bills are going to come up and play—is it one game or more than one game up here?

Interjection.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Now I've got the guys on the other side awake. Now the gentlemen are awake. That's a sign of how critical it is that we go down to their sporting events. They're going to keep us interested in the NFL, especially up here, and we certainly welcome that. As you see, everyone woke up and the excitement is here; it's that way across the province. We want to keep that traffic flowing maybe as fast as possible. It's interesting to see this debate, and hopefully we'll accomplish that.

Mr. Norm Miller: It's my pleasure to add comments to the speech of the member from London—Fanshawe on Bill 85, the Photo Card Act, 2008. I think we all recognize that it's vitally important that we make it as easy as possible for Canadians to be able to travel to the States and back, for our goods and services to be able to travel across the border, and for Americans, just as importantly, to be able to come into Canada.

This bill would create a new, enhanced photo card for your driver's licence and also, for those who don't have a driver's licence, either a basic or enhanced photo card that would—I assume the government's doing its homework—meet the requirements of the United States' western hemisphere travel initiative.

I think we do have questions about what this is going to cost both the general public and the taxpayers. I know last year there was a new driver's licence that was just brought out: Is that now redundant, I would ask? I think this is very important for tourism in this province.

This is going to be a challenging year for tourism. I think the government needs to do more to help the tourism economy in the province of Ontario. I wish they would pick up on the idea of the PC Party and take off the retail sales tax for this season, for the biggest part of the tourism year in the province of Ontario, the summer season. Take that idea: Take the retail sales tax off for attractions and accommodations. I think that would be a real stimulus for the tourism sector. I think you could add to that some enhanced marketing to keep people in Ontario in the province.

Let them know about all the great things to do in Ontario, because this is a year that the tourism sector needs some assistance. I hope the government will work hard to provide some assistance for the tourism sector this year.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member from London—Fanshawe has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I want to thank all the members who spoke and gave comments on my speech, especially the members from Thornhill, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, and Parry Sound—Muskoka.

The member from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex spoke about the tourism industry. She has beautiful Pinery Provincial Park in her riding. So many people come from across Ontario, from across Canada and the United States to visit and camp on that camping ground. The member from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes also mentioned the tourism industry in this province. There's no doubt in my mind that she has beautiful sites in her riding too, and many people come.

Talking about sports, we have lots of sport facilities. We have the dome down the road here where the Blue Jays play on a regular basis. We have a lot of places that attract a lot of sports fans from the United States and many places. I think we have to be accessible in allowing them to come and enjoy our facilities here in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. Peter Shurman: It's interesting, his final comment. As I rise to briefly discuss Bill 85, the Photo Card Act, 2008, the last comment I heard was rather interesting, about debating non-partisan bills. It seems to me, if I might be permitted a brief observation, that most of the bills we've debated in this session have been non-partisan bills, or you might easily describe them as that. In any event, I certainly support this one. So we're not going to get into any heated debate on that.

I hold in my hand my driver's licence, and I hope this will not be considered in any way more than an aide-mémoire; it's not a prop. I'm looking at it only because it is one of the new driver's licences that have been issued over the last five months or so. They were touted as a wonderful innovation by the transport minister when he introduced them because they contain a variety of security features, holographic signatures, photographs and so forth—a very beautiful driver's licence it is indeed.

But I understand that people have already figured out ways to duplicate them, and that's probably the primary issue that I'll want to raise this morning—the issue of security—although I could easily ask the question: Why did we bring out new driver's licences recently if we're going to bring out, yet again, new driver's licences, as indeed we are?

As was previously stated in the Legislature, Her Majesty's official opposition does support the government's intention to move forward with an enhanced driver's licence for Ontario's residents. This is a significant step forward for those residents of Ontario who, due to disability or for whatever reason, do not possess a traditional driver's licence. I have risen in this House to question this very issue previously myself.

In effect, as one of the three cards that are being discussed is a driver's licence without the right to drive, as it were, an identity card that contains some form of biometric information—and especially photo ID that allows somebody to identify themselves as indeed being themselves when presenting themselves to a bank or to another institution that requires some form of official identification—in that sense, I have to say that I support it.

The card itself does indeed rectify an imbalance in our identification system and it allows individuals access to ID that provides ready information for obtaining this host of various other instruments: credit cards, opening a bank account, proving age for seniors' discounts—like I now get sometimes, Mr. Speaker.

Trade between Canada and the United States is valued at a very large figure—I believe the member from London—Fanshawe mentioned something in the vicinity of $1.9 billion per day. And he's quite correct: Economics, especially now, dictate that we accommodate the expeditious transit of goods and people across our borders with our southern neighbour.

That raises some other issues which I'll discuss at greater length as we go forward, not least of which is the fact that although we are entertaining the concept of bringing in these new cards, and very particularly cards that contain information similar to that now contained on passports, we have no evidence with any degree of finality that our southern neighbour is ready to definitively accept these cards in the place of passports. That's one of the things that concerns me in looking at this bill.

Here in the GTA, we have access to the QEW and the 401. These are two critical arteries that link the economy of southern Ontario to the industrial dynamo of the American Midwest and the key markets of the eastern US. We can be stick-in-the-mud holdouts at our own economic peril, or we can, as the saying goes, get with the program. We in the PC Party agree with the latter: getting with the program. If we can negotiate a definitive agreement to accept this form of electronic transfer, good for us, and good for them, I think.

Each day the bottlenecks at the crossings in Windsor and Sarnia and Niagara are costing the economy, in and of themselves, billions of dollars in lost revenue. So is the inaction of this government, I have to say, but that's another story for another day, or maybe it's something for question period. But I digress.

It is due to the sensitive nature of the material being stored on these cards and due to the dependency that our economy has on timely access to US markets that I believe we only have one shot to get these cards right, and I mean really right, because we're talking about spending an awful lot of money; we're talking about incredible sensitivity of information that just cannot go further than the card itself in the hands of the individual holder of each and every one of those cards.

I got this fabulous new driver's licence recently that I mentioned—and, no, it wasn't a prop. I can see my signature on there from four different angles, so the security features in that are embedded and wonderful. But, as I've said, I'm betting that someone—and probably a number of someones—is already turning those out. I believe the last statistics that I saw on the issue of driver's licences in the province of Ontario said that they outstrip by hundreds of thousands the number of licensed drivers in the province of Ontario.

So that speaks to the issue of whether identification cards of any sort, driver's licences or otherwise, beg duplication on the part of people who have nefarious ideas in mind.

