POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ
CONTENTS
Thursday 20 February 1992
Power Corporation Amendment Act, 1991, Bill 118 / Loi de 1991 modifiant la Loi sur la Société de l'électricité, projet de loi 118
Adjournment
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
Vice-Chair/ Vice-Président: Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgianne ND
Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
Substitution(s) / Membre(s) remplaçant(s):
Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L) for Mr Ramsay
Farnan, Mike (Cambridge ND) for Mr Wood
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND) for Mr Dadamo
Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND) for Mr Dadamo
Ward, Brad (Brantford ND) for Mr Kormos
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Ciemiega, Ed, Ministry of Energy
Jennings, Rick, Ministry of Energy
Clerk pro tem / Greffière par intérim: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: Cutbert, Graham, Legislative Counsel
The committee met at 1007 in committee room 2.
POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ
Resuming consideration of Bill 118, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act / Projet de loi 118, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société de l'électricité.
Section 6:
The Vice-Chair: I call the committee to order. We will pick up the clause-by-clause at section 6 of the bill. Mr Huget, I believe we go to you for section 6.
Mr Huget: Mr Chairman, as you know, I had a government motion distributed which would provide that section 6 of the bill be struck out. As you know, a motion to strike out a section of a bill is not in order if no substitution or amendment is being made. The proper course is to vote against the section standing as a part of the bill. My purpose in distributing the motion was to inform the committee of our intentions relating to section 6. Rather than moving a motion that is out of order, the government members of the committee propose to vote against the said section standing as a part of the bill.
Mr McGuinty: I believe section 6 has actually been incorporated into an earlier section. Is that correct, Mr Huget?
Mr Huget: Part of it has been.
Section 6 negatived.
The Vice-Chair: Mr McGuinty moves that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"(6.1) Section 71 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:
"Report
"(5) The corporation shall, on or before the first day of March in each year, submit a report to the minister specifying the amount of each loan made under this section and giving a summary of the terms and conditions of each loan and the cost of the parallel generation."
Mr McGuinty: Very briefly, parallel generation refers to non-utility generators, and in keeping with my theme of providing an accounting for costs associated with some of Hydro's undertakings, this will require that Hydro provide a report to the minister setting out the amounts of the loans made in connection with non-utility generators and the terms of those loans.
Mr Huget: Reporting requirements are best dealt with in the memorandum of understanding between Hydro and the ministry. As I mentioned earlier, the memorandum of understanding is being reviewed for the purpose of strengthening it. The costs of programs to encourage parallel generation are also considered by the Ontario Energy Board during its public hearing of Hydro's annual rates application, and therefore we cannot support the motion.
Mr Jordan: On a point of clarification, Mr McGuinty: I am not trying to draw a parallel to a previous motion, but with respect to these loans that the corporation could make for parallel generation, could there also be incentives involved? I guess I would refer this to the parliamentary assistant.
Mr Huget: I am sorry. I thought you were addressing it to Mr McGuinty.
Mr Jordan: I did at the beginning, but --
Mr Huget: I cannot speak for Mr McGuinty, and Lord knows he would not want me to. I will defer to Mr Jennings.
Mr Jennings: I think Ontario Hydro would be able to make loans for parallel generators, and it has at one time looked at having loans to people who wanted to put generation in to displace their own load. Hydro would be able to do this, but at the moment there is no ongoing program to do this.
Mr Jordan: Would incentives be involved to encourage it?
Mr Jennings: Basically, what they do is enter into purchase contracts with the parallel generator.
Mr Jordan: But they do not give incentives, such as cash incentives.
Mr Jennings: No. They could if they felt it was in their interest, but at the moment there is no such program to do it.
Mr Ciemiega: Section 71 of the current act specifically states, relating to parallel generation, "The corporation may loan such money and provide such incentives and technical assistance as the corporation determines appropriate for the encouragement of parallel generation." So it is right in the act now.
Mr Jordan: How would you define the incentives: actual financial incentives?
Mr Ciemiega: It could be.
Mr Jordan: It could be?
Mr Ciemiega: I would think so.
Mr McGuinty: Mr Jordan's point is again well taken. It is similar to the one he took yesterday. In fact, I have been remiss in making this amendment narrower than it ought to be. It should make reference in fact to incentives, as the ministry counsel rightfully pointed out that the provision in section 71 does allow for loans, incentives or assistance. I have narrowed it somewhat more than it ought to have been.
Motion negatived.
Section 7:
The Vice-Chair: I believe we have a Conservative motion on section 7.
Mr Arnott moves that clause 92(c.1) of the act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding at the end "to the extent the directive is consistent with sound business practices of the corporation."
Mr Arnott: It think it is fairly self-evident by the wording of the quotation that sound business practices be adhered to with respect to the policy directives.
Mr Jordan: It would appear to me that our reasoning in bringing it forward is that we believe it was apparently an oversight of the government in bringing forth its amendments. They would in fact want to see that, and would have no objection to it.
Mr Huget: With the government's motion, policy directives will relate to the corporation's exercise of its powers and duties under the act. The board has a responsibility to exercise these powers and duties in a manner consistent with sound business practices, and therefore we cannot support the motion.
Mr Brown: I just want to indicate that I am personally supportive of Mr Jordan's initiative, but I point out to Mr Jordan that the terms of this bill deem everything to be a sound business practice, so I do not know whether he is accomplishing very much.
Mr Jordan: Thank you, Mr Brown.
Mr McGuinty: I have a question of either Mr Jordan or Mr Arnott. It appears to me that if this amendment was passed, the wording of (c.1), we would be incorporating into the cost of power being supplied to a municipality the cost of complying with a policy directive issued under subsection 10(1), "to the extent the directive is consistent with sound business practices of the corporation." It would seem to me that what we are saying is to include the cost of complying with the directive but only in so far as the costs are related to sound business practices. It seems to be narrower than perhaps Mr Jordan and Mr Arnott intended. Maybe I am missing something on this, but it seems to me that we are only incorporating costs which are consistent with sound business practices. What about those costs that are not consistent with sound business practices?
The Vice-Chair: Was that a question?
Mr McGuinty: That was a question, yes.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Jordan or Mr Arnott, do you have any reply for Mr McGuinty?
Mr Jordan: I think Mr McGuinty raises a good point. However, as Mr Brown has pointed out, it has been the government's position throughout these hearings that, as that is the intent of the government throughout all the business, especially business related to Bill 118 and the Power Corporation Act, it will not agree to have such wording spelled out. So although I think it is important, I do not see that we are going to accomplish anything by it.
