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

November 5, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Nov-05 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 5 November 2008 Mercredi 5 novembre 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PHOTO CARD ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LES CARTES-PHOTO

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SMALL BUSINESS

SMALL BUSINESS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

MANUFACTURING JOBS

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

TRANSIT SERVICES

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

POVERTY

WORKPLACE SAFETY

HUNTING LICENCES

PAY EQUITY

NORTHERN ONTARIO

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

CONTAMINATED SOIL

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EMANCIPATION DAY

THUNDER BAY PAPER MILL

PIERRE PILOTE

ELECTRIC VEHICLES

ONTARIO TRILLIUM FOUNDATION

ONTARIO ECONOMY

DON LAW

RICHARDSON MASONIC LODGE

ÉGLISE TRÈS-SAINTE-TRINITÉ DE ROCKLAND

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

SOCIAL POLICY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO

AMENDMENT ACT (CIGARILLOS), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA LOI FAVORISANT

UN ONTARIO SANS FUMÉE

(CIGARILLOS)

PETITIONS

GASOLINE PRICES

GASOLINE PRICES

CHILD CUSTODY

MECHANIC CERTIFICATION

CHILD CARE

ROUTE 17

GASOLINE PRICES

CHILD CUSTODY

GASOLINE PRICES

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

CHILD CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION /

ATTRIBUTION DE TEMPS

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Please remain standing for the Lord's Prayer, followed by the non-denominational prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PHOTO CARD ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LES CARTES-PHOTO

Mr. Bradley moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 85,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I'll be sharing my time with the member for Algoma–Manitoulin, my parliamentary assistant, Michael Brown, who is with us today.

I rise in the House today to begin third reading debate on legislation that, if passed, would support Ontario's economy while improving access and opportunity for every Ontarian. I will share this time with my parliamentary assistant for transportation, Mike Brown, who will continue debate on this legislation.

Our proposed legislation, the Photo Card Act, would provide Ontarians with an affordable, convenient and secure passport alternative for use at all Canada-US land and sea border crossings. To ensure the integrity and security of these cards, we would implement safe and secure technology features to protect the privacy of information. To offer equal opportunity to all, we are proposing a completely new card, a photo identification card for Ontarians who do not drive. To give people who don't drive but want an alternative to a passport, we will make an enhanced version of that card as well.

I'm sure many of our members are aware that the western hemisphere travel initiative is now almost completely phased in. On June 1, 2009, the US government is scheduled to require all visitors to prove their citizenship using a passport or an accepted passport alternative. That is why our government has proposed that a new security-enhanced version of the existing Ontario driver's licence be that alternative. With just over half of all Canadians holding a passport, we want to make it as simple as possible for Ontario travellers to have access to a secure border-crossing document.

This is an opportunity for Ontario to show leadership in supporting the economy by helping avoid confusion and traffic congestion at the border and by minimizing delays for travellers and commercial drivers.

The enhanced driver's licence card would offer the same privileges as today's licence card, with the addition of information needed to show proof of Canadian citizenship at US land and sea border crossings. Our borders are the economic gateway to this province and must remain safe, open and accessible on June 1, 2009—and every day. Our economy and our prosperity depend on it; the ties of family and friendship that extend across the border do as well. Each day more than 92,000 cars cross our borders with New York, Michigan and Minnesota. More than 22,000 trucks carry $650 million in goods a day.

Over 66% of all Canada's trade by truck with the US passes through Ontario's borders. This all amounts to nearly a third of a trillion dollars in trade each year with the US, Ontario's largest trading partner.

Anyone applying for an enhanced driver's licence will be expected to provide documents that confirm their Canadian citizenship. I want to be clear: Protection of privacy and security of personal information has been and continues to be a consideration of paramount importance throughout the development of this program. As well, obtaining an enhanced driver's licence is entirely voluntary. We have consulted with Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner and I've received valuable guidance that will help ensure the proposed cards are developed in a manner that keeps personal information secure.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the commissioner and every organization and individual who took the time to attend and provide their guidance and advice at committee. In fact, the commissioner has noted that she is "very pleased with the co-operation and willing attitude of the Ontario government to work with my office and protect citizens' privacy."

Making sure all these new cards are issued legitimately is critical to combatting fraud and identity theft, and photo comparison technology will help ensure that multiple driver's licences are not issued to the same person under different names. This technology has been implemented successfully in many North American jurisdictions with positive results. For example, Illinois pioneered this technology nearly 10 years ago and has since discovered more than 5,200 cases of identity fraud.

In other words, Illinois set up the program we mentioned, photo comparison technology, and they picked up some 5,200 cases of identity fraud. Photo comparison technology would help stop suspended drivers from improperly obtaining a new driver's licence under a different name.

I can assure you that on the advice of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the information obtained will be carefully protected. We know that Ontario's driver's licence is among the most commonly used documents for identification purposes. Ontarians are regularly asked to prove their identity for many day-to-day transactions, such as opening a bank account and proving age eligibility for a senior's discount. A photo card for people who do not drive would improve access to everyday services and conveniences for all Ontarians.

Like the enhanced driver's licence, our photo card could, if the applicant wishes, be enhanced for use as a convenient and affordable passport alternative for entering the United States. This program has long been advocated by youth, the blind, people with disabilities and senior communities. By removing barriers to access, we are increasing opportunity for all Ontarians.

Our government is working closely with the Canada Border Services Agency and the US Department of Homeland Security. Ontarians need safe and secure alternatives. Our neighbours, our trading partners and our friends expect us to do our part to make sure people and goods continue to flow safely and efficiently across our borders by the June 2009 deadline, and in the future. This proposed legislation would make this possible.

I wish to say as well, at this point, that what I'm encouraged by, in addition to what we are doing in Ontario, is that corresponding action is taking place in the United States. We all recall that the Department of Homeland Security and the outgoing administration in the United States made a decision, after very traumatic events that happened in New York City and Washington, that they would have to increase security dramatically. As a result, all of us here in Canada—at least, I think, overwhelmingly people in Canada—determined that this would have a detrimental effect on both sides of the border.

I recall, and perhaps some other members have had this same experience, discussions with American representatives, whether they be in business or in government or tourist organizations, for instance, and all were alarmed with the thought that the borders would clog up and that people wouldn't be able to make their normal trips across the border, or that there would be long lineups and it would be very difficult.

One of the things we noted, and it's a fact we have to deal with, is that our friends to the south, the people of the United States, tend to obtain passports in lesser numbers, in terms of percentages, than we in Canada do, although the overwhelming majority of people in the province or in a country—in this particular case the countries of Canada and the United States—don't have passports. We were looking for an alternative, and I got into discussions with, and want to congratulate, Louise Slaughter, who was re-elected to the House of Representatives in the United States.

I do that because Louise was one of the real campaigners for a sensible approach to our borders. She was the one who supported delaying implementation of the provisions of the western hemisphere travel initiative until such time as it could be made efficient and more convenient than was contemplated. She is a powerful member of the House of Representatives, a very persuasive member of the House of Representatives, representing what they refer to in the United States as western New York—we probably think of it as northwestern New York.

It was people such as Louise Slaughter and many others whom I and some of my colleagues along the border met with, who indicated they were prepared to be co-operative.

This so-called "battle" over the border was not a fight between Americans and Canadians, between Republicans and Democrats or between Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats. It was really a fight—again, that's too strong a word—between those of us who live relatively close to the border and understand the importance of an easily accessible border, while still being secure, and those who live further away and do not see the ramifications of a severe restriction and tightening on the border. So we had people standing together.

I remember talking on the same day to two different senators, one from Alaska and one from Vermont. These were two individuals who probably didn't agree on 10 things in a year, but one thing they agreed on, because they represented border communities, was the need for delay of implementation of the western hemisphere travel initiative and, second, for some sensible alternatives to what was being proposed. That was true pretty well all along the border.

I note that the state of Washington and British Columbia have collaborated to put together an enhanced-security driver's licence that is an alternative to the passport. We are now seeing that in New York state they have implemented something similar to what we're doing here today.

Michigan, Vermont and some other states have expressed an interest in doing this as well, because again there's a recognition that Canadians and Americans like to travel back and forth across our borders for a variety of reasons: for visits with friends and relatives, for tourist purposes, and certainly for commercial, business and industrial travel across those borders.

What has encouraged me, I must say, is that in fact we've had that kind of great co-operation between people at the border and our tourist organizations, our chambers of commerce and those in the field of labour who recognize how important the movement of goods across the Canadian-US border happens to be. What we do here is demonstrate to our American friends that we are moving forward with an initiative of this kind—a voluntary alternative that's available for people.

Why is it more convenient, whether it's Americans in New York state or Canadians here in the province of Ontario? It's more convenient because it's a document that most people have in any event: a document we can carry easily in our wallets, a document that far more people are likely to have than a passport. When I saw that New York state implementing a new program—I think it was on Labour Day—I thought this would be very good, particularly for tourism for those who don't necessarily travel frequently but like to come across the border or for those who do travel frequently and are close to the border.

The business traveller and the person who is quite wealthy and travels very often—those people are going to have a passport, without a doubt. Indeed, people are still free to get a passport, and we advocate people getting this kind of identification. But there are many people who simply do not want to get a passport and want that alternative. This legislation provides for that alternative.

I listened with great interest to the debate that took place, first of all in the House and then in committee, and there were excellent presentations. As we know, in committee people are free to express their views, whatever those views might be. They are not always accurate in terms of the information presented, but that does not mean that people are not entitled to make a presentation. I thought some of it was very, very good, and it was all valuable in that we got input from people who had questions to ask about this legislation.

I'm pleased to say that our government has taken most, if not all, bills to committee. I think the value of that is that it does allow representatives of the public to come in and make representations, and allows opposition and government members to ask appropriate questions of the officials who are implementing the program. I have been pleased with the degree of support we've seen in this House. One can never be presumptuous, because you are in contempt of the Legislature if you indicate you know, somehow, that the bill is going to pass.

You can prognosticate, and I tend to think from what I've heard in the House that there's some considerable support for the legislation. I want to thank my friends on government benches and the opposition benches for the input they have given to this legislation.

I know that Ms. Scott, the member for Victoria-Haliburton—I still call it that; there are probably some other things in there now in terms of the name—was very interested in this initiative and, I believe, brought forward some private member's legislation, just as my friend my friend from Durham brought forward another piece of private member's legislation that was introduced in the House and will be coming forward for debate, dealing with the hand-held electronic equipment and the banning of that.

