Hansard Transcripts 1984-Mar-23 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding with routine proceedings, I would like to read into the record the names of the new pages who are with us for this first part of the session. They are:

Diane Arruda, Dovercourt; Jason Bondy, Windsor-Riverside; Claudio Commisso, Lake Nipigon; Robert Fear, Peterborough; Susan Hemming, Timiskaming; Barbara Francis, Perth; Manuela Fryters, Quinte; Michelle Gibson, Brantford; Cynthia Hampson, Burlington South; Tim Hutchinson, York South; Geoff Korz, Hamilton Mountain;

Nicole LeBlanc, Carleton; Heather Lyons, York Mills; Neil MacCarthy, Oriole; Trevor Martel, Sudbury East; Lianne McKeown, Hastings-Peterborough; Dean Memme, St. Catharines; Jennifer Ryan, Riverdale; Christine Thorsteinson, Brock; Rob Wildman, Algoma; Jeffrey Wright, London Centre, and Sava Zjalic, Oakville.

WORLD FIGURE SKATING CHAMPIONSHIPS

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, we have another shining hour for Ontario amateur athletes. This morning I would like to extend our hearty congratulations -- and, indeed, I am sure I can speak for all of us in this House -- to Barbara Underhill from Oshawa and Paul Martini from Woodbridge, Ontario, for their magnificent achievement in winning the gold medal in the pairs competition of the world figure skating championships at the Ottawa Civic Centre last night.

This is the first gold medal Canada has won in 11 years and the first pairs gold medal since 1962, when the Jelineks, Otto and Maria, won.

In winning the world championships, Underhill and Martini beat the reigning world champions and current Olympic gold medal holders. Coming from behind, these splendid and courageous performers showed great determination, especially in the light of a disappointing finish in Sarajevo at the Olympics.

Once again, on behalf of the government and, I am sure, on behalf of all of us, let me congratulate these two very fine skaters who represented Ontario and Canada so well. We wish them well in their future endeavours.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ENERGY SUPPLY SYSTEM

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House today on important matters relating to Ontario's energy supply system.

As I have said on numerous occasions since becoming minister, Ontario's electrical system with its Candu nuclear plant is our energy ace in the hole. I will outline today some recent highlights of Ontario Hydro operations --

Mr. Boudria: You mean more hot air.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I am being encouraged by my colleagues to give greater vent to this statement.

I will outline today some recent highlights of Ontario Hydro operations and also indicate some of Ontario Hydro's plans to repair two of its reactors so it will be able to make the record-setting achievements that have characterized Ontario's nuclear program from the outset.

I do not hear much barking about that.

Ontario Hydro's nuclear plants contributed to meeting record system loads last year and a record peak demand of almost 19,000 megawatts on January 12 of this year. During the high demand months of December, January and February, nuclear power supplied almost one third of Ontario's electricity at capacity factors approaching 100 per cent.

The past year has seen a continuation of the reliable operation of Hydro's nuclear plant. During 1983 the average capacity factor of the Bruce A reactors was over 90 per cent and those at Pickering averaged 76 per cent despite the first two units being out of service for a number of months at the end of the year. Pickering unit 5 was commissioned in 1983 and operated at a 92 per cent capacity factor. Unit 6 has recently come into service and is operating well.

Ontario Hydro has also continued to export more electricity than it bought from other utilities and has a healthy revenue from these sales, which helps offset the cost of electricity to Ontario customers In 1983 Hydro exported $447 million worth of electricity to the United States and was able to sell $46 million worth of electricity in January this year, a peak month for our own consumption of electricity.

Since the Legislature adjourned in December, Ontario Hydro has been going about its business of supplying its customers with reliable, reasonably priced electricity.

Earlier this month the province, borrowing on behalf of Ontario Hydro, readily obtained US$250 million in the US capital markets. The prospectus filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission contained up-to-date information on the situation at Pickering and on Ontario Hydro's decision to retube units 1 and 2. Clearly, this is a vote of confidence from perhaps the most critical and well-informed capital market in the world. It is a vote of confidence in Ontario, Ontario Hydro and in our Candu nuclear system.

With respect to the first two units at Pickering, Ontario, Hydro has continued its investigations into the failure of a pressure tube in Pickering unit 2 in August of last year. In all, 11 tubes have been removed from reactors 1 and 2 and have been examined by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. at its Chalk River laboratories. In addition, Hydro has inspected many pressure tubes in reactors 1 and 2.