I want to look back into my memory and recall for this House certain teenagers who shall remain nameless, early in the days of the original PCs—I'm talking 20 to 25 years ago—changing their marks in school by hacking into the school computer, breaking into the Pentagon's computers just for fun. And that was then, with a little thing called an IBM PC/XT that probably had a processor somewhat less powerful than the BlackBerry that I have on my belt here today.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Much less.

Mr. Peter Shurman: Right, much less.

Today, we all know about lost laptops with hard drives that contain incredible amounts of very sensitive information. We all know about discarded printouts of sensitive personal data files and misplaced bank databases or huge volumes of data on disks that nobody has disposed of, left in discarded premises from which somebody has moved. Read the newspaper, listen to the radio; you hear these stories every single day.

I owned and operated a call centre myself for about 15 years during the development and maturation of e-commerce. I personally had some familiarity with things like SQL databases, Oracle databases and a host of others, and trust me—because you can't trust anybody else; that's a bit of a tongue-in-cheek comment—when you're dealing with electronic files, once they get into the wrong hands an incredible amount of damage can be done. I am sure, without knowing for certain, that there are people in this House who have been affected personally by some form of identity theft.

This has happened in my family, and I know it can wreak havoc; all this to say that my support is there for the new cards. My support is there, but these licences—or, if I may, data cards—must absolutely be tamperproof or they are as useless as no ID at all. I think that every single member of all parties in this House should bear that in mind as this bill makes its way through committee and back into this House and is passed, as it undoubtedly will be.

We already know that errors exist within the current MTO tracking system that have enabled drivers who have had their driving privileges suspended to be issued new licences. And we know that there are thousands, even tens of thousands—and I've said that I've heard figures as high as hundreds of thousands—more issued driver's licences than there are Ontario drivers. It's a staggering figure.

Can the minister assure the House and the people of Ontario that such mistakes do not happen under the proposed new regime? And will he provide these assurances, not by saying yes, but by having the supplier or suppliers demonstrate the absolute certainty of the system contemplated? I'm not being difficult. "You don't get a second chance to make a first impression," is a saying that I heard a long time ago and it certainly is applicable in this particular case.

There are a number of other questions that are raised by the bill and aspects of the bill that get down to what I'll call niceties, one of them being the fact that there are three cards envisioned: a combined photo card, a basic photo card and an enhanced photo card.

I'm taking that to mean that the basic photo card would be a driver's licence without being a driver's licence, i.e., it looks like absolutely anybody else's driver's licence except you can't drive; the second card would be a combined photo card, and I'm taking that to mean it would be that plus a driver's licence; and then an enhanced photo card, which I will assume is the driver's licence, the basic ID, and all of the metrics that are now embedded in our Canadian passports would be embedded in these cards.

That is the very issue that I focus on when I express the concerns that I have about security, because in the wrong hands and with the right machinery, an incredible amount of damage can be done.

I recognize as well that time is of the essence and that the people of Ontario cannot afford to have a solution to the issue of identification become stalled, in this House or anywhere else. We have economic problems in Ontario. We are discussing them from all parties' perspectives in this House during question period every day, in caucus rooms every day, and frankly at dinner tables all over the province every day, as we are on a slide. Different people have different views on why we are on that slide, but there is no question that we have to stop it.

One way to stop it is to facilitate the transportation of people, goods and services from this province, outward and back in, and that's why I say that the rapid facilitation of the implementation of these cards or any other electronic measure that would lend itself to improved transportation of goods and people can only be positive. However, the people of Ontario can afford much less to have a system put together that is rife with errors or loopholes.

Earlier this year, the Ontario privacy commissioner, Ann Cavoukian, raised some extremely valid concerns that I am hoping the Minister of Transportation and his staff are taking into account as this project moves forward. The minister raised the issue of what is called radio frequency identification technology—the acronym is RFID—being implanted in the enhanced cards. This technology can be used to store all sorts of information with a simple swipe.

Some of the members here today may actually have cars that start without a key, you just turn a switch, because they carry on their keychain—one is held up for me now by a member opposite. No props in the House, please. You get into your car and turn a switch. Why does that switch work? Because that particular member or anybody else who has one of these cars carries an RFID tag on his keychain or somewhere else on his person. It's only by proximity that this works, and it works very well.

RFID's intended use is to speed up processing at border checkpoints. Cards could emit signals to receivers in customs booths and thus display the vital statistics required. Actually, the technology is, in the parlance of the day, pretty cool, and I happen to be a techno freak. But—and this is a very big "but"—RFID technology in the wrong hands can be used to track the location of individuals carrying enhanced driver's licences due to the radio signals that those cards will emit in response to the appropriate stimulus.

That means to say, in plain language, that if you have the right machine, and you push the right button, and someone is nearby with one of these licences, you learn everything there is to know on that card on a screen or printed on a piece of paper. What can you do with that information? A heck of a lot, and by "a heck of a lot," we're talking about damage.

What kind of measures are MTO staff taking to address this concern? Can I pass a scanner that provides anything and everything about me to the wrong person in possession of such a device? The answer is yes. So how do we prevent that, my walking by that scanner and giving away that information? I know we can, but I ask on behalf of every one of us here, not as an opposition member being critical for criticism's sake, but as a responsible member of provincial Parliament. We need to know what protective measures we can rely on. We need to know this, and this is an urgent aspect of what we are discussing here today.

RFID technology does not encrypt or otherwise protect the unique identifying number assigned to the holder of the so-called licence or card and would not protect any other personal information stored on the RFID.

Now, let me elaborate on this a little bit. It's not unlike every single cellphone. Every cellphone transmits a unique number called an electronic serial number. With the right receiver, criminals capture—and this happens all the time—and clone these numbers. Then they clone the phones, and then they ring up bills on the rightful phone owner's account. To extrapolate from that, my licence in the wrong hands gets a criminal across the border potentially, and American computers now have information saying I'm in Buffalo, when I'm not. The phone thing has happened to me.

I've been called by my supplier at one time or another and I have been asked, "Were you in Dallas yesterday, Mr. Shurman? And by the way, did you fly from there to Miami?" The answer was, "No, I was in Toronto all day yesterday." "Well, that's interesting, because your telephone registers calls in both Dallas and Miami."

It sounds like I'm digressing; I am not. This is the same concern that I have. Once you transmit numerical information that is unique to an individual—in this case a cellphone; in the case of the bill, one of the new electronic cards—that information going through the air and captured on the right machine can have devastating consequences in the wrong hands, and it's the wrong hands that I worry about.

