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

November 6, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Nov-06 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 6 November 2008 Jeudi 6 novembre 2008

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE

LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

PHOTO CARD ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LES CARTES-PHOTO

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

OPP DISCIPLINARY HEARING

OPP DISCIPLINARY HEARING

SMALL BUSINESS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

HEART DISEASE

TIME ALLOCATION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

WORKPLACE SAFETY

PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING

WATER SUPPLY

VETERANS /

ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

RETIREMENT HOMES

HEALTH CARE

TIME ALLOCATION

DEFERRED VOTES

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE

LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ENERGY SYMPOSIUM

PROPERTY TAXATION

MEDICAL RADIATION TECHNOLOGISTS WEEK

CANADIAN BLOOD SERVICES

DOMINIC AGOSTINO

LIBERAL LEADERSHIP

REFOREST LONDON

THANK-A-VET LUNCHEON

ORDER OF CIVIL MERIT

WEARING OF PINS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT

(INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

(INSTALLATIONS INDUSTRIELLES)

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

CHILD CARE

HOSPICES

CHILD CUSTODY

HOSPITAL SERVICES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

CHILD PROTECTION

CHILD CARE

POPE JOHN PAUL II

HOSPITAL SERVICES

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

BEER RETAILING AND DISTRIBUTION

LUPUS

GASOLINE PRICES

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

DIABETES AWARENESS MONTH

ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LE MOIS

DE LA SENSIBILISATION

AU DIABÈTE

SINGLE-USE BOTTLED WATER

BAN ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 INTERDISANT

LES BOUTEILLES D'EAU JETABLES

TAXATION AMENDMENT ACT

(EQUIPMENT PURCHASED FOR

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES IMPÔTS

(ACHAT D'APPAREILS POUR

LES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES)

DIABETES AWARENESS MONTH

ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LE MOIS

DE LA SENSIBILISATION

AU DIABÈTE

SINGLE-USE BOTTLED WATER

BAN ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 INTERDISANT

LES BOUTEILLES D'EAU JETABLES

TAXATION AMENDMENT ACT

(EQUIPMENT PURCHASED FOR

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES IMPÔTS

(ACHAT D'APPAREILS POUR

LES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES)

SINGLE-USE BOTTLED WATER

BAN ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 INTERDISANT

LES BOUTEILLES D'EAU JETABLES

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord's Prayer, followed by a Buddhist prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKPLACE SAFETY

AND INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L'ASSURANCE CONTRE

LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 4, 2008, on the motion for second reading of Bill 119,

An Act to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 119, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la sécurité professionnelle et l'assurance contre les accidents du travail.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 5, I am now required to put the question.

Mr. Fonseca has moved second reading of Bill 119. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The recorded vote is deferred until after question period today.

Second reading vote deferred.

PHOTO CARD ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LES CARTES-PHOTO

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 5, 2008, on the motion for third reading of Bill 85,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate? The member for Durham.

Mr. John O'Toole: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the earlier acknowledgement, but our critic, Frank Klees, has said to me to continue to press for a review and some strengthening on Bill 85. My last remarks yesterday, at the end of this, were talking about what the bill does and what it doesn't do. Bill 85 is

An Act to permit the issuance of photo cards to residents of Ontario and to make complementary amendments to the Highway Traffic Act. Now, what this does—Mr. Speaker, I would like to call a quorum.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Is a quorum present?

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Todd Decker): A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member for Durham has the floor.

Mr. John O'Toole: Thank you, Speaker. What Bill 85 does, if you get an enhanced card, one of the three cards—there's a basic, an enhanced and a combination, which would be a driver's licence with the enhanced features on it. That card would allow you to cross into the United States by land or sea, but it would not allow you to travel into the United States by air; you'd still need a passport.

The other part that I'm still wondering about is that if you wanted to encourage freedom around the border a bit, unrestrained access, there's a Nexus card, which I don't know a lot about, but the Nexus card is used by people who are frequent flyers, people who cross the border, I gather, Americans going into Canada or Canadians into the United States. If that could not have been a solution that's already in place to some extent and strengthened—I wonder if that option was examined.

But more importantly, we do want the solution on the American side—you understand?—for Americans to have a much more convenient way to get into Canada, so they can go to Stratford, to Niagara-on-the Lake, to Durham region—to go to Jungle Cat World, as well as the wonderful museums and archives that we have in my riding of Durham.

I would only say this: The bill is a good step; we agree with that. We expressed our concerns on the issue of the privacy of information and we talked about the technology implications and we didn't get a very clear answer on the cost of implementation.

I guess the other thing that really comes up when you're in this discussion is that we're discussing a bill that we generally are going to support—we tried to move amendments—but here's the deal: This morning Bill 114 is before the finance committee, and that is a very important and significant bill.

Mr. Bob Delaney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Bill 114 would apparently have nothing to do with the matter under discussion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member for Durham, you have the floor.

Mr. John O'Toole: What I was trying to establish is the significant content of Bill 114 versus Bill 85. That was the point, and that's an appropriate comparison, for the public to understand that here we are discussing a bill, basically using time in this august place, when it could be more importantly spent on Bill 119, which has just been time-allocated. Look, Bill 114 has a lot of content that affects my riding; I'd prefer to talk about that. Bill 119 is about small business; I'd prefer to talk about that. Yet here I am, I'm required to speak on Bill 85. Bill 85 is

an act that institutes some more red tape, technically. Do you know what I mean?

If you want to get down to it, we asked a question: How much is this new secure photo card going to cost? Mr. Brown, the parliamentary assistant, gave the answer, which I thought was polite—at least we got an answer; usually we don't—but I don't really trust the answer.

Interjections.

Mr. John O'Toole: Look, it's a matter of trust here. I can only go on the history. If history is any way of predicting the future, then they break a lot of promises; that's all I'm saying. He said that the cost of this new licence would be less than the current one. I question that. Then I went on to say, "Look, what is this face recognition or the software and hardware required to put this in place to receive all these new applications?" Again, there are three types of cards: There's the basic one, there's the next one and then there's the enhanced one.

I think we're going to have some clerk there with some files—maybe they're going to be different colours. Who's going to receive the information? It can't be done on Service Ontario, online, because you have to verify that the picture is actually the member from Halton, Mr. Chudleigh. There's his picture; we're going to put that in the system, and he's going to disclose certain information to them. Hopefully, it will all be honest. I'd expect it would be, knowing Mr. Chudleigh's history.

I would say, though, that I do have every understanding that we were compelled to come up with some solution. This really doesn't come into force until June 2009. What's missing here is a really unilateral agreement from the United States to agree with our solution. What if they cause a problem with that? They're going to have to be able to read the card when it's presented.

Interjections.

Mr. John O'Toole: Well, some people are saying Barack Obama—President-elect Obama—is going to solve this, among all the problems. The messiah has arrived.

Interjection.

Mr. John O'Toole: And hey, I hope it is, because he was elected on the vision of hope. He's a leader with vision and hope, and that's what's missing in this government: a leader with vision and hope.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Order.

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm only responding to Mr. Colle, who used to be in cabinet, and two or three other cabinet ministers here.

But we are missing right here, today, leadership with hope, because you're the government and the economy is going south. Just read the TD Bank—this government is in trouble.

Bill 85 doesn't do a lot to solve that problem. What it does is allow us to get into the States more easily, but it doesn't allow the Americans to come into Canada more easily. That is a worthy question. It's on the record now, and I'm raising that issue in the limited time I've been given.

I really think, though, that perhaps Mr. Chudleigh would like to add a few comments on this because there's 15 minutes here that—

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: You're running out of time.

Mr. John O'Toole: No, I'm not running out of time; I'm running out of ideas.

I think there is more to be said on this bill, and my own impression is that there are some bills here that are more interesting than others. This one here—there are a lot of very good notes here that I have found helpful—this is the bill itself, which I have tried to read into the record, almost all of it actually.

It may seem like a small, trivial bill, but it's one more thing where the devil is in the detail. There are really 27 sections to this bill. I read some that are really interesting, and this one here—any time I see in a Liberal bill "Collection and Disclosure of Information," I read that thoroughly. Do you know what collection is about? Money. It's like a tax. This is a new revenue generator.

If you want to look at it, it might solve the $500-million deficit, which could easily have been solved. I said in a public meeting—I spoke during Small Business Week—that the $500-million deficit could have been solved. In a $100-billion budget, that's 0.5%." The Ministry of Transportation probably spills more paint than that.

There's got to be some waste in some ministries. Don't tell me there's no waste in government. For instance, look at how few people are here this morning; that's waste. Our small caucus is out focused on committee work—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Order. The honourable member knows we don't refer to absences in the House. They may be working hard in committee or in their offices.

Mr. John O'Toole: They are. I certainly can only speak—thank you for that intervention. I withdraw any implications there.

I know there are probably cabinet meetings and things going on, and that is important, but the fact is, I know our members from our caucus who were here this morning to stand to force a vote on Bill 119, the time allocation motion, have gone off now to committee work, trying to hold the government's feet to the fire. There's money going out the door in this place that I think could have solved the deficit.

But here I am talking on Bill 85. Maybe some people have just tuned in who weren't here. Maybe I'll go through and introduce a bit more of this.

The explanatory notes are—it's a 20-page bill. It's bilingual, so it's really 10 pages long. That's fairly significant. It's small, 8-point print, I think. It says here:

"There are three kinds of photo cards: basic, enhanced and combined. A basic photo card contains the holder's name and photograph and other prescribed information about the holder. An enhanced photo card contains the holder's name and photograph, a notation to indicate that the holder is a Canadian citizen, and other prescribed information about the holder; it also has security and other features that may allow it to be used for travel."

Whenever you say that "may" I like to see "shall". That's an affirmative word. This "may" is like we're hoping that Barack Obama agrees with us. That's not very strong. And we're spending all this time talking about it.

A combined photo card is one that constitutes the holder's photo, as described in the enhanced card, and it's on the driver's licence. That makes sense.

The other very important policy thing in this is that it is not mandatory. We talked about the mandatory portion because I can disclose that information—my citizenship and other things—or not. It's not mandatory—very important. But that's not really in this bill. What it says specifically in the statute is, "There is no obligation under this or any other act for an individual to have a photo card."

That's the slippery slope theory, technically. Because if 85% of the people see it's convenient to do it, some bureaucrat in their lofty chamber with expensive leather furniture and stuff like that will be saying, "Ah, 85% are doing it? Why don't we just make everybody do it?" They'll say, "Well, it's implied consent. The majority want it." So they'll force it. Then what have we got? We've got 13.5 million Ontarians with this data on them. The data itself then becomes a little tool to do some data profiling, to say how many people of different cultures, different languages and different ages.