Motion negatived.
The Vice-Chair: Mr McGuinty moves that section 7 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
(2) Section 92 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:
"Idem
"(2) For the purposes of this section, the cost to the corporation of supplying and delivering power does not include any charge for profit but does include charges authorized by sections 18, 19 and 20."
What I am trying to do here is nail down in a very succinct manner any discussion, any concerns around the incorporation of any profit when we are talking about the cost of power. Again, I am making reference to the Ontario Energy Board's discussions in the past few years, talking about some kind of a return on equity. This just makes it perfectly clear that the cost of power does not include any charge for profit.
It also addresses some of the concerns that we heard during the tour of the committee, when people expressed to us the very real concern that somehow Hydro was either at the present time or potentially in the future going to be charging more than simply for the cost of generating and delivering power.
1020
Mr Huget: It is not clear what the intent of the phrase "any charge for profit" is. Section 92 already sets out in detail what can be included in rates. This section defines what is included in the cost of power. This motion does not add anything to the section as it stands now. So we cannot support the motion.
Mr Brown: This notion of profit is one I have always had trouble with. It really comes right to the issue of what power at cost is. I just wonder if the parliamentary assistant or one of his officials could indicate what the present net assets of Ontario Hydro are today and what the original investment by the ratepayers of Ontario was in Ontario Hydro.
Mr Huget: I will defer to Mr Jennings.
Mr Jennings: I have it at my fingertips, but I might be out by a buck or two.
Mr Brown: I will accept rounded off.
Mr Jennings: The total assets of Ontario Hydro are in the neighbourhood of $40 billion. Are you asking what the accumulated equity of Ontario Hydro is?
Mr Brown: Equity.
Mr Jennings: Again, without having it with me, it would be in the neighbourhood of 15%, 17%, of total assets. So it is somewhere around $6 billion.
Mr Brown: My understanding is that the original investment in Ontario Hydro was something in the order of $100,000, the equity position that was taken. That is why I am always puzzled when we say that Hydro works at cost, because we have turned $100,000 into $6 billion. Somebody has made a profit somewhere.
Mr Jennings: No. "Power at cost" is defined in detail in section 92 of the Power Corporation Act. It sets out what the board of directors can recover from rates. One of the sums is that they have to have a sinking fund to retire the debt.
Mr Brown: I am aware of that.
Mr Jennings: The equity component is essentially the debt that has been retired over time. Otherwise you would have a corporation that was 100% debt.
Mr Brown: My point only being, in the real world -- not the Ontario Hydro world -- if you are running a business that started with $100,000 or thereabouts of capital and you now have $6 billion of assets, you have made a profit. That is how the real world would look at it. That is the only point I am trying to make.
Mr Jennings: It is certainly equity, but it is from setting aside to retire the debt.
Mr Brown: I know where it came from, but you still have over $5 billion more than you started with.
Mr Jennings: But you have assets of $40 billion now. I think you have to look at what the size of the corporation is.
Mr Brown: The only way that could happen is you made -- really it may be a bad word in this, but it is "profit."
Mr Jennings: The term used is "net income," but there is not a target rate of return on equity. That is the point.
Mr Arnott: I would like to speak in support of this amendment. I think it reflects many of the sentiments that my colleague Mr Jordan and myself have tried to put forward in this process, and that is, we have spoken in favour of the principle of power at cost, recognizing at the same time that in the past there have been deviations from that principle. I think the principle is worthwhile. As we further deviate from power at cost we inevitably go to power at profit. I am not sure if we have crossed that line, but I suspect very strongly that, with the passage of Bill 118, if it goes through as is, we will have power at profit, the profit to be used and put towards the government's social priorities.
I think this amendment will be very helpful in restricting the government's desire to use the profit it is going to generate from Bill 118. That is why I will be supporting this amendment.
Mr Klopp: I have to speak against the motion. Although we talk about the real world, profit and not-for-profit, any business I have been in -- and I guess I draw it back to my own farm -- if I ever walked into a banking situation and told them that I bought the farm for $1 and 20 years later I had $50 in debt but I told them, "But I made $10 in there somewhere," they would say I was not a very good business person.
They owe $40 billion or thereabouts -- $30-some billion. They have about $6 billion --
Mr Jordan: Who is "they"?
Mr Klopp: Ontario Hydro. So I think we do not have to worry about power for profit. I do not think they have ever worried too much about it.
It was brought up a moment ago about the social priorities and how the money would be somehow coming out of Ontario Hydro and going into the government. I do not see anywhere in the intent of this bill where that is going to happen. Ultimately in not-for-profit they should at least pay their bills when they purchase something but not make a profit on top of that. With the amount of debt they have in spending for our future and for our electrical needs -- and we need it -- I would say they have not gone over the idea of power at profit.
Mr Jordan: I would also like to speak in support of this motion on the basis that, as we went around the province -- and I point again to the number of people who came before us with excellent presentations. I do not see how we can sit here today and pretend we never heard them. If you summarize them and look at them, they wanted Hydro to stick to its mandate.
We are changing the mandate, in my opinion. If we, for instance, give a $2,000 outright grant for me to change my electric furnace to a gas furnace, then through this motion here we are asking that it be recorded separately from the cost of power. So eventually on my Hydro bill I would expect to see my bill for power at the cost of generating and transmitting power and then separately a surcharge or whatever they like to refer to it as so I know what it is costing me for fuel switching and I know what it is costing me as a customer for these other items. I know they are going to be buried in the cost of power. If it cannot be shown on my statement every three months or every month, whenever you get it, then perhaps it could be shown once a year or quarterly, those costs that go over and above generation and transmission.
Mr Klopp: Just on a point of clarification, Mr Chair: Should it show on my Hydro bill the breakdown of what my portion of the hydro is for the nuclear portion of what Ontario Hydro has done for me, the portion of when it bought new trucks to replace the old trucks because they are more energy-efficient, hopefully lowering the cost? Would you want them all separated out like that on my bill?
Mr Jordan: I suggest you read the present Power Corporation Act.
Mr Huget: There is nothing in Bill 118 that affects provisions with regard to profit. The power-at-cost principle remains.
The Vice-Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing no further discussion, all those in favour of Mr McGuinty's motion?
Mr Brown: May we record this?
1030
The committee divided on Mr McGuinty's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes -- 5
Arnott, Brown, Cleary, Jordan, McGuinty.