The combined photo card will meet the applicable rules set out by the United States' western hemisphere travel initiative. These rules are expected to severely limit the types of documentation that will be acceptable for entry into the United States. That's a salient aspect as well.

I happen to have a passport. I am willing to bet that 90%, maybe more, of members of this House have a passport, but it would be interesting to note that the majority of Canadians do not have passports. The majority of Canadians have no need for passports, or up to now have had no need for passports, and given the fact that in the next year there will be a requirement to have a passport or some acceptable documentation that has yet to be defined—maybe this card—but hasn't been accepted by the United States, you'll need a passport to get into the United States as of, I believe, June 2009.

For most Canadians who don't have them, it would require them to go out and spend a significant sum of money, and even passports, as I understand it, are under review.

So there are an awful lot of implications to just saying, "We're going to have an electronic card," not least of which is the fact that although the main individual involved with national security, Michael Chertoff—I believe his title is Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security—has said, "Yes, we think this is a good idea," and although this initiative has been test-marketed in British Columbia and is being looked at by a number of our neighbouring provinces, there is no protocol in place as yet that says, "Yes, we, the United States, will accept your card."

Another concern that I want to put on the record is that, unless and until the United States says, "We are prepared to accept the card in place of a passport," why would we want to spend millions and millions of dollars to create this new card? Let's make sure that we have our bases covered.

Finally, and I only have a short time left—less than a minute—I'd like to use this opportunity to address, because this is a transportation bill, the issue that has been raised in a number of other presentations by my fellow members, and that is the use of our roads for tourism. Tourism at this point is something we'll see sadly lacking this summer because people from outside and inside the province are facing the prospect of gas that may rise as high as $1.50 a litre.

We've presented an initiative from this side that would involve relieving people of sales tax payments at the tourism level—we're talking about hotels, shows and so forth—and I would hope that going forward, before we recess for the summer, the government considers either that or some variation on that theme.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and/or comments?

Mr. Bob Delaney: It is a pleasure to follow a very thoughtful and informed commentary by my colleague from Thornhill, who held up his driver's licence and noted that it has just been changed and it will likely change again. I also noted that he ran a call centre. I hope it's not he who's been calling me every night at dinnertime. He also pointed out that he's worked with Oracle, SQL Server and probably through the evolution of several generations of operating systems on which those applications ran. He also says— and here's a little inconsistency that I'd like to address.

He asks for absolute certainty and says—and I'll use his words—"We will only have one shot to get this right." Well, change will be a constant. The public, the police and the law will continue to wage war against those who would use your identity to steal your life and steal your savings so that they can steal more of your money and that of others.

We are going to have to cope with the evolution of standards, with the change in technology, with the increasing and sophisticated risk of fraud and with evolving security standards and changing practices in how we use ID documents. That means that regardless of what change and what card system we put into place, it, like the currency we carry in our wallets, will change.

As an example of change I'd like to use, in closing, the words of the late Gus Grissom, who said of space flight, just a short time before he burned to death in a pre-launch training accident in 1967, "There's always a chance for a catastrophic accident or a failure. It can happen on the first mission as well as the last. But you can't let that paralyze you. You get a good crew, you train them well and you go fly." I think that that is very much typical of the approach that this bill takes in a core piece of ID.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I want to commend my colleague from Thornhill for a great presentation on Bill 85. Obviously, it's quite evident that he understands the legislation: not only the need for it, but the things that are needed to make it work.

Bringing up a point that I think is maybe not part of the bill—in fact, it isn't in the bill—we have to make sure that at the end of the process the reason it was instituted will actually work. If we don't have the commitment of the jurisdictions around us—if you go to all this expense and you create this identification card, you need to know that it will be accepted as identification to travel across the border. I think we need to do whatever we can to make sure we can expediently cross the border, but if this legislation doesn't create that which is needed, then it's all to no avail.

He spoke about the different types of cards. I did have some requests from my local people not too long ago that suggested we should have something in place where you could actually go to the licence office and, if you didn't have a driver's licence, you could get the same identification that you could use. There are people in our province who don't drive and have no need for a driver's licence, but they would like to be able to have identification that way.

But if you then include all the information that's required to get a passport to get that same identification card, then we're not solving the problem, because obviously they could go out and get the passport too. So if this isn't going to make it any easier to get than a passport, they might as well get a passport.

But having said that, if we have one that's a combined driver's licence with that information—and I think, even if we didn't need it, there's no reason why that type of information couldn't be on your driver's licence—why do we need a basic photo card, if we have an enhanced photo card? Why would you need two if one will do the job?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I want to commend the member for Thornhill for speaking in detail and voicing his concern about many different aspects.

He spoke about security. I think security is very important to all of us. I don't think the passport is more secure than the card we're going to issue. I think it's very important to create some kind of security mechanism for all the people across the province of Ontario, and across North America, as a matter of fact.

He also spoke about cloning, taking the numbers of cellphones and using them from different parts of the world. It's a very legitimate concern. But, sir, whatever we do in this life, the criminal also has ways and access to technology. They can access it and clone everything. They cloned a human being this time. They can imitate us. They can clone me and clone anyone they want.

I think it's important to raise issues. He also raised the very important issue of talking to the United States about whether they are accepting this card or not. I think the minister and the government of Ontario are not going to issue a card that costs millions of dollars to the people of Ontario without consultation with our neighbouring states to see if they will accept that card or not. I think his concern is legitimate. Hopefully, when we go more in debate and also in the committee, we can figure out a way and all the possibilities to tighten this bill and make it perfect, because, as he mentioned, we cannot jeopardize our security.

Also, we have the first hit. If we don't make it on the first hit, I guess our image would be tarnished. I think it's very important to create a good first impression to all the people, to tell them, "Yes, we are concerned about this issue and we want to create something good for all the people and to a certain degree very secure," that's good for the people and also gives them the chance if they want it or they don't want it.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I'd also like to add my remarks today to the debate on Bill 85. It's important to my riding of Sarnia—Lambton, being a major tourist area and having a major border crossing there as well. There are a number of Sarnia—Lambton residents who cross the border to our neighbouring jurisdictions and vice versa. We have many tourist attractions there, and also international trade; thousands and thousands of vehicles every day cross that border. So anything we can do to make it easier for our residents of Ontario to do that, and to contribute to security since 9/11, will certainly also be important.