Not all the wisdom, as I've said on many occasions, resides on the government side of the House, no matter which party is in power. I think our Legislature works best when we try to look at some of the initiatives that each individual member brings forward, and the suggestions and the debate, and then try to improve our bills and perhaps add to the legislation what we might not have contemplated by having that input from members of the opposition.

I thank all members of the House for bringing it to this point in time. I should note, for some who may have been members of the Legislature for a while, some who had fathers and mothers who are members of the Legislature—

Interjection.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I'll tell you what happened. It used to be—I know the opposition doesn't believe this, and the new members—that third reading almost didn't exist. It was almost on a nod or a very short debate. I just want to say that it used to be that way. I'm not making any suggestions as to what might happen now, but I can tell you that it used to be that way. But I'm always happy to hear from my—

Mr. John Yakabuski: It used to be that they didn't cut off second reading debate.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I must say that I don't want to get into that topic, because do you know what happens when you get into that topic? You start getting very partisan—"The former government did this"—and I don't want to tell the people of Ontario that there's no government in the history of Ontario that used closure and time allocation more than the previous Conservative government. I just don't want to get into that, when my friend from Barry's Bay brings that forward. I don't want to get into that at all.

I'm going to yield the floor shortly to somebody I want to commend. I want to commend the parliamentary assistant in the Ministry of Transportation, Mike Brown, from Algoma—Manitoulin and something else—

Interjection.

Hon. James J. Bradley: It's just Algoma—Manitoulin still? The federal riding is different—for the work he's done—

Mr. John Yakabuski: He's not running federally, is he?

Hon. James J. Bradley: No, he's not running federally, so therefore a seat doesn't open up for somebody who's looking for a seat. I can say that. That hasn't happened. Now, if my friend from Renfrew wants to give up his seat, or my friend from Durham, that would enable something to happen. But I digress, and the Speaker, if he wanted to, if he were being very strict, would chastise me for wandering from the topic of the day.

I wanted to thank my friend Mike Brown for the work he's done in the House and in particular in committee on this, because when the minister's mug gets in the newspaper and you're on television and so on, often the hard work that is done in this Legislature is in fact done by those who are parliamentary assistants, who play a very significant role—much more significant than in the past.

There's one other thing I want to say. I think, going forward—and members of the other side will agree with this, particularly those who have been here for a while. What has worked—and I'll confess on this: I was a bit skeptical early on that you could bring to the cabinet table all members of caucus, because you're always worried that something leaks out in these situations. I think that for subsequent governments, you won't see that change. There are a few people who get selected for a cabinet position, and that's wonderful, but everybody plays a significant role.

I have found that having these individuals at the table during committees and making presentations to cabinet has been very valuable, and I commend it to any subsequent government that happens to be elected, if the people choose a different government. I certainly commend that method. It has really, really been good.

I can think of how, in the past, there were some really good members, I thought, on the other side of the House who, when they were in government, didn't necessarily sit at the cabinet table, but could have made an even greater contribution were they permitted to be part of cabinet committee deliberations.

Interjection.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I wish my friend the member from Renfrew, from Barry's Bay, well. He has come through a traumatic event. I don't want to say he's a very good member of the Legislature, because he'll put that in his literature, but he's a very good friend of mine, let's put it that way, and I had the privilege of serving with his father in the House at a previous time, which must tell you something.

Anyway, it's a great morning in Ontario, I guess, and maybe in the world, depending on your point of view. It's a wonderful day for that, and I thank members for making a contribution. I turn the deliberations over to my good friend the parliamentary assistant, the member for Algoma—Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: It's my privilege to rise and speak to the Legislature about this bill this morning. It is a discussion about how people and goods move across our border with the United States. Ontario's borders are the gateways to the world, and as a government we must be responsible for keeping them safe, open and accessible in order to maintain our strong and prosperous economy.

On June 1, 2009, all travellers entering the United States must present either a valid passport or an acceptable passport alternative at the border. Approximately 55% of Canadians hold valid passports. That is why it is important that our government offers Ontarians an affordable, secure passport alternative in time for the June 1 western hemisphere travel initiative deadline.

Ensuring that Ontarians can travel across our borders in a safe, open and accessible way is critical, particularly in these challenging economic times. Our proposed legislation, the Photo Card Act, is a step in the right direction. The proposed legislation would pave the way for a new secure photo identification card for Ontarians, including an enhanced driver's licence that contains citizenship information. A new, enhanced version of the Ontario driver's licence could become an acceptable travel document, a passport alternative for Ontarians to use at all Canada-US land and sea border crossings.

If passed, our government would also develop a photo identification card for people who do not drive or who are unable to drive. Like the enhanced driver's licence, the enhanced photo card could be used as a convenient passport alternative.

I want to stop here for a second, because we've had some questions about these cards. I want to make it clear that these are totally voluntary; there is no requirement that Ontarians have any of these cards. So if an Ontarian chooses, for a matter of identification purposes, to have the photo card, they can apply for that. If they want a photo card that provides passport information, i.e., citizenship information, they can have it; they are not required to. It is the same with the driver's licence. You can have your driver's licence if you can meet those qualifications; you can have it enhanced if you wish to. It is all a totally voluntary system.

The western hemisphere travel initiative is being implemented in stages. June 1, 2009, is coming very quickly. As a province we have to be ready; our economy depends on it and the people of Ontario depend on us. A Canadian Tourism Research Institute study estimated that border delays cost Ontario more than $5 billion annually. Millions of US citizens visit Ontario every year to spend their hard-earned dollars. These visitors pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the province's economy, and we cannot afford to keep them away. If we do not take action, some predict that Ontario's economy would be hit with a reduction of nearly one and a half million US visitors every year.

Ontario's long-standing position has been to support the US government's goals of improving security. At the same time, we want this to happen in a way that allows the efficient flow of trade and travellers while protecting privacy. Ontario is not alone in this effort. Jurisdictions on both sides of the border see a definite need for a passport alternative. Last year, British Columbia and Washington state conducted a successful pilot program and plan to implement their enhanced driver's licence cards in 2009.

Quebec and Manitoba are already pursuing similar initiatives and expect to have their program up and running soon. New York state has recently launched its own enhanced driver's licence program. Michigan expects to implement its program in 2009. We cannot stand by. Ontarians need secure and affordable alternatives so we can access our borders. Now is the time to move forward with Ontario's very own passport alternative. Our neighbours expect Ontario to take action to protect the safe and efficient flow of people and goods across our borders. This is something we must all work together to protect.

I echo the Minister of Transportation's comments that we will provide a passport alternative that is safe and secure. Our economy depends on it. The people of Ontario depend on it.

As an aside, I want to congratulate the Premier. Premier McGuinty has worked very hard on this initiative, with meetings in Washington and other places. I want to thank the Minister of Transportation because of his close ties to American legislators and the discussions that he's had to make sure that this goes forward. I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and others who have participated at the Council of State Governments meetings in the Midwest and in the eastern American states, where we have worked one on one with many American state legislators who see the same reasons for moving forward on this initiative in a very quick way.

I want to also congratulate Congresswoman Louise Slaughter for her hard work in the US Congress. I want to also recognize a good friend of this assembly who was here a year or two ago, Robin Schimminger, on his re-election. He is from upper New York state, and he was re-elected last night. He only had 91% of the vote in his district. I think Robin has also worked hard, and we would like to congratulate him on his victory.

I want to thank all the folks across the floor who attended the committee meetings, talked with the privacy commissioner and made sure that the government was paying attention. There were amendments made at committee. I think there were five government amendments that passed. They all reflected, in some way or other, concerns made by, not only government members, but by the privacy commissioner and by the members of the opposition. There was one opposition motion that passed at committee to ensure that we made this bill better.

I think, by the conversations we had at committee and the hard work of all members, that we improved the bill at the committee stage, and I want to thank all members for their co-operation.

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the Minister of Transportation and the parliamentary assistant for the Minister of Transportation. I would just ask a simple question: How much are these cards going to cost? I look forward to hearing an answer from either the minister or his parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I'm going to get an opportunity later, in the leadoff for the New Democratic Party, to talk about this bill in more detail. I'm quite disappointed in the outcome of the committee process that we went through. It was very clear by those people who came before the committee, and especially the privacy commissioner, that there are some serious concerns around this bill when it comes to how we deal with people's information and make that secure, and I'm going to have an opportunity to speak to that in some detail.

I just have to say, this is one of those days where the government could have had a win-win situation. They could have got their bill, they could have got all of the opposition standing behind them, saying, "Yes, we support it," if only they had listened to some of the advice that we were trying to give them from the opposition side of the benches at committee as well as the advice that was being given by the privacy commissioner and others.

There are some serious privacy concerns in the way that this bill is drafted. First of all, the very fact that we're basically going to take all of this information and duplicate it in a provincial database is going to be cause in itself to have yet another source where information could be hacked into by someone in order to get that information. Also, the technology that is being used by way of these cards is fraught with all kinds of problems, and I'm going to get a chance to speak to that in some detail.

Simply put, these particular cards are going to have sufficient information on them that, in the end, could be quite troubling if somebody were to get their hands on the information you have on your card. The technology being used, I think, will readily allow people to read that information. The government is going to get up and say, "Don't worry, because it's not your name that's on it," but it's a specific identification number identifying you as that person. That stuff could all be cross-referenced, and I'm going to talk to that in some detail when it gets to my turn for debate.

I just have to say to the government that it's too bad you didn't take the advice of the opposition and of the privacy commissioner, because we would have supported this bill if it had been amended.

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

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak about Bill 85.

Let me, right at the outset, give my reason as to why I will be supporting this bill. One very simple reason is that I have now oftentimes, many times, several times, heard from many of my constituents about the need to have a proper photo ID. These constituents are senior citizens. These constituents are many other non-drivers, perhaps because of their own decision or due to some disability. They find it very difficult not having a driver's licence and not being able to access services which require a particular photo ID.

As we know, the health card is not a recognized piece of photo identification and this legislation addresses exactly that type of situation, so that those people who do not have a driver's licence, who decide not to drive, have a proper piece of identification with them. That's why this legislation is going to be of great benefit to my constituents in the riding of Ottawa Centre and many other people in similar situations across the province.

As to the concerns which have been raised about the enhanced photo card for drivers or non-drivers, it's my understanding—and the minister or the parliamentary assistant can correct me if I'm wrong—that that is voluntary, that it is up to individuals to decide whether they want an enhanced driver's licence or photo ID or not. That is not something that will be required of every single Ontarian. So there is very specific and targeted attention being paid to the privacy concerns of individuals, and it's up to folks to decide on a voluntary basis whether they want this enhanced piece of identification.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm looking forward to commenting on this at some length here, right after the minister responds to the question that's been raised on some of the logistics and mechanics of this bill—because there are positive comments that we will make about it, and I think it's time to move on.