Nays -- 6
Farnan, Huget, Klopp, Marchese, Murdock, S., Ward, B.
Section 7 agreed to.
Section 8:
Mr Huget: Generally speaking, the amendment that is here is a housekeeping amendment. Some municipal commissions are already treating the cost of energy conservation programs as a capital expenditure. It is to be noted that the ability to treat the cost of energy conservation programs as a capital expenditure may facilitate greater participation by municipal electric utilities in conservation programs and make such programs available to greater numbers of Ontario residents.
Mr Arnott: This is with respect to section 8, the conservation program, correct?
The Vice-Chair: Yes.
Mr Arnott: I think my colleague Mr Jordan had some concerns about current operating expense as a capital expenditure in the situation. Would you like to explain it, Mr Jordan?
Mr Jordan: In the past it has been the policy that programs such as anything related to marketing or conservation would be taken out of current revenue, and you would be required to strike your rate structure on the basis of your projected costs for that program.
Now we are going to give the local commissions in the different municipalities the right to go into debt as a capital expenditure in order to finance these programs such as fuel switching and so on. This is in light of some utilities that have presently a very poor distribution system -- they need transformers upgraded; they need conductors upgraded. The right high-pressure person coming in from head office to impose the need and the benefits of a type of marketing program and driving the utility into debt can put the customers of that municipality in a very bad situation for the future cost of power in that municipality. I really believe that a marketing program or a conservation program should be out of current revenue.
Mr Klopp: The way I read the conservation change, it does not say they are forced to get into debt.
Mr Jordan: It is like opening your barn door. You did not tell the cattle to go out; they just went out.
Mr Klopp: No, I would not say that, because we have Aberdeen Angus cattle and they know enough to stay in from out of the rain. I think it should be put in the context of human beings and not animals. I take a little offence at that, because I do have animals.
It is a little bit like saying we are not going to allow anybody the opportunity to get a MasterCard because the poor person might use it, so therefore we should legislate that no one can have a MasterCard. If that is the way the Tories like to put things in, I do not like that idea. I think we should be a little freer. The fact is, no one is forcing them to do it. I have a lot of faith that those municipal PUCs are not going to be bamboozled by some high-technology guy from Ontario Hydro to go out and spend millions of dollars or whatever.
Anyway, I think there are a lot of municipalities that would welcome the idea if they wish to expense these things out a little bit, not unlike what they do with their transformers, not unlike what they do with trucks and equipment they buy to make their operation more efficient, maybe even saving the ratepayers money. I am in favour of this amendment.
Mr Huget: Section 8 enables the municipal corporations the option, and I think it is important to stress "the option," of capitalizing the costs of energy conservation programs. Some utilities welcome this flexibility and there is no requirement on other utilities to handle their costs in any particular way.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Huget. Any further discussion? Seeing no further discussion, shall section 8 carry? Thank you.
Section 8 agreed to.
Section 9:
The Vice-Chair: Section 9 is next on our list. Mr Huget, do you have any opening comments on section 9?
Mr Huget: The bill was introduced on June 5, 1991. At that time, the government made it perfectly clear that its intention was to enact legislation which would make the chairperson of the corporation the chief executive officer. The government made it clear that the change was to be retroactive to the date of the introduction of the bill.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Huget. Any debate on this? Mr McGuinty.
Mr McGuinty: This is a very controversial provision found within Bill 118. It is only rarely that we try to change laws retroactively, and we do that because people are expected to know the law of the day and operate under those rules. If the law changes, that is fine. But it affects things from here on in and not things which were understood in the past. What we are doing is reaching back in the past here and we are saying to the board of directors, who happened to get together and elect as a chief executive officer a gentleman by the name of Alan Holt --
Mr Brown: Very capable fellow.
Mr McGuinty: Extremely capable man. He started at Hydro when I was one year old. He has been there for 35 years.
Mr Klopp: How old are you?
Mr McGuinty: Figure it out, Paul. He has been there for 35 years.
Mr Klopp: I didn't know how old you are, if you're 20 or if you're 50.
Mr McGuinty: Listen, Paul. Pay attention now. He was there for 35 years and I was one year old at the time.
He acquired during that period of time at Hydro extensive experience. He came up through the ranks on the basis of ability and nothing else. He was made a CEO by due process, by the laws of the day which allowed the board of directors to elect a CEO, and that is what he did.
Of course, the Premier and Mr Eliesen had concerns with that and we now have a provision within Bill 118 which publicly emasculates Mr Holt. It tells him, "You may have been elected by the board of directors but you can't do anything, and anything you may have done we simply will not count, even though you were elected quite lawfully, quite in keeping with the laws governing your election."
This is is a very controversial provision and we had a good briefing on this matter from the Canadian Bar Association. I am just going to quote its concerns found within its presentation to us. Actually, it was originally submitted to the Minister of Energy on September 10, 1991. Page 5 of that submission to the minister says:
"By attempting to retrospectively remove the president's authority before such authority is validly conferred on another, it places the president, the chairperson, the corporation and persons dealing with the corporation in very difficult positions. Who may the public or any other person contracting with Ontario Hydro's assume to be chief executive officer?
"The president is validly in that position as the law is today, and the chairperson is in that position as the law may validly be tomorrow. The uncertainty is further complicated by the fact that the duties of the chief executive officer are not defined in the Power Corporation Act. This is an inappropriate use of retrospective lawmaking. Budget enactments often have to be effective from the date of first reading to prevent abuse or disruption in the marketplace. This is not an appropriate method to change the duties of the senior officers of a major statutory corporation."
1040
Mr Jordan: I have to speak in support of Mr McGuinty's assessment of this government motion. As he has very well pointed out, we have had the assessment of the Canadian Bar Association on this. They find it offensive. I think that was the word they used. They find it offensive to the normal legal procedures used in this regard. They did not say it should be taken out or it was illegal. I think they termed it "legally offensive" to have it retroactive and not to have recognized the action by the existing board.
Mr Huget: This section is designed to reduce the uncertainty with respect to division of authority between the chair, chief executive officer and the president during the period when the bill was being considered. The government believes it was important to reduce uncertainty for the many suppliers and others of a corporation the size of Ontario Hydro. I will ask Mr Ciemiega to make some additional comments.
Mr Ciemiega: Mr Jordan has correctly stated the position that may have been legally offensive, but it certainly is not illegal. The Ministry of the Attorney General looked at this particular provision before we put it in the bill, as did one of the top law firms in the city of Toronto. Both arrived at the same conclusion that the government was perfectly within its right to do what it did in the circumstances.