Now we start using this database as a marketing tool to say, "How do we get our messaging out on this so-and-so?" Data has value, and I don't like government to have too much of that data stuff. Stats Canada has enough of it on us. They start profiling stuff on people, and you combine that with their criminal record, or combine it with their other transactions going back and forth over the border, and pretty soon you could start to do a profile of a person that's going back and forth.

You could see that they've had some traffic violations, and you could start to see that potentially they're bringing over the allowable limit all the time for alcohol or whatever it is. All I'm saying is that this disclosure stuff is something that I'm glad to see. I want it firmly in the bill, that it's no obligation or pressure on people to do it.

Resolving disputes: Because of the important hearings on Bill 114 that are ongoing—soon-to-be truncated hearings; they're going to be an hour-and-a-half hearings. It's embarrassing. The amendments had to be in yesterday and they're having the hearings today. How sensible is that? Doesn't that sound a bit like they've got the cart before the horse? I don't know, it's a bit suspicious. We'll leave it at that because I'm trying to be polite today, and non-combative or confrontational, whatever. It's the gentler person that's here today, the gentler John O'Toole.

Anyway, in the limited time left I would like to get down to Bill 114 because my mayor, Jim Abernethy, and Nancy Taylor, as well as Dennis Hefferon, who's the legal counsel for the municipalities down there, are making a statement of great concern for my municipality, the community I live in—Bowmanville and Clarington generally. This affects their prosperity in the future. They've been nixed. They've been treated unfairly. I'm there to support and represent them, and I'll be sending a copy of Hansard to them. Mayor Abernethy is a new mayor and is doing quite a good job, not having been elected before.

He has taken on a difficult task; we have challenges. But it should be on the record that Bill 85 won't directly affect them—I'm supposed to mention that, every once in a while, to stay on topic. Bill 85 is a bill we likely support.

In the meantime, Bill 114 does affect them. It's a bill that I think should be brought back to this House to have a full discussion on the state of the economy, but they're not willing to do that. Our leader, John Tory, tried to have public hearings on it, and here we are, having hearings on things we don't need hearings on. Our leader, John Tory, is a person of integrity. He reminds me a lot of Barack Obama.

Interjections.

Mr. John O'Toole: He does. He's inclusive, consultative and visionary, and these are the qualities of hope. I don't see any hope in Ontario. Do you know what I see in Ontario? A deficit—and growing. I see an economy in terrible shape under the current leadership, blaming—with all due respect, the finance minister is out flailing his arms blaming Stephen Harper, blaming George Bush, blaming everyone, not focusing on the job at hand and getting the job done.

Now they're going to spend more money implementing Bill 85. Imagine the computers and facial recognition technology that has to be bought, the staff that have to review all these applications, the big file boxes for keeping all these records and original seals. Check

section 20. There are going to be a lot of filing cabinets used.

Section 20 says that all these records with the original signature are going to be kept. Imagine. There are going to be enough filing cabinets to take up some of the offices in this building.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Build a new building.

Mr. John O'Toole: A new building just to store a bunch of pictures—that's not very environmentally friendly.

It says right here in

section 19, under records: "The Minister shall keep a record of every photo card that is issued, renewed or cancelled, and of every application"— holy smokes, they're going to keep the picture and the application—"made for a photo card and shall keep a record … of each issuance, renewal, cancellation…."

Gee, I hope you don't have to renew it every week. What if people lose their hair and the picture doesn't match? Do you have to get a new one? There are some questions that aren't resolved on this. I think we need hearings on Bill 85.

With digital enhancement, I'm sure that some of the pictures will not be quite reflective of how the person actually looks, but we'll see that in the future. Not to trivialize Bill 85, I'm going to stop—there are almost six minutes left.

Applause.

Mr. John O'Toole: Thank you very much for that recognition—the member from Peterborough just walked in. With that, I have other, more important things to do. Thank you.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I always find it informative to listen to my colleague when he raises these issues, because he has a style that I respect, in the sense that he likes to use some humour and bring facts together in a way that's not only entertaining but informative. I think he has raised some issues that, quite frankly, need to be listened to.

None of us in this House, I want to say up front, are opposed to the idea of having photo cards. I said at second reading, and I think the Conservatives took the same position at second reading, that indeed there is an argument to be made, that there are a lot of citizens in Ontario who lack photo identification because they don't have a driver's licence. That certainly is something we need to repair, because more and more you need to have photo identification for all kinds of reasons, everything from getting a library card to renting a movie. Many people, because they don't drive, don't have photo ID other than maybe their health card, and at times that's not acceptable.

We also said that we understand the need to move forward in trying to find ways to ease border congestion as people cross to the American side and back into Canada again. We, as New Democrats, understand it's not only an issue of making it more convenient for the individual but also an economic issue.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I would just say that I'll get a chance to speak to this more fully, but there are really grave concerns in regard to the privacy aspects of this bill, in regard to the information that's going to be collected, how that information is going to be stored, how it's going to be shared and what that means for the privacy of individuals. I'll speak to that a little bit more fully.

I want to congratulate the member for what I thought was a good speech, that basically spoke to the points and, as always, was most entertaining.

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

Mr. Dave Levac: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. I want to bring a little history into this.

When 9/11 happened, George W. Bush turned this into a must. Why? Because he switched the customs and immigration responsibility of the border crossings at Canada to homeland security. With the new creation of homeland security, they came in and introduced the WTI—what is it?

Mr. Bruce Crozier: Western hemisphere travel—

Mr. Dave Levac: WHTI.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: The initiative.

Mr. Dave Levac: The initiative.

I want to compliment the Minister of Transportation. At the time, he was the Minister of Tourism and brought to our attention that this was a very serious problem and we needed to work on it. He was actually mocked, he was ridiculed, he was criticized for taking on George Bush. He was one of the first ones to come forward in the country: not Stephen Harper; Jim Bradley. When Jim took this on, he tried to educate people and the other side was basically saying: "You're being silly. It's not going to happen. They'll do what they want to do. Get over it." Now we're debating that very same need from the very beginning.

I was on the executive committee of the CSG/ERC, which is the Council of State Governments/Eastern Regional Conference, and I was bringing him updates on the discussion of the very fact of this very bill, the fact that we needed to get photo IDs out there because we needed to make a harmonization of our capacity to bring the United States to us for tourism and our capacity to travel there and come back in again. I want to compliment the minister for bringing this forward, and also for the things that he's done in this bill; he's also had constant and continual information sessions with the Information and Privacy Commissioner, who has shepherded us along the way. All of that's happening.

Some of the things that people are talking about are the four separate products that don't demand you to take any single one. You've got the regular driver's licence, enhanced driver's licence, photo ID for non-drivers, which includes people who don't have sight, who don't drive; they love this bill—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. Further questions and comments?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I would like to congratulate the member for Durham, who spoke so eloquently on this bill, bringing out all the concerns that we have concerning this bill, and for giving up his duties in committee where his mayor and several members of the council are from Oshawa—or from Claremont, I think it is.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Clarington.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Clarington, and that's where he should be, with his people. He gave that up to finish a truncated speech, which is split—we seem to have more and more of those under the new House rules here that don't seem to take into consideration the flow of a speech. When it's interrupted like that, it loses a lot of its punch. In a speech, you tend to build a number of points until you come to a conclusion, and when it's truncated, you don't have that same flow. That's one of the problems of the new House rules we have around here, and Bill 85 had that happen to the member for Durham and that's unfortunate.

He did point out the fact that this new bill talks about three new photo ID cards. I have some of the same concerns and my constituents have expressed those concerns. Although it says they may be optional, the wording is not as strong as perhaps we would like to see in a bill such as this that would protect privacy and individual knowledge about people. This is traipsing along the edges of a very sensitive subject when people's most important and most private information is being subjected to this kind of—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. Further questions and comments?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Thank you for giving me the chance to speak and comment on the member from the opposite side—

Mr. Michael A. Brown: Durham.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: The member for Durham. Thank you very much.

I was listening to him speak for almost 20 minutes. He spoke about many different elements. But the most important thing in this bill is to create security and put security in place, and to give options to people, many different options: if you want a photo card or enhancement card or a photo card without driving. All these elements are to protect our security.

As you know, it's very important to allow people to move between Canada and the United States. This issue has been brought to the House many different times, talking about how many people find it difficult to cross over to the United States without a passport or without any ID. So I think it's a very important step. I want to congratulate the Minister of Transportation for bringing forward this important element to this place, to allow the people of Ontario to move across the border without hesitation and without any problem.

I think the debate is going to continue, and I hope all the members from this House will support this bill, because it's very important for all of us: important for the drivers and important for the people who want to cross the border and cannot drive.

We have options, and it's not mandatory. I know the member opposite was criticizing the government because we didn't implement an enforcement mechanism to force all the people to have this card. We don't believe in enforcement in this House; we don't believe in dictatorship. We believe in democracy and allowing people to choose. This way, they have the choice, and I think that's a very good element. Hopefully, at the end of the day, all of us will support this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): I just want to remind honourable members that when you're speaking, try and remember not to have your BlackBerries near the microphones. It's quite a jolt in the ears of our translators and our broadcast service people.

Further debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I didn't think it was a BlackBerry; I thought it was a moose walking by here. I was looking for Sarah Palin, actually, but that's a whole other line. I'm sorry, I had to take my shot; I saw the pictures.

I guess it would be appropriate, before starting this debate, to congratulate President-elect Obama. I want to say that because it relates to what we are going to be talking about in this debate. What has happened in the United States with a lot of people is one of those issues where it's a moment in history. The real challenge now will be, is he one of those leaders who finds his moment in time and recognizes the mandate that he's been given? He is inheriting, I think, some very tough issues that he's going to have to deal with, and this is not a partisan or non-partisan issue.

The reality is, the American economy is in a shambles. There's the whole issue where the country is still not feeling secure when it comes to the issue of terrorism, and that relates to this bill.

What's going to be interesting is, will President-elect Obama continue down the road that President Bush has set with homeland security? Because clearly, the part that offends me about this entire process that we're going through—I don't mean this from a Liberal, NDP or Conservative perspective—is that our country has enjoyed for over a century, 130 years or whatever it is, since 1867, a unique relationship with the United States.