Often, I'm concerned—we can look at this bill as a bit of harmony. The minister was in good spirits this morning, and complimenting all around. There are other bills now, however—Bill 114 and the time allocation there, and Bill 119 is another bill that I think we could spend some time on—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Durham, we probably will spend some time on it, but we won't debate it this morning.

Mr. John O'Toole: Excuse me. With your indulgence, I was making the point that there are substantive things that are before the House that we don't essentially agree on, and this bill—I'm not putting in words, and our critic Frank Klees would be loath if I were to cast any aspersions on this bill; he's been very supportive thus far. But I look forward to the minister's response to a couple of issues, the cost being one, and the relationship between the US solution and how we get them into Ontario as tourists. That's an important part of it: What's going to be the solution for them getting into Canada?

It's fine for us going shopping for Christmas to get this bill in place, but what we're more concerned about is bringing Americans into Canada to spend their dollars to help our economy.

There will be more to say on this bill very shortly. And, I might say, I will be making references to other legislative implications.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I'll listen carefully.

Response?

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I first wanted to speak, at least briefly, to the issue raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and the member for Durham regarding the cost of the card. The card will be less than the cost of a driver's licence. The government intends to use cost recovery, but I'm not sure we will even get to that point. We want to make sure that this is an affordable alternative for the people of Ontario, and as he would know, the other jurisdictions that we are talking about are following very similar paths to providing cards to the people of Michigan, New York state and Minnesota so that we can use those cards at the border.

I want to say to the member for Timmins—James Bay that the privacy concerns that were very properly put forward by the Information and Privacy Commissioner at the committee stage were listened to very carefully by the government. I want to remind him that in her written statement, she suggested that she had worked with the government very closely in the development of this card and wished to continue working with the government after the passage of this bill to ensure that people's privacy was paramount.

I would also suggest to him that he knows that there were a number of amendments put to the bill to address the concerns of the privacy commissioner, and those concerns included a prohibition on providing biometric information. That was one of the government amendments in the legislation, so that cannot happen.

I know there are concerns about RFID cards, and I don't have time to talk about it, but I'm sure I'll get a chance a little bit later.

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

Mr. John O'Toole: I would start off by seeking unanimous consent to stand down the lead speech by our critic, Frank Klees, on third reading.

Interjection: No.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I heard a no.

Mr. John O'Toole: In that case, I'll be speaking for an hour.

Interjection.

Mr. John O'Toole: I understand that, but these are the opportunities we have.

I have paid close attention to this particular bill, as our critic has as well. I think we want to be on the record as saying that we have concerns that remain but generally support the initiative of the minister. I have here an amended version of Bill 85, indicating that there have been a few amendments adopted, which is always good. I'm also aware that the privacy commissioner, Ms. Cavoukian, has, I guess, given some advice to the minister on implementation and who discloses what to whom. Ultimately, that's really the content of the bill.

But I think the explanatory notes of the bill are worthy of looking at, and just reinforcing our understanding of the bill. I want to say right off the bat that when Ms. Cansfield, I think, was minister, I had a constituent who I believe was from New Brunswick and had just moved to Ontario, who came to me and suggested that they had some kind of identification card that assisted people who didn't have a driver's licence. I wrote to the ministry at that time, as I often do—

Hon. James J. Bradley: I received both letters today.

Mr. John O'Toole: Well, there you go.

I listened to my constituent and I wrote, and at that time they didn't think it was necessary. Of course, this was pre-9/11, and I guess that security issues didn't urge this topic to the top of the agenda. But I felt at that time, and now, since I'm a senior, that it's important. Some who have lost their licence still need secondary identification other than their health card—

Hon. James J. Bradley: You're only 55.

Mr. John O'Toole: Well, whatever. "Freedom 55," they say. I would say that there is a need for this other type of card, and this response may satisfy my constituent. In fact, I did send him a copy of this change.

You can get one of three basic cards in addition to the current driver's licence: the basic card, the enhanced card and the combined card. A basic photo card contains the holder's name, photograph and other prescribed information about the holder. An enhanced photo card contains the name, photograph, a notation or indication that the holder is a Canadian citizen and other prescribed information. It also has security features that allow it to be used for travel—in other words, across the border—but it still would not be a driver's licence. The third option is the combination of the two, which I guess, as has been described, is optional.

Now, that gets around the issue of disclosure and the privacy concerns: You're not compelled to get this new card, and the new card is not to be used for other reasons. I think it would be convenient for some. I want to put on the record that some have mentioned to me the concern about this, at this time in the history of the world—that it's optional that we get it. Some would think that's the easy way to get this thing through, in light of some of the privacy concerns. So you get it through and, "Ah, what's wrong with it?

The majority have it, and they've chosen to disclose this information freely, so now we're going to mandate it." Part two would be that we'd like assurances that it would remain such.

I guess I am digressing a small bit, in using up the amount of time that's required to be used up here. I just want to point out a couple of things. A few years ago when we were the government, I was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health and was asked to carry some information on the health privacy file. This was the so-called smart card initiative to bring forward a health card that would be doing some of the things that this is doing, but it would have certain encoded information about the individual who owned the card and in fact owned the information.

We thought we had an agreement with the Ontario Medical Association on the portability of this information. I think this is important. I got the greatest education in my life from sitting on a committee with Ann Cavoukian, who was the privacy commissioner. I believe the head of the project was Chris Hodgson at the time, and they had all the banks, credit card companies, bank information and other confidential-type institutions that learned to manage sensitive information competently. In that, there are three primary concerns.

In fact, the lawyer whom we worked with—I forget what his name was, but he was the lawyer from the ministry who had a great history of dealing with these contentious issues in health privacy.

The three main focuses in any debate around privacy of information are: collecting it—who collects it and who's the custodian of that information, who owns it, where is it; using it—what's it used for? I don't mean the most obvious use of, in this case, to identify you if you're going across the border. When you collect a lot of information about all 13-million-plus Ontarians, you can do profiles of age groups, cultural groups etc. You can start to profile information once you've got this database. It's huge—huge—for marketing, targeting and indeed communicating. What audience are you actually aiming at?

How do you aim at them? What are the trigger points for them? So that "use" thing became very important—collecting and custodial issues of who's got it, is it secure, secured by what, and use.

The other one is disclosure, and usually with disclosure—in this case, I can have the option today, voluntarily, of disclosing the information. But in the event that you've disclosed the information in the health card situation, here's the issue: If you've been in an accident and are lying on a trolley or gurney in the emergency room, it's an implied consent. It's implied that you're there to get health care. It's not verbal and there's no interaction, because you may be unconscious. As you get further down the trail of who owns the information—did you imply consent by signing the form? And that information is being used for reasons other than what the original intent was.

So you become a bit cynical, or you could become cynical. In fact, people are in some cases very loath to the government owning this information—any government. It's not particularly the politics of it all; it's the Big Brother dilemma, the syndrome of "government knows all" and its ability to influence outcomes by having this kind of information. I'll leave that as why it's so important that this remains optional. I leave it that our position is that in the event that it is optional, no one's being forced. It also provides a convenient card that you can put in your wallet.

It looks similar to a driver's licence and it can be just an identification card for getting across the border, or not even for that. The basic card would just be to say, "I'm who I say I am. I'm John O'Toole. Here's my health card and here's my ID card"—that's the new card—and I can, I guess, join a club or get a bank account opened or cash a cheque or some transaction like that. But again, it can be used with certain additional information. It can be used in the border-crossing situation.

I would say that all of us would like more convenience in life, so again, if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem? I suspect that would be my position. Sometimes people protect things, and I'm glad that there are these types of people around.

The member from Wellington—Halton Hills did raise a question that has just recently been answered by the parliamentary assistant, Mr. Brown from Algoma—Manitoulin, on the cost issue. I was also on a committee earlier on in this career here—if it's a career—around 1999. I was on a committee called Smart Systems for Health, SSH. On that committee, it was the same issue of custodial information and developing the systems that go in behind the hardware, software and management of these systems, and that thing just got so far out of control it was unbelievable.

Smart Systems for Health—I think they've renamed it, but it's the same thing. It's still there today. They've put some other people in charge of it, but I would like to look at it myself. They probably gave all those people severances and hired them back on contract.

It reminds me of trying to relentlessly—government often, that is, the civil service, not to be critical; we need them, they run the ongoing business of the province, indeed the country, maybe even the world. They have a relentless ability to move that agenda forward. I think this part of the bill is the only part that I see as problematic. It's my understanding from Mr. Klees, our critic, that there were amendments moved, some by the Conservatives, that were not accepted. That is clearly on the record now on behalf of Mr. Klees.

I would say that the three cards—as I said, four, including the driver's licence without any attachments to it—will still be the Ministry of Transportation. I think the cost does come into it. You've got a whole set of things to manage: different types of cards, are they going to be different colours, how do they get issued, can you do it online, at Service Ontario, how do you verify the data, how many people do you have to hire?

The card is going to be, according to Mr. Brown, less than the current licence, which is a good deal, I guess. However, that's not the cost that I'm worried about. I'm saying, the cost of the implementation, administration, ongoing support and verification systems, inquiries, disputes, dispute resolutions, like "I've got a card; it's got my wrong address." I know now that there are problems with the current licence.

There are people in Toronto now, it's my understanding, who, to avoid the licence registration and all other kinds of fees, are getting around the system by using Service Ontario to log on and change their address, so that they live in some place outside of Toronto, to avoid certain costs. I don't think the ministry deliberately sets about to put these little problems there, but it causes them some anguish to recapture and deal with some of those problems.

In this case here, with all the digital enhancement and all the—I mean, I worked in the system for 20 years; I'm telling you. Identification of individuals and the fingerprint served us very well. Now it's all DNA and photo imaging, and now, facial profiles are more accurate in cross-referencing than fingerprints. If you've got the person—let's say it's a criminal who has been convicted of something in a court and all that and you have their profile.

The match is now for photo ID—and they use them in some airports; some banks use them—for the eye profiles and different facial features, so in the future this stuff here—they're going to want bio-identification as well. That is some sort of DNA thing. That's coming and it'll be codified. Now, when? Is it going to be next month? No. Is it going to be next year? No. Is it going to be some—yes. That's the next deal. And then they've got it and you're pinned, more like some of the doomsday people talk about.