Mr Brown: This is the most astounding clause I have probably ever seen in legislation, and any government proposing it should be totally embarrassed. All you have to do is read the thing. It says: "Any action taken on or before the 5th day of June, 1991, and before the coming into force of this act by any person purporting to act as a corporation's chief executive officer who was not the corporation's chairperson when the action was taken shall not bind the corporation."
First of all, wow! That is really quite incredible just in and of itself. But what it speaks to is what Bill 118 is really all about. At the risk of using a bad pun, it is about power. It is not about accountability; it is about power, and I am not talking about electricity. What it is about is a power grab by a government that wants to run Ontario Hydro out of the corner office. All the provisions of this bill indicate that quite clearly. The government can deem anything to be power at cost as long as it is on the basis of a director. The directors have no liability. We had a little problem with the Hydro board, so now we have to add four members and pack it.
There is just no question what the entire act is about. Section 9 says it quite clearly: "We're going to do what New Democrats want to do, and while we will dress it up with all this public accountability and all that kind of nifty jargon, what it is really about is, we're going to run it out of Bob Rae's corner office. That's the way Ontario is going to go for the next three or four years."
The committee members, especially the government members, should be embarrassed. I would love to go back and defend a clause like this to my constituents. It is just outrageous. With that, I will indicate that I probably will not support it.
Mr Klopp: Interesting. Actually, in my riding, the ones who have been talking about Ontario Hydro for years do not have any real problems. They have come up to me when they were following this and some of the things you alluded to. They felt that, as a government, we were slighted by the board.
I agree with some of the comments and I think Mr Jordan put it pretty well about the legalese and definitions. But it was legal. That is what I am worried about. That is what I have to defend to my constituents, that we do not circumvent laws.
The arguments about trying to say it is going to be run out of the corner office: There have been people who have said, "That's been in the back door for 100 years." Maybe it just ticks a few people off that we are going to -- I and all of us -- have to be more responsible because now I have to say that we have a little more say through our Minister of Energy in this bill. Whether or not we want to get into the semantics, I do not have any trouble defending this. It is legal. It was made very clear at the beginning when this bill was announced. It was not something we snuck into this committee three weeks ago that, "We're going to make this retroactive," or any of that kind of nonsense. It was on the day the bill was read in the House, and I can defend this with a fairly clear conscience.
Mr Arnott: I am very concerned about this part of the bill. It may in fact be legal, as the government members have indicated, but it is offensive and repugnant to Parliament, and to Al Holt, I would suggest. The wording of it is almost suggesting that the government expects someone is going to be running around that building purporting to be the CEO of the corporation and undertaking initiatives as CEO. I just think it is extremely insulting to the board of Hydro, to the executive of Hydro and, as I say, to members of the Legislature when we come back to the issue of making aspects of the bill retroactive to the day of first reading. That is not a parliamentary tradition. Supposedly we are here to debate these issues and, after such time as sufficient debate has been conducted, bills are passed into law. That is what we are here for. I wonder sometimes, with legislation of this nature, whether members of the Legislature are not becoming a little bit redundant.
Mr Farnan: I really do not have much to say. I have heard all this for the last three days. There is nothing new in what has been said, maybe a little bit more vitriolic. There is no additional substance to the arguments put forward on this clause than what I have heard in the last three days, and therefore I will not go along with the kind of partisan thinking and expressions that are being made at this time.
Mr McGuinty: I am trying to compose myself here. I can hardly contain myself. I am so unnerved by the possibility of this becoming law --
Mr Marchese: Be non-partisan, Dalton.
1050
Mr McGuinty: Be non-partisan, yes.
There is one thing I want to address, and that is the merit we are supposed to somehow see in this provision in that it is legal, as if somehow that justifies the provision. It is lawful. If we are into a position where the test to be applied to legislation is whether it is lawful, then I think we are in a very sad state of affairs. Surely we have to consider the spirit of the law, and even some test of morality, if I can be so bold. We have to apply some test of fairness to legislation. Let's not get hung up on the application of a legal test as the only one that is to be applied in the circumstances.
The test that has to be applied in addition to legality -- we have to surely to God assume that it is legal, although it gives me great concern that the government even had this looked at. They had their own doubts as to whether it was lawful. They took it to the Attorney General's office and said: "Look, guys, what do you think? Is this lawful?" So they had some very serious concerns. They had their own grave doubts as to whether it was lawful.
But beyond that, the issue of fairness is surely one that has to be given some consideration whenever we are dealing with any kind of legislation, and this legislation, forgetting the test of whether it is lawful, is patently unfair. We are using the law to retrospectively emasculate the president of Hydro, who was appointed lawfully. On any measure of fairness, surely that has to be deemed to be an unfair provision and one which this government should take no pride in having put forward.
The Vice-Chair: Any further debate?
Mr Huget: Just very briefly, I find rather disturbing some of the allegations that are made by the opposition and the third party in terms of the government intent when it comes to Hydro. There is nothing in Bill 118 that hijacks Ontario Hydro and in fact we make it clear that Hydro is responsible for its day-to-day operations.
I can only comment that a remark like the Ontario Hydro corporation being run out of Premier Rae's office may stem from the experience of the opposition party when it was in power and may stem from the experience of the third party when it was in power. That may very well have been the relationship that existed. However, clearly in Ontario we are moving in a new direction and an open direction when we involve power and Hydro, and the allegations that were made by both parties in terms of hijacking Ontario Hydro I find absurd and normally not worthy of a response.
Mr Brown: I just have a question of the parliamentary assistant regarding his remarks. I would ask him what provisions in this bill provide for more independence of Ontario Hydro from the Premier's office.
Mr Huget: There is no provision in this bill that allows for the Premier's office to run anything.
Mr Brown: I asked the opposite question, which the parliamentary assistant does not wish to answer, I guess. I ask, what provisions in this bill separate Hydro from the Premier's office and from the government offices more directly? Any fair reading of this bill has to indicate that the government has far more control over Ontario Hydro than it ever has had in history.
Mr Huget: The Premier's office or the Premier is not referred to in the bill and there is no provision of the bill that requires the Premier's involvement in any aspect of the legislation.