We have the longest undefended border in the world, and as citizens of the United States and Canada, we have been able to cross over each other's borders to visit, shop, exchange commercially and do all those things that we do as a civilized nation. It has never been an issue in Canada and never been an issue in the United States that we don't trust each other. The unfortunate part of what President Bush has done—and I understand why he did it, but it's very unfortunate—is that I think part of the message is that he doesn't and he didn't trust Canadians as much as maybe he should have.

We are a peaceful people. We, as Canadians, value our relationship with the United States. We have a unique relationship with the Americans. They're like the big brother. Sometimes we're a little bit envious and sometimes we're a little bit mad, but mostly we're glad, because we know that the United States shares a lot in common with Canada, and that in the end it is to our mutual advantage—economically, culturally and from a security point of view—that we maintain good relationships with each other.

I don't think there's a member in this House who is not related to somebody who's living in the United States today. My mother's sister is married to a gentleman in Philadelphia, Uncle Tom, and they've been living in Philadelphia now for 50 years. In fact, my aunt, who's French, sounds more like an American than a French Canadian because of living there for all those years. Our relationship with that family is strong; they see Canada very positively, and we see the United States very positively. It's unfortunate that we, as a nation and as a province, find ourselves in a situation of having to react to what President Bush has set up.

Now, I say again, I understand the fear that Americans have when it comes to security because there's a lot, sometimes, to be fearful of. The Americans, as a large imperial power—and I think that's how people see them in many parts of the world—have got their thumbs, as they say, in various pots around the world and that has made a lot of people uncomfortable. As a result, they become a target. So the question becomes, how do they deal with making sure that the target is smaller and smaller and that people are not mad at them?

I hoped that President Bush would have learned something from the old colonial powers. The British, the French, the Germans, the Dutch, the Spanish and the Portuguese were all colonial powers at one time in the history of our world and they understood, after a while, that you cannot subjugate people and you cannot impose your views, your politics and your culture on other people because, in the end, people will do what they naturally do.

We look at India as an example. India was the crown jewel of the British Empire. For 300 years, I believe, they were under British rule and for all those 300 years, the people of India basically did what they did naturally and then they decided at one point that they wanted independence. The British understood, after the war, that it was not a good idea to stay there as an imperial power and that they had to transfer control back to India so that Indians and Pakistanis could determine for themselves what their country should look like.

What's interesting, after 300 years of colonial rule in India, is that the British were probably more affected, as far as learning from the Indians the wonderful things about their culture and their country, which they brought back to England. But the point is, England learned, France learned and other countries learned that you cannot be interfering in other people's lives when it comes to what happens within their own borders. Yes, we have to have good relationships. Yes, we have to be able to trade economically. Yes, we have to be able to share culturally and we have to be able to travel freely.

Those are all important. And yes, we have economic interests and yes, we do have political interests, but once we take the view that we are trying to control, by way of might, what it is that's going on within those borders, you end up becoming a target. I think the British, the French and others learned over the years that economically they could not keep on doing that; it was bankrupting their countries and in the end, they would not be able to win hearts and minds. So they pulled out and they developed a whole new relationship with the world.

If you look at the Americans—and this is the part that I find quite sad. They are the largest power in the world, but they're a great people. You look at what happened after the Second World War. The reaction of that administration under Truman was not to try to hold what military gains they had after the Second World War. Their approach was, how do we allow the Japanese and the Europeans to go back and do what they do best and build their own economies? And through what was called the—well, under Truman, the former Secretary of State for FDR—

Mr. Jeff Leal: Marshall.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The Marshall Plan, under what was the former Secretary of State. The Marshall Plan, under Truman, through his Secretary of State, took a very different approach. They said to the Japanese: "Go and do what you do best. Be proud to be Japanese. Build your own economy. Build your own democracy." And yes, the American military stayed there for some time, but they were not there as long as people would remember and the size of their military power in Japan was scaled back fairly quickly. As a result, Japan became one of the strongest economies in the world, it became one of the most secure democracies in the world, and we saw the same thing happen in Europe.

The part that I really have a hard time with is the reaction that President Bush had to 9/11. You needed to understand—it's unfortunate what happened, the thousands of lives that were lost on that tragic day certainly needed to be responded to in some way. But we didn't learn from the history of what had happened before. Instead, they tried to build up more military might around the world, such as we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to become much more paranoid within their own boundaries about how they protect citizens and how they protect themselves as a nation.

We are unfortunately affected by that because now we're going through this whole debate in this Legislature about how we will react to what is an American agenda when it comes to how we cross the border one side to the other.

I just want to say up front that I think it's rather sad that the President has responded in that way. With the election of President Obama, there may be a change of thought about how some of this would work. It would be nice to see us return to the relationship we had with our American friends, which was that we are two great nations, we share the principles of democracy, we're fiercely protective about our own culture and language, and we basically understand at the end of the day that we need to coexist and do it in a peaceful way.

There's no threat from Canada and no threat from the United States when it comes to military intervention or to us trying to undermine the American government in any way. I would hope we don't have to do this type of legislation. Hopefully, President Obama, under his new administration, will see fit to try to resolve this issue from another perspective.

The issue we're dealing with in the House today, under Bill 85, is one that was originally started in the House of Commons. People might forget that after 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security set up the WHTI as a way to figure out how to secure their borders. They asked the Canadian government to enter into some sort of system that would basically allow the Americans to more vigorously screen Canadians and others crossing from the Canadian side of the border into the United States.

When the federal government looked at this—I might be wrong, but I believe it started under the Liberal government and the previous federal minority Parliament also looked at it—they came to a very different conclusion than we did here in Ontario. They looked at it from the perspective of how much information they wanted to make available to people out there. They started to recognize that in Canada one of the things we hold very dear is our ability to protect information that people have on us. The whole issue of privacy is a principle within our society that's important.

If I give my information to the driver's licence system in Ontario or to the federal passport system, that information is not shared among other people who don't need to see it.

One of the things the federal House quickly realized, as the Americans were making this request for us to have a streamlined process for them to be able to screen people going from Canada into the United States and toughening up the borders, was that if we started doing what they asked, which was to start linking our databases together in such a way that the border security people, as we cross the border, could find out a lot about us—the alarm bells rang federally. They understood that it was going to be an issue of people having more information about you than they needed to see.

For example, currently, if I cross the border or go anywhere in the world, I have my passport. But my passport has limited information tied to it. It has a photo of me, it has information about who I am, the country I reside in, the address I live at, my date of birth, but they're not able to determine from my passport a whole bunch of other things in regard to information that other provincial or federal databases have. There is not a system that says, as you cross over, "Here is my credit information," through a passport or, "Here are my convictions," through a driver's licence.

There is a whole bunch of information they are not able to access by way of a passport.

As I understand it, the way the passport system works internationally is that, yes, governments have ways of sharing a certain amount of information that sets a flag if you cross the border and use your passport. If I'm known to have a criminal conviction against me, there's a flag that is set. Then it makes the physical search important in regard to border security checking with the Canadian authorities: "We have this person.

We have held him because it shows a flag that the person has a criminal charge that's pending against him." But the actual detailed information is not given to the people at border security, because those are issues of privacy.

So the federal government decided, "No, we're not going to go down this road," because it becomes very dangerous when governments start to share information among various databases at the provincial and federal levels and make that information easily available, not only to border security but to anybody else who can tamper with and hack into the database or read it through one of these RFIDs, which I'll talk about a little bit later.

Earlier, I heard one of the members get up and say he wanted to congratulate Mr. Bradley on leading the way. I'm not so sure that's something we should be thumping our chests about, to be quite blunt.

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: No, I've got to say I have great respect for Minister Bradley. I've served in this House for some 18 or 19 years, and he is a very honourable gentleman; I have nothing but respect for Mr. Bradley. But let's understand what's going on here: We're adopting a system that our federal Parliament would not adopt. Our federal government said, "We're not going to go this way because we already have a mechanism; it's called a passport." A far larger number of people in Canada have passports than any other nation, as compared to the United States.

They took the position of, "We already have a passport and we need to come to some sort of other agreement, because once you start linking these databases together, it becomes dangerous."

Let me try to explain the problem that we have. Under this particular bill the provincial government, through, I imagine, the Ministry of Transportation, is going to collect information on these photo ID cards; it will either be an enhanced driver's licence or one of the enhanced photo ID cards. In that, they're going to be linking information from various databases to it. They're going to know my driving record because, obviously, it's going to be based on the Ministry of Transportation's licensing system.

They're going to know, because they're going to be tied into the CPIC system, any criminal charges that I may have—that'll be tied to it as well—and information around citizenship, which means to say they're going to tie me into the passport system. So there are going to be three or four large databases that have lots of information about individuals that will be tied together through one provincial system.

Now, the first problem is, these are standalone systems that have a fair amount of security that are built into them. We do know that at times there are people who are trying to hack into these systems. We've seen in the past, for example, instances where people have hacked into the databases that are run by large department stores and gotten all kinds of information about individuals, which is really scary because they can charge up your credit card, they can find out where you live, they can also tell the types of things you like to buy so that they can profile you in some way.

It's very, very scary when you think that people are looking very hard to be able to hack these systems. The Canadian passport system and the CPIC system are very secure systems; there's a lot of money and effort spent, as much as humanly possible, to make these systems as secure as they can be. But it doesn't mean to say that nobody can break into them. The problem is, once you start to link them all together in the way that we're suggesting under this bill, you're opening more opportunities for people to hack into the system by the back door. And if they get in, they will have all kinds of information on you.

For example, if it was just the passport system, the only thing they'll be able to get about me, if the person hacks into the database that deals with passports, would be information about who I am, my picture, my date of birth, where I live—and that's about it. That's bad enough in itself.

But if all of a sudden you start linking all of this together, now the person has a backdoor entry into the passport system, the person has an entry into the CPIC system—the CPIC system is the federal database that collects all the information about you and any criminal charges you've had, any time that you might have been surveyed by the police for being at a protest somewhere and had your picture taken because you're holding up a sign saying, "Hey, hey, ho, ho, time for"—it was not Bob Rae, it was, "Mike Harris has got to go."

They track all this information, right? So now we start linking the database for the passport system with the database of the CPIC system and we now have quite a bit of information that's available. Next, you bring in the driver's licence system and you tie that into the system as well. The person who hacks into the system is going to have access to all kinds of information that, quite frankly, as an individual I don't want anybody to know—and it's none of their business.

There's real concern, not only when it comes to the issue of privacy. Do you, as an individual, do you as a citizen of Ontario feel comfortable that somebody can hack into the system and find out all kinds of things about you? I think the answer's no. But the other thing is, it allows people that have minds that are much more devious than all of us put together to possibly do some pretty scary things.

