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

June 10, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Jun-10 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Tuesday 10 June 2008 Mardi 10 juin 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PHOTO CARD ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LES CARTES-PHOTO

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

SKILLS TRAINING

HOG INDUSTRY

CONSUMER PROTECTION

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

SCHOOL TRUSTEES

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

CONSUMER PROTECTION

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

WINE INDUSTRY

FOREST INDUSTRY

PETITIONS

LORD'S PRAYER

PROTECTION FOR MINERS

GARDE D'ENFANTS

WYE MARSH WILDLIFE CENTRE

CHILD PROTECTION

LORD'S PRAYER

PESTICIDES

LORD'S PRAYER

LORD'S PRAYER

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

LORD'S PRAYER

LORD'S PRAYER

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

FIREARMS CONTROL

PREMIER'S FARM INNOVATION AWARD

SCIENCE FAIR

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

JUSTICE SYSTEM

PUBLIC HEALTH

CONSUMER PROTECTION

RICHARD LEARY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COLLEGES COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA NÉGOCIATION

COLLECTIVE DANS LES COLLÈGES

PUBLIC VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

(IMPROVING BICYCLE MOBILITY), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008

MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES VÉHICULES

DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

(AMÉLIORATION DE LA MOBILITÉ

À BICYCLETTE)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

PORTUGUESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY

PORTUGUESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

PORTUGUESE CANADIAN COMMUNITY

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

OPPOSITION DAY

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

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 5, 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. Frank Klees: We are debating Bill 85 this morning, the Photo Card Act, 2008, and I'm pleased to add my comments as the critic for the Ministry of Transportation for the official opposition. I'd like to first of all set the context for the bill, the reason that the government is bringing this bill forward, what precipitated it, and I'd like to speak, in principle, to the fact that as the official opposition we will be supporting the bill and its intent.

I will also be outlining some concerns that we have that we anticipate the government will address in the course of committee, and also as it prepares for the implementation, phasing in, of the bill. I will be referring to some concerns that our privacy commissioner in the province of Ontario has expressed, along with privacy commissioners from across the country, with regards to some of the technology. We want to ensure that the appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the very important personal information that will be contained in these identification cards.

I will also be taking some time to speak about the importance of ensuring that we have a smooth process of border-crossing between us and the United States, for many reasons. They are our major trading partner.

One industry that we are particularly concerned about is the tourism industry. We are concerned that as we go into this summer there are already signs of a reduction in the number of reservations, for example, that various tourist operators are receiving. There's no question that the price of gasoline has a great deal to do with that. And we are concerned that there seems to be very little, if any, response on the part of the McGuinty government to what could be another very serious impending economic downturn.

We already see the effects that the loss of manufacturing jobs has had in our communities. The McGuinty government appears–although there are and have been many announcements with regard to infusions of money in various aspects of the auto industry, it seems that the basis on which those investments were made was perhaps haphazard, that there were not sufficient safeguards put in place when those very substantial commitments to the auto sector were made.

General Motors is an excellent example of that: more than $130 million of commitment of taxpayers' dollars, with good intentions no doubt, being invested in that industry, all with the underlying purpose of ensuring stability within that industry and ensuring a guarantee of jobs, and then, on the heels of that announcement, we find major closings announced—the truck plant in Oshawa.

It has left not only the employees of that factory with great concern as to their future, but I know that even members of this government were caught by surprise, not the least of whom was the Minister of Economic Development, who was instrumental in ensuring and in delivering that investment into General Motors. We observed that she did not have the answers in terms of how this could happen, when in fact there was an expectation that jobs would be guaranteed. So I'll have something to say about the tourism industry and what the government should be doing.

First of all, the context for this: It was brought on, really, by the 9/11 disaster, a wake-up call for all of North America in terms of the threat to our security. Immediately, of course, the focus was on our borders and what is it that we must do and can do to ensure secure borders. All of us, on either side of that border, came to the realization that not enough was being done to ensure that those borders are secure.

So under the western hemisphere travel initiative, now all travellers entering and leaving the United States by land or sea will be required to show a passport or an accepted alternative to a passport as of June 1, 2009. That presents, then, the concern of how we ensure that travel across that border, legitimate travel across that border, is not hampered and that we do so in a way that is both secure as well as convenient.

Because in the same way that many of the border states rely on Canadians to travel there, whether it is for shopping, whether it is for entertainment, whether it is for holidays, we as well rely very heavily on US travellers coming to Ontario to enjoy what we have here in terms of our tourist attractions. What we are concerned about is to ensure that those American travellers are not discouraged from making that trip to Ontario because of the inconvenience at the border.

So I think there's a mutual commitment on the part of our border state colleagues and the various state legislatures, along with us, to ensure that we have a mechanism that is at once secure as well as convenient.

Nearly four million people in Ontario do not have a driver's licence and therefore don't have access to even the basic identification. We've raised this a number of times as well. This is in addition to what we're going to be addressing today. But I think a by-product of this bill before us will, perhaps for the first time, actually address that issue of an identification card for people who don't have a driver's licence, that as we roll this program out, that will then be available to those Ontarians and give them an opportunity to access that kind of identification document.

In December 2007, you will recall that the Ontario government introduced what they referred to at that time as a "more secure" Ontario driver's licence that would help against fraud, misuse and identity theft. I recall well the Minister of Transportation assuring us that the advanced licence that was being introduced at that time would not contain citizenship information, not contain any more information than drivers' licences contain now.

I find it somewhat odd that less than a year after that major announcement on the part of the government for a new driver's licence, an enhanced driver's licence, now we're back here with yet another revamped announcement that goes the full distance to photo technology. In fact, it will contain, in addition to the information that we now have on our drivers' licences, citizenship information and will be required to have some very advanced technology.

I guess what I have to question is this one-off type of announcement that this government continues to deliver to the Legislature here. It begs the question, are we not doing some longer-term thinking? Why was there one announcement a year ago and it's taken this long to then bring forward this technology? Will the information that we trust will be on these new proposed identification cards, these enhanced drivers' licences, be secure?

What I want to do is to address an issue of concern as expressed by the privacy commissioners of Canada. I want to just refer to discussions that we have had with our privacy commissioner here in the province of Ontario. They are specifically concerned with the RFID chip technology, how information on that chip will be read at the border and what the specific issues on citizenship verification will be. These are issues that we have assurance from the privacy commissioner, that they have in turn received from the minister, that they will be addressed.

The other concern is that there be a separate database. There are concerns regarding where the information that now will come into this database would actually go. As per the resolution of the privacy commissioners that there be a requirement that the personal information that is then gathered into this database not go stateside, that it is kept here in Ontario, the preliminary assurance that we have from the minister is that the government information will not go beyond our borders, and we look for assurance of that.

There isn't a great deal of information regarding the RFID chip to which I referred earlier, other than that it is an advanced technology, that it is something that will allow a transmission of information as individuals approach a border, and that it will actually be recognized. A crossing guard at the border will either be able to then swipe the card using a magnetic strip similar to those on current drivers' licences, or to use that RFID technology.

Information, we're assured, that would be available to border guards should not be any greater than what is currently available on a driver's licence or a passport.

Then again, it comes to the point that the technology is unknown technology as it relates to this kind of identification card. I commend the BC government for the fact that they have actually launched a pilot project under which they're going to limit the number of these cards to 500 while they go through their pilot project to test out how it works, to test out the security and efficiency of that technology.

That trial run of that program should be of interest to us, and I would encourage our government to do the same, that once this legislation is passed, we have a very specific implementation program under which it would be phased in, under which we can be assured that all of the technical issues are dealt with and that we don't end up with problems that will cause us more issues in the long term.

The reason that I dwell on the privacy concerns is that I've raised issues in the past here in the Legislature concerning the Ministry of Transportation's dealing with personal information. You may recall that about a month ago, I raised in question period with the minister the issue of Anna Medeiros, who had been issued a driver's licence by the Ministry of Transportation, not ever having applied for a driver's licence.

Observers of this debate who aren't familiar with the file will question how an agency of the government could issue identification such as a driver's licence to a citizen of this province who never applied for that document. The way that happened is that there is in legislation a mandatory requirement for physicians to report to the Ministry of Transportation if they are treating someone who has a condition that may—and I repeat, that may—be of concern to someone who drives a car.

In other words, it may be an issue of sight or it may be potential for seizures, but if there is a concern that the individual may not safely drive a vehicle, then there is a requirement for that attending physician to make that report to the Ministry of Transportation.

In this particular case, in Anna Medeiros's case, her doctor made a report to the Ministry of Transportation about a potential concern. Ms. Medeiros not having a driver's licence, I'm advised that the Ministry of Transportation processed a driver's licence in her name, and then, once it was issued, immediately cancelled and suspended that licence. Now we have a situation where Ms. Medeiros has a record of a suspended driver's licence and is in the databank of the Ministry of Transportation as someone who may have an issue. When and if Ms.

Medeiros ever applies for a driver's licence, whether that be five years or 10 years or 20 years down the road, her application will immediately be flagged theoretically, and whether her medical condition has improved or not, she now has the challenge of dealing with this record of a suspended driver's licence on her file.

I raised this matter with our privacy commissioner, Ann Cavoukian. My reason for raising it with her was to point out that when mandatory reporting was implemented in this province, it was never the intention that people be tracked this way. I personally and we as the official opposition believe that that is an inappropriate use of personal information. We asked that the privacy commissioner investigate this matter with a view to alerting the Ministry of Transportation that this is inappropriate.

The privacy commissioner responded and confirmed that an investigation has in fact been commenced by the privacy commissioner into this practice. We look forward to hearing back from the privacy commissioner with regard to that.

I want to bring another matter to your attention as an example of how the Ministry of Transportation deals with matters of personal information. This is a letter that was sent to the leader of our party, John Tory, by Mr. Eddy Consenheim. I'm going to read it into the record because I think it's important that members understand and that the Ministry of Transportation gets the message clearly from us here that we will not simply stand by as the Ministry of Transportation deals with personal information of private citizens in such a cavalier way. There is enough encroachment into our lives by government, let alone this kind of presumptive intrusion into our personal lives.

Mr. Consenheim writes to Mr. Tory as follows:

"Dear Sir,

"Herewith enclosed is my letter to the Minister of Transportation about my complaint for the invasion of my privacy by a private corporation, the 407 ETR.

"I find it unacceptable that outsiders can obtain my personal information without my consent, see the copy with the description. I do not have a transponder and have never filed an application for this."

Signed, "Eddy Consenheim."