I'd like to commend the member for Thornhill on his remarks. I heard the bulk of it in my office before I came down here and I heard the rest of it as he concluded. I think he made a number of very erudite remarks and points about the legislation, about the security and access to information that will be available in these. I've got a passport as well, but I'm sure I don't have nearly as many stamps on mine as the honourable member from Thornhill. I know he's a world traveller and knows about such things as security and travelling because he's done a lot of travelling around the world, in many different jurisdictions.

I would like to just repeat some of the remarks that other members made on our side of the House and on the government side as well. I support it for all those reasons, with the provisions and issues of security and access to information that the honourable member from Thornhill expressed, as well as a number of other members from the government. At this time I would just like to say that we'll be supporting this bill at the time it comes to a vote.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The member from Thornhill has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Peter Shurman: Thank you to the various members from all sides of the House who have responded to what I had to say.

Let me make some specific comments. With regard to the points raised by the member from Mississauga—Streetsville, just an admonition to my friend: Don't be so abject in accepting change as a constant. I know that change is the only constant in the world, but "Always do your best" is what I'd say. That being said, thank you for the support, because I think in essence we're on the same side of the security issue.

My friend the member from Oxford expressed concerns about the whole thing working and being accepted, which was a grand echo of my main points. There is a cost that is attached to the acquisition of a passport, and it is a significant cost for most Canadians. We have heard, although we don't know in great specifics, that there is a cost that will ultimately be attached to the obtaining of this licence. There's also a cost attached to the obtaining of a current driver's licence. So one way or another, we've got to figure out what it is in

summary that Ontarians are going to pay to get some kind of card that gets us onto the roads and across borders.

To the member from London—Fanshawe: The security concerns raised were very similar to those raised by the member from Mississauga—Streetsville, and again I'm more in agreement than disagreement insofar as the use of chip technology and trying to be as secure as possible.

Finally, to my good friend on my left from Sarnia—Lambton, who talks passionately about the tourism and trade aspects that very much affect our commerce here in Ontario and notably in his riding, let me assure him that, no, I don't have that many stamps on my passport. With the cost of travel being what it is, it's hard to get around these days.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: I welcome the opportunity to stand and speak to Bill 85. I want to say right from the outset that I will be supporting Bill 85.

I'd like to set the record straight, as it were, that passage of this legislation will allow for the creation of a passport alternative. It says that in all things, when one stars a journey, one must take a first step towards the common goals. To me the common goals, certainly in my mind, are to allow for not only the free travel movement of the people of Ontario but also for goods moving around as well.

Many members in the House know how important tourism is to a riding like Huron—Bruce. Certainly agriculture and energy are the two economic drivers, but I can tell you that tourism follows closely on their heels. We also have what I would call a fully mature tourism industry within the riding of Huron—Bruce. We have seen a number of Americans who have chosen to make their summer homes in the riding of Huron—Bruce, along beautiful Lake Huron. I know the Speaker knows all about what I speak of.

I see this as something that the people of Ontario have certainly asked for. When we think about what happened on 9/11, we know that the world changed. How people think of their security and ensuring that they are secure— everyone's vision of that changed on that day. I can recall, as I know we all can, those who are old enough to remember, what we were doing on the day that it happened. I just wanted to share with the House my story. When 9/11 happened, I was warden of the county and we were sitting in committee and we had been for a number of hours.

We received a call from one of our engineers that one of the planes had just hit the first building. So we decided to bring in a TV and watch. I don't think there will ever be a day in my life that I remember quite as clearly as that day—the horror that one felt seeing the devastation in New York City. Really, your sense of what you always thought to be secure—certainly we had a significant shift in our minds in how we perceived our security. You simply could not believe that it could happen.

I know that in many countries that have experienced war on their own lands this is something they have experienced over the years, but in North America we had never had anything like that happen before. So we knew from that day going forward that things would change, and they certainly have changed.

But what we must always ensure is that we have, as in all things, a balance. We must ensure that our people have a sense of security while also not creating barriers for the movement of our goods and people, because then we have lost a sense of our economy as well.

One of the facets that I believe will meet the needs of the people of Ontario is that the MTO is proposing four separate products, the first product being a regular driver's licence, which is what we're used to, but with more enhanced security; also an enhanced driver's licence; and a photo card for non-drivers.

I have received over the years a number of letters and calls from my constituents specifically with this concern. The composition of my riding has more seniors, and this is something that has been of concern to them. They no longer have a valid driver's licence, but they know that in today's world you need some type of photo ID. When the driver's licence is gone from their personal belongings, they really don't have any photo ID left. It's my seniors and those in that 16-to-19 range as well, if they don't go with their driver's licence. Even travelling throughout Canada, and the United States as well, one often needs some type of photo ID that can be accepted, not only for banking.

I'm very pleased about this photo card for non-drivers. The Ministry of Transportation has recognized that as a concern of the people of Ontario and it is bringing it forward in these very comprehensive adjustments being made through Bill 85 that speak to that, and also an enhanced photo card for non-drivers.

I'm running out of time and I wanted to give other members the opportunity to speak. But I wanted to get on the record that there is a cost to implement this system. I understand that. But a system going forward that will allow four alternatives to passports I feel is a very significant movement. I want to get on the record as well that there is also a cost for doing nothing.

We recognize that in order to allow for movement, we must begin a much more enhanced program. This comprehensive Bill 85 recognizes that and it will also be addressing other concerns from our seniors and our young people in bringing forward photo cards for non-drivers. That is why I wanted to take this opportunity to stand in this House and speak to my support for Bill 85. I do thank you for the opportunity to speak and I look forward to the next member's opportunity.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and/or comments?

Ms. Laurie Scott: I'm pleased to join in comments once again this morning on Bill 85, the Photo Card Act. The many comments that we've received this morning from members—it's about this enhanced driver's licence card that would provide citizenship information.

Obviously, we understand that this is all coming from the occurrence of 9/11, the importance of having proper documentation, to protect—in this case, the US is demanding that they have proper identification that they would accept before entering their country.

It's a huge impact financially, we've heard, on our province and tourism. People go back and forth, but not as much as we'd like to. Some people don't have passports. Up to four million people don't have a valid driver's licence. That's the card that most people use when going across, with their birth certificate etc. I'm sure everyone's crossed the border at one point or another.