They could, if somebody hacks into that system, find out a lot about a person in regards to being able to track them, being able to profile them, being able to prey on them for either economic issues or criminal issues. I think that is really dangerous. One of the things the privacy commissioner tried to warn us about as we were going through public hearings on this bill is that if we're going to do this, we need to make sure we set the databases up in a way that, as much as humanly possible, we do not allow that information to be hacked into.

She had some very specific suggestions, and one of them is, the only thing that you could possibly do, if you're going to have a database like this—I'll get to the technology later. The point is that the only thing the border security would be able to know is that I'm Gilles Bisson, I'm a citizen of the country of Canada, I reside in Ontario and there's no flag to indicate that I'm a terrorist, a potential terrorist or a criminal. In other words, the actual information about me that resides in a CPIC database or the passport database is not revealed.

All it is, is a flag, and that's what she was trying to tell us. The only thing that's important for the person to know as you cross the border, the only thing that the border security people need to know, is that I am who I am, I've identified myself as who I say I am, that I'm a resident of Canada and there are no flags in the database to say that there is a problem. That's what she was trying to say to us, that you have to have a flagging system. In fact, that's how, for example, the CPIC system works. If you cross the border, the Americans are already able to look at our CPIC system.

If they suspect that Gilles Bisson, who is crossing the border at Sarnia, may be somebody who's suspicious, they can ping the RCMP CPIC system and that CPIC system will say, "Gilles Bisson, resident of Canada, no flags." That's the end of it. They know that I'm clean, there's nothing about me that's suspicious and they let me go by.

If they ping the RCMP CPIC data system and they say, "Gilles Bisson, citizen of Canada, flagged criminal activity," they then have to call our authorities and it's up to the Canadian authorities to deal with Gilles Bisson who is trying to cross the border. Maybe I'm trying to evade capture for a criminal charge that's against me or maybe it's something I was charged with seven years ago and I've done my time, but they do not reveal to the American border security the information of what it is that I've done. All it is, is a flag.

So there has been a lot of work done on our databases—the Canadian passport system and CPIC system—that is already in place in order to give security authorities within Canada and the United States the ability to check someone out. The danger with this database is that we're making available the actual information and it's not going to be a flag system. They're going to be able to say, "Gilles Bisson, citizen of Canada, resides in Timmins;" what my address is; my driver's licence information, which includes my driving record; and whatever other information that they're able to put into the database. There will be far, far more information available.

To me, it becomes two issues, or actually three issues. One, as a Canadian citizen, I really cherish that my privacy is respected, and I think all of us as Canadians understand that. The other principle is that there's only a certain amount of information that the government should be making available about me. We should not be sharing information in detail with the Americans, because then it becomes an issue of sovereignty. We as Canadians are a sovereign nation.

Why should we allow the American authorities at border security or police or whatever to see information about us that, quite frankly, is none of their business? Yes, flag that I might be a suspicious character of some type. I don't have a problem with that. I understand that. But they should not have access to details that will be obtainable through the system.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: It's not.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I hear the parliamentary assistant saying it's not. I'm telling you it is. I've talked to a lot of people about how this works. I understand security measures far more than you realize, and all I'm saying is that it is a real concern.

Now, the privacy commissioner came before our committee because that was one of the conditions that I put on second reading debate, as the MTO critic for the New Democratic caucus. We support the initiative. We think it's a good idea in order to enhance border crossing. We understand that. It's an economic issue as well.

I said, "Bring the privacy commissioner before us so we can hear what she has to say." I know the parliamentary assistant will get up at the end of the speech and say, "Oh yes, but she said she's working with us, she wants to work with us and she likes the relationship that she has with the ministry." I agree. Of course she has a good relationship with the ministry, and I hope the ministry has a good relationship with her.

But she came before the committee and had some very, very serious concerns about how these databases were going to be structured, and one of the points she was trying to make is that the way this legislation is going to allow the databases to be structured is scary from the perspective of an individual's privacy rights. She said, "I support the initiative," as I said I support the initiative. However, if we're going to do this, we really need to think through what kind of information people are going to be able to have access to. So I just want to make—

Interjection: Same as a passport.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, no. You guys don't get it. Anyway, just let me—it's my time and you guys can debate ad infinitum. You'll have all your opportunities at third reading ad infinitum. I'm just passing on the concerns that I have and others have, that I've been dealing with this.

First of all is the issue of the databases being tied together. The more you tie databases together, the more they are open to the possibility of somebody hacking in. If they hack in by the back door and we have more databases that are linked, people have access to far more information than we would ever want to give away.

All I'm saying is that what we should have done is have, yes, a security card but something that only flags the authorities to know there's something they need to call authorities about on the Canadian side in regard to an individual. They don't need to know the details about what's in the CPIC database system or the passport system etc. It just needs to be flagged. It's green or it's red; you can go through or you can't. That would be my first point.

The other part of all this is that the government is basically—well, I don't want to talk about RFIDs now; I'm going to come to that later.

The other concern that the privacy commissioner had—she said that a lot of what's in this bill, as far as the detail, is going to be left to regulation. Now, is that abnormal? Obviously not. For years there have been bills written in this House and the details were left to regulation, so this is not a new concept. I'm not going to attack the government and say, "Oh, my God, you're leaving this all to regulation, and this is different than anything that's ever happened in the past," because quite frankly, a lot of bills are written that way, where the details are left to the bureaucrats to write up by way of regulation that is then approved by cabinet.

But the point she made was—and I think this was an important point—because this is an issue of privacy information of individuals, there should be an ability to have public hearings on what happens with the regulations, that if the privacy commissioner or others out there see the regulations coming out and they are cause for concern, there should be an automatic right for public consultation so that we can get it right. One of the amendments we put forward is that we should have the ability to vet all of those regulations that will be made by way of this bill so that we do get it right.

Again, I want to say, as the critic for the New Democrat caucus, that we are not opposed to the concept of what the government is trying to do. We understand what this is all about. The Americans on the other side are going to tighten up their borders and we need to figure out a way for us to be able to continue that flow that we've had with the Americans for so many years. I think it's unfortunate they've done that, but I can't control what the United States does; all I can do is control what we do.

I understand what the government is trying to do. All I'm saying is that the method by which we're getting there and the process leave a lot to be desired. One thing that could have been done, that would have satisfied at least 50% of the concerns around this bill, would have been to allow the amendment we put forward to pass. That was recommended by the privacy commissioner; it wasn't me who dreamt this up. The privacy commissioner herself said before the committee that we need to have a process such that regulations, as drafted, would have public hearings around them so that any concerns about what's in the regulations could be vetted by a public process.

Again, we're talking about the private information of individuals, and we need to take that very, very seriously. We cannot allow ourselves to not do due diligence in making sure that at the end we get it right.

Let me propose this: Has anybody in this Legislature always gotten everything right? There's not an individual here, including myself, who can say, "I know exactly what needs to be done and I'm going to get it right 100% of the time." Not one of us can claim that. None of us collectively can claim that, either. We as legislators try the best we can. And I understand—

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I thought you were perfect.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, there are people in my campaign who think I'm perfect, but that's a whole other story.

The point is, collectively, we don't get it right all of the time, because sometimes there may be something that we're not seeing in the way a regulation is drafted. Sometimes it's somebody out in the public who has an interest in this who flags that there's a problem, or it's a privacy commissioner or others.

Why shouldn't we benefit by having a process that's transparent, that allows the public to know what's going to go on when it comes to regulation and to say to us as legislators—and to cabinet, more importantly, because it will be cabinet at the end that will agree or disagree, and will approve the regulations—"You got it right" or "You got it wrong." This is a really serious issue. It's around the issue of privacy. I worry that without proper scrutiny of the regulations and the ability of the public and others to scrutinize and view and go through the regulations, we may get things wrong.

I'm just going to take a couple of bills to prove my point. I remember when the Conservatives first got elected in 1995, they came in with a revision of the Municipal Act, and they tried to undo what work had been done by the previous NDP government in regards to changes that we had made to the Municipal Act. The government came in and they had an ideological approach. I'm not arguing that this bill is ideological on the part of the Liberals. My point is, they came in and they changed the Municipal Act in order to be conforming with their political views.

I remember standing in the House saying, "You've got this wrong; you've got this wrong; you've got that wrong. This section's a problem and it's not going to work. You're going to have municipalities up in arms over various issues of planning" etc. Do you know how many more bills we brought in during the time that the Tories were here to fix the original bill? We had seven bills come to the House afterward. You were here; you remember. There were seven bills that had to be introduced by the Conservative government to fix the problems with the initial bill. What we had said as opposition, and my friend Mr.

Levac was there, was, "Hey, listen. God bless. You've got a majority government and you can do things as a majority government in regard to putting your stamp on things, but at least get it right."

We said to the government of the day under Mike Harris, "You've got to give this thing more time in committee. We need to fix the problems that we now see with the bill." Many people who sat on the committee had municipal experience or had planning experience and understood. People that came before our committee worried that what the government was doing wasn't going to work. I would argue that we still have problems with that act today, right? Because even the Liberal government has had to bring in some amendments to that act since they've become the government. Should I form the government after the next election, I'm going to have the same problem.

Laughter.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: That's my leadership bid, by the way.

The point that I make is that none of us, collectively, always get it right. Collectively, we don't get it right, let alone individually. What is wrong with a public process that allows the public and those that are more knowledgeable on an issue to say, "Let's look at the regulations and in the end address the problem if a problem exists"? If the government chooses to ignore the advice of the public, that's their right. You know what the final outcome of that is? That's what we have elections for. If people are so upset that the government got something wrong, they'll turf them out in the election.

That's the beauty of democracy. But at the very least, I think at the time you're in government, you've got to give the public an opportunity to give scrutiny to the issues.

The technology being used: I want to speak to that for a few minutes. I understand what the approach here is. The approach is, they want technology that is going to speed up the crossing of the border. The idea is that you would have, in your wallet, a driver's licence that would have embedded within the driver's licence some technology that's a tank circuit. A tank circuit is a passive circuit that, once it gets within the range of the reader, activates your card and transmits a signal that allows the reader, some 10 metres away, to read the information that's contained on your card.

The idea behind that—and I understand why this is so appealing—is that you don't have to physically stop at the border crossing and say, "Here." The idea is that as you're driving up, border security can sit there and look at their screen and say, "Green, green, green—red. Pull them over." I understand the technology and I understand why you're doing it.