He refers to the letter addressed to the minister. I'm going to read that into the record. It's my understanding that the minister has yet to respond—this was written on May 1, 2008—and I will look forward to seeing the minister's response. The letter reads:

"Dear Sir,

"Recently, I discovered on the backside of the account statement from 407 ETR a statement that was never brought to my attention, and I don't know how long this statement has been included.

"The statement in question is the fact that 407 ETR 'may request a consumer report and a credit investigation of my personal information.' I find this very disturbing and I don't see the reason for this unless this is done for the government to gather more personal information that should be protected under the privacy act.

"As far as I know, and I have never been informed different, anyone wanting to get my credit information can do so when this is on the application and accepted by the applicant and signed for.

"It is beside the fact that the costing is getting absolutely outrageous and instead of the government's promises to change this, they are now giving more power to outside interests. This is totally unacceptable. I will also inform the other parties of this. It could well become a point of discussion in the next election." It is signed "Eddy Consenheim."

"407 ETR may request a consumer report containing personal information about you and may request a credit investigation and exchange information with credit reporting agencies."

On the back of the bill, there is no signature—no agreement by an individual to allow either the 407 or the government of Ontario to gather any personal information. It refers to other agencies. Is it referring to the Ministry of Transportation? Is it referring to other companies, other third parties, perhaps private companies? We don't know. It's a blanket release that is presumed, and Mr. Consenheim's point about this is that the 407, of course, cannot issue this without the sign-off by the Ministry of Transportation.

So this is yet one more example of the Ministry of Transportation agreeing to the encroachment on personal information of private citizens in the province of Ontario.

So when I raise the issue in the context of the debate of Bill 85 and the government's intent to bring forward an identification system that will contain not just the name and age and colour of hair and other information that we have on our driver's licence, but will also contain important citizenship information, we want to be very clear that whoever is administering that technology at the Ministry of Transportation has the resources to do so effectively.

We continue to hear about the misuse of information. We had an example again raised in this Legislature of an individual who had lost his licence for life as a result of drinking and driving. That same individual was issued a driver's licence. He made the application—the same name—and the Ministry of Transportation was incapable of doing the necessary cross-checking of that individual's identification to ensure that someone who should not have a driver's licence was denied that. We are not comfortable at this point in time until we hear from the minister.

We will look for the minister to provide us information during committee of the steps that he has taken to ensure that there is competence and that there is ability at the Ministry of Transportation to in fact deal with these issues.

I want to turn to the issue of our tourism industry. We have heard from the Minister of Transportation that one of the reasons that they're moving forward with this technology is because we want to ensure a smooth flowing of travellers across our borders—and tourism is a big part of that. I want to question the government: Where is Mr. Greg Sorbara? Where is the tourism czar who was appointed by Dalton McGuinty for the express purpose of researching the tourism industry to ensure that the industry is healthy and vibrant?

Tourism is one of the fastest-growing industries on the planet, and yet Ontario lags behind most other jurisdictions in terms of its growth rate of that industry. That is a shame given the extent of our natural resources in this province that should have our attention.

We're losing manufacturing jobs in a sector that is experiencing significant difficulties. Whether we're in southwestern Ontario, eastern Ontario or northern Ontario, we have the resources available here in this province to develop a dynamic industry that would be second to none anywhere in the world. People travel now from all parts of the world to experience our great north. Whether it's fishing, hunting, sightseeing or ecotourism, we have natural resources in this province that are second to none anywhere.

Whether it's the wine country of Niagara that people come to visit, the farmlands in southwestern Ontario, eastern Ontario and all of the lakes and streams and all of the wonderful tourism resorts that we have there, we have available here an industry that is just waiting for a government to support the private sector, provide the encouragement and provide some of the destination marketing support that the industry so desperately needs. By the way, that is available to tourism industries in other jurisdictions, and yet it continues to be ignored.

As we go into this summer of discontent, compliments of Dalton McGuinty, where people should be looking forward to enjoying all that we have to offer throughout this province, we have skyrocketing gas prices, about which the government refuses to do anything. In the past we've seen travellers, we've seen boat trailers being towed, we've seen camping trailers heading north. I can tell you that our highways are half empty. When you talk to our gas station attendants, they'll tell you that while the revenue they're collecting is way up, the volumes that they're pumping are way down.

When you talk to our tourism operators and you ask them, "What are the prospects for this summer?" they'll tell you, depending on where in the province, that reservations are down anywhere from 25% to 50%.

These are small business people, individuals who have invested their own resources in building their businesses. There is silence on the part of this government, the McGuinty government, in responding in any way, to provide any assistance, as we go into this summer.

We have made a proposal that is being ignored by the McGuinty government. We've called on the government to provide at least tax relief for individuals in this province over the course of the summer. We have called on the government to reduce the sales tax during the course of the summer. That would ensure that people have the opportunity to enjoy some of the benefits that we have available to us in this province.

My colleague Ted Arnott put out a press release just recently, calling on this government to ensure that tourism in Ontario will not be negatively affected. He was disappointed at the government's response to our proposal to eliminate the retail sales tax on all accommodations and attractions for the summer months.

Why would the Premier ignore a practical proposal over which he has absolute control? It's true he can't control the price of gasoline, but what he can control is what he charges consumers by way of taxation over the coming summer months on accommodations and attractions. To eliminate the sales tax is not a huge impact on the overall budget of this province. However, I can tell you that it would at least be an incentive for people to go to those gates, buy their tickets and to spend their money in those attractions.

"The Premier's plan isn't working. He's spending $8 million on a long-term, so-called tourism competitiveness study, but offers nothing for the many thousands of Ontarians whose jobs are already at risk." You may recognize who said that. It was Mr. Arnott in his capacity as critic for tourism in this province.

Interestingly enough, the announcement that the Premier made to spend $8 million in support of our colleague, who I think since this announcement has made a few mystery appearances in this place—obviously he's travelling, although it's hard to spend $8 million all by yourself. So he must be working overtime to do that.

What I would like to know is, what happened to the tourism strategy that was developed in 2002? The reason I remember that very well is that, as Minister of Tourism at that time, I travelled the province. It certainly didn't cost $8 million. I think the total extent of the entire study, under which we travelled from northern Ontario to eastern Ontario to southwestern Ontario, conducted consultations throughout the GTA and prepared a fulsome report—that entire exercise could not have cost more than $150,000.

Now, Mr. Sorbara, with an $8-million budget, in all of the time that he's been absent from this place and out there, out and about, no doubt consulting once again—I have no doubt as well that Mr. Sorbara, in his capacity as tourism czar of the McGuinty government, will not come up with another new idea that isn't already contained in that 2002 report.

I would ask the current Minister of Tourism to go to his staff and ask them to dust off that report, bring it forward and begin to implement some of those recommendations that were proposed to this government by tourism operators and by individuals who have invested their good funds in creating a business in Ontario that is now slowly eroding because of the lack of action on the part of the McGuinty government.

Now we want to restudy it. Take the $8 million and give it to some of those people who need that money to upgrade their facilities so that they can bring people in. That's the best use Mr. Sorbara could make of that money. Take that $8 million, instead of using it once again to restudy something for which we already have the answers, and begin to implement a tourism strategy in this province.

The beginning of that should be our proposal, John Tory's proposal, the proposal that Ted Arnott, the critic for tourism in this province, authored, and that is to eliminate the retail sales tax on all accommodations and attractions for the summer months. That is a practical proposal. It would simply take five minutes to implement and it would have a substantial effect on the tourism industry right across this province.

We will be watching the Ministry of Transportation—having the lead on the implementation of this new security photo card—very carefully as to how they proceed. We look forward to working with them. We want this to be successful. We want to ensure that our borders are secure and that there is ease of crossing, both for passengers as well as for those doing business in Ontario and in the border states.

We look forward to this going to committee. We are certain that we will have experts coming forward, testifying before the committee, providing the assurances we're looking for. Most important, as I stated previously in the course of debate, I will be looking for the Minister of Transportation to provide us with the assurance here that the various departments within his ministry are adequately resourced to protect this information and to administer it efficiently and effectively, so that this proposal we have before us will in fact have the intended effect as it's described.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: It's always a pleasure to listen to the member from Newmarket—Aurora. Having been a former Minister of Transportation, it's evident that he knows of what he speaks, especially when it comes to having served as a Minister of Tourism as well. So he brings a lot to the topic. It's an important topic. He's described a couple of issues that aren't totally related, but the issue of privacy and the security of information is critical.

I think it's most important to listen, because he talked to some extent about the plight of tourism in Ontario. He did mention the travel czar or the tourism czar, Mr. Sorbara. Over here, we're all worried about the $8-million trip that he took—one, two or how ever many trips it may have been. We're looking forward to some kind of report or accountability on that. Hopefully, the next time he travels he will have a travel card so that we can actually bar code all of his activity and where he went.

On a serious note, the real issue here is that it doesn't solve the problems the minister brings forward. What we're really interested in is having more tourists and visitors coming to Canada, coming to Ontario. This does nothing to improve that. Don't be misguided by what the minister said in his initial comments. I'm going to take a few minutes after the round has gone through to put on the record the sequences and some of the information that has been put out that perhaps could not give a true impression of the consequence of this card to the people of Ontario.

It's important and we support it, but we always have to say that, for instance, if you're travelling by air, this card will not serve; you'll have to have a passport. There are significant gaps in this rush to get it done, and yet we've got the $8-million czar travelling around wondering where he's going.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I appreciate the comments of the member opposite during his speech. I think we share—well, I know we share—his concern over privacy and the security of the information that will be encoded in these cards. There are actually four different cards that we're talking about. We're talking about a photo card. We are talking about an enhanced photo card, which would be a photo card for someone who's not a driver but would like to have a card that identifies them and would have their citizenship included on it. We are talking about the normal driver's licence, and an enhanced driver's licence which would have citizenship identification on it.

It is an issue that we take very seriously in terms of the administration. We understand that the data bank has to be secure, that it has to be reliable and that we have to make sure that the individual's privacy is protected. That is what this is all about. I myself have talked to the people at homeland security in Washington. I've been there; I've talked to them. They are very concerned about the same issues. They've actually come to Ontario, looked at the way we issue drivers' licences, and my understanding is that they are comfortable with that. We have to do those sorts of things.

I've also been to the state department, where I've had the same kind of assurances. We have to ensure that our partners in this particular project, the Americans, understand that we are capable of doing it, and we have to understand that the flip side of this is that the American states are also doing it. Michigan is doing it. Washington is doing it. New York is working at it. They want to do it, too. We want free passage or as close to free passage across the borders as we can get.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I too would like to rise—

Interjection.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I know all about the border. I'd like to commend the member from Newmarket—Aurora for his remarks and description of the bill and our concerns with it. We support it under the proviso that our concerns will be addressed. In Sarnia—Lambton it's certainly important that we have timely border access. It's one of the major border crossings, probably rivalling the Windsor crossing. It's important. I hope a number of people will take the opportunity to cross the Sarnia—Lambton border this summer to come down to the 150th anniversary of the discovery of the oil industry in Oil Springs, Ontario.