So we're happy that the government is bringing in the Photo Card Act. We're a little concerned about details and privacy. We just had the member from Thornhill tell us about the new driver's licence that was brought in just a year ago. So we've spent a lot of money bringing in this new driver's licence. Now it's changing again. The fact that this is going to be three new cards—the combined photo card, the basic photo card, the enhanced photo card—is a little confusing for some people. These are details that we need to flush out.

The important part of this legislation is that we need to keep and enhance that flow of cross-border traffic, whether it be tourism, business etc. I've mentioned many times that tourism is certainly critical in my area of Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. I hope the auto industry continues to be a critical part of our economic stimulus that we have in Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, and that's part of this too.

Mr. Norm Miller: I'm pleased to add some comments to the member from Huron—Bruce's speech on Bill 85, the Photo Card Act, 2008. I might point out that our lead on this—our transportation critic, the member from Newmarket—Aurora—has yet to deliver his lead, which is the hour-long leadoff speech. We'll look forward to his speech because I'm sure he will have done a lot of research on it and may have thought of things that we haven't thought of.

Basically, our caucus is in general support of this bill. There are concerns to do with privacy that have been raised by privacy commissioners, but certainly the need to keep border traffic moving across the border is vitally important to our economy.

There have been some concerns raised, like why did the government just introduce a new enhanced driver's licence within the past year and now it's proposing this? Does that mean we just changed the whole driver's licence for a year or two? This is supposed to be implemented in June 2009, so I would question whether the money was well spent on the driver's licence which has just been announced.

I think there are some valid concerns about why we need three cards—the combined photo card, the basic photo card and an enhanced photo card. Could it not be done as one card? I would think, why would someone want to get a basic card which doesn't have the enhanced information? So then they go to cross the border and it's not sufficient; it doesn't meet the criteria of the United States western hemisphere travel initiative to actually be able to get across the border. I'd certainly like an explanation from the government as to why they're proposing that.

As I've stated before, we need to also address tourism concerns this summer to address what I think is going to be a very challenging year in tourism in Ontario.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I too want to commend the member from Huron—Bruce for an explanation on the bill. I would agree with her, when she started off first of all by saying that she was going to support the bill.

I think I can almost say the same thing. I do believe it's very important that we bring forward a plan to deal with the border crossing, because when the Americans decide that we have to have this information to get across and all of a sudden all the people in Ontario who don't have a passport can't get across, it's going to be quite detrimental to our tourist industry and so forth. So I support her on that.

I agree that we have to take the first step, but I think it's very important that we also have an idea that that step is going in the right direction. I understand from some of the notes that in fact we have some commitment from homeland security that they would accept something of this nature to get across the border, but I would hope that the government is working on making sure that what is being proposed will in fact be accepted.

As with the driver's licence just having been implemented a year ago, it's somewhat concerning to think that we would go through all the cost and the implementation of something that at the end of the day will not be accepted. So it's really important that the government look at making sure that it will be accepted identification for homeland security before we go to all the expense of putting that in place.

But I would agree with the presentation and thank her for the information that was provided.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Questions and comments? The member for Huron—Bruce has two minutes to respond.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: I do want to thank all of the members who responded to my comments. Certainly, what I'm hearing is that there is a great deal of support for this bill. We understand that there are some outstanding concerns, but quite frankly, we agree on the path forward; it's just what that path will look like.

I certainly know that the members from across the way have heard from their constituents about the photo ID as well. We know that will address the concerns of many of our constituents who do not have photo ID without a driver's licence.

I welcome quick passage of the bill, and I thank all the members for their comments. We certainly, from this side of the House, do appreciate all your support.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The time for debate has ended.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce a number of guests to the Legislature today.

On behalf of the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, in the west members' gallery, Catherine Dunne.

On behalf of the member for Simcoe—Grey, in the west members' gallery, Aaron Hunt from Tottenham.

On behalf of the member from Whitby—Oshawa, on behalf of page Hisham Mohammad, in the west members' gallery, Fahmida Banu, his mother; Ilyas Mohammad, his father; Faizah Ilyas, his sister; and Ismath Unissa, his grandmother.

On behalf of page Rachelle Lassaline, in the west members' gallery, her mother, Darlene Lassaline; her father, Chuck; and her sister Ella.

On behalf of the member from Scarborough—Agincourt, the grade 5 class from Our Lady of the Rosary Catholic school in Concord and their teacher, Joe Bush.

On behalf of the member for Toronto—Danforth, seated in the Speaker's gallery, His Worship, the mayor of St. Thomas, Cliff Barwick; Catherine Naismith, president of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario; Suzanne Van Bommel and Dawn Doty, on behalf of Alma College; and Grant Head and Brenda Head from Hamilton.

I'd like to welcome all of our guests to the chamber today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Deputy Premier. The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, received $5 million in grants from the McGuinty Liberals between June 2007 and January 2008. That's five million taxpayers' dollars in just seven months. According to Local 793, that $5 million was 10 times more than any other grant in the skills training infrastructure program. Deputy Premier, who in your government was responsible for giving Local 793 such a sweet deal?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. John Milloy: I've been very proud of our government's initiatives when it comes to training apprentices here in this province. As members may be aware, there are a number of different training agencies and community colleges. We have employer training. We also have employer-union training operations in place.

A number of years ago there was a $25-million program announced by my predecessor, Minister Bentley. There was a request for proposals that went out to union training centres, union-employer training centres, employer training centres. This was an open and transparent process, and I'm very pleased that we were able to assist a number of these training centres in upgrading their equipment and allowing them to provide better training through a system of apprentices across this province. I'm very pleased that we have 50,000 more apprentices in this province and that we're doing our best to ensure that we see more registrants and more entrants into the skilled trades.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: There's nothing much open and transparent about any of this government's transactions. The minister doesn't explain why this one particular union local received 20% of the funding from this one skills training program. Could it be because Local 793 donated $150,000 to the Working Families Coalition?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask the member to withdraw that comment. Imputing motives is not parliamentary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: That's an unbelievable decision on your part. God, we can't even ask a legitimate question about where taxpayers' money is going? I am not withdrawing, Speaker.

Mr. Tim Hudak: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the time that you have spent in the chair. I think you'll recall as a member of the assembly on both sides of the House that this type of question is very typical here in the Ontario Legislative Assembly. All parties have asked this question in the past. I do believe that previous Speakers' rulings have found this question very much in order and I think a very valid point by the member for Leeds—Grenville about how campaign donations have been allocated in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I will take it under advisement.