If it was only read at the border and we could absolutely ensure that nobody else could read the information, well, maybe there's an argument for RFID technology. But here's the problem: There's all kinds of people out there for all kinds of different reasons—economic reasons, for issues just because people like to gather this information and like to hack systems, or people who have criminal intent—who will develop technology that will be able to read this card as I walk by them. Here's how it's going to work.

I'll have this RFID card in my wallet, I'll put it in my pocket, and I'm going to walk along the street and somebody is going to have one of these units that tries to activate the tank circuit. It's basically a process of induction on the tank circuit that will transmit the information to the individual.

Now, there's a lot that has to happen for this hacker to make it work. First of all, you've got to figure out the frequencies, but people can figure those things out. If the person's going to get information, it's going to be an identifying number. It's not going to be the person's name. I understand that. But identifying numbers can be cross-referenced back in the database if you open the back door. That's the problem. This is why I was saying that the hooking up of all of these databases at the end is not as good an idea as we might think it is at times.

Stand-alone databases serve a purpose when it comes to protecting the information within them, so that you're not basically having information flow from one database to the other.

What you're going to end up with in this technology is the possibility that somebody will basically be able to activate your card from a distance while you're not knowing, walking through the shopping centre, walking down the street, wherever it might be. That person might be able to—I'm not saying will be able to—read the information on your card. They're going to have this card and an identification number that's unique to you, and they're going to have some basic information, right?

The problem is that now they've got the ID number, they can cross-reference it back into the database if they break in from the other side. That was one of the concerns that was raised by the privacy commissioner, that you could end up in a situation where somebody, for whatever motives, is going to be able to get information about the individual for all kinds of different reasons that they can use it for.

The suggestion was made that what we need to do is, at the very least, have a different type of technology, that rather than having an RFID transmitting technology we have a card that's more like our bank cards—you have a little magnetic strip on the back—so that this thing is dormant; you cannot turn it on unless you put it into a reader. The only time that you are physically taking the information from your card and into the system is when you put it into the machine and it turns on the machine to read your card and it turns off when you pull it out—the same idea as a bank card or a credit card.

The reason the privacy commissioner said to, at the very least, do that is it diminishes the ability of people to hack the system. It's not that this is perfect either, because we all know that the more information we put on cards and on readers, the larger the risk is that somebody is going to break in. But the point she was making is at least limit the ability for people to hack the system. So move away from RFID technology, which is a transmitting device embedded in the card.

Instead, go to a system that's more in kind with a credit card or a bank card that activates when you put the card into the reader as you're driving up to the border station. The border person looks, it shows green, and the person can go. Away you go. You've driven into the United States—no problem.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: Except that it's unacceptable to the Americans.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, this is the point that I was going to make.

The issue is—and this is why I started with President Obama. It all links together. The parliamentary assistant is correct that the Americans have dictated what type of technology and what methods we should use. I would say it's a question of sovereignty. We, as a nation, and we, as a province, should be determining how this information is going to be shared or not shared by people in the crossing of the border. We do have a new administration in Washington under President Obama, and I have to think that he's going to do things differently than Mr. Bush did. I think that basically this legislation is not going to become enacted until, what, 2012 by the time it's done?

Mr. Michael A. Brown: June 1, 2009.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Yes, 2009. Excuse me. I was thinking of the WSIB legislation. We're always enacting dates further up.

The point is, it's not as if we don't have an opportunity to get a sign that the President of the United States is prepared to change the Homeland Security policy on this issue. I think we should be doing some effort towards saying to the Americans, "We understand your need to protect your borders, but we have some issues with what you are suggesting and how that is to be done."

I would concur with what the privacy commissioner has told us, and that is, we should be looking at technology that limits the ability of people to get access to the information that we may have on our cards. I say to the government, that's something that quite easily could have been done.

With that, those are my comments for the morning, and I look forward to questions and comments.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Are there any questions and comments?

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I am always interested in the thoughts and concerns raised by the member for Timmins—James Bay.

I want to remind people that this card is totally voluntary, which is the first and most important part of the identification. It is true that we are, as Canadians—as people in the province of British Columbia, in the province of Quebec and in many of our provinces—quickly moving to provide a card to people of our province who wish to use an identification card at the border. Under the homeland security legislation, under WHTI, we have to be able to provide a passport or an alternative document acceptable to the US by June 1, 2009. No Canadian needs to do this.

Any Canadian who wishes to go to the US, or any Ontarian, can always use a passport under their legislation. There is no need to have this.

I am interested in some of the concerns about the technology. We in the government are concerned about the use of technology in this effort, because it is a requirement that the RFID be installed—that is the radio frequency identification chip—that it be put in the card if you want to identify for citizenship. That is a concern of ours. But if it is to be accepted by the US, it has to have that.

The requirement is that the card we issue has a sleeve which would keep it from being read by any RFID reader, if it's in the sleeve. We are looking at a way to turn them off. Unfortunately, at the moment—we have made the inquiries with the privacy commissioner; she is aware of this—we do not yet have a commercially available switch on these cards.

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: I thought the member from Timmins—James Bay gave us an excellent history, and certainly his congratulations to Barack Obama, the President-elect, the Senator from Illinois.

It will be most interesting. Of course, the Minister of Transportation, in his previous role as Minister of Tourism, certainly forged a very good relationship, as he mentioned his remarks yesterday, with representative Louise Slaughter from Upper New York state. Indeed, I understand he had discussions with Senators Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, the other Senator from New York state.

It really provides the opportunity, with a new administration coming into Washington. Perhaps somebody like Louise Slaughter will be the new head of homeland security in the United States. That would be an excellent idea, because she has what I would describe as a more flexible view of the integral relationship that Canada and the United States has, particularly border states and border provinces such as Ontario and New Brunswick, Quebec, and other provinces that border the United States.

We've seen that there are communities in the eastern townships in Quebec where the boundary goes right through a kitchen in some people's homes. To facilitate people going back and forth for commerce, for visitation, is certainly important to the total health of both the border states in the United States and Ontario provinces, for commerce and economic well-being.

The member does make some legitimate observations about technology. We do know that no technology has ever been invented that's foolproof. If someone wants to get at it, they will get at it. They'll come up with sophisticated ways of doing it. But I think we need to move forward on this initiative.

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

Mr. Dave Levac: I listened carefully to the member in his expression of concerns regarding the technology. There's no question that he brings our attention to the details of how this is going to work. But what I want to do is to try to assure him that those very questions have been asked, not just by the opposition, but by us as well, and as this was developing in front—because these discussions were taking place in the committee that I expressed to you that I was on, in terms of the Council of State Governments, when we were moving from Ontario down to the States—Philadelphia, Washington—to discuss the very issue that he is talking about a couple years ago.

Those very questions have been brought up not just by us in Ontario, but by many of the states that were asked to participate in this. So to give him some solace that this is being discussed and dealt with should help him a little bit.

On the other point he mentioned with regard to Mr. Bradley, I don't think he is wrong on this one. I think if you take a sober second thought and step back from it, he was engaged in that conversation that you're having and he was making the judgment based on what was good for Ontario. You've identified that, and I appreciate that. You've identified the fact that on the economic side, we are definitely going to be left out of the loop completely if we don't get on board. As the parliamentary assistant said, we are talking about initiatives that the United States is employing, whether we like it or not.

If we did not move from our 48% use of our passport, we had to come up with some alternative.

My last comment to him was, on the optional side, there's another phase of this card that I'm extremely proud of—I've brought that up in this House many times—and that is the non-driver driver's licence issue for the people who do not have access to that. I think that's a good-news story as well.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): It being 10:15 of the clock, this House stands recessed until 10:30, at which time we will have question period.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: They're going to be filing in any moment now, but we are going to have with us today Graham Flint, who is the chair and spokesperson for an organization called FORCE, Friends of Rural Communities and the Environment; 40 to 50 folks from the communities of Hamilton, Flamborough, Milton and Burlington, including Councillor Margaret McCarthy from the city of Hamilton, and Councillor Jan Mowbray from the town of Milton.

Hon. George Smitherman: I hope that members of the Legislature will join with me in welcoming the Honourable Mike Harcourt, the former mayor of Vancouver and Premier of the province of British Columbia, and Brad Graham, an assistant deputy minister from the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure. Yesterday, they helped to lead our growth plan summit up in Vaughan.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Welcome, Mr. Premier.

Hon. John Gerretsen: I would like to welcome as our guest today the former federal member from Leeds—Grenville Joe Jordan, who is with us today in the east gallery.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I have two introductions this morning. My good friend Jacob Rudolph is here with his mom, Jan Whitelaw. I don't think they're here yet, but they will be shortly. Jacob is about four or five and excited to be here at the Legislature today.

As well, I'd like to introduce to the Legislature Dennis Mock, the president of Nipissing University, who is here with his northern colleagues from northern universities. We welcome them here today.

Mr. John O'Toole: I'm pleased to introduce guests from my riding. They include the mayor of the municipality of Clarington, Jim Abernethy; the director of finance for Clarington, Nancy Taylor; and the solicitor for the municipality, Dennis Hefferon. Welcome.

Hon. John Milloy: I think members will be pleased to know that we're welcoming visitors from the Council of Ontario Universities today at Queen's Park. With us, including a number of university presidents and senior officials, are Celia Ross, Kim Fedderson, Robert Bourgeois, Peter George, Dennis Mock, Sarah McKinnon, Richard Marceau, Susan Marlin, Ranjana Bird, Paul Genest and Jennifer Grass.

I invite all members to attend a reception by COU with Ontario Research Chairs in room 230 over the lunch hour.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I'd ask the Legislature to join me in welcoming Joe McCormick, Colette MacGuire, Graham Huntley, Sharon Yovanoff and John Yovanoff, members of ROSSCORE.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I would like to acknowledge the members of the Canadian Diabetes Association who are seated in the public galleries today.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The guests I introduced have now joined us. They're in the gallery.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I would like to introduce Carole Heffernan and Anna Lipp. Anna is page Emily Heffernan's grandmother and Carole is her mother.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Although my colleague already recognized members from the Canadian Diabetes Association, I just want to point out that we have two very special people from northwestern Ontario: Suzanne Stirling from the Canadian Diabetes Association in Thunder Bay, and Stacey Woods, who is the first woman in northwestern Ontario to be able to access an insulin pump as an adult under our new program and funding. So, Stacey, welcome. Thank you very much.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome a guest of mine in the Speaker's gallery today, a good old friend from my riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London, Christine Paterson. Chris, welcome to Queen's Park today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development. Minister, you're fairly new to the economic development portfolio, but I trust by now you are in the full swing of things. Certainly you were shuffled into your new position at a very difficult time, but at the same time, you have been given a great opportunity to prove yourself as an economic leader. You have an opportunity to be creative, bold and innovative.