The results of the work generally confirm that there has been embrittlement of pressure tubes during operation. Some tubes have developed blisters where contact between pressure tube and calandria tube has occurred. This contact has been possible because of displaced garter springs which act as spacers between pressure tube and calandria tube.

10:10 a.m.

Ontario Hydro has evaluated the options for getting units 1 and 2 back into operation and has concluded that the preferable course of action is to prepare the units immediately for retubing and to make use of the specialized tooling and personnel shielding which has been under development for a number of years. This special equipment, along with decontamination of the systems, will allow the task of tube removal to proceed with low radiation doses to workers, albeit somewhat more slowly than with a fully automated system. Ontario Hydro estimates that an automated system will be available for use early in 1986 and that retubing will be complete by early 1987.

Ontario Hydro has estimated that the cost of doing this work will be about $420 million. This includes the cost of decontamination and a share of the cost of the special tools and equipment. There has been some concern expressed about the costs, but members should appreciate that by making these repairs, Hydro will be protecting its investment in the rest of the plant and, at the end of the process, will have two nuclear units which have every prospect of a long, productive life in front of them.

Not all of the cost of repair will be put on the electrical customer. The federal and Ontario governments, which joined with Ontario Hydro in the initial venture of building the first two units at Pickering and which have benefited in the past from the excellent performance of these units, will also bear their share of the costs.

During the time these units are not operating. Ontario Hydro will use other sources to meet system demand. The overall impact on electricity customers will not be onerous. In fact, Hydro's estimate for next year is an increase in rates of one per cent.

Ontario Hydro is also taking steps to ensure that new reactors at Bruce, Pickering and Darlington can be brought on line with the expectation of extended lifetimes for their reactor components. There may be work to be done on operating reactors to prolong the useful life of their pressure tubes.

These are complex matters we are dealing with today and it may be that members would wish to have more detail on them. Accordingly, I have written to the chairman of the government caucus, the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) and the leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for York South (Mr. Rae), offering to have Ontario Hydro brief caucus members and answer their questions. I hope members will feel that would be worth while.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETUBING OF NUCLEAR REACTORS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. I note with great interest that he has acknowledged today that the garter spring problem was probably the cause for the blistering, embrittlement and cracking of the tubes in Pickering units 1 and 2.

Would he today confirm the information we revealed in the House yesterday that there are some 1,800 tubes out of place in Bruce units 5,6 and 7, that roughly one third of those garter springs are out of place? Would he confirm that that information is correct? Would he confirm whether or not that is a system-wide, generic problem? What will be the cost of repair in that particular situation?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has made some estimates that relate to the numbers of garter springs out of place. I can assure him that Ontario Hydro has taken steps to assess the seriousness of this problem.

The concern with respect to the reactors at Bruce that are about to be commissioned is being resolved. The garter springs are being repositioned. It would appear that the movement of garter springs has resulted from work during the construction phase.

With respect to other reactors, as it schedules the downtime for maintenance on other reactors. Ontario Hydro will be taking steps to reposition garter springs.

Mr. Peterson: Obviously the minister is not prepared to challenge the figures given in this House. and obviously it is a concern to him. He is not prepared to discuss the costs thereof.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Let me go on and ask the minister another question supplementary thereto.

We have learned that Ontario Hydro intends to borrow $64 billion in the next 20 years. We have also learned, according to Ontario Hydro, that there is going to be "severe upward pressure on rate levels" as a result of that and other problems.

By how much will these problems with the pressure tubes affect the rate levels and how great does the minister expect this severe upward pressure on rates to be in the next few years?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I have made that point clear in my statement. The estimate for the cost of retubing Pickering units 1 and 2 is $420 million.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister can explain why in his statement he made absolutely no reference to the fact that when Ontario Hydro decided to engage in the retubing of units 1 and 2, they announced simultaneously that they were going to begin the testing of the tubes at unit 3 at Pickering and that this had implications for the rest of the system because of the difference in the alloy used.