I often think we have to be somewhat honest in our roles here, regardless of all the partisan stuff, to make sure that we're looking after the individual's uniqueness. I guess that's how you'd describe it. I think it's an interesting topic, given that I have so much time in this august place to speak and express these concerns. But it does come up when we raise this, because you're going to push the line here.

I would say, if we have no problems and we can manage the data, secure the data and have consent and disclosure and the documentation of that, if I concede that I will disclose or not disclose that I've had some questionable ailment—it could be mental health, it could be a lifestyle health issue, whatever. Maybe some people don't want all this disclosed.

Here's how systems work. Let's say that I want some things disclosed but not some things—like what they call the "lock box." That's what it's called in scientific lingo, or in secure lingo. Here's the example: If I put the card down—let's say it's a health card, let's go to that extent, if you can indulge me—and the scanner can read this little ID thing—and some cards have it on there today—it could have stuff on there, as you've implied and released it, that maybe you only want the surgeon to see, that your blood type is so and so. Well, how come the person that's registering you could actually see this stuff that you don't want disclosed?

So you need a layered security system when they log on to screen your card, so that only certain people can see certain information. Then you get into a whole bureaucracy of systems people who are modifying and codifying. To me, the more sophisticated we get—there's a whole group of people out there that just thrive on trying to solve these riddles. Again, I would say, keep it simple; stupid is kind of the best solution. This goes that far.

I believe the bill has that in it at this point in time, and that says, "Do I have any personal guarantee in the language of the legislation that it will not at any time in this forum, without coming back to the House, require or imply compliance"—that you must have it, that because 88% of Ontarians now have it, everyone is getting it? If that isn't in the bill—I haven't read it to that extent—we can move ahead and would hope that the minister can respond to that in the two minutes that I have.

I think there's a whole provision in here which is appropriate—this is an important bill. Now I have to keep on track because, as the Speaker has reminded me before, if I digress I will be brought into line here. So I'm just going to work this in here. There's a

section here stating, "Offences under the Photo Card Act, 2008 related to the improper acquisition or use of a photo card, including "the offence of applying for, securing or retaining more than one photo card"—why not? Why can't I have two of them? Do you understand? What if I want one in my wallet, but I also want one in my luggage, or with my passport or some other kind of thing? Maybe I want two of them. What's the problem, so long as they're both secured in the proper way? I have two of them, and if it's going to be used for recognition—here I am; here's my card—my brother can't use it; my friend who has a criminal record can't use it because he can't match the photo—hopefully.

So, "securing or retaining a photo card, other than a combined photo card, if the person holds a valid driver's licence ... carry a penalty of a fine of $100 to $20,000." Once you get into these fines, you've got the whole court system involved here. You'd better get the chequebook out. If you get charged with something, get the chequebook out; you're going to court. That means they're going to take your house eventually. I'm not big on this whole idea; there's some pretty severe fines here—$20,000. It could be interpreted as a cash grab, like photo radar was a cash grab.

And what was missing there was the process, I guess. "For the offence of submitting a false or inaccurate document"—I agree with that—"making a false statement"—I agree with that—"or providing inaccurate information, the penalty is a fine of $400 to $20,000 or imprisonment for a maximum of six months, or both." Well, if you're making false disclosures knowingly, I personally think you should get nailed.

"The Minister of Transportation may cancel a photo card if it was obtained or used improperly"—I'm not sure what "used improperly" means. I guess if I loaned it knowingly to someone else, or lost it and somebody else used it, you could end up in court there. And that means you get the wallet out. "The minister may also cancel the card if he or she is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so to ensure that it is not used improperly and in circumstances prescribed by the regulations."

I would suspect that if somebody had one, and after the time they were charged with some outrageous crime or something and they have a criminal record—maybe they were using this card because they couldn't get a passport or something to go across the border—I think there could be problems there. It's like anything when you introduce it. It's sometimes very difficult to imagine how the human creature can find their way around—it's like water can find its way around any crevice, anywhere, at any time.

The comparison technology: I'm not aware of it, but I guess they are using it with the Nexus card. Some types of people who travel a lot now have this card with photo ID at an airport. You can walk in and just avoid going through customs, which I think is a good modern-day solution for that particular application, and I'd hope that this technology they're using is proven technology. We'll leave that to the civil servants. Hopefully, we don't end up—but technology, again: That's a whole debate.

There is no solution for technology if you think about it; it's changing so quickly. It's similar to the minister's bill—and I'm glad for the way he worded the bill—on the use of cellphones, restricting or prohibiting the use of hand-held devices. He just called it technology, which is very good.

Most of us here have a BlackBerry. Well, the BlackBerry today is multifunctional: It's a camera; a recorder; an e-mailer; you can surf the Internet; you can use it as a phone it's a scheduler; and I see other members here are quite knowledgeable. It's going to be everything. It's a satellite device; it's traceable; it's wireless.

The key thing is technology. It will be all voice-activated within two years; it's a whole marketing deal. They're giving us the 286 version until we get to the Microsoft version of it somewhere down the line. These things will be modules that you just plug into the car and it integrates into your Bose system. Well, that kind of technology, when you're thinking of it in this particular application, is very powerful, very expensive and very sensitive to change.

One of the things on this photo stuff business—if you get on your computer, you can enhance and enlarge photographs, and they can look right into your pupil. That's the future. In this card here, iris recognition is also another new and progressive identification technique. I think, if you look ahead—this is new. It's almost like the election in the United States yesterday; it's revolutionary in terms of a secondary identification.

Even now, we know that the passport information will not be disclosed. We know that. That's federal record, and that's the legislative framework. This one here—they are going to disclose it. Some of this data is going to be used to do the profiling at the border: "Here's my photograph and here's me," so they can match them. So they're really using it, and who's to say they're not skimming it and storing it? If you're a repeat person, and they suspect you're smuggling booze or something or whatever else you might be doing—hopefully not guns. I can speak for our caucus—we wouldn't do it—but I can't speak for other caucuses.

But I guess my point being there, I think you would open up Pandora's box any time you have technology involved in an ultimate solution. How did these people who did the things in 9/11 get all these identifications? People copy stuff today, they cut and paste, and they do it online with highly technical equipment. So it's an interesting bill from that perspective as well.

I suspect that the last thing is—here it is here; it's another part here—we're talking this morning in this august chamber when I'd prefer to be talking about Bill 114 or Bill 119. I can't, because the Speaker has warned me, but this bill we're kind of agreeing on. For the most part, we're agreeing. It's third reading. It was first introduced on June 3, 2008; second reading was on June 11, 2008; and here we are, November 5, 2008. This thing has to be in place. I believe the implementation date is June 2009. That's the date that's been set.

Now, we don't know what the new President of the United States is going to do. Here's the new President—and congratulations to him—and I thought, quite honestly, that John McCain's response was equally eloquent—

Interjections.

Mr. John O'Toole: No, no, it really was, if you've seen it—as Barack Obama's. So it is a changing time. I get that, and I completely support that. It's probably needed. We would all agree that the current road they're on is the wrong road. I'd agree with that. I say it publicly all the time. But the expectation level is so high—cynicism sets in after the 100 days—he's going to need three terms. FDR needed three terms. He was the only one who did.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: He got five.

Mr. John O'Toole: He needed more than two, is all I know. Well, maybe Barack should get five terms; they should change the Constitution.

My point there is that here we are, we're setting out on a new journey of hope, and in Ontario we're now on welfare. So here we are today talking about this bill, which is about spending money and collecting money to solve the problem of getting people into the United States—we're really not sure how much it costs—and by the same token, what are we doing to get Americans into Canada legally and legitimately? I want them coming to Stratford. I want them coming to Niagara Falls. I want them to come to Niagara-on-the-Lake. I want them coming to Durham. There are so many great destinations in Ontario.

The former Minister of Tourism is here. I think he did a good job in that ministry, because he's a very theatrical person. We all want to promote Ontario, but this bill does nothing to bring foreigners like Americans into our province. So I would say, there is some work to do on that side of it. It lets us go into the United States to do Christmas shopping—you know what I mean?—but I want them coming here to do the Christmas shopping. The border cities and the border mayors know just how important that movement of people is to our economy and the local economy. There's not much in that bill for that part of it.

We talked about three principles that I wanted, on behalf of Frank Klees, our critic, who has been—because unanimous consent wasn't granted. I don't know the reason for that, but I'm sure it's valid. I'll have to speak to Mr. Bisson on that. First, it's voluntary. We'd like to see that voluntary component assured, so that it wouldn't be implied consent some time down the road. We've talked to some extent on the privacy issues that have been raised by the privacy commissioner for Ontario as well as our caucus and other caucuses, and even in the media.

We've talked about the costs of the issue and implementation for the public. I would think, other than that, the bill is—we're basically using as much of the time here that's required to be used, and we do have question period in the morning, so I'm sure this will not come up during question period. I think there will be other things coming up today in question period. I know the minister is relieved to hear that, but nothing I've said here would cause this thing to be derailed.

It's interesting, if you look at the detail in the bill—this is where the general public doesn't have the privileges we do here. This is

section 18. It says:

"Power to do things electronically

"18(1) Anything that the minister or registrar of motor vehicles is required or authorized to do or to provide under this act may be done or provided by electronic means or in an electronic format."

I would never hope that—there's this Service Ontario—that's how you get these things, because we need to do that match. We need to have, as clerical a function as it may be, some validation function, a human interaction there.

I would say also that it says:

"

(2) Anything that any person is required or authorized to do or to provide to the minister or the ministry under this act may be done or provided by electronic means or in an electronic format, in the circumstances and in the manner specified by the ministry."

This doesn't tell me too much about whether I can do this whole thing online—sending them a photograph, promising that that's me, and then logging on and giving my address and all the other peculiar things that they want. If that is the case, that leaves a little bit of uncertainty as to how this actually happens, given that we know today—and the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke was explaining to me that there are people using the Service Ontario system today to change their address on their cards. They're living in Toronto and they're getting driver's cards that are from somewhere else.

I would hope that, again, if this thing opens up you have to keep it hands-on. I don't want it all done electronically—not on your life. There are so many people who are very clever out there today who like to fool the system, maybe even just to say that they can do it, and that's what the start is; getting it right at the beginning will give you a much steadier prediction on where you're going to end up in the future.

Section 19 is "Records": "The minister shall keep a record of every photo card that is issued, renewed or cancelled, and of every application made for a photo card, and shall keep a record of the particulars of each issuance, renewal, cancellation and application." There are going to be a lot of filing cabinets somewhere; that's all I know. But that's real estate. You're building in a little kind of—I'm may even apply for one of the jobs there, because there's going to be a lot of filing going on and collecting data. You could probably make about $85,000 a year or more doing these kinds of things.