Minister, what new initiatives have you introduced to help Ontario recover from deficit, from the rapid loss of the manufacturing core and from our historic decent into have-not status?

Hon. Michael Bryant: There's a lot to work with in that question. I appreciate the member's comments and his sentiments there.

I'll say that certainly one of the jobs of the Minister of Economic Development today is to administer the existing Next Generation of Jobs Fund, the advanced manufacturing loan program, the regional programs that are in existence, and to coordinate amongst all the economic ministries—to assist those economic ministries—in the delivery of those existing programs. We are talking about programs that have leveraged jobs and leveraged investments in this province. At the same time, obviously, we want to work with those businesses that are facing new challenges as a result of the events, particularly of the last few months, and I'm happy to elaborate on that in my supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: There's nothing new. The minister is still apologizing for the five-point flopped plan. In fact, it sounds like the minister is just regurgitating the same old lines that his predecessor tried to feed to the people of Ontario.

Minister, if you have nothing new to offer, wasn't the cabinet shuffle just meaningless? Don't you think that given all that's happened in our province and our economy, you should start adjusting, rearranging and changing the old approach? Or are you just a new face for the Premier's five-point flopped plan?

Hon. Michael Bryant: It is quite right that the government is engaging with industry leaders, with companies and with the federal government—we've spoken to the new federal industry minister and are meeting him as well—to in fact make those adjustments. You are seeing already in the investments of the Next Generation of Jobs Fund—the point being that they're investments in the next generation of jobs; in other words, those jobs with the creative class skills, those jobs with industries that are, in fact, in a position particularly right now to be growing.

Those adjustments are being undertaken on an ongoing basis. They are reflected in the decisions made on the administration of these programs. They are also reflected in the economic policy, as it is unfolding in this government. As you will see, in the weeks and months to come and of course leading up to the budget of next year, in fact that emphasis on the next generation of jobs becoming even more intensified. This is, yes, a crisis with challenges—

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I find the answer disappointing. We're well into the difficulty that this province is facing and you're only now just starting to think about those things. There's no promise for the future.

For instance, I wonder what he makes of the recent statements made by the Minister of International Trade. She said that Ontario needs the United States to recover, that our fortunes are forever linked. But the TD Bank says that we can't rely on the US, that what we need to find is our own ways to write our own economic destiny.

Minister, who do you side with? Should we seek a bold new vision or should we continue down the same McGuinty path of dependence on the US economy?

Hon. Michael Bryant: Firstly, the Premier right now, as we speak, is in China, leading an Ontario and in fact in many ways, a national delegation. But let there be no mistake: If the member is suggesting that Ontario no longer needs to have a positive trade relationship with the United States of America, then he's wrong. TD is certainly not saying that. Certainly, our fabulous Minister of International Trade is absolutely right that, as our relationship and trade and exports with the United States grows, so will Canada.

I'm happy to speak with the member about these issues, but more importantly, to talk about the millions of dollars that have been invested in Ontario by businesses and those jobs that have been created because of the programs that have been in place under this government for several years. And there's more to come.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question back to the Minister of Economic Development. On October 22, the Legislature learned that Ontario, under Dalton McGuinty, has returned to deficit financing. Two weeks later, Ontario families were greeted with the news bombshell that for the first time in Confederation, Ontario would be on the receiving end of equalization payments. In other words, under Dalton McGuinty, the province of Ontario is now on the welfare rolls of Confederation. As Minister of Economic Development, what new initiatives are you bringing forward to cabinet to ensure that Ontario is not a have-not province for one, single more year?

Hon. Michael Bryant: The first thing that we're doing is standing up for the people of Ontario. As the member knows well—and I'm sure he commiserates over this as well; I'm sure he does—the fiscal federalist formula today sees bales and bales of hay being paid into the equalization formula and Ontario getting barely a litre of milk out of it. It is a formula that is broken. It is a formula that needs fixing.

Ontario continues to be the engine of the economy in this country. Ontario continues to seek out changes to the fiscal federalist formula that will see a reflection of the contribution that Ontario makes to the rest of the country and the number of dollars that ought to be going out, yes, but also the number of dollars that ought to be going in. I look forward to speaking about this further in my supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: That was bales and bales of something, but it certainly wasn't the facts Ontario citizens want to hear. Minister, those same old tired lines won't work any more, this notion of blame the formula, as opposed to blaming the high-taxing and high-spending policies of Dalton McGuinty that have put Ontario dead last in job creation and in economic growth. The notion of Ontario being a have-not province and receiving equalization payments is shocking and weighs on the hearts of all Ontario residents. To make matters worse, the McGuinty government is sleepwalking through this tragic point in our history.

Where is the plan, Minister? Will you draw the line here and say, "This year and no more"? Will you stand in your place, will you come forward to cabinet with a new plan to get Ontario off the welfare rolls of Confederation?

Hon. Michael Bryant: I know the member wouldn't want to be running Ontario down and I know the member wouldn't want to be talking Ontario's economy down. I know he wouldn't want to deny that, in fact, the Ontario economy does continue to be the engine of the Canadian economy. It does. If the member disagrees, I would love for him to take a look at the budgets and the books of this country, and I know he would want to stand up and applaud those businesses that have made this province the engine of Canada's economy.

We will continue to administer those programs that have brought success. We will continue to build on that success. We will continue to build on success that has led to investments in the member's own riding. I've seen the picture with the big smiling face of the member with a company that received investments in his own riding, that led to investments there and that led to jobs. We will continue to do that. Yes, we will continue to build on our success—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: First the minister blames the formula for Ontario being on equalization; now he's saying we're leading the country in growth. The minister needs a reality check, just like Scotiabank's report from the other day: minus 0.9% Ontario growth rate for 2009, Minister—dead last in all of Canada. Two hundred thousand well-paying manufacturing jobs have left our province. Some 36,000 talented Ontarians have left our province to work in other provinces.

No doubt, we have tremendous resources in our province, tremendously talented and innovative entrepreneurs and businesses, but your high taxes, your high hydro rates and your runaway spending have shackled our business class and chased entrepreneurs out of our province, so now we're dead last. Minister, one last time: Ontario on the welfare rolls no longer. What plan are you bringing forward to cabinet?

Hon. Michael Bryant: Well, there we go. The approach of the Ontario government is an activist approach that sees investments, by way of grants and loans, regional and strategic, directly into companies and directly into people through our Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. The member can't have it both ways. You cannot get rid of those programs, you cannot get rid of those investments and you cannot, in addition to that, cut taxes and expect to have a sustainable economy. The member is leading a race to the bottom.

The province of Ontario under Dalton McGuinty is in fact leading the charge, building on our success. That's why in July of this year the government announced a $2.85-million advanced manufacturing loan to Stanpac Inc. to support a $10-million investment in the member's riding. He stood there at the press conference with a big smile and congratulated the government—

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

OPP DISCIPLINARY HEARING

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Attorney General. Over the past weeks a number of questions have been raised about the administration of justice in Ontario under the McGuinty government. My question today concerns a police discipline hearing being conducted against two senior OPP officers. In the course of the hearing, evidence was presented that OPP Commissioner Fantino stated, "Are you going to execute the disloyal one, or am I?" My question is this: Does the Attorney General find it troubling that the OPP commissioner appointed by the McGuinty Liberals would refer to another senior OPP officer in terms of, "Are you going to execute him, or am I?"

Hon. Christopher Bentley: What is a bit surprising is that a former Attorney General would ask about testimony that may have been given or may be given during the course of a hearing where findings have to be made by the adjudicator. We respect the fairness of all proceedings. Whether an individual likes or doesn't like what he or she hears, agrees or disagrees with the position being advanced, takes a particular position on the result of the hearing, the foundation of our system of justice is that we let hearings conclude, and conclude fairly, according to the principles of natural justice and the rule of law. That's what should happen—not only in that case, but in every case.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Perhaps the Attorney General and the McGuinty government don't find these remarks troubling, but I think most people would find them troubling. Most Ontarians might feel that that language might appear in a Third World country but certainly not in a legal system, in a justice system, such as our own.

But what is equally troubling is this: When the counsel acting for one of the senior OPP officers pointed out that Commissioner Fantino appeared to change his testimony from one part of the hearing to another, the judge hearing the matter was immediately told by counsel for the OPP—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I don't need some armchair Speakers. Thank you very much. I have great confidence in the table.

I just do caution the honourable member on the direction that he is going. I encourage him to bear in mind the sub judice rule. Certainly, from what I have seen in the newspapers, this is a hearing that is ongoing.

Mr. Howard Hampton: When this is remarked upon by the justice hearing the case, he is immediately asked to recuse himself from the hearing. Not only that, but the hearing is then told that senior counsel in the Ministry of the Attorney General are going to support the motion for the justice to recuse himself. This sounds like even the Ministry of the Attorney General is interfering in this hearing—

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

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Again, it is, with respect, surprising that the former Attorney General would be purporting to quote from an ongoing hearing and asking for commentary. With respect to the specific allegation, I understand that the result of the motion is not yet made. Obviously, whatever the commentary, no decision has been made by the ministry because no result of the motion has been made. So I would ask the member to remember when he was the Attorney General and to remember the principles which he had to uphold then and which still apply today: the principles of fairness of hearings, regardless of what you may want the result to be.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: I express no interest in this.

Again, I ask the Attorney General: Counsel for the OPP actually names the senior counsel in the Ministry of the Attorney General. He names Dennis Brown, general counsel, Ministry of the Attorney General, as supporting a motion for the justice to recuse himself from the hearing and says that if the justice doesn't recuse himself from the hearing, the Ministry of the Attorney General will support a judicial review application.

All the justice is trying to do is hear the evidence, but it sounds as if lawyers, counsel representing the Ministry of the Attorney General, don't want him to hear the evidence. What is going on here?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: You're wrong, period. What's trying to happen at the hearing is that they're trying to have a fair hearing, a fair hearing on the basis of what is going on in the proceeding and a fair hearing that is not being assisted by the extracted commentary of the member today. Let's let the hearing proceed and continue according to the principles of fairness which govern hearings in all courts in all forums everywhere in the province of Ontario.