That's going to be all summer. I hope the members from Peterborough and Algoma will take that opportunity to come down there.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I want to be there, Bob.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Maybe you'll have to car-pool.

Anyway, it's vital to our local economy and it's vital to the economy of Ontario that we keep this traffic moving and keep the border open. I think the issues about security of information are very important in this day and age, that people have those guarantees that their information that they do share with government departments be held in security. I'm sure the government will listen to the comments from the opposition, take those under advisement and improve the bill anywhere it does need improvement. We look forward to further debate on the bill and working with the government to make it a better bill.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: Just very briefly, I appreciated the third reading opening address by the member from Newmarket—Aurora, both the first half of the speech in which he was dealing primarily with Bill 85 and the second half in which he was dealing primarily with the issue of tourism in Ontario. It was nice that he could blend the two together so successfully.

We share concerns around issues of privacy and working closely with the privacy commissioner. I know the minister will be taking into account, both from his speech and during committee, the concerns being expressed by the opposition. We all have equal concerns about ensuring that we protect the privacy of individuals while at the same time providing windows of opportunity for exactly the kinds of things the member from Sarnia—Lambton spoke to, and that's ease of access across the border for Ontario residents.

We were pleased to hear as well in his opening comments that it's the intention of the official opposition to support this legislation. It's always encouraging that when they see good legislation come forward, they want to work, as opposition, to enhance it where they can. They recognize the good work being done by the government in bringing forward good legislation and it's their intention to support it at the time of second reading.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): That concludes the time for questions and comments. The member for Newmarket—Aurora has the floor.

Mr. Frank Klees: I want to thank the members from Durham, Algoma—Manitoulin, Sarnia—Lambton and Pickering—Scarborough East for their comments in response to my comments during debate.

The member from Pickering—Scarborough East referred to his gratitude that the opposition would support legislation coming forward from the government. It's a rare occasion that we have. It's now been about five years that the McGuinty government has occupied government benches and I think in the course of that, truthfully, there have really only been about two occasions when I could stand in my place and say, "That is good legislation. I'm willing to support it." But even here today, there are reservations. We're going to be watching very carefully. We do look forward to working with you in that regard.

We have common ground in terms of our concern for security of our borders and we share common ground in terms of ensuring that we have convenient access both for our American friends and Ontarians travelling to the United States. At the end of the day, the important element of this will be that we have in place a technology and a document that are both effective in terms of ensuring cross-border travel as well as protecting the important personal information of our citizens.

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

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: I appreciate the opportunity to spend just a few minutes on Bill 85, following the leadoff third reading by the member from Newmarket—Aurora and having commented briefly on what he had to say. I understand from those Qs and As that were ongoing that the member from Durham also has the intention of taking just a few minutes to put a few things on the record in that regard.

I think it's important—it remains important; it's not that it will be new, but it remains important—that as we talk about Bill 85, the enhancement of identification, both driver identification and non-driver identification, it's a particularly good opportunity for us, as we talk about cross-border activity, to also talk about the opportunity to provide sources of identification for those who wouldn't necessarily be drivers in Ontario. There are four million people in the province who don't hold a valid driver's licence but who want the opportunity to have the type of ID that they might get asked for on a fairly regular basis.

When one opens up a bank account, as an example, the banks want to see ID. They want to see photo ID, and they'll often ask for a driver's licence. Those who haven't had the opportunity to drive don't have that, and they don't have the easy access to photo identification that can be used for that purpose.

Proving age for seniors' discounts: Obviously discount opportunities for seniors are provided extensively, not only in this province but in other provinces and internationally, and when someone is asked whether they are eligible for a discount as a senior for some modest savings, it's nice to have a form of identification that works effectively. Many of our seniors don't drive or are no longer driving, so as a current strategy whereby identification is easy for them to take advantage of these savings, the photo ID card is an ideal means by which they can do that.

Certainly work on enhanced photo identification of a variety of sorts is ongoing. As we know, it's not a new issue. We know what sparked this type of activity, but I certainly want to acknowledge the leadership shown by the current and past Minister of Transportation and the Premier in regard to identifying this as an issue and working so closely with our partners across the border in the US, the northern US states close to us, and pressuring the federal government in the United States of America to acknowledge and recognize that there are mechanisms by which one can be identified for the purpose of crossing the border in addition to passports.

As we know, a large percentage of people in this country, and an even greater percentage within the USA, don't have passports. But many of those people want to travel cross-border for the purpose of visiting with family, for the very tourism that the member from Newmarket—Aurora spoke about, for the purpose of short cross-border visits—whether it's the casino opportunities or entertainment or shopping opportunities, and those are activities in both directions—or whether it's something like Marineland in Niagara Falls that American families want to come and visit. Having a passport is not the one and only means by which one should have the opportunity to cross over the border.

Enhanced driver's licence strategies will be an excellent means by which we can expedite border crossings and work very co-operatively with our neighbours cross-border. We know that in Washington state and British Columbia, they've been experimenting and working with this for a limited time now, but the uptake is increasing. It's a good measure for us to see the level of success and also measure where there may be shortcomings so that we can enhance our process, and as it rolls out, it will be an even more effective process for us to use.

There are a couple of matters I just want to comment on extremely briefly: the matters of citizenship and privacy. There will be no citizenship information held on the card. It's certainly not the intent of government to risk any privacy matters by containing that. There will be a requirement, though, that citizenship be identified at the time of application for the card, because for security reasons, if we're going to use these for cross-border activity, it's obvious that we want to ensure that citizenship is confirmed. We can do that in Ontario by virtue of birth records.

For those who are not native-born to Ontario, we will have to depend upon our work with the federal government to identify citizenship for the purposes of the application and the issuance of the card but not for the purposes of carrying that information on the card.

We'll take extreme care—and I know this will be part of the committee discussion—to ensure the privacy of individuals even as they use this card. Our privacy commissioner has spoken to this matter. We obviously take her comments seriously, and we look forward to her continuing input as this process unfolds and look forward to comments from all sides of the House on how we can ensure that people's privacy is protected in this matter. I have a great degree of confidence that we will actually be able to ensure that occurs.

We continue to work very closely with the privacy commissioner on this matter as this process moves forward, even during the course of the debate, in anticipation or hopefulness that, having heard from opposition parties their intention to support the legislation, it will actually see its approval throughout this process. So we continue that work with the privacy commissioner and the federal government as it relates to privacy and citizenship-related information.

This will not be a citizenship database. We're not looking to use this mechanism to create yet another database of information, but we certainly will verify citizenship at the time the application process is unfolding.

This is exciting legislation we're moving forward on. I think it's a responsive piece of legislation; it's an indication to the public at large that the government and this Legislature understand the needs of this province and its citizens from the standpoint of having cross-border access and from the standpoint of having identification that they can use effectively for their day-to-day business here in Ontario, throughout this country or elsewhere.

Having photo identification is so terribly convenient for those of us who normally will be able to walk with our driver's licence as it currently exists within the province when we're asked for photo ID. It's easy to pull it out; it's easy to use as a second piece of identification.

I was out of the country recently, and I had my passport with me, but where I was, they were actually looking for two pieces of ID, because I was Canadian and travelling abroad. It was nice to have my driver's licence provide that level of assurance that they were looking for. They could actually compare the pictures, and even though they're a little bit dated at this point because they all have different time spans for when they expire, they could at least compare and ensure themselves that they were actually dealing with the person they thought they were dealing with.

This will provide an opportunity—particularly the photo ID cards—for those who don't have a licence of any sort to have that extra identification available to them; the secondary opportunity to identify themselves, whether it's a birth certificate and then a photo ID card that has the photo on it, or even a passport and a photo card as a supplementary form of identification that one would want to have available.

As a matter of fact, I'm dealing with a matter as an estate trustee currently and dealing with a bank. Before we can actually deal with the matters at the bank, they ask that we bring two forms of photo identification to the bank for the purposes of allowing us to work as trustees to an estate. Certainly my driver's licence allows me to do that, but there will be those who wouldn't be in that situation, who wouldn't readily have photo ID available. The photo ID card would be a wonderful opportunity for them to do that.

I think, as well, the enhanced driver's licence strategy is really only a small step. This legislation and its debate, if it's adopted, will be a significant step but not the only one. The technologies that are readily available to us now and could be used will be a way in which we can enhance this process even more. We first need to get the enhanced driver's licence strategy in place and provide people with opportunities to look at the secure fashion of the driver's licence opportunity for identification, but we need to use this as a jumping-off point to look at other opportunities.

We need to expedite travel cross-border. This is not just a matter of being able to travel between here and the US; it's a method of being available to travel expeditiously cross-border. We know the constraints at the border crossings, we know the issues around that, and we know the expenditures that are proposed for capital investment to allow people to move back and forth efficiently and quickly.

This will be one more opportunity for us to build on that so that people will be able to, with this type of identification, travel quickly, efficiently and effectively in both directions across the border—enhance those opportunities, allow people to spend more time at their desired destination, whether it's for hours or days or even weeks.

If they're on a short-term turnaround, as the member from Sarnia—Lambton was commenting earlier, I'm sure he would love to see the opportunity for people to get across that border as quickly and as efficiently as conceivably possible to allow visitors to his community to take advantage of the wonderful things in that community and allow those in his community who need to travel cross-border for their purposes to get there quickly and efficiently as well. That's not just his riding; there are those in this Legislature who are close to border crossings.

I'm not one of those per se who is directly on a border crossing, but those who are certainly would like to see the opportunity for their constituents and visitors to their community to have a high level of access.

This is one significant step in that process, but I'm personally optimistic that we will find other opportunities to do things even more effectively, taking advantage of technology in an even more substantive way.

I just wanted to add those few comments to the ongoing debate at second reading and look forward to this matter going to committee. I think I misstepped earlier when I referenced the member opposite, the official opposition critic, when I probably referenced the third reading leadoff speech; I would have erred in doing that, because we have yet to complete the second reading debate and allow this matter to go to committee.

I appreciate the time allocated to me and look forward to this process as it unfolds.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: I'm pleased to add some comments to the speech from the member for Pickering—Scarborough East to do with Bill 85, the Photo Card Act, 2008. I would certainly have questions for the government: When last year they'd just announced the big, new, enhanced driver's licence, where is the long-term planning, when now we have another photo card? Why are there three photo cards, including a basic photo card? Why wouldn't all of them have the enhanced information? And of course we've had some privacy concerns that have been raised by previous speakers.