Mr Jordan: Rather than getting involved in a lot of legal jargon about this, I think that part has been made clear, but I think we have to be honest and say that the previous board acted legally in appointing the best applicant it thought had the qualifications to do the job. It was not the applicant the government felt was best qualified to carry it out. The Minister of Energy at the time the bill was introduced -- and I have the quote here -- stated in the House and in these reports that it was necessary to have a chairman and chief executive officer who would be understanding of the philosophy of this government relative to nuclear power. This was very important to them, and that was made quite clear in the Legislature.
Even though Mr Holt was considered by the board to be the best-qualified person in all aspects to be the chief executive officer of the utility, the government had concerns that Mr Holt would tend to follow the 25-year demand-supply plan that had been taken around the province. The government felt there was too much emphasis on nuclear energy as a base supply in that plan. They have taken the base supply now and broken it into segments of gas-fired turbines giving off CO2. That is fine. They are the government and that is the way they want to do it. To be able to carry out their wishes, naturally then they wanted someone who would be more compatible, if you will, in that regard, so the bill is retroactive to make the previous appointment null and void.
Mr Marchese: Just two things, one on the issue of legality: I think the point was that it is not simply using a legal test to either clarify or justify the actions we have taken. I think the response that came from here was in response to Mr McGuinty raising the issue of the legality. The point was that what has been done is legal, but that certainly is not the only test that is used.
It certainly is not an issue of fairness either that we are raising. It is an issue of accountability. It is an issue of governments taking responsible actions for greater accountability and efficiency of utilities that very much relate to this government. That is a responsibility every government has to take, and not disassociate itself from those utilities that are very much connected to the people of Ontario and to this government and the direction of this government as well.
Mr Huget: Previous governments often provided informal policy direction in closed sessions with Hydro's senior management. What we have done is to simplify the process and, most important, ensure that the process is open to the full view of the public.
With regard to the comment about a nuclear moratorium, the good and informed citizens of this province voted for this government knowing full well what our stand was on nuclear power, and there are no surprises.
Mr Brown: Just to pick up on the nuclear moratorium, I would point out to Mr Huget he should maybe read the Agenda for Power. I think that is kind of cute, is it not?
Interjections.
Mr Brown: I just point out that your election platform did not call for a moratorium on nuclear power. Just to be factual, you were going to eliminate it.
Mr Huget: At times, trying to follow Mr Brown's comments resembles sending a blind man into a dark room to find a person who is not there.
Mr McGuinty: Just to pick up something Mr Huget said about making this process open and public, we are getting this analogy of a back door and a front door --
Interjection: A closed door.
Mr McGuinty: A closed door, half-opened door, door slightly ajar. I think when you look at it, what we are talking about here are policy directives. A policy directive is not something I am going to be able to debate, either as the Energy critic or as a member of the Legislature. It is not something the government members are going to debate. I truly hope they understand that. It is not something the ratepayers are going to be involved in. It is not something the board of directors in any real sense is going to be involved in. It is going to be a decision made behind closed doors in the cabinet office by a very select few. So I am not sure how in any way you can attach characteristics of openness or transparency to the procedures that are going to be brought about by Bill 118.
1100
Mr Farnan: It just strikes me that Mr McGuinty in his remarks, and other members this morning, wish to paint the worst possible scenario, the worst-case scenario in every possible way, and choose to depict the worst in human nature.
You know, we have a determination to bring the best-qualified people to the board. We have a government that is open in its dealings. I do not think there has ever been a government as open in its dealings. I think this is the first government that has opened the books of the province very clearly to the people -- pre-budget consultations, very extensive consultations. This is a government that does not work by cloak and dagger. This is a very straightforward government. Maybe it is the role of the opposition to simply undermine and to be negative, and that is sad, because when I look at the honourable members, I do see them as honourable individuals who by and large are forthright, but when we resort to this kind of innuendo and dark scenarios, we are not serving the people of Ontario well. We really are not.
What we are talking about here is legislation that will improve. We are not going through this exercise simply for some dark reason; we are going through this exercise to improve the system, to improve the delivery of service, to improve the efficiency of service, to improve the accountability of service, to improve the kind of relationship between government and a crown corporation that can maximize the potential of that crown corporation. Why the opposition would stoop to such low, cheap politics in this particular instance, in my view, constantly harping on worst-case scenarios -- I think it really does not serve the interests of the people of Ontario.
Mr Huget: Mr Chairman, I would like to withdraw my remarks I made to Mr Brown. I think they were unfair and not called for. They were made out of frustration and I apologize for them.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Huget. Mr Brown.
Mr Brown: Thank you, Mr Huget. I have had worse things said. I am just interested in this whole issue of having motives imputed to the opposition, which is not being fair. All I am saying and all my colleagues, I think in both opposition parties, have said, is read the bill and judge it on that. Do not judge it on what our presumed character is or what our presumed motives are or whether we are supposedly professional oppositionists or whatever. Just read the bill.
The bill is clearly a power grab. It has nothing to do with accountability. It is the most blatant power grab around here in generations, and they are saying it is okay because it is up front: "It's up front. We've grabbed it out here in the public domain so you can all see we grabbed the power." But it has absolutely nothing to do with accountability, it has absolutely nothing to do with openness. They have turned down amendment after amendment about those things put forth by both opposition parties. I am not criticizing anything other than saying read the bill. The bill clearly says that, and if the government would make that point and say: "This is what we're doing. We're going to grab control of this corporation and we think that's in the public interest, for us, we New Democrats, to have control of this corporation," fine. I can live with that argument. But do not tell us about openness. Do not tell us this is about accountability.
Mr McGuinty: Just with reference to my honourable colleague Mr Farnan's comments, I am sure he was caught up in the heat of the moment when he was suggesting that the members of the official opposition and the third party, I think generically, were doing this for purely political purposes. If that was not his intention, I am sure he would want to reconsider that.
I do not want to get into a debate as to what the proper role of the opposition is, but just let me state that we have a special obligation -- I am sure you understand this, Mr Farnan, based on your experience in opposition -- to point out the shortcomings. We represent a constituency of people who have addressed this committee and who have related their very real concerns about Bill 118. Our duty is to bring those to the fore and to make sure you understand that if you go ahead with this, we have done our job in highlighting those shortcomings. If you choose to go ahead notwithstanding, that is your prerogative and your right. Thank you.
Mr Farnan: I have to accept the remarks of Mr McGuinty. If I in any way imputed a motive that was other than worthy to the third party and to the official opposition, I sincerely withdraw that. If that is in the record in any kind of way, I would want to withdraw that. I honestly believe that opposition members work hard to get a point across. If there is any substance to the remarks I made, it is probably a frustration with what I perceive to be an overly negative view of an approach to the legislation. That I stand by. I think there has been an overly negative approach. I have consistently tried to be positive over the last three days in terms of looking for intent -- positive principles that we all share. I think all members of the committee will respect that comment.