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

OPP DISCIPLINARY HEARING

Mr. Howard Hampton: To the Attorney General: What is troubling about this is I think that the justice hearing the case would like to hear the facts. But when he hears that if he does not recuse himself—and by the way, counsel representing the OPP is not some freshman counsel; he is someone who worked many years in the Ministry of the Attorney General. When he stands and says, "I move that the justice recuse himself," and, "I have to tell the justice that I have spoken with a senior crown counsel in the Ministry of the Attorney General, and they are prepared to support the motion that you recuse yourself," how can a fair hearing happen under conditions like that?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The member is not correct to be commenting on an ongoing proceeding. Fair hearings are not assisted by commentary on their evidence, testimony submissions outside of the fora. The member knows that; you're a former Attorney General. You should respect the proceedings, you should respect the fairness and allow those in charge of the proceedings to make the decisions they must, without the commentary that you're making here today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: This is not my commentary. This is from the transcript of the hearings. A senior lawyer who worked many years in the Ministry of the Attorney General, now representing the OPP commissioner, says: "Well, I can indicate, sir, that the discussions have been had with the director of legal services branch at the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Ms.

Anne McChesney, and with general counsel to the Ministry of the Attorney General, Dennis Brown," and then goes on to point out that if the justice doesn't recuse himself, doesn't withdraw from the hearing, the Ministry of the Attorney General will support a judicial review ordering the justice to withdraw from the hearing.

I ask again: How can there be a fair hearing when these kinds of tactics are being conducted, apparently by counsel for the Ministry of the Attorney General?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The former Attorney General is wrong. There will be fair hearings, as long as we allow them to proceed according to the rules of natural justice and the legal principles that apply. This one should be allowed to proceed without commentary by the honourable member.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: Well, I could accept what the Attorney General is saying if the justice hearing the case were allowed to make a decision one way or another. But in this case, the justice hasn't even been allowed to take into consideration the motion, whether he should recuse himself, before he is met with the information that if he doesn't recuse himself, the Ministry of the Attorney General will support a judicial review application ordering him to recuse himself.

Again, as the administrator of justice in Ontario, who is supposed to ensure that hearings and trials are conducted fairly, how can this be a fair hearing when these kinds of tactics are being employed—actually mentioning senior counsel in the Ministry of the Attorney General supporting judicial review before a decision has even been arrived at?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: That's right. The hearings should be allowed to proceed according to the principles of natural justice and the rules of law which apply. This one should be allowed to proceed without the commentary.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. By now, you must realize just how flawed your Bill 119 really is. No one is buying your argument that it will improve worker safety or uncover the underground economy.

Let me tell you what I'm hearing from small businesses around the province. I'd like to quote: "It is concerning to hear that the Liberal government would like to push this legislation through without first allowing committee hearings throughout the province to take place and to consider other options to mandatory coverage by WSIB. This will not be any benefit to small business, but will only benefit large unions."

Minister, will you do what my constituent is asking for and extend public hearings on the bill to communities across the province?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I want to let all the members here know that a lot of comments and letters have been read into the record by members opposite and I'd like to read one about the member's party leader.

This is by Ron Johnson, deputy director of the Interior Systems Contractors Association of Ontario. Here is what he had to say about Mr. Tory: "You visited us last year, Mr. Tory. You assured the construction industry in the spring of 2007 that you understood the WSIB reform was essential to the health of the construction industry." I'd like to know if this member agrees with his party leader. I'd like to know who's running the show over there. You talk about flip-flops. Mr. Tory is the biggest flip-flopper we've ever seen.

I want to ask the member, do you agree with your party leader when he said he understood that the—

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

Mr. Norm Miller: Minister, small businesses in all sectors are afraid. You have raised the spectre of mandatory WSIB coverage across all types of businesses. Let me read what another constituent wrote to me: "Let me add my voice to those who are concerned about the current plan to add mandatory WSIB coverage to construction company owners. This seems to be the thin edge of the wedge to me. As you well know, the tourism business can ill afford to be hit with another 'tax.' I realize that we (tourism operators) are not under the gun right now, but the chief of the WSIB has said that he would like to see more industries covered."

Minister, now that Ontario has been reduced to a have-not province, I would like to think that you're going to help small business instead of hitting them with another hidden tax.

Will you listen to this constituent's concerns and give your solemn promise not to extend mandatory WSIB coverage to other sectors?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I say to this member, you've got to track down your party leader and find out where he stands on this. Here are a few more comments from Ron about John Tory's position on this. Here's what he had to say: "At the same time, I understand that he insisted that a level playing field should be created throughout the bidding process and that any unfair advantage to the underground economy should be eliminated." We agree with that. We want a level playing field. We want to make sure that those construction workers are safe.

I don't know where that member or that party stands, but all I see is a big flip-flop here. I would hope that they would retreat back to the comments that Mr. Tory made to the association about understanding the need for this legislation, understanding the need to protect construction workers and to level the playing field, understanding the health and safety of the construction industry—

Mr. Norm Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for Parry Sound—Muskoka.

Mr. Norm Miller: —I'll be filing for a late show.

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

The member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I recognize it is a Thursday, and the Thursday before a constituency week, but I'd like to get through this question period.

The member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Paul Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope you're going to add on eight seconds for that.

To the Acting Premier: With each passing day, it becomes clearer that this government has no idea how to deal with Ontario's growing job crisis. Yesterday, Navistar International announced the layoff of 470 employees, including plant workers, office staff and management, at its truck plant in Chatham. The job cuts start January 31 and will leave the plant with about 400 employees. Sterling Trucks, owned by Daimler Trucks North America, is closing its St. Thomas truck plant, throwing 1,300 workers out of work.

Will you admit that your auto strategy is a failure and that you have no plan to deal with the jobs crisis that is engulfing Ontario?

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

Hon. Michael Bryant: I just want to speak to the Navistar situation. There was an investment made in the summer of 2003 by the previous government, just before the 2003 election, to provide funding for the company, at the time facing closure. We have also just learned of this news and are obviously very concerned. We are looking at the agreement. It is an agreement that we expect Navistar to honour. We want those jobs to be here. We want those investments to be here. We want to do everything we can, working with the workers and management, to keep those jobs here.

But we do also have a contract in place, and the fact that it was undertaken by the previous government does not mean that we will not enforce the contract. We will enforce the contract.

Mr. Paul Miller: Minister, Ontario is shutting down, and your government has no plan. Manufacturers are saying that thousands may lose their jobs in the next few months because of the credit squeeze. Workers at the CAMI Automotive plant in Ingersoll are fearful of major layoffs and output stoppage by the end of this year, when they have already suffered an eight-week idle period.

Will you admit that your government has absolutely no idea what to do about the growing economic crisis gripping Ontario and that you have absolutely no plan to create and sustain jobs in our province?

Hon. Michael Bryant: The approach is to make investments in human capital, to make investments in training, to make investments in companies, to make investments through the advanced manufacturing loan program to leverage more investments, and to make public investments by way of grants to leverage more investments.

It is that approach that not only deals with the need for greater innovation, which I know the member wants to have, but also deals with the challenges facing a particular company, whether it be around liquidity, whether it be around the credit crunch or otherwise, so we can work with these companies to provide the dollars they need. But we do so in the context of an agreement, an agreement that says that if a company does not meet its standards, there are clawback provisions. I can assure you with respect to Navistar that we were looking closely at those clawback provisions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would just ask the honourable members: I know that there are discussions taking place, and it's nice to see those discussions taking place in a civilized manner, but I would ask that you take those discussions to either the east or west chamber or outside the door so that all members and our guests who are here can hear the questions being asked.

HEART DISEASE

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: My question is for the Minister of Health Promotion, the Honourable Margarett Best. Heart disease, or cardiovascular disease, is the leading cause of death in our province, and every year, unfortunately, more than 7,000 people die from sudden cardiac arrest. More than 40% of us will actually develop heart disease over the course of our lifetimes, which is nevertheless largely preventable. How? By making healthy food choices, by being active every day, by avoiding excessive alcohol, by being smoke-free and by having blood pressure levels checked regularly.

Unfortunately, many Ontarians are not even aware of their predisposition to sudden cardiac arrest. November is national CPR Month—cardiopulmonary resuscitation—and in fact, today is CPR day at Queen's Park. What has the McGuinty government done in terms of prevention and awareness to combat this group of cardiovascular conditions, or heart disease?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I would like to thank the member for Etobicoke North for his question. As a physician and MPP, he continues, I know, his strong advocacy in these areas.

Earlier today, I had the pleasure of attending an event with the Heart and Stroke Foundation, where we announced that Toronto's emergency medical services will be receiving 40 public access defibrillators for their cardiac safe city program. The cardiac safe city program helps to increase both awareness and access to defibrillators throughout the city through funding from the Heart and Stroke Foundation. As the health promotion minister, my goal is to provide Ontarians with access to services, tools and education to achieve and maintain good health. That is why the McGuinty government provided $3 million to the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario to place—

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

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: I understand that defibrillators, coupled with ongoing CPR training, are having a positive and salutary benefit regarding the prevention of cardiovascular deaths. I trust we will continue to work with community partners on the placement of the thousand defibrillators program. As well, there is also a great need, of course, to focus on cardiovascular risk factors. So a series of questions: What is the McGuinty government doing in terms of risk factor management? What are we doing to support people in making healthy lifestyle choices? What is the McGuinty government doing to assist people to avoid tobacco use, maintain a healthy diet, and stay active and well?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I would like to advise the honourable member opposite that—sorry.

Interjections.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I'd like to advise our member, the member for Etobicoke North, that we are in fact continuing to engage in providing investment in defibrillators in Ontario. I would also like to highlight that in addition to providing defibrillators, the Ministry of Health Promotion has been investing $3.4 million a year in initiatives designed to promote heart health across the province through the Ontario heart health program. The Ontario heart health program is part of the Ontario government's comprehensive cardiac strategy which includes health promotion and disease prevention. The—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, minister. New question, the member from Durham.

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr. John O'Toole: My question is to the Deputy Premier. At the current time, you have time-allocated two bills. Bill 119 is a tax on small business. And now, Bill 114 has been time allocated, some would say, in a rather treacherous manner. The public hearings were this morning for about an hour and a half. However, the amendments, as you would know, were due yesterday at noon, even before the public hearings. This afternoon we will be doing clause-by-clause to finalize the bill. I'm asking you, why have you time-allocated Bill 114, which you know amends regulations retroactively?

Hon. George Smitherman: I do appreciate very much that the member used the reference "as you know" twice in the question on matters which, frankly, were it not for the member's invigorated activity on this at committee, I wouldn't have known. The responsible minister will be in a position soon to address the particular circumstance that the honourable member raised earlier in committee. I regret that I'm not in a position on the substance of the matter with respect to the retroactivity of regulation to be fully cognizant of the member's issue.