Having enhanced information on the photo card is very closely related to tourism. I certainly have some substantial concerns to do with the upcoming summer season of tourism, particularly as a representative of the riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka. I note that at least one member of this Legislature sent out a press release entitled "Summer of Discontent," referring to the upcoming tourism season this year, where we have high gas prices, the high value of the Canadian dollar, and the US economy that has slowed down a lot.

So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this is going to be a challenging year, particularly the summer season, for tourism. What has the McGuinty government been doing? What are they doing? The answer is, "Nothing." Other than the appointment of the $8-million member from Vaughan as the tourism czar to go out and do a study, which may be beneficial long-term, certainly it's not going to do anything for this summer.

We have seen a very concrete proposal from the leader of the Conservative Party, John Tory, to take off the retail sales tax for this year, which would be a boost for this upcoming season. It would be something that would make a positive difference. Once the season is over, it's too late; you can't get that business back. So I think that the government should act on the proposal put forward by the PC Party.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Just in response to the comments made by the honourable member, I think the issue for us is that, first of all, as New Democrats we support the intent of the legislation. I had a chance earlier to do my leadoff speech and talk about why we're here, and the somewhat overreaction in the United States to what has happened, as far as how they've adjusted themselves after 9/11. But that's another debate.

This is one of those pieces of legislation where we need to make sure we get it right, right off the bat. I note that the parliamentary assistant agreed with my leadoff speech in that this bill is going to need some time in committee. It may not be a lot, or it may be a lot; I don't know. It depends on how much interest there is, but we need to talk to experts to make sure we get this right. There's a whole issue around technologies. These chips that are going to be inside these particular photo IDs can be accesses.

Is it going to be an open system or a closed system, in the sense of how the technology is going to work? Either way that information, that little chip that transmits a signal, which has the personal information of the individual on the card, could be picked up by somebody and hacked if they're able to figure out the encryption, if it is an encrypted system.

If it's not an encrypted system, that's even worse, and God only knows what people are going to do with that kind of information. So I think it's important that we speak to the technical people at committee to make sure we get that right. Also, the whole issue of privacy needs to be really taken seriously, because we're going to be putting a lot of information on these cards that people probably would love to get their hands on for all kinds of marketing reasons and whatever else it might be.

We support the bill; we think, however, that it needs to go to committee. It has to get some proper time in committee in order to look at some of the concerns around technologies, making sure that it's secure and also the issue of privacy. We need to get our privacy commissioner, obviously, at committee in order to take a look at this as well. I look forward to time in committee.

Mr. Jeff Leal: The member from Pickering—Scarborough East certainly highlighted some of the very positive aspects of Bill 85 and the card.

In my riding of Peterborough I have two very active seniors' groups: Marion Batten is president of the Mapleridge seniors' group, located on Erskine Avenue, and Shirley Shaw is the executive director of Activity Haven on Barnardo Avenue in Peterborough. Both of those groups, when you're talking to them, have talked about the need to have a comprehensive photo ID card in Ontario that they can use. One of those two organizations runs bus tours from time to time, not only throughout other parts of Ontario, but there are some tours to upper New York state and Michigan.

Anything we can do to assist those seniors when they go on their travels, to facilitate access across the border, to make it as easy as possible, is a very positive thing to do.

Minister Bradley has been a real champion on this issue. I know he spent considerable time in Washington, DC, as tourism minister, and now as Minister of Transportation, working with Louise Slaughter, who is a Congressperson from upper New York state. Minister Bradley has had those discussions as to how we can facilitate cross-border travel.

The member for Sarnia talks about people getting through Sarnia. We welcome that, because eventually they make their way to Peterborough to fish in the Kawartha Lakes. We see that as a very positive thing.

Mr. Mike Colle: Chemong Lake.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Chemong Lake and Rice Lake. I know in Rice Lake, American fishermen come, particularly in May and June, to take advantage of the bluegill, which is in abundance in Rice Lake. We welcome them to come in because they do a lot for the economy locally.

We see that Bill 85 is a very positive step. We look forward to it moving through the Legislature.

Mr. John O'Toole: The member Pickering—Scarborough East is right on. I followed some of his comments and I look forward to adding some comments in a few minutes on that. I think it's an issue that we all endorse. It's a matter of taking time to get the perspective on this.

There was an earlier opportunity, which I'll explain in some detail. I worked with three or four ministries on that side of the House in 2003 and 2004. I just want to thank one of my constituents, Joseph Beshara, who wrote to me in early 2004. I met with him. I have the correspondence that I sent to the various ministries, some of whom did not respond. I think the idea is sound. I'd like to give Joseph Beshara most of the credit for bringing this up.

This is already in place in New Brunswick. So we're not inventing it, and this is not rocket science. This is just making it convenient for the people of Ontario, whether they're seniors or persons who simply don't have a driver's licence, to be more mobile in our economy and to have secure identification. So it's the right thing to do.

It's a timely thing to do as we're entering the tourist season. To make it easier for people to cross the borders, for their own convenience and their own mobility in Canada, is something a government should be doing, while at the same time securing their identification. I'll be speaking in a few minutes in more detail.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The member for Pickering—Scarborough East has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: I just want to extend my thanks to the members for Parry Sound—Muskoka, Timmins—James Bay, Peterborough and Durham, who responded. I think the theme of the discussion this morning, as we've gone through this, has been focused on two or three principle areas, which will get reflected during the committee debate. I think comments around the need to ensure matters of privacy, and the co-operation and input that we'll continue to receive from the privacy commissioner, are going to be exceedingly helpful.

I think issues around protection, the type of technology, the need to have that technical expertise made available to members of the committee—to ensure, in my view, that there's a comfort level with the technology and at the same time garner a higher level of understanding of other opportunities of technology that may not be a part of this particular legislation but may find their way into the processes that we use—are going to be exceedingly helpful.

I would just comment if I could, because a number of people have talked about tourism and the driver's licences related to that and gas prices. It was interesting—this is a sidebar. I was listening to the radio on my way in this morning, and the newscast was commenting on comments made by Cam Woolley, the OPP officer who we all know for his work on traffic and traffic safety. He was commenting about the high prices of gas and what that appears to be influencing on the roads. What it appears to be influencing are speeds on our 400-series highways and other related highways.

They are actually seeing a reduction in average speeds on those highways, something closer to what the speed limits are—probably more in tune with what we're going to talk about on another bill, and that's speed limits with speed limiters on trucks—closer to those kinds of speed ranges, even on our 400-series highways now. They're actually seeing a very substantive reduction in—

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

Mr. John O'Toole: In the very few minutes that I have to make a couple of comments, I just want to review for those listening. Bill 85 was brought in on June 3, 2008, by Minister Bradley. I think it's important to be clear here:

"There are three kinds of photo cards: basic, enhanced and combined. A basic ... card contains the holder's name and photograph and other prescribed information about the holder. An enhanced ... card contains the holder's name and photograph, a notation to indicate that the holder is a Canadian citizen and other prescribed information about the holder; it also has security and other features that may allow it to be used for travel. A combined photo card is one card that constitutes the holder's enhanced photo and driver's licence." In fact there are three separate cards here, and I think that's very notable and very convenient.

We all complain today of having so many cards in our wallet, and different identification things that come up with that. We have now the health card. We also have another card that the province just issued, which is this card here; it's the prescription drug benefit card. I'm concerned that they're hurrying to get these things solved one piece at a time. True smart technology would be much more efficient and much more uniform, whether for reading or processing, if they could just slow it down here and get the right card. The right card could be your health card. It could be your driver's licence.

It could be your hunting card or gaming card. It could be any kind of card at all—one card. That would be a smart card. So I think it's going to be neat to have another card in our wallet. You'll have a stack of them like this.

If you want to make sure it's secure, and you put your resources into having the right information available to the right people at the right time at the right price, I think we'd be on to something that was quite innovative here. I don't see any innovation in this at all. It's quick and easy. I can tell you, without getting too emotional, let's not get on the bandwagon here and sing the national anthem and give out some kind of an award, because this is anything but that. Okay?

Why am I a bit perplexed about this? Why did I want to speak? Well, I have a list here. I wrote to Minister Bradley, I wrote to Minister Watson, I wrote to Minister Takhar, and I wrote to other civil servants as well. This was back in 2004. It was brought to me, and I have the correspondence with me. My staff Sheryl, Peter and Fern have done a great job hustling out this information this morning. This is a letter from Mr. Joseph Beshara, who came to visit me. He moved from New Brunswick. He had a travel card, and the card was also an ID card, an official, provincially issued identification card.

He said that his issue was, he didn't drive. Without a driver's licence he was scuppered. I wrote to the government in good faith on his behalf with his words from Mr. Beshara—it's nothing that I innovated. I could give you the log. We track pretty well all the correspondence; we write a lot of stuff to ministers, I will say that—maybe more than any member in the House. But I have very involved and engaged constituents. I'm still waiting, in 2008, for some of the responses to those letters which I have in front of me.

Here's a little bridge to the past: I'm going to presume that Mr. Beshara's letter from four years ago resulted in this bill today. I would like to move a small amendment to call it the Joseph Beshara legislation. He thought of it. And all these high-paid bureaucrats, or whatever you call them—we've talked about smart cards for 100 years. A smart health card would actually tell my blood type and you could put it in a machine and see who my doctor was and some of the disclosed information that I wanted on my record in case I had allergies or some other thing. I won't go too far down the road. Let's not go too far here.

Another statement: I'm looking at the remarks made by the minister. It's a speech that was written by civil servants that he read. I'm not trying to be smart; that's how it works. In it, he said—I'm reading right from Hansard, page 2250 on June 3, when he introduced it. It says:

"We are proposing to introduce an enhanced driver's licence card that would include citizenship information. This would become an acceptable travel document, a passport alternative, for US land and sea cross-border travel."

What he doesn't say is that it doesn't include air travel. If I'm travelling by air through any part of that route to Vancouver over the States, I'd have to have ID, and this doesn't pass. It's by the omission that it's not fully informing the consumer.

Interjection.

Mr. John O'Toole: Another thing that's important if I go on to read here—let's not become emotional. We're trying to understand the bill, which I'd encourage you to read. One of them here is that it implies that it would help tourism. In fact, it's in the speech. It will do nothing of the sort to help tourism. Nothing of the sort. This is not being issued to US citizens. This is being issued to Ontario citizens for their ease of access to leave Ontario.

So what we're saying is we have a catastrophe in Ontario in the economy because of the price of gas and some other tinkering. People now aren't going to be able to go to the States. That's actually good. They can stay in Ontario and spend their money closer to home for tourism. If they wanted to go to Buffalo, it's now going to be easier for them to go to some American destination. But if an American comes over here, they're still going to need their own passport, their own identification issued. Do you understand? So it's not going to make it easier for visitors to Canada at all.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: Wrong.