At the same time, I have a problem when one looks at legislation and simply paints a dark picture and suggests a dark picture. I would suggest that opposition members have implied motives during this process, for example, simply suggesting a power grab, implying a most negative motive to the exclusion of anything else. That is my problem: when there is not a balance in the remarks.
Perhaps things have not worked as smoothly in the past and indeed there may be room for improvement, but there is indeed an honest effort by the government to bring in legislation that will improve it. It may be that you do not see the legislation as the answer, but I think it makes some sense to say: "Yes, I think you guys are trying; you want to do something positive; you want to do something constructive," and then make the criticism. I would accept that as a fair response. What probably upset me was the negativity of the responses I heard. As far as imputing unworthy motive to opposition members, I would withdraw that totally.
Mr Jordan: I just want to comment on Mr Farnan's final comments regarding the motives of the opposition. I am glad he has made this clarification of understanding of his remarks, because we were indeed more than sincere when we took time from our constituencies to go about the province and bring this bill before the people. If you look at the calibre of the remarks I have summarized here that came from the different utilities, from the Association of Major Power Users, from all the groups across the province, they were not coming in just to be there to be on the record; they were deeply concerned.
Even if the government acted in good faith, which I believe it did, as to a need in its mind to make Hydro, if you will, more responsible to the people and it saw a method of doing it by making it responsible through the government to the people rather than through the board of directors and through the municipal electric associations, my concern is that in attempting to solve this perceived problem it has overreacted, really, in leaving itself room in this amended Bill 118, which will become part of the Power Corporation Act. To me, other governments or other people have far too much leeway, if you will, to change the whole concept of the utility. It is there, and believe you me, somebody may use it. Only history will tell us in the future whether we have overreacted and whether we have in fact given too much power to the government and to the Minister of Energy.
1110
We can go forward in faith that this government will not abuse the power given to it. That is all I can see that we can do because the time we have spent -- a month, you might say -- has changed the objectives of the government very little in bringing the utility under its control.
The two things that are scary are making the board of directors not accountable for its actions, and a policy directive that can go directly from the minister to the chairman and chief executive officer. He can sit there with all the power he has been given and tell his directors: "We have this directive. It's up to us to implement it. If you're not in favour of it you may say so, but you won't be held accountable, so we'll go ahead and get it into service."
It has been opened up to the utility for that type of direction. We do not have a research department in the Ministry of Energy that I am aware of. We do not have the expertise that they have over at 700 University Avenue. If you appoint the right people to the board of directors, I hope they will continue to listen to them even though they have the power to direct them.
With your permission, Mr Chairman, later I will introduce a motion to this committee relative to those concerns and summarizing the fact that I do not think this is an electrical energy problem. I think this is a general energy problem for the province. It involves oil, gas and electricity. We have been concentrating only on the one: electrical energy. I would like that opportunity later. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Jordan. Any further debate? Hearing none, shall section 9 of the bill carry? This will be a recorded vote.
The committee divided on whether section 9 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes -- 6
Farnan, Huget, Klopp, Marchese, Murdock, S., Ward, B.
Nays -- 5
Arnott, Brown, Cleary, Jordan, McGuinty.
Section 9 agreed to.
Section 10:
The Vice-Chair: Mr Huget moves that section 10 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Commencement
"10(1) This act, except subsections 1(2) and (3), comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.
"Idem
"(2) Subsections 1(2) and (3) shall be deemed to have come into force on the 5th day of June, 1991."
Mr Huget: This is a housekeeping item. The committee has deleted subsection 1(4) of the bill, which dealt with the Chair's remuneration, therefore reference to subsection 1(4) is being deleted from this section.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Huget. Any discussion?
Mr Farnan: Can you explain to me why this is being done?
Mr Huget: We have deleted section --
Mr Farnan: I think I am going to call for a 20-minute break, Mr Chairman.
The Vice-Chair: How be it we have a five-minute recess?
Mr Farnan: A five-minute recess will be fine.
The Vice-Chair: We will resume promptly in five minutes.
Mr Brown: Mr Chair, is the debate completed on this and we are just calling the vote?
Mr Farnan: No.
The committee recessed at 1117.
1124
The Vice-Chair: We will call the meeting back to order. We are on section 10 of the bill. Any further discussion on the government motion? All those in favour? Opposed?
Motion agreed to.
The Vice-Chair: Shall section 10, as amended, carry?
The committee divided on whether section 10, as amended, should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes -- 6
Farnan, Huget, Klopp, Marchese, Murdock, S., Ward, B.
Nays -- 5
Arnott, Brown, Cleary, Jordan, McGuinty.
Section 11 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
The Vice-Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
The committee divided on whether the bill, as amended, should carry, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes -- 6
Farnan, Huget, Klopp, Marchese, Murdock, S., Ward, B.
Nays -- 5
Arnott, Brown, Cleary, Jordan, McGuinty.
The Vice-Chair: Shall I report the bill?
Mr Jordan: I would like to put forward a motion, Mr Chairman.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Jordan moves that the government, given double-digit price increases for hydro rates in the province of Ontario and the subsequent effect on investment, and given the uncertainty over future power supplies in the province of Ontario, as demonstrated by Hydro's revised 25-year demand-supply plan, establish an all-party select committee on energy to study the management of Ontario Hydro, their future generating potential, and issues related to all forms of energy in Ontario, and that pending the report of this select committee Bill 118, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act, not proceed.
Mr Jordan: Throughout not only this committee meeting but as we took the bill across the province, I think I have on several occasions brought this point forward and received considerable support from the people coming before us. The point was that we were not talking about Ontario Hydro, but were in fact talking about all forms of energy; that the minister is Minister of Energy, not minister of Ontario Hydro; and that, in that this bill involves fuel switching and many other changes to the operation of the utility and the 25-year demand-supply plan, in moving forward with these mechanisms to try to meet the needs of the people of Ontario on which energy is best for which use, we do not do it blindly, that we have this committee and we sit down and once and for all, and for a good number of years ahead, establish an energy policy for the province of Ontario.
Mr Huget: This motion would unnecessarily prevent Bill 118 from proceeding in a timely manner and is therefore unacceptable to the government. The demand-supply plan is being reviewed by the Environmental Assessment Board and this motion prejudices the board's decision. We will not support the motion.