I will work with the Minister of Finance to ensure there's a timely response to the honourable member relating to his issue raised at committee this morning.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John O'Toole: I appreciate the response, Minister. That is quite genuine. You would know that the legal counsel and the mayor are here, as well as the director of finance. Really, they know and I'm expecting that the people who drafted the bill in your ministry, or your government's ministry—they amended

schedule A,

section 2, which amends retroactively the Assessment Act, which changes the exemption status of limestone which has been widely held under the Assessment Act. The amendment, in fact, destroys their current legal argument, which is before the courts.

Minister, I'm asking you today—as you've suggested you might, and I commend you for that—to instruct the minister to at least withhold and allow this case to proceed before the courts before this legislation destroys the legal case on which this municipality spent a considerable amount of money to get before the courts on November 14. Would you do that for the municipality?

Hon. George Smitherman: No, I'm not in the habit nor the position to be giving advice to my colleague minister on that matter. But I do think that through the honourable member's raising of this at committee and here in the House, I will take the question under advisement, seek to work with the Minister of Finance, and to produce, in a timely manner, for the honourable member and indeed for the community and the people of Clarington, a response to the specific case that's been brought forward.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. The McGuinty government is well aware of St Marys Cement's proposal to develop a massive new greenfield quarry in the Flamborough area of the city of Hamilton. The proposal is for an open-pit mine in the middle of the natural heritage system of the greenbelt, where ground water is crucial to the provision of clean, safe drinking water to more than 3,000 residents of Carlisle. Two thousand people from the area sent postcards asking the McGuinty government, once and for all, to stop this quarry, which is a serious threat to residents' water safety.

Will the minister say today when the government is going to step in and stop the quarry?

Hon. John Gerretsen: First of all, I appreciate the question very much from the member. I would just like, for the record, to note that we are very proud of the accomplishments that this government made with respect to the greenbelt, something, by the way, that your caucus—only half the members supported the greenbelt at the time.

Let me also compliment the individuals who are here today from FORCE for their interest in the environment.

But as the member well knows, the permit that has been issued is simply for a pump test. There are many other permits that may be required if the pump test proves to be adequate and meets the ministry's requirements. There will be municipal approvals that are going to be required from the municipality. There will be approvals required from the Ministry of Natural Resources as well with respect to a permit.

We want to make sure that the testing is done properly. We decided to have the testing redone by the company because of the excessive amount of rain water that fell during the—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This government's greenbelt is turning into a greed belt, from what we can tell. The availability of safe drinking water is at stake here. Doesn't anybody remember Walkerton? I remember when the first water restrictions and bans hit the Carlisle community when I was still sitting on city council in Hamilton. Advisers to the government have called quarries a man-made threat of provincial concern because they create a direct pathway to the aquifer for contaminants. They recommended that new quarries should not be situated too closely to a municipal wellhead protection area.

The Environmental Commissioner himself has clearly told the government to screen out development proposals exactly like this one, which put the interests and profits of the aggregate mining industry ahead of the public's water supply and environmental protection.

When will the government protect residents, farmers, businesses and schools near Carlisle by heeding the independent advice of the Environmental Commissioner and stopping this quarry development?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Let me repeat, once again, that this is a pump test; this is not a permit for a quarry. A number of safeguards have been built into this. Let me remind you and the members of FORCE who are here today.

The safeguards include that the quality and quantity of water will be extensively monitored by the ministry. Secondly, the project will receive independent oversight and reporting. Also, the rate of pumping has been reduced by 50%, and the permit has extensive consultation and reporting requirements. In order for the second test to take place, we will once again be placing the matter on the EBR for 30 days.

We are interested in protecting the greenbelt; we are also interested in making sure that there is quarry material available if and when required. But no quarry will be opened up there unless the testing that is being done here will meet our qualifications. And the other approvals from both the municipalities and the Ministry of Natural Resources have to be—

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

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Mr. David Orazietti: My question is for the Minister of Labour. When most Ontarians think about the health care sector, they think of the well-being of patients. But there's another group that we should also consider. Health care workers in my riding of Sault Ste. Marie and across the province not only provide high-quality care and treatment for Ontarians, but also, at times, put their own lives at risk.

Minister, earlier this week you announced that our government will be creating a new, permanently funded team of specialists to help improve workplace safety for health workers in Ontario. What was the reason behind the establishment of the Ministry of Labour's health care unit? Can you please explain how the health care unit is funded and whether or not this is new funding or money taken from other workplace health and safety inspection activities?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I would like to thank the member for Sault Ste. Marie for his advocacy on the safety of our health care workers. We have 480,000 health care workers in this province who protect us day in and day out. It's only right that we protect them.

I want to say that after the final report of the SARS commission, Justice Archie Campbell said that hospitals are dangerous places, just like mines and factories. What we did at that time was put a temporary health care team in place after that SARS report. With this announcement, what we've done is made this health care unit permanent, a team that will go into those health care sector workplaces and make sure that they can take a proactive approach to the health and safety of those health care workers. They now have new, permanent funding of $2.1 million. This involves hiring and training 17 full-time equivalent specialists—

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

Mr. David Orazietti: Until the formation of the Ministry of Labour's health care unit within its occupational health and safety branch, can you tell us who is responsible for monitoring workplace health and safety in hospitals and other health care workplaces?

As well, Ontarians would like to know whether the health care team contributes to the ministry's overall Safe at Work Ontario strategy. As well, what are some of the other initiatives that the Ministry of Labour has introduced since the time of SARS?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Again, thank you to the member.

The Ministry of Labour staff is responsible for inspecting the health and safety regulations in provincially regulated industrial sector workplaces, looked after by what is now a special team in the health care sector. So this unit will be doing that.

In terms of the overall Safe at Work Ontario strategy, the health care unit will also provide support to all provincially regulated work places. We have added an additional 200 inspectors to bring our inspector levels to over 400. We've provided updated infection control training for the ministry's 233 industrial inspectors. We've established an advisory committee for the health care sector under

section 21 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. We've done a lot to help in this field.

PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the Minister of Health. I quote the Thunder Bay Chronicle from September 15, 2007. Dalton McGuinty says, "It's essential to cover the PSA test for men." In light of the statement by your leader and your predecessor's promise, will you fulfill your promise and ensure that the costs of prostate-specific antigen tests for all men over 50 will be covered by OHIP beginning January 1, 2009?

Hon. David Caplan: As was laid out not only in the election platform, but by my colleague the Minister of Finance in the recent budget—which I would add that this member voted against—we will be covering the cost of PSA testing in Ontario, in keeping with our commitments, starting January 1.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Minister, OHIP already covers PSA tests when a man has been diagnosed with prostate cancer. In many cases, it's simply too late and the cancer has spread. So I want to be specific with you on the fact that the Ontario director of the Canadian Prostate Cancer Network met with one of your senior advisers and she said that the Ontario government is not going to implement coverage of PSA screening tests on January 1, 2009. Instead, meetings will be set up in January 2009 to decide what will be happening re the PSA tests.

My constituent Hans Vanderkley, of the Lindsay Prostate Cancer Support Group, is concerned. Minister, are you going to cover the cost of PSA testing for all men over 50 on January 1, 2009?

Hon. David Caplan: Oddly, this member, having voted against this measure contained in the budget—also, this member advocates a $3-billion cut to health care.

Interjection.

Hon. David Caplan: I say to the member from Simcoe—Grey, who really doesn't care about these matters—I repeat to the member who wants and wishes to cut a further $3 billion out of health care, which I adamantly oppose, that it seems the member has a hard time taking yes for an answer. The government's approach generally supports informed decision-making between the physician and the patient, making the best determination of the appropriateness of tests for each individual.

That's the approach that we've taken as a government, those are the commitments that we've made, that is what I reiterate here today, and I hope that this member will, in fact, inform her constituent of this answer when she has a chance to be back in her riding during constituency week.

WATER SUPPLY

Mr. Peter Tabuns: To the environment minister: The 72-home hamlet of Colgan is situated on the Oak Ridges moraine and has had poor water supply for 12 years due to high-volume water use at a local golf course and decreased rainfall. The community is accessing water from the moraine's aquifer and has been on water restriction since April. However, the local township, which includes Colgan, has recently approved a development that will bring 2,300 people, a 170-bed nursing home and a strip mall to Colgan. The aquifer will be tapped even further to provide water.

Why has this government created a moraine act that protects the right to build golf courses and developments but doesn't protect its water supply?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I am not familiar with this situation. I'm certainly prepared to look into it and get back to the member on it.

But the greenbelt basically protects all those environmentally sensitive areas as well as good farmland in those 1.8 million acres of land. There were some infilling provisions that were allowed in existing municipalities and it may very well be that the kind of development he is talking about is infilling within that municipality. I'm more than prepared to get back to the member on this particular issue. I'm just not familiar with the details that he's described here today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It isn't simply a question of details, it's whether or not you're going to protect the water supply. The question was asked by my colleague and I'm asking you. Are you going to take action, legal action that you can take, to reform the act so that the water supply is protected on the moraine and so that homeowners aren't in a position where they're going to be living with water restrictions for decades or be in a situation where people who bought homes will have incredible difficulty selling them because people will ask where the water will come from?

Will you go back to the act and revise it so that the water supply is protected?

Hon. John Gerretsen: We take any issues with respect to drinking water very seriously and certainly, if there are issues here that need to be resolved by the provincial government, we will do that. I will just leave it at that. We will look into this situation and get back to the member in the near future.

VETERANS /

ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

Mr. Dave Levac: My question is for the Minister Responsible for Seniors. As you know, Ontarians courageously protected the freedom of our province, our nation and, indeed, the world by serving in World War I, World War II, the Korean War and conflicts worldwide. More than 1.5 million Canadians, many of them Ontarians, bravely fought in the wars but, sadly, more than 110,000 soldiers did not return home to their loved ones and to our province.

As we approach Remembrance Day, we must remember the service and sacrifice of our veterans, which I know all in the House do. We should all take the time, not just on Remembrance Day, to honour and thank our veterans, their spouses, and the widows and widowers.

Can the minister tell the House what the government is doing to honour Ontario's veterans beyond Remembrance Day throughout the province?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: Thank you to my colleague for a very thoughtful question at this important time. Remembrance Day is indeed a time to pause and reflect upon the sacrifices our veterans made to protect our shared Canadian values. I often think of my uncle, who served as a sea captain in the Canadian Merchant Marine during World War II. Honouring our veterans is important, not just on Remembrance Day, but year-round and it's important to provide our veterans with opportunities to share those stories with Canad