Mr. John O'Toole: The member from Algoma—Manitoulin, I believe it is, is taking issue. I'd ask you to get up in your two minutes and show me the part of the speech that shows how it actually helps American tourists. This has nothing to do with American tourists.

Mr. Mike Colle: They're doing the same card as we are.

Mr. John O'Toole: That's not this bill. If they do or do not do it, I've not seen it. But that's all I'm saying: A bit of clarity here actually goes a long way in that respect.

We could switch the topic because I think it's timely, but it doesn't come into effect until 2009. That's when this American border issue will be responded to. And that issue, I believe, is important. Border security and the whole security issue with respect to these enhanced cards is very, very important. I would not want to underplay that, but this combined photo card will meet the applicable rules set out by the United States western hemisphere travel initiative, which is good.

Initially, there was some idea that this was an Americanization issue, but I congratulate the minister on the fact that he did push the issue with the border state governors and those people he met, those officials. This is all good.

What it does for the Ontario citizen and the Ontario business person is to make it easier. Some people go across the border weekly, or daily, even. This is all good. It's actually going to be good for people who don't have a driver's licence. They will now have a convenient card. I'd like to see it be a real smart card as opposed to just another card outside of the new visual health card, the new prescription card and all the other cards we have. I think it is a step forward. In that respect, I would be happy.

Now, tourism, and where would you go this summer? I'm switching the tone here a bit, in the last few minutes I have, to say that Durham is a great destination for anyone, whether it's an American or people from other parts of Ontario, indeed Canada. It's going to have a couple of events that I think are important, and I want to give a few people a bit of credit.

We have an excellent destination in the township of Uxbridge; in fact, it's in the community of Leaskdale, which is sort of the northeast part of Uxbridge. That was the home of a very famous Canadian, Lucy Maud Montgomery, and this year is the 100th anniversary of Anne of Green Gables. I thank Councillor Pat Mikuse, who is, I believe, the council appointee to the archives, museums and the cultural part of the community of Uxbridge. I would recommend that. It's a wonderful destination. I believe the ministry has given them money to celebrate this very significant anniversary. I believe it's this Saturday on my schedule, a big celebration. Let me just check on my

schedule here. It's the Anne of Green Gables street festival and festival garden tour in Uxbridge, and it's on Saturday, June 14. There you go. There's an invitation to an easy destination. Even though the price of gas is nearing $1.50 a litre, it's still convenient to go there. It's just a short drive just out of York region, and you're right there in Uxbridge.

Another anniversary that's being celebrated this summer—in fact, the celebrations will be starting very soon—is the 150th anniversary of the town of Bowmanville. It's actually my hometown, the centre part of my riding. I'd like to thank members from that committee for the work they've done. It's a wonderful historic downtown. I believe it was built in 1858. Unfortunately, they had a tragic fire a few weeks ago, as you may have heard, and one of the historic buildings was completely demolished. It's quite tragic, actually.

Kevin Anyan has worked tirelessly to promote this, and it will be a great celebration. Ron Hooper, the councillor there, is a chairperson of that committee. Willie Woo is also very involved, along with Rowlie Coombes.

Sher and Roger Leetooze—now, there's an interesting couple. She's a writer and has published several books, and she's recording significant events and the record of 150 years of Bowmanville. I would recommend that to people as well.

Martha Rutherford is the historian and archivist for the museums in our area, Clark Museum and the Bowmanville Museum and couple of other museums around as well.

Dan Brock is going to organize the parade. Cheri Smith is doing marketing. Steve Coles is doing the opening, and John Fowler is look after advertising. There's a broad citizens' committee trying to make tourism and the destination of Bowmanville on their 150th anniversary a real success.

There is good news among the many critical things I may have said, but don't forget that I was the transportation critic for a period of time. I'm happy that this is here; I'm disappointed by how long it's taken, all the way back to my comment in 2004 when I wrote several ministers. I think I was ignored, or maybe I didn't get an answer because they were so overwhelmed by what a neat idea this was from Mr. Beshara that they sent it on to Minister Bradley. Minister Bradley has been the Minister of Tourism and Minister of Transportation, so maybe he has moved on an issue thanks to my constituent's writing the letter.

But it's always interesting when you have the opportunity—all of us, Mr. Speaker, you included, because I know the gentleman in the chair right now, the member from Wellington—Halton Hills, is the tourism critic, and made some very excellent remarks. I have those copies of his remarks from Hansard. He made the comparison with the idea of this card and what's missing here—I'm not really sure; I think the critic or the parliamentary assistant may have said in his remarks how much it was going to cost. The first thing I want to do is this hand-in-your-pocket business—that ad. Is this another opportunity for the government to get their hand in your pocket?

Mr. Bill Murdoch: The banks are in your pocket.

Mr. John O'Toole: Premier McGuinty is doing a fairly good job at it as well with the health tax, and they still have no doctor. What's going on here?

Mr. Bill Murdoch: He's in with the banks.

Mr. John O'Toole: I only have to stick to the topic at hand: What is it going to cost? Is everybody going to have the new special reader to read this secure card? Are there going to have to be millions of dollars of these readers at the borders so they can read this card, or is it integrated technology where it's readable anywhere? Is it secure technology? There are a lot of unanswered questions. I trust that the minister and the privacy commissioner, Ann Cavoukian, will certainly make sure it meets the very strongest and stringent tests.

Our member for Wellington—Halton Hills, Mr. Arnott, said, "I'm pleased to have this opportunity to respond.... When I got my Canadian passport a couple of years ago, my recollection is that I paid $75 for it, if I'm not mistaken, and it was for five years. I don't think the minister or the parliamentary assistant has indicated ... how much this ... is going to cost."

He's wondering if the cost of—for instance, I just renewed my driver's licence and I think for two years it was $150; that's about $75 a year. There's more and more of this nickelly-pickelly, nickel and dime, into your pocket, another card, you can't go anywhere, don't leave home without it.

I think we need to sit down and rationalize all of these cards. A special committee—we're not doing anything here, really. We're mostly filibustering this bill. There are several bills that I think are kind of being rushed through. Yet look at this; the attendance here is almost scary.

Mr. Bill Murdoch: It's the new rule changes that have really brought the people in here.

Mr. John O'Toole: I think the new rule changes mean nobody has to come any more. The member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound probably has a few things to say on this bill because he has a great north part of Bruce riding; it's wonderful. His favourite area, I think, is the Niagara Escarpment. He just loves that tourist area, the scenic value. He's been a big supporter in many ways—not in all ways; I would not like to impugn motive here. I know he's always had a lot to say about the Niagara Escarpment; we'll put it that way. At the same time, he lives there and he loves it. It's the vistas in Ontario; it's a great place to visit.

In the very few minutes I have left I just want to leave on a reasonably light-hearted note. I've watched with interest the discussions here—question period and that, which will be here in a few moments. The main issue I see is the economy. It isn't all Dalton's fault, but he's not helping very much. One of the main factors within that file is fuel and energy costs; they're going through the roof. For people on fixed incomes, young families, a holiday this summer will be a drive to Canada's Wonderland; they're not going anywhere else.

They can't afford it with the price of gas and the taxes we're paying at our homes, the price of electricity, the air conditioning. It's starting to trouble me.

When I look at the young pages here, we need to leave them with a stronger province, not a weaker province. In that climate, I'm concerned about the tourism implications of Bill 85. But I am somewhat relieved, because there's—

Interjection.

Mr. John O'Toole: I might go to Peterborough this summer a few times; probably every weekend, really.

I'm reassured because the travel czar of Ontario, Mr. Sorbara, has been given $8 million—I wish I could travel with him in the limo—to kind of bring up a strategy for tourism. He was a fairly respectful Minister of Finance. I think he's being underutilized over there and I think this is just a free, go-anywhere card. Eight million dollars—I want to see the report. In fact, he should get that report on the table now because the economy is in trouble now. I'd be one who would be right here in this forum. I'm willing to work in a non-partisan, co-operative way to get it right with Mr.

Sorbara because I think he's a decent fellow and really does want to find it, but he needs to work with our critic, Mr. Arnott, and he needs to work with all parties—the NDP as well—and find the right answers at the right time for the people of Ontario now. We don't need to wait for 2009 or some flashy announcement in the election in 2011. So let's get down to serious—I'm looking for responses to some of the comments I made. Maybe the parliamentary assistant will clarify the issue of how this card actually helps American citizens who visit Canada. It doesn't, okay?

Unless he can refute that, that's what this debate's about. It's not a personal criticism of any sort, but I'm pointing out a few things that could have been done in 2004. It could be smart cards. How much does it cost and how does it help the people whom we want to come into Ontario, not leave Ontario? Thank you for the opportunity.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The member from Durham raised what I thought was an interesting point, one that I'd not thought of, and that is, why don't we utilize or at least look at the possibility of utilizing this process in order to consolidate a number of pieces of ID on one card? It's not a bad suggestion, and it speaks to what we often, I think, do a disservice to when we do legislation in this House: that you would think that what's really supposed to happen is that we're listening to each other's points of view on a piece of legislation. We send it off to committee, and if somebody's got a decent idea that's doable and manageable, we move forward.

This particular suggestion's not a bad one, because we all have it. You have the health cards, your driver's licence, your Outdoors card and various pieces of ID and cards from the provincial government, and if we're really going to move by the way of smart card technology, that's not a bad idea, quite frankly. All of us, I think, would be very happy to have that much less stuff to carry around in our very heavy wallets, because we know we're not weighted down by the amount of money in the wallet; we're weighted down by the amount of plastic that we carry in it. Sometimes, the limit on that plastic is a little bit more than we should have.

I think the member makes a good point. I don't know if it's doable. It's one of those things where you'd have to talk to the experts who do this kind of thing. But I think that it's not a bad suggestion.

The other point that he makes in regard to what this really means as far as tourism—yes, I can understand part of the comments that he's making there. But we're in a box, right? At the end of the day, the Americans are going to ban Canadians from going into the United States without proper identification, being a passport, and this legislation, although I don't like the idea, at least gives Ontarians a chance to do something that's a little bit less onerous and a little less expensive than having to purchase a passport every five years. That's the context by which we go into committee, and I look forward to that suggestion being taken seriously.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I just wanted to thank the member for Durham for his speech, and I look forward to having these discussions in the committee that will happen shortly.

Mr. Bill Murdoch: I'm glad to be able to comment on the honourable member from Durham, Mr. O'Toole. You turn the television on in the morning and there he is. You turn it off at night and he's the man up there speaking. He's the man of the hour; there's no doubt about it. He does his research so well that almost no one else has to speak here.