Mr McGuinty: I will speak in favour of the motion brought forward by Mr Jordan. What the government is attempting to do through Bill 118 is to resolve a problem that it perceives exists. However, it is not addressing the problem in a comprehensive manner. As a result, we are going at this on a piecemeal basis when really, if we are going to approach this responsibly and intelligently, we should be looking at the broader picture.
Bill 118 only looks at a very small part of the problem. We heard of all kinds of problems associated with Hydro that extend beyond the purview of this bill, and we heard of all kinds of problems here at the committee relating to other sectors of energy outside of Hydro. I think for that reason we should establish a select committee, take a look at the big picture, and then reconsider this bill.
1130
Mr Klopp: I just want to say that I concur with the parliamentary assistant on the reasons we have a problem with supporting this motion at this time. We have heard a number of people who had concerns. I know that you did bring up a lot of questions, Mr Jordan, about whether we should have a special committee, and there were many who said yes. There were also many who said very clearly that this bill, Bill 118, should not be held up any more, but should start to go ahead as soon as possible and in a timely manner.
Unfortunately, if I were to support this motion, I would then be holding up this bill. I think there are more people who came and said, "Let's get on with the process," so I cannot support your motion at this time.
Mr Jordan: Are you suggesting that the motion be amended?
Mr Klopp: No.
Mr Arnott: I would like to speak in support of this motion. With respect to what the member for Huron has just suggested concerning the issue of holding up the bill, I think there are provisions of the bill that make the bill retroactive back to the date of first reading, for example, and I do not see how this would handicap the government in any way. I think it is an important and positive and constructive suggestion by our party, and I would hope the government would view it as such.
But I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant to the minister: If this motion were adopted by the committee and if in fact the government accepted the recommendation, how would it prejudice the hearings that are presently ongoing, as he suggested? I do not understand that.
Mr Huget: The motion would unnecessarily prevent Bill 118 from proceeding in a timely manner, and for that reason it is unacceptable to the government. The demand-supply plan is being reviewed by the Environmental Assessment Board, and this motion would indeed prejudice the board's decision. I will defer to Mr Jennings.
Mr Jennings: If passage of the bill is delayed, certainly the fuel-switching provisions would be delayed, and any programs or activities in that area would obviously be delayed for some time.
Mr Jordan: This is bringing out something that the people of Ontario and certainly the people of the Legislature should think about. We in all sincerity took this bill to the people, and now I am understanding the parliamentary assistant to say that the updated 25-year demand-supply plan as revised and presented to the assessment board is dependent on Bill 118 passing without delay.
What the government has done here is to proceed with this demand-supply plan. I see counsel shaking his head, but the parliamentary assistant, as I understood it, stated that it was a requirement, as part of that which is now before the board, that this bill proceed without delay. If that is an issue, I think it should be talked about here and clarified, because you are pre-empting the whole purpose of this committee.
Mr Huget: I will defer to Mr Jennings.
Mr Jennings: The motion references Ontario Hydro's revised 25-year demand-supply plan and suggests that the proposed select committee would look at Hydro's future generating potential and other issues which are currently before the Environmental Assessment Board. Ontario Hydro's demand-supply plan, now its updated plan, is being reviewed by that Environmental Assessment Board. That is a quasi-judicial forum for reviewing that plan, so an issue would be whether having a select committee look at it at the same time would be prejudging the decision of the board. That is what the reference to the demand-supply plan was.
Mr Arnott: Are you saying a concurrent study of an issue undertaken by the Legislative Assembly or a committee of members of the Legislative Assembly, which is done concurrently with hearings at a board, is improper somehow?
Mr Jennings: I did not say it was improper, but I am saying it is obviously duplicating something that is already going on in a forum that has been established to do that.
Mr Arnott: But you are saying by definition that would prejudice the outcome of the hearings at the board.
Mr Jennings: It has the potential to prejudge the outcome of the hearings of the board, which has heard intervenors and has already been holding hearings for over a year.
Mr Jordan: Excuse me, Mr Chairman, but the hearings now are no longer on the original plan, they are on the revised plan.
Mr Jennings: They are dealing with the plan as updated on January 15.
Mr Jordan: But they are not dealing with the original plan.
Mr Jennings: There are a number of items they have to look at to approve or review the rationale and need for, and there are fewer of those items now, given the update. They are looking at the plan as updated by Hydro in January.
Mr Jordan: Would it be fair to say this plan cannot go forward without the policies of Bill 118?
Mr Jennings: There are estimates in that plan based on what Ontario Hydro expects could be achieved from fuel switching. There are also estimates in that plan of what Ontario Hydro expects would be achieved from government regulations with regard to the energy efficiency of appliances. There are expectations about what would be achieved in non-utility generation. There are expectations as to what Hydro would achieve in its other demand-management programs. There is a whole host of expectations.
Mr Jordan: Do you really think it was proper to present this plan prior to the bill receiving royal assent?
Mr Jennings: I cannot comment on that.
Mr Jordan: How does the parliamentary assistant feel?
Mr Huget: Any answer I would provide would be my opinion and I do not think it is appropriate for the question or for my opinion.
Mr Arnott: I think it is appropriate for the parliamentary assistant to respond on behalf of the government to this very valid, legitimate question.
Mr Jordan: I am referring back to Mr Farnan's comments.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Farnan had a further comment, so maybe we should hear Mr Farnan's comment.
Mr Farnan: As we draw to a close on this, Mr Chairman, I would want to take the opportunity before we close to comment on your outstanding leadership in the chair. I am sure all members of the committee would want to concur with that.
I also want to say that we can ask all kinds of questions. Indeed, the opposition, even with the committee completing its work, can legitimately continue to ask questions. I think that is acceptable and understandable and part of the role.
At this particular stage, I think there is one fact the parliamentary assistant stated in his summation, that the government requires timely passage of this legislation. There has been considerable consultation, there has been a very good discussion through the committee process, and we want to get on with the business of government. This is part of it; it is part of our agenda. We want to move ahead. It does not stop the questioning and it does not stop the opposition from seeking answers to what it perceives as legitimate questions. I think at this particular moment in time, we have come to the end of our committee deliberations.
I would suggest that Mr Jordan's motion does not gain my support simply on the basis that it does not allow for the timely process of the government's agenda on Bill 118. I would hope those other questions, legitimate as they are, can be pursued beyond this committee.