The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I go back to the minister again. Could it be because Gary O'Neill, the business manager of Local 793, was one of the principals of Working Families? I go back to the minister: Why is it that Local 793 is so special that it gets $5 million and the remaining $20 million is divided up amongst more than 50 other grant recipients?

Hon. John Milloy: This is quite frankly outrageous. If the honourable member has some proof that he wants to put forward, he should bring it forward. We announced the program. We had a competitive call for bids. It was an open and transparent process which was administered by the public service. There were set criteria that I would be happy to share with the member. Decisions were made based on that by the public service. You cannot stand in this House and impugn the reputation of any individual or organization without facts the way he just has. The member should apologize; if not, the member should produce some proof. Say it outside the House.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Given this government's record of responsibility with taxpayers' dollars, I think we have every legitimate right to raise these issues. Five million dollars in seven short months—one could suggest that's a pretty good return on a $150,000 investment. Gerry Hughes, who's the executive director of Local 793, puts it even better. This is from Local 793's newsletter. He says, "Incredible! We must be doing something right.

"We all owe huge thanks to business manager Mike Gallagher and his team for their successful lobbying work with the provincial government. Their effort paid off in spades and the 'return on investment' has been phenomenal, something like 5,000%." He's a little off; it's more like 3,333%. Minister, who else got such a great return on their investment, or was it just open to the donors behind Working Families?

Hon. John Milloy: I find it outrageous, coming from a party which did nothing to train apprentices, that they would stand up here and knock a system which has produced 50,000 more apprentices in our province.

The honourable member says, "Who else benefited from it?" Maybe he should look around at his fellow caucus members: How about the member from Kitchener—Waterloo, who received money for the Waterloo training centre to expand their ability to train brick and stone masons; the member from Burlington—$627,000 to train construction boilermakers and millwrights; the member from Oshawa, whose riding received money for the Oshawa training centre; and the member from Sarnia—$100,000 to expand the ability to train carpenters?

We need more skilled trades in this province. We have a system of union, union-employer and employer training centres, and I am proud that our government was able to support them in their important work through this fund.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Minister of Finance: To the best of your knowledge, is Ontario now in a recession?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The consensus estimate among the 12 economists whom we routinely consult with says that in spite of the challenges in our economy, the rate of growth today is about 0.9%; it's a very modest rate of growth.

What we need is a federal government that wakes up and understands the importance of the Ontario economy. We finally heard the federal Minister of Finance yesterday saying that they ought to help the automotive industry. You ought to talk to them and ask why they trashed this province, why Jim Flaherty would run Ontario into the ground.

This government's invested $1.5 billion in training, which they voted against. In spite of the challenges in the economy, we believe that there will be growth in the economy this year. It will be modest, as we've indicated, and we will continue to monitor it very carefully and make the kinds of investments that that member and—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I find it passing strange that the finance minister refuses to answer directly a "yes" or "no" question—whether Ontario is currently in a state of recession. I think the finance minister has information at his hand as he prepares his upcoming reports. I'd ask him to share that data immediately with the Legislature.

Those who know that there's a Dalton McGuinty recession in the province of Ontario are the 2,600 GM workers who have permanently lost their jobs in Oshawa; it is the 200 workers at Hallmark in Toronto who just found that they've permanently lost their jobs; it is half the workforce at Lafarge in Oxford county who've just found out they've lost their jobs in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario as part of the Dalton McGuinty recession.

I know the finance minister is anxious to recess this Legislature for the summer because he knows that bad news keeps coming about Dalton McGuinty's mismanagement of the economy. Before we recess, Finance Minister, will you table a mini-budget to state the updated finances of the province of Ontario?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Whenever an Ontarian loses a job, this government is concerned. That's why we invested in GM—and you voted against it; that member voted against it. That's why this government has worked with the CAW and with all companies across Ontario to help ensure that we can overcome the challenge of a dollar that's above par, of oil that's in the vicinity of $120, of the state of the US economy—all factors that all economists have cited.

There are challenges, no question, but there's also news the member didn't talk about. He didn't talk about 100,000 net new high-paying jobs in Ontario in the last year. He didn't talk about the fact that unemployment this year is lower than it was at this time last year. He didn't talk about the fact that when he left office the unemployment rate was 7%; today, it's 6.3%. We'll be there for the unemployed in this province, unlike—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: No doubt the 200,000 families who are now without well-paying manufacturing jobs are deeply grateful that the finance minister is concerned. Do you know what they want, Finance Minister? They want to see some action. They want to see a plan. They want to see you turn this economy around and get us out of the Dalton McGuinty recession.

In your own budget you predicted GDP growth of 1.1%; Toronto Dominion says that it is barely half that, crawling at 0.5% at best. You predicted in your budget that oil would be $85 a barrel; today it hovers around $125 a barrel. You projected a retail sales rate of 3.4%; TD says that it is barely half that.

Finance Minister, your projections have as much bearing in reality as your campaign promises do. I ask you one last time, given the ongoing layoffs in the province of Ontario, given the impacts of the Dalton McGuinty recession on working families, will you rise in your place before we recess for the summer—

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There's no doubt that there are challenges, but the member forgets some other statistics that are actually performing better than they were: retail sales up 5.5% ahead of what we projected; wages up 5.1%; housing starts up 18.9%.

This government and this party are standing behind those people who are facing the challenges of this economy. This government has stood up and done that.

One thing we do need is fairness in employment insurance. One of those GM workers in Oshawa will get $4,000 a year less in employment insurance benefits than a worker in other parts of the country.

As long as there are challenges in the economy, this government will continue to stand up with those families and communities that are suffering. We only wish that party and the federal government would stand with those people and with this government.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Deputy Premier. About two and a half years ago, with much fanfare, the McGuinty government announced a $235-million investment in General Motors in Oshawa. In February of this year, General Motors unveiled their new fuel-efficient hybrid-powered Sierra pickup truck and announced it would go into production this fall. This is exactly the kind of next-generation, fuel-efficient, hybrid-powered pickup truck that should be built in Ontario by Ontario workers, but it's not going to be.

My question is this: How could the McGuinty government give General Motors $235 million of the people's money and not get a guarantee that this vehicle would be built in Oshawa by workers from Oshawa?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: There is no question that what Ontario is looking for are companies to invest in the future products that the whole world will want. Yes, that does include hybrid trucks, and yes, our discussion with General Motors is and was, all of last week and for several days now—any opportunity that we will have with General Motors, with Toyota, with Honda, with Chrysler, with Ford, with any of our new automotive companies yet to invest in Ontario, we do want the next generation of automobile to be built in Ontario.