I must congratulate the government on their new rule changes. It has enhanced the attendance in this place so greatly. I'm so impressed. There are so many people in here to listen to it. It's just amazing that when they changed these rules, we got so many people in here to listen to anyone who dare speak.

Talking about the card that they're going to come up with that allows us to go to the States—it's something, I guess, coming from this government, but the unfortunate

part is that they have no plans over there. We have an economy that's going into the toilet. We have the tourist trade going to go into the toilet next time, and they've done nothing. This little bit of having a new card—now, my wallet will be heavier again because we already have a whole lot of cards in our wallet. Sure, there's some way that they can combine a new card with our health card or our driver's licence card, something like that. But here will be another card, and this is all that they can come up with.

I guess, if you own a plastic factory, you may make some money now because they're going to make a bunch of new cards. But that's about all they're doing. It's unfortunate that they have no idea of what is happening in the economy, what is happening in tourism. At least over here we come up with an idea to help out the tourist industry. But no, they couldn't do it. They just have no idea. They're on a cloud, and they're floating along. After their four years of inability, now they're floating along, hoping they can float through four more years.

Mr. Wayne Arthurs: I won't take too long. I appreciated the comments from the member for Durham. I know he has two minutes to wrap up. I hope he'll take that little bit of time to tell us a little more about the Anne of Green Gables festival. I presume it's going to include the homestead of Lucy Maud Montgomery as part of that tour. I particularly appreciated his comments, about halfway through his speech, on a bill that he's supporting at second reading that he was using the opportunity to filibuster.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The member for Durham has two minutes to reply.

Mr. John O'Toole: I want to thank, in sort of reverse order here, the member for Pickering—Scarborough East. Yes, the Lucy Maud Montgomery homestead in Leaskdale will be available this weekend. In fact, it will be featured this summer at the Toronto CNE. So it is a significant event for all Canadians. We should be very proud and share the heritage. We each have those stories. This is one story in my area.

The member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound is always entertaining and direct. But I think he was true when he talked about the number of cards. It's like, pick a card. Those are all Ontario cards, right here. I don't want to show them because of the privacy issues. But if you had a smart, secured card, I think we'd be on the right track.

The member for Algoma—Manitoulin: I look forward to committee hearings on this bill; again, another bill that has unanimous consent. We could go to committee of the whole and solve this right here, right now, today, and have everybody involved in that debate. That's the way we should be doing things here. It's just a process, but we all agree with the objective. There's no question about it.

The member for Timmins—James Bay made the most non-partisan comment with respect to listening to each other's ideas. It's an extremely positive and productive thing to do, not just for the young people here but for those viewing. That's how they want Ontario to serve them: They want their elected members to work co-operatively to do the right thing.

There are several bills—the Pesticides Act, as well as the cruelty to animals bill and the speed limiters. Most of these bills are kind of neutral bills. We want to get them right. We don't want to have them tested in the courts, as we are now. The street racing bill was hastily drafted, and it's being challenged in the courts.

We need to work together in this forum. We don't have to slip off to some committee. Half the days, the House is not utilizing the full time correctly.

Mr. Frank Klees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I feel that I must point out that when the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound referred to the large number of people here, it was really his attempt at sarcasm. It shouldn't be misunderstood.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I don't believe that was a point of order, but I appreciate the information.

Further debate.

Mr. Paul Miller: We are hoping to continue debate on this matter. It's obviously of great importance, and we do not want to end debate on it. We're looking forward, after question period, to continuing this at the next convenient time. I'm sure we're now close to the moment for question period.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I appreciate the intervention and look forward to taking this bill to committee at the earliest possible time.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): It being almost 10:45, this debate stands adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning, members and our guests.

On behalf of the member for Hamilton Centre, in the west members' gallery, I'd like to welcome members of Canadians for Properly Built Homes: Mary McAllister-Diks; Karen Somerville; Brigitte and Terry Mark, and daughter Amanda; Alan and Cindy Griese; Bruno Pisani and his son, Sam Pisani; Joe West; Avi Dan; Christine Ballard; and Nora Herridge.

On behalf of the member for Kingston and The Islands, a group of grades 7 to 12 students who recently participated in the Canada-Wide Science Fair in Ottawa are here for the Sci-Tech Ontario celebratory event to recognize their achievement and promote science among youth. Members can visit them today in committee room 228-229, starting at 4 p.m.

On behalf of the member for Toronto—Danforth, in the west members' gallery: Chantal Sundaram, Saima Mohammad, Beenish Gaya and Mariya Asrar.

On behalf of the member for Sarnia—Lambton, in the west members' gallery: Christopher Chopcian and his dad, Michael Chopcian, are here as well with the Sci-Tech group today.

On behalf of the member for Richmond Hill, in recognition of Brain Injury Awareness Month, in the east members' gallery: Kent Basset-Spiers, Corinne Kagan, John Kumpf, Hedy Chandler, Teri Czajka, Judy Moir, Angela Colontonio, April Ferguson, Jan Fisher, Maria Hundeck, David Hundeck, Robert Stephens, Rachel Sa, Mariana Perez, Cindy Bailey and Travis Bailey.

On behalf of page Chris Rayment, I'd like to welcome in the west public gallery his father, Ian Rayment.

On behalf of the member for Newmarket—Aurora, I'd like to welcome, in the west members' gallery, Robin and Diana McComb.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: To the Minister of Economic Development, who is gradually getting to her seat: It's about your government's flawed auto investment strategy. Despite the spin the government tried to put on last week's announcement of the Oshawa truck plant closure, it's quite clear that they failed to get a firm jobs guarantee when they handed out two hundred thirty-five million tax dollars to General Motors. A month ago, when GM first announced job cuts at the truck plant, they also said they were looking for another $140 million in government funding for Oshawa and St. Catharines.

In the wake of GM's cuts of 2,600 jobs in Ontario, what decision have you made with respect to their latest request for more money?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think it's important to note that the Next Generation of Jobs Fund was announced this year in an effort for us to reach out not just to the automotive sector but to many sectors, to look at the next generation of products that can be made right here in Ontario, for sale around the world. It is a program that incorporates our climate change agenda, looking at green, clean energy efficiency, higher levels of productivity, innovation, higher levels of innovative technologies; that's the Next Generation of Jobs Fund.

We do have companies that are applying to this program. We know that General Motors has made it public that they too have been interested in this program for the future of product and activity at General Motors. The Premier made it very clear again yesterday in this House that we are very much in favour of working with our automotive sector partners to see that future investment comes to Ontario.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I'm not sure from that answer if there has been an application from GM in a formal way or not. The minister said about a month ago that there was a 45-day window on GM's request—so, 15 days and counting.

I hope the minister appreciates that Ontario taxpayers, and GM workers in particular, are going to be paying close attention to what you do when another automaker comes looking for a partner. In fact, a Nanos poll released today shows that almost half of Ontarians oppose the government's financial support of the auto sector. I think that's understandable. They want to know they're getting value for their tax dollars.

Minister, will you commit today to making a clear-cut and firm jobs guarantee one of the conditions to GM if indeed they do formalize that request for one hundred and forty million tax dollars?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think it's important to note that we expect that all members of this House will be supportive of companies coming forward to invest with us as partners in Ontario. We hope that the Next Generation of Jobs Fund will be a huge success.

Let me just quote someone who is quite well known right here in the House: "I think in the auto sector, especially with the rapidly advancing technology in the auto sector and what we see with energy prices, getting involved in the investment side of new technology and innovation I think is an appropriate role for government." That was Bob Runciman, June 5 of this year.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I don't see anything contradictory in that quote.

Minister, Ontarians want and—I think you would agree, or should agree—deserve transparency, particularly when it comes to handing out half of a billion tax dollars to auto makers. If you're not going to be straight with taxpayers about what this money is going to achieve for them, why not? In the past, you've said you won't release the details in these contracts. I want to ask you: Will you make a clear and unequivocal commitment here today to getting a jobs guarantee from General Motors and any other auto maker on a funding request that comes forward in the future?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think it has been very clear—over the last several weeks, which have been difficult weeks, the workers at General Motors have worried very much about their future, and we too on this side of the House are worried and want the very best for the workers who work at General Motors and their families.

General Motors itself, as a company, made it very clear that their latest announcement regarding the truck plant may affect the contract and may put them in a position to have to repay the loan that included job commitments. They made that clear themselves. It's very apparent to the people of Ontario that there were commitments that General Motors made to the government of Ontario and that they will live up to that agreement, as will the government of Ontario.

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Health. Despite our repeated calls over several weeks now for an inquiry and also an immediate review investigation into what we know to be at least 260 deaths related to C. difficile—and that's just in seven hospitals—you have rejected those calls.

You have said that you've conducted three separate reviews into this very lethal killer. This is a new strain, as you know. Minister, can you explain why, after three separate reviews, you did not make C. difficile a reportable infection during the last four years?

Hon. George Smitherman: I want to thank the honourable member for acknowledging that there is a broad array of information available that allows us the benefit of taking action. The Provincial Infectious Diseases Advisory Committee has been one of those parties involved in offering advice to the ministry with respect to reporting or not reporting C. difficile.

On this matter of inquiry, our point would be that the coroner has said that the matter has been investigated at the Soo hospital, which gave us good advice about steps forward, alongside the work that Dr. Gardam has done, and that it's more appropriate that we ask Dr. Baker to focus on instituting this broad array of patient safety reporting, which will be initiated on September 30 of this year and will provide a variety of substantial new information to the public about patient safety indicators in all of our hospital environments.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: It's very interesting that the minister references Dr. Baker, because Dr. Baker has twice now advised the minister to start public reporting. He did so in June 2007 and again in February 2008.

This minister has said on many occasions that it's up to the hospitals. The reality is that it isn't the hospitals that have the authority to mandate public reporting; it is the minister—not the hospitals, not the health care workers, not the experts. But you have refused, despite the mounting evidence since 2004, to mandate this.

I ask you today: Why did you not demonstrate leadership and ask for this to happen during the past four years? Why have you waited—

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

Hon. George Smitherman: The honourable member should be able to see right in the action itself that we are following the advice of Dr. Baker. To mention that the first letter that Dr. Baker sent was at the point contradicted by the Provincial Infectious Diseases Advisory Committee—there was no consensus from the clinicians about what was most appropriate with respect to reporting. But it's somewhat of a separate matter.