Mr Jordan: This may be out of order. My question is to Mr Farnan. Does he feel that a plan such as the updated demand-supply plan which is admittedly this morning dependent on the passing of Bill 118 relative to fuel switching and other changes -- I know it has not been done, but would it not have been more in the interest of the democratic process and in support of it to have waited until we had royal assent for Bill 118 and then presented this plan to the public?
1140
Mr Farnan: Let me put it this way. It is like the glass of water. Is it half full or half empty? On the one hand, you could say to people I want to commend your foresight in looking at these issues and in getting on with the job and in doing research and in putting forward proposals, but many things have no substance in fact without the support of legislation. Indeed were the government in its wisdom not to move forward with particular legislation, perhaps those initiatives would be redundant.
It happens that there is a concurrence of the minds here. There have been initiatives in terms of thoughtful planning and there is an initiative on the part of the government that supports that planning in terms of legislation. That sounds to me like a happy marriage, a fruitful and productive union, and we can go forward from there, hopefully with good planning, good accountability, a good working relationship between Ontario Hydro and the government. But at this particular stage we have gone through due process, and the government is anxious to carry on and to move forward with the legislation.
Your questions may be legitimate in your mind. From my perspective, I see an agency that is producing forward-looking plans and working out possible scenarios as being a very positive thing. As I have pointed out, it could be if the government did not have initiatives that integrated well with the creative planning on the part of Ontario Hydro, it would not be as productive as it looks as though it is going to be. I think for the sake of the people of Ontario and the taxpayers of Ontario, what we have are two things: Ontario Hydro forward planning and a government taking legislation action. That sounds pretty good. Let's get on and give the taxpayers that positive response that they are looking for.
Mr Jordan: I would just like to quickly reply to Mr Farnan in regard to his reference to what seems to be a happy marriage. We have witnessed a lot of those in actual life that appeared to be well thought out but did not last that long.
I just want to say that in rushing forward with this fuel-switching idea and the emission of CO2 into the air as against storing spent fuel bundles -- that is really the issue here: Which are you going to do: have more CO2 into the atmosphere or find a place to store your spent fuel bundles? You are going to have to find it anyhow because it is 60% of your base load. I am just concerned, since we interviewed the chairman and his staff and they said, "We haven't studied fuel switching to that degree," yet it has been made a policy to present to the public based on Bill 118. I just have a fear, has the homework been done? They may have some studying to do yet on it.
Mr Huget: The complaint that Hydro is planning for fuel switching based on the introduction of this bill argues for proceeding in a timely manner with the passage of this bill. The government has indicated its intent by tabling the bill, and Hydro would be remiss in not planning on the basis of a policy direction the government has clearly signalled. A decision as to whether or not the demand-supply plan update is proper will be decided by the Environmental Assessment Board.
The Vice-Chair: Hearing no further debate, all those in favour of Mr Jordan's motion? Opposed?
Motion negatived.
The Vice-Chair: Now I will go back to my original question. Shall I report the bill? Yes, Mr Huget?
Mr Huget: Yesterday or the day before, I forget which, Mr Arnott requested information with regard to the conflict-of-interest policy and other duties of the Hydro board. I provided some of that information in terms of remuneration yesterday. I have the balance of that information now and I will table it with the clerk.
Mr Arnott: Unfortunately I was not here yesterday. I had a commitment in my riding. I would like to hear what was indicated yesterday as well as a verbal response from you at this time. I might have questions I could put.
Mr Huget: You asked for the information and I will have to go back to read yesterday's Hansard.
Mr Arnott: If it is available today.
Mr Huget: I thought that is why we had Hansard, so that you could review it. If it was a serious enough request, I would have thought you would have been here for the response. This is a fairly lengthy document. If it is essential that I read it on the record, I will do so.
Mr Arnott: Could you briefly summarize it?
Mr Huget: I can briefly summarize by tabling it with the clerk.
Mr Cleary: Just as a comment on that, I know the question was asked by Mr Arnott what the cost of four new directors would be to the board. When a question like that is asked, I believe the total cost should be there. I took it on my own last night and this morning to get that information. It is my understanding that the information that was given here was somewhat light on the cost of four new directors.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Cleary. Any further discussion? We will now revert to the original question. Shall I report the bill?
Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.
The Vice-Chair: Is there anything else that anyone wishes to bring before the committee at this time? Mr Huget?
Mr Huget: Can we order the bill back for third reading?
The Vice-Chair: I will defer to the clerk for some ruling on this.
Clerk of the Committee: The bill will be reported in the House. At that point in time when it is reported, there will be a question put by the Speaker of the House whether or not the bill will go to committee of the whole House. That is not something that happens in committee and it cannot be decided here.
Mr Huget: I can request it to be reported back for third reading; however, it could not happen. Is that what you are saying?
Clerk of the Committee: It has to be done in the House. Third reading is not a function of this committee. Therefore it is the House as a whole, not just the committee, that decides if it will go on for third reading or if it will go to committee of the whole House.
Mr Huget: I make the request and if it cannot happen, it cannot happen.
Mr McGuinty: I wonder if the parliamentary assistant might be able to enlighten us as to the timetable he has in mind for bringing this to third reading. Is he aware of that?
Mr Huget: I am sorry. I cannot do that.
Ms S. Murdock: I just would like to thank all the people on the committee and especially the ministry staff and the clerk and the members --
The Vice-Chair: And the subs.
Ms S. Murdock: -- and the subs. But mostly because they have been most helpful. I know personally that I have appreciated their time and energy and information.
Mr Huget: I too would like to thank the ministry staff and committee staff for doing an admirable job of these sessions of committee hearings. I would also particularly like to thank the government committee members who attended faithfully and are interested in the subject.
I would like to thank the opposition and third party members as well, in particular Mr McGuinty and Mr Jordan, for their very enthusiastic participation and debate around this bill. I know both gentlemen have a keen and sincere interest in the matters that appear before this committee. I find their criticism has by and large been constructive, with a few sojourns into the non-constructive, but by and large well intentioned. I look forward to continuing to receive their input and counsel as we proceed with this committee.
Mr Arnott: I would like to extend plaudits all around, particularly to you for filling in as chairman this week. You have done an admirable job.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. I would like to make a comment, and that is that it has been a very easy week chairing the committee, and I thank everyone out there for making it that. This committee seems to work somewhat better than others. We seem to get our points out without getting into heated debate, and I appreciate that. It makes it much easier as Chair.
With that, unless there is further comment, we will stand adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1152.