In that section: "The minister may keep any other records that he or she considers necessary for the administration of this act." A lot of paperwork in here, and we can see that.

Certified copies—this is good. This can happen today. I'm always surprised that, as elected members who take an oath, have a criminal background check and all these disclosures to the Integrity Commissioner and all that stuff, they know more about me than I really want them to know. But here it is: I can't understand why—they say "MPs and other ministers." A minister? Some of them are in courts, for different reasons. They can sign things, certify that you're so and so—why can't MPPs? Why aren't we on that list?

Not that I particularly want it, but I have people come to me and say, "You have to go to some lawyer?" Is he better than us?

I don't think so, and I don't mean that in a partisan way, but this thing says: "A copy of any document filed in the ministry under this act, or any statement containing information from the records required or authorized to be kept under this act, that purports to be certified by the registrar of motor vehicles under the seal of the ministry as being a true copy of the original shall be received in evidence in all courts without proof of the seal, the registrar of motor vehicles' signature or the manner of preparing the copy or statement, and is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of the facts contained in the copy or statement."

What they're saying here is that these things are going to have a lot of functionality in the case of proving a person's identity and the fact that it was sought and secured as has been provided.

Section 20: "The registrar of motor vehicles' signature on a copy or statement described in subsection (1) may be an original signature or an engraved, lithographed, printed or otherwise mechanically or electronically reproduced signature or facsimile signature." Well, in that case, why have we got all these signature pens if the person isn't actually stating and verifying by doing it? I know you sign a lot of letters—some of them to me, actually—

Hon. James J. Bradley: Most of them, actually.

Mr. John O'Toole: Exactly. But that's the whole point. You probably have a signature pen—

Hon. James J. Bradley: No, no; I sign yours.

Mr. John O'Toole: Oh, you do? Well, that's good. I'll collect them, because you'll become popular.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Some of them say, "Dear John."

Mr. John O'Toole: "Dear John"—exactly.

The minister's seal—all I'm saying is that there is an administrative function to this. The bill is not some little, "It happened on a Wednesday at the Legislature." It's actually 20 pages long, with a lot of small print and detail. I believe that, if you look at the bill—I read the

preamble itself, which is actually almost two pages. I also find the content

part important. In this content part, there are, I believe, 27 different sections of the bill. It really isn't amending too many other acts, actually, if you look at it, because sometimes, to read a bill, you have to look at the bill that it's amending to really know what it's doing, and that is something that some of us don't do very well. But there are 49 sections. The last two or three are quite small. It repeals other acts.

As I said, I think we brought some of our concerns to the attention of the House, and I'm just going to put on the record, on behalf of Mr. Klees, who does express his sincere regrets that he was unable to come today because of other important duties he's performing on behalf of the people of Ontario—I'll send him a copy of Hansard so that he knows I did say that—

Interjection.

Mr. John O'Toole: Pardon? Yes, he's probably watching this.

I think that Mr. Klees, who is a consummate politician and a classy person, was probably watching the election results last night, because he takes great interest in—

Interjection.

Mr. John O'Toole: Yes. And the weather is good enough, so one could spend some time outside—four to five hours perhaps.

Anyway, it says that the combined photo card may be used exactly as one would use a regular driver's licence. However, the card will also display certain information about the holder—for instance, their citizenship—and may be equipped with certain machine-readable features. The features will allow the holder to access the US by land and by water. The key here is air—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Member for Durham, pursuant to standing order 8(a), it being 10:15 of the clock, this House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm pleased to introduce, on bring your child to work day, although it's not my child, Kevin Turner and his parents, Denise and Scott Turner. Kevin is a page from my riding who lives in the community of Newcastle.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I'd like to introduce guests from my riding, Shirley Wales and Rick Fine, in the east members' gallery.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would like to welcome to the Legislature, on my take-a-kid-to-work day, my niece, Elizabeth Hodgson, from Bradford high school.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I want to introduce again Tamara Crispin, mother of Willem Crispin-Frei, and also some other members of the Crispin-Frei family: Genevieve and Tamara. Welcome.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I would like to recognize Robert Kawamoto and his sons Byers and Ryan Kawamoto, who are the uncle and cousins of page Chloe Halpenny, who is from Goulais River. For those who don't know, Sault Ste. Marie is a suburb of Goulais River.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: I'm pleased to introduce, in the members' east gallery, my grandson Jesse Lyle, who is part of take-your-grade-9-student-to-work day. He's watching me and pleased to be here.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like to introduce, for my take-your-kid-to-work day, Erika Knutson from the riding of London North Centre.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the member for Bramalea—Gore—Malton and page Shaukat Khan, to welcome his dad, Dilnawaz Khan, and his aunt, Afsnan Khan, to question period in the public galleries today.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: In the members' gallery, just joining us today, is a former page, for my take-your-child-to-work day. Her name is Natalie LaMarche. She's from Iroquois Ridge High School in Oakville.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): There being no further introductions, it's now time for oral questions. Member for Sarnia—Lambton.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): It's nice to hear the enthusiasm for the honourable member who is about to speak, but as Speaker, I would like to hear the honourable member's question, please.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the great welcome.

My question today is to the Minister of Labour regarding his bill that would tack $11,000 onto a tax bill every year for every small construction business in Ontario, which he is now trying to ram through this House with little debate or consultation.

The Small Business Agency of Ontario looked at this legislation last year and told you it was a bad idea. You failed to consult the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which is here with us today in the gallery. They represent over 40,000 businesses in Ontario.

Why, Minister, at this time, when Ontario's economy is struggling so badly that it's now a have-not province, would you hammer small business with a whopping new tax that will force them to close up shop?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I can tell the member that it's unfortunate that the member does not take the health and safety of Ontario's hard-working people seriously. It's unfortunate that the member does not care about fairness in the workplace. This proposed legislation will level the playing field, make sure that we support the good companies that are out there building our infrastructure, make sure that we support those vulnerable workers, take care of the safety of those construction workers on site. That's what we're doing with this legislation.

We're making sure that we can move the yardstick when it comes to health and safety, making sure that we support those good companies, the companies that are paying their fair share. It's unfortunate that the member supports the underground economy, supports those that are not paying their fair share.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Clearly the minister needs a new speechwriter, because I still didn't get a straight answer. By limiting debate on this bill, the minister doesn't want to hear from business owners like Roger Gunthorpe of Kemptville, who said:

"Does the government not realize the tough times that small, honest businesses have to deal with every day, let alone the gloomy future that appears to be ahead? If the present government wants to put us out of business with this kind of action, why don't they do it swiftly and then we can join the lineup for handouts with the rest of the Liberals."

With this bill, small business employees will find themselves safely at home and out of a job. Is that what you mean, Minister, by workers' safety?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: What I'm hearing from the member is that he believes that some should pay and some should not pay. We feel that we're all in this together. All those construction workers deserve to be insured, deserve to be covered, deserve to be taken care of. We're supporting them. We're supporting health and safety in the workplace. We want to make sure that all those businesses that are out there—and we have some great businesses—are playing on a level playing field, not being undercut by some bad actors that are out there that are not paying their fair share.

We're trying to address the underground economic activity that's taking place. The Ontario Construction Secretariat has said that $2 billion is being lost. I would hope that the member would feel those dollars would help a lot of projects in his riding and all of our ridings.

Mr. Robert Bailey: The truth is, Minister, you're really not interested in what this tax is going to do to small business in this province. Judith Andrew of the CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, is here with us today. Two weeks ago, she presented you with over 25,000 objections to this bill from her members—you didn't even bat an eye. In her letter to you, she described your response to her members' concerns as "cocky," "uncaring" and "dishonest"—those are her words, not mine.

Perhaps the minister should get some tips on sensitivity from the Attorney General, who had to take a crash course on that himself last week.

Minister, is this how this Liberal government treats its stakeholders?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: This proposed legislation is for construction and it's about the construction industry. It is an industry of high risk. We want to make sure that when those 90,000 independent operators and others that are not insured today by WSIB go into a workplace, if they are to be injured, they know that they have those benefits. We want to make sure that their families are taken care of. I know the member doesn't care about that, but we do.

I also want to bring up from business—let's look at the Council of Ontario Construction Associations and what they had to say. Ian Cunningham, president:

"This is a timely issue as the construction industry is actively seeking to proactively improve workplace safety across the industry and address the often thorny issue of coverage for independent operators."

We're doing that; we're moving forward. It's unfortunate that the member cannot see the light.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Back to the Minister of Labour and the reality that this new WSIB bill has nothing to do with safety. If it did, perhaps the minister can explain: Why would it include thousands of office workers who never set foot on a construction site and who have their own private insurance?

The CFIB has said that this will do nothing to tackle the underground economy. David McDonald, chair of the Open Shop Contractors Association, said, "This will force legitimate guys to go illegitimate."

Minister, if it's not about workers' safety—and many seem to have reached that conclusion—or the underground economy, then whose interest does this bill really serve?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: What I'm hearing from this member, like his other party member, is that they want to take a laissez-faire attitude, allow for that underground economic activity to continue, and not address the health and safety concerns of construction workers and work with good businesses that are out there doing their job.

Once again, let me bring up—and this is to the member from Sarnia. This is what Doug Chalmers, director of Aluma Systems, has to say: "Congratulations. Absolutely brilliant. This will make Ontario a safer workplace and improve the quality of life for all of us." That is a business owner telling you, sir, how this will improve the conditions for those construction workers, taking care of vulnerable workers. That may not be important to you, but it is important to us. We believe in fairness. We believe in a level playing field. I would hope that you would feel the same. Unfortunately, that's not what I'm hearing.

What I'm hearing is that you want to allow for the proliferation of the underground—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Clearly the minister has limited quotes to draw upon to support his position. He hasn't referenced union pressure to go after non-union operators. We know it was there because of quotes attributed to a good and close friend of the Liberal government, Mr. Pat Dillon, a union leader in the construction industry. In a news

article last year, Mr. Dillon said, "We are continuing to push the mandatory WSIB rates with the government." Minister, is that really who wants this new legislation? Because it sure isn't small construction companies represented by the CFIB.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask the member from Lanark to withdraw the comment, please.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I withdraw.

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

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Here goes this member again, bashing labour, not looking after good businesses that are playing by the rules, playing fairly, and not looking after the health and safety of employees. You may not care about those things; we do. We want to make sure that those underground economic practices that threaten the health and safety of our workers, undermine labour standards and bring about an erosion to construction quality—we want to make sure that we stop those from happening.