The honourable member wants to make people believe that public reporting is the thing that's responsible for people working in the environment to take the appropriate precautions and to wash their hands or to take the appropriate steps as administrators in hospitals to ensure that steps are being taken to clean them as appropriate. The point is, that's an element of the arsenal that we add to all of those steps that have been taken prior. It's not a one-off; it's not singular. It's about further progress on the issue of controlling the spread of superbugs in the hospital environment, around which much is known and much responsibility borne and much action taken already.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Certainly, the actions of this minister stand in very stark contrast to the actions of the minister in Northern Ireland, who, earlier this year, when he discovered that 51 people had died from C. difficile, immediately got on the job and set up an expert panel to do a comprehensive three-month review. I say to you today: Reporting is important, because at least it would have made us aware of the extent of the problem, which we don't know about today. And do you know what?

If you take a look at the 260 people who have died from C. difficile, if you take a look at what happened at Joe Brant, where the CEO said that the only information he ever received about the C. difficile outbreaks was through the media, you ask yourself the question: How many lives could have been saved if you had taken control and asked for mandatory reporting? So I ask you today: Why did you not do your job, as the minister in Northern Ireland—

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

Hon. George Smitherman: It seems that it's the honourable member herself who only now has awakened to the reality of C. difficile. It seems that it's only in the last month or so that the honourable member has been aware of this issue, but that's not the circumstance for hospitals. If a CEO of a hospital has said that, he stands in contradiction to a wide variety of initiatives that have been undertaken by the ministry, by the Provincial Infectious Diseases Advisory Committee and indeed by the Ontario Hospital Association.

This situation is a well-known challenge in health care. It's not something that has arisen only of late, and that's why: because of the investigations that have been done, as an example, by the coroner, who themselves have concluded that further investigation is not what's necessary, but rather taking our actions to the next level, which is instituting, on behalf of the public, this wide variety of new patient safety indicators, which will be initiated on September 30 by Dr. Baker, acknowledged by the honourable member to be a leader in this field.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Over the last week or so, we have learned that the McGuinty government gave General Motors $235 million of the people's money. General Motors was supposed to sustain jobs in Oshawa with that money. Instead, 2,600 workers at the truck plant are losing their jobs. But today we learn that there are more layoffs, that in fact close to 100 workers in General Motors's regional engineering centre in Oshawa have been given their layoff notices and were immediately escorted off the property yesterday.

These are highly skilled engineers and technicians; the so-called $235-million Beacon funding was supposed to sustain their jobs and sustain their projects.

Can the Deputy Premier tell us why the very engineers and technicians who were supposed to be at the core of the $235-million cheque are now also being laid off?

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

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think it was said very clearly by General Motors on day one of this announcement several days ago: They recognized their relationship with the Ontario government through this contract meant that with this announcement, they may be putting themselves in a position to prepay loans that were made payable to them under our OAIS program. We understand that. We are working with General Motors to determine, if in fact that will happen, when that will happen. There were markers laid out in that contract, as General Motors has acknowledged.

We're hoping that as these world changes happen to the automotive sector, and as these challenges are being addressed by the many companies that have made investments in Ontario, the likes of which we have not seen in any other jurisdiction in North America—we want our companies to be strong. This side of the House is planning to work with our automotive companies so they will be strong again.

Mr. Howard Hampton: The McGuinty government talks about corporations and their close friendship. I want to know about jobs. I want to know about all the workers who are losing their jobs.

I happen to have the photo op from the Premier's announcement on March 2, 2005—you know, the photo op that the Premier often holds, promises this and that, and then it turns out to be false. This was what was said at that photo op: The Beacon project, as it's called, aims to strengthen automotive engineering and manufacturing capabilities as well as research and development and commercialization in order to build the auto sector of tomorrow.

Well, the very engineers who were talked about in your photo op are now being ushered out the door—the very engineers who have done so much of the research work, who designed this hybrid-powered half-ton which is now going to be manufactured in Mexico.

I ask again, how could you let this happen?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think if there has ever been a government in Ontario that has been supportive of the automotive sector, this frankly is the government. This is the government that's prepared to stand behind the automotive sector, which for many decades has fed the nation, because we know how vital it is to our manufacturing sector. We are prepared to work with that sector to see that it stays strong well into the future.

We know right now they are facing challenges, and General Motors in particular is facing challenges that we want them to get through. That means that in this day and age, when we have to compete with other jurisdictions, the Ontario government has to be at the table, as do our federal counterparts. We think that perhaps some of them may have seen the light lately. We hope that may be true.

We know that our automotive sector will be strong again, and it will be because of the significant investments that have been made in Ontario over these last three years as a result of the OAIS—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: I think I heard what the minister had to say. I don't think she mentioned workers once in her response. I want to tell you about these workers. Not only do these workers do the engineering, design and development—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Sergeant-at-Arms, would you please collect the prop that the member from Renfrew has? Can I see the back of that, please?

Leader of the third party.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Not only did these workers do the engineering, the design and the development of the hybrid-powered Sierra half-ton, which is now going to be built in Mexico, but they also did the engineering and design of the Chevy Equinox and the GM Torrent. They were involved in the design and initial construction of the innovative wind tunnel at the Ontario Institute of Technology. These are the very kinds of high-level engineering and design jobs that were supposed to be sustained and added to by your $235-million cheque to General Motors.

I see how General Motors has got the $235 million, but I ask again, why are so many of these talented, experienced, knowledgeable workers going out the door under the McGuinty government?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: The member opposite purports to be supporting workers. I ask the member, have you checked with the leader of the CAW about his opinion of the provincial government and our participation in landing investment in Ontario? The member opposite doesn't seem to be on the same page with the one leader who is acknowledged by most—CEOs of the auto sector included—as one of the most modern union leaders in the western world.

In contrast to the federal government's inaction, the Ontario government has been doing its best to support auto investment and employment. That's real jobs. "Without provincial support, including its participation in GM's Beacon project, the situation facing the industry today would be far, far worse." Who said that? Buzz Hargrove, the leader of the CAW.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Howard Hampton: To the Deputy Premier again: I take it that the McGuinty government is okay with these engineering jobs going to Warren, Michigan, and not staying in Oshawa.

But my question is to the Deputy Premier: Yesterday we learned that almost 10,000 laid-off forestry workers in northern Ontario will not be eligible for this government's much-boasted-about Second Career retraining program. That's on top of the 175,000 laid-off manufacturing workers who lost their jobs before June 1, 2007. We see how the government has bungled its $235 million to General Motors with all the workers being laid off, but I ask again: How can the government promote a so-called retraining strategy that leaves 10,000 workers out in northern Ontario and 175,000 manufacturing workers out elsewhere?

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

Hon. John Milloy: Once again the question from the leader of the third party is mischievous. The workers of northern Ontario have not been left out of this province's employment supports program. Under Employment Ontario, we invest over $1 billion a year to help 900,000 laid-off workers, including those in northern Ontario. Supports range from everything from resumé writing to job counselling, all the way to short-term training.

Several days ago, we announced through the second-career strategy, in addition to that, longer-term training for workers who have been recently laid off—laid off in the last year or those who will be laid off, if that happens, in coming weeks. It's wrong for him to stand up today and to suggest that supports are not available to workers across the province. The second-career strategy is available to recently laid-off workers in any part of this province, and for him to stand up and be so mischievous is a misfortune for those workers who are looking for supports from the province.

I ask again: How could the McGuinty government design and promote and boast about a job retraining program that isn't available to most of the hard-pressed laid-off workers in Ontario?

Hon. John Milloy: This is quite frankly outrageous. In Ontario, we invest $1 billion a year in terms of support for laid-off workers. As of January 1, 2007, federal programs were transferred to the province, and we began an integrated service known as Employment Ontario.

When we have word of a layoff, within one hour we are in contact with the factory or workplace that is affected. We work with the employer and we work with the union, we work with the workers and the community to make sure that we have an action plan to get those workers back to work. In northern Ontario, in many instances, we have established job action centres which work with the workers in the workplace to make sure that they get the supports they need. Right now, we have centres in White River, Dubreuilville, Wawa, Red Rock, Thunder Bay, Atikokan, Nipigon, Mattawa, Greenstone, Dryden and Kenora, all part of the investments that this government is—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: The minister is right about one thing: This is certainly outrageous. The so-called retraining program that you promote, second career, isn't available to those workers laid off before June 1, 2007. I'll tell you: The longer you've been laid off, the longer you've been unemployed, the harder it is to get back into the workforce. So they're not eligible for that.

Yesterday you stood here and said that they were eligible for another program, but they're not. In order to be eligible for the other program, they have to be receiving employment insurance benefits. They're not receiving employment insurance benefits; most of them have exhausted their employment insurance benefits.

The McGuinty government is so good at photo ops. You're so good at doing announcements. I ask again, what is supposed to happen to those 185,000 laid-off workers who aren't eligible for your much-boasted-about job retraining programs? What are they supposed to do?

Hon. John Milloy: Every year the government of Ontario invests $1 billion in support for laid-off workers across this province. We support workers who are eligible for employment insurance; we support workers who are not eligible for employment insurance. We have a range of services which are offered through the Employment Ontario network and we have set up action centres in factories and communities where there have been layoffs to work with workers and get them back into the workforce as quickly as possible.

I think the results speak for themselves. Since coming to office, 450,000 jobs have been created in this community, and most recently we've added to our suite of services through the second-career strategy, which will be a service available to recently laid-off workers whether they are eligible for employment insurance or not.

Once again, we are working to support workers in the province of Ontario, and it is mischievous for the honourable member to stand up and claim that these programs and services are not available.

HOG INDUSTRY

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. As you know, in February the federal government launched a program to shrink the nation's hog herd. To qualify, the pigs sent for slaughter must be perfectly healthy. When questioned, a spokesman in your office said that the Ontario Independent Meat Processors, Ontario Pork and the Ontario Association of Food Banks approached you about processing these pigs to feed those in need as soon as the program was announced. Minister, that would have been in February. Why did you wait until the Toronto Star started asking questions before you did anything?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I would say that it's very important that I have this opportunity today to correct the honourable member. When the

article appeared in the Toronto Star, when I was interviewed by the reporter, I was able to say that indeed we have been working with industry partners. We said that we would very much want to participate in the effort to direct what meat is appropriately directed to food banks for food consumption. We asked them to assist us to put a plan together and to come to us with what they believed the cost would be, and when they did that we provided $110,000 to achieve that end. We believe that we have acted responsibly. We have—

Interjection.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: The member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke says we've done nothing. If he's suggesting that providing $110,000—

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: The province of Alberta put in $330,000, the province of Saskatchewan put in $440,000, and that was when the program started. In the time it took you to organize, to get this plan in place, to announce $100,000, some 2,500 surplus pigs were slaughtered that could have gone to the people in need, to the food banks and food kitchens. Instead of pork being fed to pets, people in need could have been eating great Ontario pork. Greg Haskett, a pork farmer in my riding, said, "Putting animals into the pet food chain or fertilizer or meat and bone meal goes against all the principles of a farmer."