That is why we've launched a $1.15-billion Next Generation of Jobs Fund. When this fund begins to roll out, as it already has with other sectors, I would look to this member to support the fund, to support our ability to go out and chase investments, to bring them right here to Ontario.

Mr. Howard Hampton: There are some things that are passing strange here.

I want to quote one Dalton McGuinty, May 7, from the Hansard of this place, the assembly: "GM has chosen to make its first-ever hybrid truck in Ontario."

Dalton McGuinty, May 13, here, in this Legislature: "We've learned recently that GM is going to produce its first-ever hybrid truck in North America here in Ontario."

But there's another story that the workers in Oshawa tell. Yes, all of the technology, the development, for this new fuel-efficient truck was done in Oshawa by Oshawa workers. Yes, the McGuinty government handed over $235 million. But the Oshawa workers say it's not going to be built in Oshawa; it's going to be built somewhere else.

So tell us, how can the Premier be promising one thing, handing over $235 million—the workers do the work, but the—

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

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think we should be clear here about the kind of investment that General Motors has made in Ontario. The largest single investment by an automotive company in Canada is in fact the Beacon project. That was a $2.5-billion program. Where did it come? It came to Ontario. Why did it come? It came because of our automotive investment strategy. And let me say this: All of the developments at the Oshawa car plants are a direct result of that.

The very fact that we have a flex line that is going to allow General Motors to change their products as consumer demand is changing—which is very obvious to many of us today. We know that there are other parts that are very challenging. We also know that we plant our flag in the automotive sector as a very strong component of Ontario's manufacturing sector, and we will continue to do that .

Mr. Howard Hampton: I heard lots of words, but no answer to the question. Those workers in Oshawa did the engineering and development work. They built the hybrid that was unveiled in Chicago in February. Some of the $235 million the McGuinty government gave to General Motors was used to do that development work. But the workers in Oshawa know that this truck is going to Mexico.

So I ask again, how could the McGuinty government give $235 million to GM? How could the Premier go around the province saying this truck is going to be built in Ontario? We find out today you had no job guarantees, no product guarantees; it's going to Mexico. How could the McGuinty government be so incompetent as to allow that to happen?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think we should be clear here. If there is more than one partner that we have had in the automotive sector, it's been the workers who work in the automotive sector. That is not what I can say about this particular member of the House. I would ask this particular member, when is the last time you talked to the leader of the CAW and asked him his view of the Ontario government's role in developing investments in the automotive sector? I would just ask him that question.

If there has been a government that has been on the side of workers in automotive, it has been this government, the likes of which the CAW has never seen. I will say today that we are on the side of workers. We want all of the investments to be in Ontario and we will continue to fight to see that that happens, unlike this member, who continues to vote against every single initiative that comes forward to help the very sector that he purports—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question? The leader of the third party.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton: To the Acting Premier: I actually went out and met with some of those workers in Oshawa yesterday who are going to be losing their jobs, thanks to the incompetence of the McGuinty government.

I still have not heard an answer. The Oshawa workers know what's going on. Two hundred and thirty-five million dollars of the people's money went from the McGuinty government to General Motors. The Premier, in this House and across Ontario, goes around saying, "Oh, the new, fuel-efficient, next-generation-hybrid Sierra pickup truck is going to be built in Oshawa." The workers there do all the development work, but guess what? The McGuinty government didn't get any job or product guarantees, so the truck is going to Mexico. I ask again, how could any government be so incompetent as to allow that to happen?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think that we have to point the finger at a couple of parties in this House that have refused to support the automotive sector. We stepped forward with an automotive investment strategy and we asked every member in this House to support Ford, to support Chrysler, to support General Motors, to support Toyota, to support Honda. On every single front, your answer was no, no, no, no, and no.

The result today is that we have more investment that has come to this jurisdiction than any other jurisdiction in North America.

Does this sector face challenges? We are the first to understand that it is undergoing some dramatic shifting. The reality is that we want our workers working in our plants. We will continue to fight to see that that happens, more so than any other jurisdiction on this continent.

Mr. Howard Hampton: What is so unbelievable about this is that 2,600 workers, who just won an award yesterday—the Oshawa truck plant, tops in the group in efficiency and quality—the workers who developed the very truck that was put on display in Chicago by General Motors, the very workers who have won all these awards for efficiency and quality, have been sold out by the McGuinty government.

You gave $235 million to General Motors and you got no product guarantee and no jobs guarantee. Those workers want to know: What are you going to do now? What are you going to do to ensure that that $235 million, those jobs, that next-generation truck, stays in Oshawa? Are you going to stand up to GM or not?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think we've made our position more than clear: Not only will we stand up for General Motors, we stand up for CAW workers, we stand up for Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda and any world company that wants to bring investment to this province. We will stand up for them because that means good jobs for our families.

We understand the challenges that General Motors faces today. Let me say this: He purports to speak for the CAW; let me ask him if he supports Buzz Hargrove when he says, "We need both levels of government engaged in order to keep our share of future investment and jobs." And, "Without provincial support (including its participation in GM's Beacon project), the situation facing the industry today would be far, far worse." Do you agree with Buzz Hargrove? Do you agree with that statement?

Mr. Howard Hampton: I think Mr. Hargrove will have his own questions he'll have to answer, and he'll have to answer them someplace. But I'd like to get an answer from the McGuinty government. Here is the reality: There's $235 million of Ontario money that went into the GM plant in Oshawa, there's $200 million of federal money that went into the General Motors plant in Oshawa, and the development work was done on the truck. I don't disagree with making those investments, but I think if you're going to make those investments, you should get job guarantees and product guarantees.

What is the McGuinty government going to do to force General Motors to live up to the obligation? They've got the money; the truck was developed in Oshawa. Are you going to force them to produce that truck in Oshawa and sustain Ontario jobs?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Let me say this again: We understand that the Beacon project that we've participated in did not include the truck product. What we were very heartened to see is the innovation that exists at General Motors, at their engineering centre right here in Oshawa, one of their best engineering centres in world-wide GM, they have the capability to develop the hybrid truck. We want that production in Ontario. We want it to stay here. The fact that it's moving, the fact that we understand the challenges in the industry and what it's facing today—we will continue to work with General Motors and with the CAW.