That's why this proposed legislation is going to go a long way to helping those employees, helping those good businesses, and making sure that we don't lose all that revenue that is going to the underground economy.

I know the member wants investments in his riding. Well, those dollars will go a long way. I would hope that the member would see the light and that we are here—

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

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: It's regrettable that we hear this tired rhetoric. I'm someone who suffered a very serious industrial accident and as a union president fought for years for safety improvements. That's the reality, Minister, and bringing in a new tax on businesses that are already struggling in a difficult economy with at best questionable benefits raises legitimate questions about motivation. Who wants this, and why? Probably the most ardent supporter of the bill is the aforementioned Pat Dillon from the building and construction trades council and also, perhaps not so incidentally, co-chair of a group that spent millions to re-elect this bunch.

The Speaker won't allow me to impute motives, so I won't, but I will ask the minister: Does he not recognize the scandalous nature of what he's doing here?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Again, this member fails to realize that it is about the workers. It is about the safety of those construction workers. This government and Premier McGuinty feel strongly about infrastructure and how it can be an economic driver. We have put $30-billion-plus into ReNew Ontario; that's our roads, our hospitals, our bridges, our schools. That infrastructure is being built by those construction workers.

If we're going to make those investments, it is our duty to protect them, to make sure that when they go to work in the morning, they are going to come back at night to their families, that they know that if, God forbid, they do get injured on the worksite, they are covered; they do have benefits in place. I think all of us have had people come into our constituency offices where they have gotten hurt on the worksite, they don't have insurance—

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

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is to the Acting Premier. The Ontario Energy Board found this week that the cost of electricity from the Pickering A nuclear plant is the highest of any such nuclear plant in North America, and Pickering B is not far behind. Clearly, restarting the Pickering A nuclear reactors was a mistake. It diverted billions of dollars away from reliable, cleaner, cheaper and more job-intensive energy options, such as energy efficiency, conservation, wind, solar, biomass and cogeneration.

My question is this: The decision about Pickering B is about to be made. Will the McGuinty government commit to submitting the cost estimates for rebuilding Pickering B nuclear station to this Legislature and the Auditor General before the McGuinty government makes a decision to go ahead on Pickering B?

Hon. George Smitherman: I want to thank the honourable member for the question. I want to thank the Ontario Energy Board because they had before them a rate request that they refused to accept and they laid responsibility for that appropriately with the operators of said nuclear operation.

Those are old nuclear plants. They're old. They're small. It's outdated technology. I think that there are serious challenges with nuclear technology that first began construction in the 1960s. It's part and parcel of why we think it's important to renew our nuclear fleet, recognizing that it's providing about 50% of all of the electricity that we're using in the province of Ontario.

I look forward in supplementary to offering more information to my honourable friend.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Well, I think that the minister's answer lets the cat out of the bag. According to the McGuinty government, the only plausible alternative for replacing old nuclear plants is more nuclear plants. That gets to the heart of the problem, because at the end of the day your energy plan is all about, "Go nuclear; go big." Your attention to green energy, your attention to renewable energy is superficial and, frankly, not worth much money.

I'm asking the McGuinty government to consider a real change in the nuclear plan. Why won't the McGuinty government direct the Ontario Power Authority to replace Pickering B with green energy instead of more expensive and slow-to-deploy nuclear plants?

Hon. George Smitherman: Firstly, the honourable member likes to ignore a pretty important fact in the consideration of the renaissance and transition of Ontario's energy system: We're getting off of coal. The honourable member doesn't even mention coal, but it's 18% of the supply that we use in the province of Ontario. In the next six years, we're getting off of it. We're not going to be using it. It's the biggest single contribution that we can make to climate change. We're depending on strong conservation and renewables to take up that slack.

The honourable member calls "superficial" the investment of billions of dollars, on the part of hundreds of different individuals and groups, in renewable energy implementation in the province of Ontario. In this year alone, with respect to wind, we're doubling our supply: three big wind farms in a space of a few weeks opening in the province of Ontario.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: The McGuinty government tries to confuse the issue. Nuclear has nothing to do with coal because the nuclear plants will take too long to build—far past 2014. Coal, you've already stated, will have to be replaced with natural gas, which will be very expensive.

I want to, again, get back to the issue at hand. The McGuinty government continues to stubbornly underestimate the cost of nuclear power and the long timelines for building nuclear stations. Shovels aren't even in the ground yet and the fact of the matter is, your "Go big; go nuclear" plan has doubled in cost. OPG is a year behind

schedule in developing the plan for rebuilding the Pickering station. In Finland, the construction of AREVA's reactor, one of the Darlington bidders, is three years behind

schedule and $4 billion over budget.

Again, my question is: Will you remove the cap on renewable energy development? Will you develop a plan other than "Go nuclear; go big"?

Hon. George Smitherman: What the honourable member refuses to recognize is, this notion of "Go nuclear; go big" has been a premise that has been built into the fabric of energy policy in the province of Ontario over three or four decades and governments of all parties.

Fifty per cent of all the electricity that we use in the province of Ontario—baseload supply—comes from nuclear. Having reliable baseload supply is one of the necessary features to have ambitions with respect to renewables, because they do have issues with respect to intermittency.

We're charging ahead and implementing renewables with vigour and aggression, and it would be wonderful to see the honourable member stand up in communities to support the evolution of renewable energy. There are barriers. We are going to make improvements, and as we speak, the OPA, with all of the agencies in energy, is working to make improvements in the implementation of even more renewables.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: What's clear is, the McGuinty government is charging ahead with "Go nuclear; go big."

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Howard Hampton: I want to ask another energy-related question to the Acting Premier. Yesterday, Domtar announced it is permanently shutting down the paper machines and the paper-converting operations at its Dryden mill. A mill that five years ago employed 1,100 people is now down to 300. This adds to the 40,000 direct and indirect jobs that have been lost across northern Ontario in this sector. The McGuinty government's answer: Blame Ottawa, blame anyone else, but take responsibility.

My question is: When will the McGuinty government finally realize that Ontario desperately needs an industrial hydro rate, like they have in Quebec and Manitoba and Germany, to help sustain good manufacturing jobs in the jurisdiction?

Hon. George Smitherman: I do want to say that in the circumstances that we see unfolding in Dryden—and I had the opportunity both last night and this morning to speak with the mayor—we know that it's very, very devastating for individuals and for that community, and we pledge to continue to work with them to try to address these circumstances. The honourable member comes from an area that's substantially dependent on pulp and paper, the forestry sector and the like, yet he pretends that he doesn't understand the global implications for those businesses.

On the matter at hand, with respect to an industrial hydro rate: The member mentioned Germany. I will remind the honourable member that that rate is made possible through average consumers in Germany paying four times the kilowatt-hour cost here in the province of Ontario. Is that also part of the member's proposal?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Germany also puts in place all kinds of energy efficiency strategies so people won't use as much electricity in their homes. The McGuinty government misses the point again.

Domtar now has 10 uncoated free-sheet paper mills in the United States; none in Ontario. What's happening is this: You continue to harvest the wood fibre in Ontario, they run it through pulp mills, and the pulp is then shipped to the United States, where all the value-added is done in terms of creating paper. The McGuinty government is taking us back to the 1940s: wood fibre harvested here; value-added done in the United States.

But it's not just the forestry sector. In the steel industry, similar things are happening: The price of steel is dropping; the cost of industrial electricity is going up under the McGuinty government.

I ask again: When is the McGuinty government going to realize that it must implement a reasonable industrial hydro rate if we're going to sustain good manufacturing jobs in Ontario?

Hon. George Smitherman: Two things, I think, are important Firstly, with respect to the rates of industrial hydro that businesses in Ontario are paying, these are competitive with jurisdictions like New York and Michigan and Pennsylvania—and the honourable member specifically mentioned the United States of America in his contrast.

But I think what's more interesting is the view that the honourable member expressed on page 251 of his book Public Power: "Industrial energy price subsidization can be attractive in theory, but tricky in practice.... I think it far better to work with industry to lower its energy costs through greater efficiency, not through a scheme of subsidized rates."

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: Having a reasonable industrial hydro rate is not subsidization. What we're saying is, having a reasonable industrial hydro rate to support jobs is worth more than—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Algoma.

Please continue.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Having a reasonable industrial hydro rate—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Municipal Affairs, the House just silenced, and the moment the honourable member stood up, you piped up.

Please continue.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Having a reasonable industrial hydro rate says that we value electricity for jobs more than we value it for someone running an energy-sucking plasma television or using it only for air conditioning. That's the difference.

It's not just the steel sector, and it's not just the forest sector now, but the mining sector is also being hit. What's one of its biggest cost items? The cost of industrial electricity. I say again: Quebec has shown the way—a very reasonable rate for industrial electricity. Manitoba, British Columbia and Saskatchewan have reasonable rates for industrial electricity. When will the McGuinty government get the message in Ontario?

Hon. George Smitherman: The honourable member had a whole minute, but he didn't spend any of it addressing a quote from his book, page 251 of Public Power. I'll read it again, and he can research it; maybe tomorrow we can talk about it some more. I'm quoting Howard Hampton: "Industrial energy price subsidization can be attractive in theory, but tricky in practice.... I think it far better to work with industry to lower its energy costs through greater efficiency, not through a scheme of subsidized rates."

The advice that the honourable member offered then on page 251 of Public Power is the policy that we follow. We work with these big users in the province of Ontario, and we make sure that our rates are competitive with jurisdictions adjoining us in New York, Michigan and Pennsylvania. This is the honourable member's frame of reference in his very first question: "How can we be competitive with United States jurisdictions?"

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. As you know, Minister, the Canadian Federation of Students will hold a rally this afternoon where thousands of students are expected to gather on the front lawn of this Legislature. They'll be here to protest your government's high tuition fees and the Premier's broken promises to students.

You'll recall, Minister, that the Premier not only made a promise, but he signed a pledge, as opposition leader in 1999, to bring per person funding for post-secondary education up to the national average. You've had five years in government, and still you've failed to live up to this commitment. Ontario is dead last in per student funding in all of Canada.

Minister, you don't mind bragging in this legislation about your so-called Reaching Higher plan for post-secondary education, so I ask you: Will you be joining with me this afternoon in speaking to the thousands of students out front?

Hon. John Milloy: I first of all want to welcome the CFS students who are at Queen's Park today. In my role as minister, I've had the pleasure of meeting with numerous student organizations, including the CFS, and I will be meeting with the leadership of the CFS towards the end of today. I look forward to an excellent dialogue about what our government is doing in terms of making education affordable and accessible.