Minister, if other provinces could respond quickly enough to process all the pigs for the food banks, why couldn't you?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I believe our response has been the responsible response. We didn't just simply identify an amount of money. We asked the partners who would be involved in the cull, as well as the partners at the food bank, what they would need. They were very happy to take that task and they came back to this government and said, "We need $110,000."

I would like to offer the honourable member this remark that has come to us through the Ontario Independent Meat Processors. The processors indicate that they appreciate the efforts of myself in securing financial support to allow as much as 40,000 metric tonnes of culled sow meat to be processed and sent to food banks. What we do know is that the dollars that have been provided will ensure that some—

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

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Minister of Government and Consumer Services, and it's a pretty basic one. Who does the minister actually have in place to cut through the bureaucratic runaround at Tarion to ensure quicker compensation and better satisfaction to new homeowners who have been victimized by shoddy home builders?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I'm pleased to respond to the question opposite and to just share quickly some of the things that Tarion and our ministry have done over the last couple of years to enhance the relationship. We've doubled the total compensation payable for warranty claims from $150,000 to $300,000. A homeowners' survey, an independent survey, was done, and 87% of the homeowners surveyed thought that the results of Tarion's service were very good. I know that there are some political leaders in this House who would take 85% in a minute for their satisfaction.

But I'm pleased to announce today that in consultation with Tarion over several months, we can announce today that we will assist Tarion in setting up an independent in-house consumer advocate to handle—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The minister weaves a really good tale, but the Canadians for Properly Built Homes are here today and they have the real story. When a family dream home becomes a nightmare because of shoddy building practices, Tarion has failed to deliver, and it's accountable to no one, not even this minister.

Will the minister today commit to Ombudsman oversight of Tarion to bring real accountability—not in-house accountability, real accountability—and real solutions regarding the systemic problems experienced by Ontario's new-home-buying public?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: As you know, Tarion is a private, not-for-profit corporation that administers the act.

Interjection.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Well, that's another question. But I just want to go back to our conversations with Tarion. I made, back in early March, some seven requests of the Tarion corporation. We've been in some serious discussions with them about how to enhance the service to get the 87% satisfaction rating even higher, and we will be working with them to set up the independent in-house consumer advocate. This is a huge step forward towards greater accountability and will give new home buyers the satisfaction of knowing that their concerns will be listened to even more intently.

I would just add that the Consumers Council of Canada report recently said that the Tarion program was the best home warranty program in the country.

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: My question is for the Minister of Research and Innovation. Preston Manning has suggested that "any and all MPs, especially newly elected ones"—and I would think MPPs—"should acquaint themselves with the impressive work being done to engage youth through Let's Talk Science and the Canada-Wide Science Fair, organized by the Youth Science Foundation Canada."

I'm proud of students from my riding, Devin Howard, with his project You Are Not a Beautiful and Unique Snowflake, and Mackenzie Carter, with her project, the Coanda Conundrum, who, as a result of winning awards at the Kitchener-Waterloo Science Fair, were able to go and compete at this year's Canada-Wide Science Fair.

Also with us in the House today is Daniel Burd, a Kitchener-Waterloo Science Fair award winner and platinum award winner for his project Plastic Not Fantastic, isolating micro-organisms that can break down plastic.

The government has a role to play in engaging youth in science—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister of Research and Innovation.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank the member for the question. I want to assure her that we too are proud of Devin, Mackenzie and Daniel, who are visiting today. Our economic future depends on our ability to engage our youth in the wonders of science and technology. I want to encourage all members to visit the Sci-Tech Ontario awards presentation, which will be in rooms 228 and 230 later on this afternoon. I want to thank the Minister of the Environment, our colleague, for sponsoring that today.

Our government and our partners are working together to increase the level of awareness of our young people in the key role played by science. In recognition of that, my ministry is sporting Youth Science Foundation Canada and the work of Sci-Tech Ontario with an investment of some $3.5 million, and an additional investment of some $1.5 million to Let's Talk Science.

I want to quote our friend Mike Lazaridis, chairman of RIM: "We need to change our culture so that science and technology are seen to be the 'in' thing."

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: Canadian astronaut Roberta Bondar has said that as a result of her encounter with the Ontario science fair—she participated in the science fair and it was an experience that ultimately defined her life.

Last week I had the pleasure of joining Mike Lazaridis, where it was announced that he donated an additional $50 million to the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, on top of the $100 million he donated in 2000, for a total of $150 million. The Perimeter Institute began in the summer of 1999 when Mike Lazaridis, founder and co-CEO of Research in Motion, maker of the successful BlackBerry, found himself in a position to foster research and innovation in Ontario. Yesterday afternoon, I attended a dedication to the Mike and Ophelia Lazaridis Institute for Quantum Computing where the Premier announced nearly $18 million in funding.

Would the minister please explain what his ministry is doing to foster research and innovation so that the next generation of youth can, as Roberta Bondar did, reach—

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

Hon. John Wilkinson: Our ministry has committed some $3 billion over an eight-year period for research and innovation. Mike Lazaridis believes, and I agree with him, that to invest in fundamental research is to invest in the development of knowledge that can have staggering long-term societal and economic benefits.

Ontario has invested some $151 million in world-leading experimental and theoretical physics research, both at the Institute for Quantum Computing and the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo. Scientists believe that this technology will aid many discoveries, such as unbreakable cryptography, unparalleled high-precision measurement devices, computers with mind-boggling power, and a better understanding of the microscopic world. These will be the jobs of the future for our children and grandchildren.

I would hope that all members would join me in expressing our personal appreciation of the amazing generosity of Mike and Ophelia Lazaridis and the $150 million—

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

SCHOOL TRUSTEES

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: To the Deputy Premier: The minister yesterday stated that checks and balances are in place and, "Public dollars are spent in the public interest and for the benefit of our students." She also stated that the Toronto Catholic District School Board trustee situation is "a cautionary tale."

TCDSB spending has increased by 167.5% since we were in office. The $67,000-a-year increase per trustee is not a cautionary tale, it is more than the average Ontarian makes. Clearly, your government has lost sight of the average Ontarian. Why did the Minister of Education allow increase after increase to proceed unchecked under your watch?

Hon. George Smitherman: It seems the honourable member has herself confirmed that our government has been dedicating ourselves to enhancing the capacity of our education system in the province of Ontario. That's why test scores are up. That's why more students are graduating. That's why there are more books in our libraries. That's why there are 9,640 more teachers.

When information arises about circumstances that are unsettling to people, when trustees are saying perhaps this is the way to get to the bottom of it, when the heads of parent groups are saying it's necessary to take these steps, that's when we conclude that this is an appropriate measure to protect every dollar, to ensure that it's allocated and making a difference for the children, and that's what this initiative is all about. The honourable member knows that very well.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Let me make it clear to the Deputy Premier that the 167.5% was an increase in expenses for trustees, not for school programs. The minister's failure to establish priorities and take action in advance of this public outcry has made it acceptable for trustees to demand increases in gas funding under the threat of classroom cuts. Seven boards are now suddenly under the microscope, and despite her former colleague's attempts to switch the focus from her inaction, we are not going to take that bait.

So the minister should put her house in order so we can focus on the real needs of students and ensuring that people like school bus operators are able to keep pace were the rising cost of fuel. Deputy Premier, why has your government allowed these increases in trustee expenses to increase unchecked for four—

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

Hon. George Smitherman: We sure did see the dedication to the real needs of students embedded into the policy platform of that party and that member in the last provincial election. The people of the province of Ontario know that this is a government that dedicates itself to the purposes of enhancing the performance of our schools. We put serious money out there to back it up.

But on the matter of expenses, before 2006 there were no guidelines at all for school trustees with respect to expenses. So we brought in the guidelines. Through the actions that we have taken, that we do not apologize for—with respect to the Toronto Catholic District School Board, we will take action on behalf of these students to ensure that the dollars allocated get to the place where they are most desired and most purposeful. We've made progress on behalf of these students, something that stands in sharp contrast to all the actions of that honourable member and her party.

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Mr. Peter Tabuns: To the minister of corrections: Last week, I asked the minister twice about the cruel treatment of Fahim Ahmad, Zakaria Amara and Mohammed Dirie, who have languished in solitary confinement for over two years. You told me, you told this House that they have "the right to daily ... exercise." Their family says they have not been out for exercise for over two months. You told this House that they had the right to reading materials from the library. The family says they have not had access since last September. I'm told that Zakaria Amara has had an untreated toothache for over two months.

Will you act as a minister, will you protect prisoners, will you make sure that minimum standards are met and that they are moved out of segregation?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Inmates who are placed in segregation are entitled under law to just and humane treatment and receive specific services and activities. That includes, and let me repeat: the right to daily outdoor exercise; access to legal counsel, services and materials; access to clergy and spiritual advisers; visitation with family members, relatives and friends; access to correspondence and telephone services; access to library materials, institutional programs and the opportunity to buy items from the institutional canteen with personal funds.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: So, if you are the minister, why are you not enforcing those rights? Why are you abandoning those men? Why are you not meeting the standards set by Corrections Canada and the United Nations? Why are you not representing those rights? Have you abandoned your responsibilities as minister?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Listen, the member opposite knows full well we're not going to comment on specific cases that are before the courts, because we're not allowed to do that. He knows that full well. But we have very high standards to ensure the safe care, custody and control of all inmates. They have those rights. Those rights are theirs to use. I am very, very confident that the correctional services people are very much aware of the rights of inmates and grant them those rights.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. Purchasing a house or a condo is one of the most important financial decisions Ontarians make. My riding in Willowdale attracts many new condo owners and home buyers, especially along the Yonge-Sheppard corridor in the Bayview Village area. Purchasing a house or a condo is a complex process. Ontarians rely on real estate agents, real estate brokers, lawyers, friends and family for advice and guidance.

Nevertheless, real estate fraud is a huge issue. I'm especially concerned about the act of so-called phantom offers, which cheat hard-working and honest Ontarians out of a fair chance at home ownership. I'm also concerned about grow ops. I'm concerned that home buyers aren't getting the information they need about whether their purchase might have serious risks associated with it. What are you doing about this situation?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I want to thank the member from Willowdale for his question. The practice of phantom offers is a breach of the code of ethics under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act. Any broker or salesperson caught can be fined up to $50,000. Any person with knowledge of a phantom offer should contact our ministry's consumer protection branch.

On the issue of grow-ops specifically, a real estate agent failing to disclose that a property was a grow house is also in breach of the code of ethics and is subject to administrative