We recognize those challenges and we want them to be strong. We understand that our workers today are facing serious challenges. So let me say once again, when it comes time to vote, to put your money where your mouth is, will you stand with the CAW workers or will you stand—

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

ROAD SAFETY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Attorney General. Yesterday, through our transportation critic, Frank Klees, we heard that the driver responsible for David Virgoe's death because of street racing was sentenced to two years of house arrest.

When this Legislature passed its own street racing legislation, we sent a clear message to the public and the courts that the province was going to crack down on this criminal activity with a heavy hand. The leniency of the sentence handed down to the individual responsible for David Virgoe's death is an insult to the will and intent expressed by this House and the people of Ontario. Minister, what are you going to do to ensure that the message sent by this House is heard loud and clear in our courtrooms?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: As the member, who is a former Solicitor General, knows, first of all, we prosecuted this case to the full extent of the law. We made submissions in court. Those submissions were not accepted in court. A judge made an independent decision. We are obtaining and awaiting the report of the trial crown before we decide on the appeal issue.

Our government has made it clear, both with provincial legislation and in prosecuting federal legislation, which this is, that we take these matters very seriously. We prosecute them to the full extent of the law. We take a strong position in favour of public safety on these and all matters at all times.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I appreciate the Attorney General's comments, but waiting for a possible appeal to wind its way through the courts will not send a clear message to the hotshot speeders who are going to take to our highways this summer that street racing is a one-way ticket, and should be a one-way ticket, to jail.

Debbie Virgoe, David Virgoe's widow, is in the House today, and I would ask you to tell her that her husband's death will not be in vain.

Attorney General, will your government provide unanimous consent to a resolution calling on the federal government to impose a mandatory minimum jail sentence for deaths caused by street racing? Will you do that?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: To the widow and to the family, our hearts go out for a terrible loss in a terrible case. There is nothing we can say that will change that loss.

We have been clear in this House—on all sides—in our courts, through the prosecutors, and in the position that we have taken publicly through the media that we will take a tough stand on any form of driving offence, whether it's under federal legislation or under provincial legislation. We will continue to take that tough stand. We took it in this case and we will continue, whether it's under federal or provincial legislation.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Acting Premier. It's not just about auto jobs moving to Mexico. The Hallmark Canada production facility in North York closed its doors Wednesday, putting 200 more manufacturing workers on the street. Announcements like these seem to be an everyday reality in the Dalton McGuinty government. What is the Premier going to do now: send Hallmark a sympathy card? When will this government admit that its jobs plan isn't worth the paper it's printed on?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: What this government recognized some time ago is that we need all hands on deck when it comes to working with our manufacturing sector. That includes the federal government; that includes every member on all sides of this House.

When budgets are tabled in this very House that speak to things like our skills strategy to reach out to workers who are going to need retraining to work in other areas, we expect full support by all members of this House.

And let me be clear: Workers out there who are losing their jobs, individuals who work on those plant floors, who are at Hallmark or at Canac Kitchens, any of those—we feel for those people, and we ask, "How can we help?" That means that when we reach out with our programs, we want to go to them and say, "Every member of the provincial Legislature wants to support a program like this." But we'll watch your voting record very carefully to see how you support the workers that you purport to care for .

Mr. Paul Miller: I'd like to thank the minister for keeping an eye on me.

Kind words won't put food on the table. New Democrats put forward Bill 6 and Bill 71 that would protect workers' severance payouts after mass layoffs like the one at Hallmark. The Premier himself said he would review our bill in this House. He said he'd review it. For Hallmark workers, it would mean 20 weeks' notice, better retaining options and two weeks' severance pay for each year of employment.

Since the government is incapable of saving manufacturing jobs, the least it could to is make the lives after layoffs slightly better. Why won't this government pass Bill 6 and Bill 71 immediately to help the people of this province who are in dire need?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Brad Duguid: For the member's information, Ontario is the only province in the country with statutory severance pay obligations. No other province requires employers to provide statutory severance pay. What the member wants to do with one of his private member's bills is put a tax on the very employers that are providing these jobs for these individuals.

We are leading the country. We are working with other Ministers of Labour across this country and going after Ottawa to ensure that they provide the protections under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act that these workers need. We're taking leadership on this issue—

Interjections.

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

The member from Stoney Creek will come to order, and please be reminded: When you ask a question, please listen to the response.

TUITION

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: My question is directed to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Hamilton is the proud home of excellent post-secondary education institutions like McMaster University and Mohawk College. In my riding and across the province, post-secondary education tuition fees continue to increase year over year, bringing the average undergraduate tuition fee for a university student to about $4,500 and the average tuition fee for a regular college program to just over $1,900.

Minister, what measures are you taking to keep tuition rates from climbing and to ensure Ontario students have access to affordable, quality education?

Hon. John Milloy: I want to begin by congratulating the member on her support for post-secondary education, particularly in the Hamilton area. She's joined by my colleague the Minister of Government and Consumer Services in her advocacy for both McMaster and Mohawk.

The member raises a very important point about tuition fees being faced by students. I was very proud that our government, upon entry into office, instituted a two-year tuition freeze in order to bring forth a fair tuition framework under which tuition fees are capped at 5% annually. What this means is that annual increases are limited to about $100 for almost 85% of college students and $200 for 70% of university students. The new tuition fee framework fulfills our commitment that for every dollar we ask in tuition to put forward—

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

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: My question is again to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. McMaster University, Mohawk College and other Ontario post-secondary institutions offer a variety of programs that enhance the skills and training of our students, playing an important role in helping them prepare for the future in the workforce. However, increasing costs mean that programs become unaffordable to some individuals. As well, once students graduate and begin looking for employment, they're often saddled with student debt.

Minister, I know this government wants to move forward without leaving people behind. Could you tell this House what financial assistance is available to students in my community and across the province to assist in the costs of obtaining a post-secondary education?

Hon. John Milloy: I'm very proud, after the horrendous cuts of the previous two governments, that our government came forward with one of the greatest investments in post-secondary education in Ontario's history: $6.2 billion. Part of that investment was $1.5 billion specifically aimed at student aid. Through this, we've tripled the number of grants available to students, with one in four, approximately 120,000 in Ontario, now receiving non-repayable grants.

We've increased OSAP maximums by 27% for the first time in 12 years, and we've limited the student's annual repayment debt to $7,000 through the Ontario student opportunity grant program. Additionally, once a student has graduated, we provide debt management measures to students struggling to repay their loans.

I'm pleased with the supports we've offered students, and we're going to continue to work to make sure that finances are never—

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

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday our party introduced an opposition