I'm very proud to remind the honourable member that of the $6.2-billion Reaching Higher plan, $1.5 billion of that went towards student assistance. At the same time, as a government, we froze tuition for two years and brought in a tuition framework which has a cap to it. In fact, it asks the government to contribute $3 for every $1 that we've—

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: It's nice that the minister is having a closed-door private meeting with CFS officials, but the thousands of students who are going to gather on the lawn this afternoon are wondering why you won't come out in person to speak to them. You're not even sending your parliamentary assistant to speak to the gathered crowd.

Could it be, Minister, that all your bragging really amounts to nothing and that the students know that their lives haven't been improved under your government? Could it be that after five years of Dalton McGuinty, the students know that only the state of Alabama has a more disgraceful student funding record in all of North America or that we're dead last in per student funding in Canada, with the second-highest tuition fees, the largest class sizes and the worst student-to-faculty ratio in all of Canada? Is that why you don't have the guts to go out front and face the students and talk to them?

Thousands will gather. You're the minister. Go out and do the bragging there that you do in here, or have you just not got the guts to meet them?

Hon. John Milloy: As I said, I look forward to my meeting this afternoon, but I'd like to share some statistics with my friend across the way.

Ontario's students receive the highest amount of needs-based assistance of any province in Canada. Ontario's students currently receive a higher level of non-repayable assistance than ever before. We have doubled our investment in student aid since 2003-04. We're helping 150,000 students per year with financial assistance. Let's look at their record: cut student aid by 41%; increased tuition fees by 71% at universities and 64% at colleges; cut $434 million from colleges and universities in their first two years. I'll put our record up against theirs any day of the week.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Rosario Marchese: To the same minister: Like all investors, universities have lost millions over the last few months. Who is going to take the hit? It's going to be students, with cuts to student aid, scholarships and programming.

Increasing OSAP maximums and saddling our graduates with a lifetime of debt is not a solution. Students want a concrete plan that is going to keep university costs and student debt from rising. When are you going to create such a plan?

Hon. John Milloy: I welcome the honourable member's question, because when answering the question from the Conservatives, I didn't have a chance to read all the statistics. Let me share some more.

As I said, we're helping 150,000 students per year with financial assistance. We have tripled the number of grants available to students. In fact, one in four students, or approximately 120,000, receive non-repayable grants. Twenty per cent of Ontario students receive assistance from their institution, compared to the national average of 11%.

As I mentioned, we capped tuition fees following a two-year freeze. Under the new tuition-fee framework, no institution is allowed to raise tuition without participating in our government's student access guarantee, which means that no qualified student will be prevented from attending public colleges and universities due to a lack of financial support.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Minister, your record is a matter of shame, not pride. During the last six prosperous years, we've had the fastest-rising tuition fees in the country and the worst per capita post-secondary funding in Canada, all under the watch of the so-called education Premier. The only number that matters is that you are number 10—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock for a moment. I ask the honourable member for Durham to withdraw his comment, please.

Mr. John O'Toole: Withdraw.

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The only number that matters is that we are number 10 in this country. Students and their parents need help now more than ever. When will your government realize that accessible, affordable, publicly funded post-secondary education for all students is the best economic strategy there is, and create a plan that provides it?

Hon. John Milloy: I will continue to share with my honourable friend. We increased OSAP maximums by 27%, the first time in 12 years. We've limited students' annual repayable debt to $7,000 through the Ontario student opportunity grant.

My honourable friend mentioned graduate students. Ontario graduate students, both at the master's and doctoral level, receive higher needs-based funding than their colleagues in the rest of Canada. A greater proportion of Ontario graduate students receive financial support than elsewhere in Canada.

Let me remind him of the NDP record in power: cut student aid by nearly 50%; cut funding to post-secondary education; promised to eliminate tuition, then they were going to freeze it. Instead, they increased tuition by 50% and then eliminated upfront grants, something that we have reinstated.

Once again, I'll put our record up against their record and their record any day of the week.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. In my riding of York South—Weston, there is a great deal of discussion about changes to transit service. MoveOntario 2020 has raised the possibility of significant changes to the transportation landscape that will run through my riding, including the possibility of new light rapid transit lines.

However, while the constituents of York South—Weston will welcome improved transit service, there is also significant attention being paid to the possibility of an air-rail link from Pearson airport to downtown Toronto. In particular, the recently approved changes to the transit environmental assessment process are causing some concern. Should the proponent choose to proceed under the new six-month regulation, will the project still definitely be subject to an environmental assessment process, and will the local impacts of this project be considered, such as noise, safety, pollution?

Hon. John Gerretsen: First of all, I'd like to compliment and congratulate this member on the tremendous advocacy work that she does on a continual basis for the people of York South—Weston, because we've spoken about this situation on a number of occasions.

Let me be clear: Either way, whether the current individual environmental assessment is proceeded with or the new six-month environmental assessment is done, an environmental assessment will be done. All of the issues that have been brought to our attention already, such as noise, such as pollution—the public consultation will take place. We want to make sure that at the end of the day the community of York South—Weston will be a viable community, will be a strong community and will be made better as a result of the transit that may be going into this area. A full environmental assessment or the six-month rule will mean that the—

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

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Thank you. The constituents of York South—Weston will appreciate getting such a clear answer from the House and from the minister in particular.

Whether the proponent follows the environmental assessment path that it's currently on or it decides to follow the new six-month environmental assessment for transit, a necessity in either project is public consultation. It is my duty to raise awareness that there is much discussion in York South—Weston about the effect that a possible air-rail link will have on the community. If an air-rail link should come through the Georgetown line, it must stop in Weston, minimizing street closures, and give the community a chance to be revitalized. My constituents must know: Will they be guaranteed to be heard as we continue on with this process?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I'll refer that to the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Both Mayor Miller and Premier McGuinty have stated that Toronto needs what most of the world's major cities already have—I think members would agree—a rail connection between the airport and downtown. In fact, the air-rail link is included in the Metrolinx draft regional transportation plan, which was released in September. Extensive consultations have already occurred, through the current EA process and through the development of the regional transportation plan. We've heard the concerns of the community through numerous public consultations and are working to address them.

For example, a stop in Weston will be actively considered. These projects can provide benefits for Ontario's environment, economy and overall quality of life. We are optimistic that a solution will be found which addresses the need for rapid transit to the airport while addressing the concerns raised by the constituents of the riding of York South—Weston. I thank the member for her question.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Deputy Premier. The Premier is in China right now on a trip reportedly designed to increase trade and create jobs for Ontarians. He's supposed to be over there promoting Ontario jobs, Ontario technology and Ontario know-how. When the subject turns to nuclear technology, can the minister tell us what the Premier is saying to the Chinese?

Hon. George Smitherman: I do want to thank the honourable member for his fishing expedition. If the honourable member has a more specific question, I'd be happy to look to entertain it. I think that the heart of the Premier's efforts in China is to work, at this stage in his mission, with other Premiers from other jurisdictions in advancing the opportunities for Canada and China to have enhanced trade opportunities. I'm not personally aware of those elements of it that are specific to promoting the nuclear industry, but we'll look forward, by way of supplementary, to speak to the honourable member a little bit more.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I'm sure they talk every day on the phone.

I know the people in my riding, many of whom work in the high-tech field of nuclear research and development, are very eager to know if the Premier's there promoting them and their know-how to secure their Ontario jobs. What message should I be taking back to the people in Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke?

Hon. George Smitherman: I think the honourable member would first want to engage his federal colleague—I believe her name is Cheryl Gallant—in a conversation about the federal government's support for their agency. I could say that here in the province of Ontario, AECL has their very best client. About half of all the nuclear reactors that AECL has ever sold were purchased through the work of, by extension at least, all of the people of Ontario. That's been a matter of conversation even in the House here this morning.

As we move forward to secure Ontario's stable energy future, we think it's important that the process allow all of the best technologies to compete head to head. We have billions of dollars on offer for stable, reliable, emission-free electricity. We think it's absolutely important on behalf of taxpayers that they get the very best deal with the very best technology, and we're excited by the competition that's ongoing.

POVERTY

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Over 100 faith leaders and activists are here today at Queen's Park as part of the ISARC forum. These are people who have literally dedicated their lives to helping the poor and eliminating poverty in Ontario. They work in food banks. They work in shelters. They reach out to those in need. They have lobbied this government and other governments for years to get governments to take poverty seriously. They have participated in this government's behind-closed-doors poverty consultations.

They want to hear now, clearly and systematically, what this government heard from Ontarians during the poverty consultations. Will the government commit to release a detailed report on the content of the consultations before releasing its poverty plan in December?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like to join the member opposite in welcoming the membership of ISARC here today. It's a remarkable group of people, faith leaders, very broad representation. They come here every year. I know several of the members from this side will be joining them at lunchtime.

As you have said, they have made a really terrific contribution to the conversation on poverty reduction. Across this province, people are talking about how we can work together to reduce poverty. There's an understanding now that we simply must work together to reduce levels of poverty in this province and that the solution lies not just with this level of government, not just with all levels of government, but the solutions are in the communities. The members of ISARC know that, and I look forward to meeting with them later today.

Mr. Michael Prue: This government and this minister talk again and again about how important the consultations were and how much they thank those who participated, but they won't say in detail what they heard. If the government won't say what they heard, Ontarians will have little way of knowing whether the views of the participants in the hearings were seriously and systematically taken into account in the government's poverty plan.

Why won't the government assure the House that, in advance of its poverty reduction report in December, it will include a detailed description and analysis of the poverty reduction priorities presented to it by the people of Ontario, and particularly the people from ISARC?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As the member opposite well knows, the submissions to the poverty reduction strategy are widely available. You have seen them. Others have seen them. Many organizations have publicly posted their submissions to us. We want everyone to be engaged in the conversation. Everyone is engaged. We are only a few weeks only, as you well know, from releasing the strategy that will address the issues that have been raised across the province.

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: My question is for the Minister of Labour. In November 2005, a nurse was stabbed to death while on the job. Her name was Lori Dupont, and her murder was devastating not only to her family, friends and co-workers, but also to all our communities. Everyone should be able to work without fear of violence, in a safe and healthy environment. I want to reassure my constituents that prevention of violence in the workplace is a priority for this government. Can you tell us what the Ministry of Labour is doing to address this very important issue?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: First, I'd like to thank the member for Hamilton Mountain for her hard work, her dedication and her advocacy on this very important issue. She is quite right. November 12 will mark the third anniversary of this terrible and senseless tragedy, the murder of Lori Dupont.

I had the opportunity to meet with Lori's parents on October 17, with the Minister of International Trade, down in Windsor and to speak with the family and talk about how we're moving forward to address violence—domestic violence—in the workplace. My predecessor launched a consultation on September 17 that concluded on October 17. We have almost 200 submissions that have been made. We're looking at those recommendations. I can tell you that the consultation came from the coroner's inquest, and it was framed by the recommendations that came from that inquest on the Lori Dupont murder. So we are moving—

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

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: Thank you for that information, Minister. It is reassuring to know that this issue is being taken seriously. Workplace violence is indeed a complicated matter, one that deserves careful study and thoughtful consideration. It is an issue that can affect all business sectors and occupations. Workplace violence can have a high cost, not only in terms of the cost to employers in areas such as sick leave, lost productivity and insurance premiums, but also, and more importantly, in terms of the emotional trauma and physical injury that it causes.

Minister, I know that you have undertaken a number of other initiatives in addition to this consultation. Can you speak to these initiatives?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Once again, it is a sad anniversary today that we speak of: the Lori Dupont murder. We have made sure within our ministry that all of our inspectors, 430 inspectors, have been trained up, when it comes to initiatives on violence in the workplace, to make sure that they can address those when they come into a workplace and look for best practices to be able to help those employers and employees.

As well, our inspectors are trained now to conduct investigations on workplace violence when it comes to complaints, and take some enforcement action when it relates to workplace violence. We want to make sure that we have the resources to address violence in the workplace, to look at harassment, to look at bullying, to make sure that we can protect the health and safety of all of our workers—

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

HUNTING LICENCES

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, last week I'd heard of a problem or a rumour about deer licence issuing. I went to Service Ontario, where I found out the shocking news. I'm going to send over the correct data in both forms to make sure you have it.

What's taken place, Minister, is that the local issuing office handed me this information—the incorrect one—and thousands upon thousands of deer licences are being issued on old data. This week is the deer hunt, the key part of the deer hunt in the province of Ontario. With the data that was issued to me by the licensing office, there are potentially tens of thousands of individuals hunting illegally in the province of Ontario. Minister, how can this take place within your ministry?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I thank the member for the question. I'm not aware of the situation but I will certainly take it under advisement right now—today. I will get back to you this afternoon on what actually is occurring in those wildlife management units. I thank you for bringing this to my attention.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: Thank you, Minister. On Friday, I did the correct thing in the best interests of the outdoors community. I notified the local district office to make sure that the correction was taking place at that time so that those individuals who started deer hunting on Monday were doing so in a proper fashion. The difficulty now is, as you may or may not know, the deer hunt started on October 1 for bow hunters, as well as September 1 in a number of other areas in Ontario. Potentially, there are thousands of individuals who could be charged for hunting on a tag in the wrong area.

What direction are you going to send your conservation officers to ensure that those individuals are not charged improperly because of a ministerial error?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: Thank you very much for the question. I will ensure that the director for the conservation officers is notified immediately and that the situation comes to her attention so she can get it through to all of the conservation officers in the area. But more so, I think, is the issue around how many tags have actually been issued. We will get to the bottom of that, and I will get back to you today.

PAY EQUITY

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister Responsible for Women's Issues. It has been 20 years since the Pay Equity Act was passed in Ontario, yet we still see a staggering 29% gender pay gap. The Equal Pay Coalition, in their Framework for Action released today, has aptly called this a human rights crisis. This Ontario government has fallen shamefully short. The cost of the wage gap in Ontario is staggering. We cannot afford inequality. The coalition is calling for immediate funding to reopen the pay equity legal clinic to provide support for women filing pay discrimination complaints.

Will this government stop merely paying lip service to the contribution of Ontario women and actually take this necessary step?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think it's really important, when we talk about the wage gap, that we recognize the steps that this government has taken to begin to close that wage gap. When we look at who the minimum wage earners are, they are disproportionately women. That's why the increases to minimum wage that we have already implemented and are continuing to implement will disproportionately benefit women. That's a good thing, and that will help close the wage gap.

We also have to remember that some of the initiatives we've implemented, for example, the Ontario child benefit—which you chose to vote against—disproportionately go to single mums, those parents with low incomes who need a little bit of extra help to raise their children.

So I'm asking the member opposite to actually join with us and begin to work to close the pay gap.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: As the minister well knows, the minimum wage is still below the poverty line, condemning most Ontario women to live below the poverty line. The Equal Pay Coalition and Ontario women should hear that answer as a no. It is not enough to rhyme off nominal initiatives while choking the life out of bodies like the Pay Equity Commission with unreasonable budgetary restrictions, as you have recently.

The Equal Pay Coalition is calling for the full restoration of funding to the Pay Equity Commission and tribunal to at least minimum 1992-93 levels, with proper adjustments, so that the Pay Equity Act can be vigilantly enforced. It is not enough to merely have progressive legislation; it must be enforced.

When will this government fulfill its responsibility to the people and prosperity of Ontario and guarantee this funding so the—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I do recognize that the pay gap does exist; I think that is irrefutable. We are committed, as I said earlier, to begin to reduce that wage gap. There are many contributing factors. We are aware of them. I think our record speaks volumes about our commitment to improve the lives of women, to improve opportunities for women and to work very hard at continuing the progress that we have made.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I have a question to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. The minister would know that northern Ontario faces unique economic challenges. We know that some sectors, such as the forestry sector, have experienced great difficulties in the face of economic turndown. We also know that northern Ontario, like the rest of the province, is in need of more skilled labour to ensure that we can fill the jobs that are available.

I know that the minister has been working hard to ensure that Ontarians have the knowledge and skills they need in this new economy. My constituents would like to know how the minister will ensure that residents in the north are able to take advantage of the economic development opportunities available. Would the minister inform this House what the government is doing to create more opportunities for northern Ontario communities?

Hon. John Milloy: I want to thank the member for the question and for his advocacy on behalf of northern Ontario. The member is right that we have to work in terms of developing skilled trades capacity throughout the province, but particularly in northern Ontario.

This summer I was very pleased that, as a result of the $190-million investment for strategic skills training capital projects announced in the March budget, I was able to visit Northern College in Timmins, as well as their satellite campus in Moosonee. During the trip, I was very pleased to announce an $8-million investment in the Nor Tech Centre for Trades and Technology. This new centre will allow new and expanded facilities to the Timmins campus and the college to offer more programs in high-demand skilled trades and technology.

The college is also going to be enhancing its satellite campus in Moosonee, allowing it to enhance its training programs that help to respond to economic development opportunities along the James Bay coast.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I know that many people in the north were pleased with the recent investments that have been made to our local community colleges.

There are many people in the north who are faced with major challenges today. Families are being affected by layoffs and people are worried about how to make ends meet. Downsizing in the forestry industry has an especially devastating effect in the north.

Although we are pleased that the government is taking steps to improve economic conditions, we know that capital investments take time before their benefits are actually realized.

Individuals who have been laid off want to know how we are going to help them today. Many who now find themselves without a job have never been in this situation before. They don't know how to start. Many are worried. They can't begin to imagine how they're going to tackle the daunting task of finding another job.

Can the minister tell the House what services are available to individuals who are looking for work?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, I appreciate the question. I know members of all sides of the House are concerned when a layoff happens.

My ministry's rapid re-employment and training service provides immediate assistance to those who are affected by downsizing or layoffs. I've had the chance to speak in this Legislature many times about action centres, which are specifically targeted to laid-off workers. The member mentioned the forestry sector and I'm pleased to inform the House there are currently 11 action centres in communities across the north which serve over 5,000 laid-off forestry workers. Action centres offer a comfortable environment in which workers can meet other workers, discuss ideas, share information and access a variety of services developed specifically to help them find work.

I've had the opportunity to visit several action centres, including those in northern Ontario, and I'm always impressed with the enthusiasm and the energy as workers come together and tap in to services offered by Employment Ontario, including training—

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

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Over the past three days, residents in Greely have been asking your ministry to protect them from a growing coyote problem. My constituents Andy and Jodi wrote to you, "Several neighbours have lost their domestic animals. Children are afraid to play outside or to go to the park.... I feel that someone needs to take responsibility for the safety of the citizens who pay all levels of government and expect something to be done."

On January 24, I asked your ministerial office to take specific steps to help my residents to be safe from coyotes. I'm going to send over an original copy of that right now through the page.

Today, Minister, will you fix the coyote problem by finally acting on my original recommendations so that my constituents like Andy and Jodi will once again feel safe from these predators?

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: I thank the member for the question. This actually is a very serious situation because there was a pet—and understandably all of us are distressed over the possibility of our pets being destroyed by a coyote.

The ministry has been working with the community and with the city of Ottawa. In fact, to date, I think some 22 coyotes have been killed; four or five of them have been trapped.

We have a responsibility, certainly, on crown land, but we work on patented land with the landowners. We give them permits to actually go in and to cull the culprits in this case. I've sent my ministry folks to Greely to speak to the people, one on one, to see what it is we can do—a combination of how to deal with the situation and also how to deal with wildlife conflict as a whole.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I appreciate the minister's working on this. It's been a long year, and a lot of constituents in Greely and in Barrhaven are very concerned.

Councillor Doug Thompson wrote earlier that the provincial government, through the Ministry of Natural Resources, is responsible for wildlife issues, which you do acknowledge, Minister, but you've refused to deal with the coyote problem. City police will only respond if humans are in danger and city bylaws maintain it's a provincial issue. So what he's asking is that you actually work with the city of Ottawa in creating a trapping and relocation program and that you provide assistance to the city of Ottawa.

Minister, will you start co-operating with the city of Ottawa? I spoke with Councillor Thompson just before question period. He wasn't aware of your ministry working with his constituency. He's actually put one fifth of his own office budget in terms of trapping and relocation.

Will you direct your ministry to finally contact Councillor Thompson and the other rural councillors in the city of Ottawa to come up with a game plan to deal with this growing problem—

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

Hon. Donna H. Cansfield: Absolutely, the MNR is committed. As I indicated, we have responsibility for the animals on crown land. On patented land, private land, we work with the landowners, and this is obviously critical because we don't trespass on patented land.

Having said that, we will work very closely with the city. It is a very serious challenge. I've asked for coyote numbers; I've asked to have an idea of the range. I want to know what we're working with in terms of what permits are out there, and again, how do we work with and educate? Because you need to do both. We need to coexist with wildlife, but at