Why did the minister not make reference to that fact in his statement since it has real implications for the rest of the system? Can he tell us what is being done with respect to plans for the retubing of the rest of the Pickering reactors and the reactors at Bruce, and what implications it has for the reactor now being built at Darlington?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The leader of the third party has raised a rather interesting point. He is correct in his assumption that the alloy used in the reactors other than Pickering units 1 and 2 is different; it is zirc-niobium alloy. Hydro is confident that the problem of hydriding will not be prevalent in that alloy.

With respect to the inspection of unit 3, I think the leader of the third party would want us to be confident that the system will operate efficiently and effectively and I think it is important to make those assessments as there are opportunities during the downtime of a reactor.

Mr. Peterson: I would like to get back to the question of the financial soundness of the $64-billion borrowings over the next 20 years and the implications they have not only for the consumers but for this province as well. The minister is aware that this same internal report says, "The upward pressure on electricity rates may have to be balanced by lower levels of financial soundness for Ontario Hydro."

As the minister knows, the province of Ontario guarantees Ontario Hydro's borrowings. Can we have the minister's guarantee that Ontario Hydro's borrowings will not jeopardize the triple-A credit rating of this province?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: As usual, the Leader of the Opposition has done some creative mathematics. He has been reading the internal reports of Ontario Hydro, which I would suggest to him will perhaps occupy his time from now until his old age if he wishes to read them all. Of course, these reports are prepared by members of the staff of Hydro and they are opinions expressed by members of the staff; they are not necessarily the opinions of the board or senior management of that utility.

With respect to the financial soundness of the company, I referred to the most recent bond issue in my statement. I referred to the reaction of the market after the revelation to that market of all the activities surrounding retubing of Pickering unit 2. I think that reaction speaks for itself, for the financial soundness of the corporation and for the future of that corporation.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I think I should rise on a point of privilege and tell the minister exactly what I am quoting from so he is not mistaken.

Mr. Speaker: No. This is question period.

Mr. Peterson: It is so significant, and the minister is obviously unaware of it. He would probably adjust his statement if he had read this report of the comptroller's branch of Ontario Hydro --

Mr. Speaker: I would call your new question, please.

Mr. Peterson: -- talking about the long-range financial projections of Hydro for the next 20 years.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

10:20 a.m.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question and I will ask it of the Premier. In the throne speech he created great expectations in the area of skills training. I will go back and remind him of his own words, through the mouth of the Lieutenant Governor: "The measure of competitive world-class investment is...the quality of our performance in manpower training, technology adaptation, trade development and teamwork."

How does the Premier explain the fact that Ontario's contribution to apprenticeship and vocational and occupational training in the year 1971 was $62 million in actual figures, but by the year 1982 it had declined to $21 million? In real terms there was a decline and no attention to this issue. How does the Premier explain this decade of neglect of skills training?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, as is his custom, tends to ignore certain other facts in the posing of his questions. He neglects the amounts being expended through the training in business and industry program and the linkage program. Also, he does not take into account money being spent internally within industry.

In general terms, this is a matter that will be addressed by the government; but in terms of the existing programs, I question whether there is a province in Canada or a state of the union that has been allocating more of its resources than we have towards training or retraining of its personnel, both through retraining or training programs and within the school system.

I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that he cannot single out amounts spent on apprenticeship. In any evaluation of skills training or manpower training in this province, he also has to include many of the dollars being invested by the people of this province in the college system.

I also point out that those moneys are being spent in the college system, which system, incidentally, is superior to any comparable system in the United States -- there are no really valid comparisons in Canada -- and where a great deal of the skills training does go on.

Mr. Martel: Why do you not talk about skills training in Europe? Why do you not talk about that? You are not even in the ball park.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) that for years his party has made it difficult --

Mr. Nixon: Stop patting yourself on the back and give us an answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Premier will please address his answer to the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was just so tempted to reply to the member for Sudbury East, who has known over the years the reasons for the complexity and difficulty of the apprenticeship training program, but I will get back to the Leader of the Opposition.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition very simply that certainly expectations are created in the throne speech, but over the years we have met those expectations and I expect we will continue to meet those expectations. In fact, my expectation is that those expectations will be met.

Mr. Peterson: The figures I quoted to the Premier were Statistics Canada figures and not mine; they related to skills training and not to colleges or universities.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier said we had the best record in Canada, if not in the western world. Let me remind him of the fact that we have the worst record in Canada by a long shot. This government's expenditure on skills training is $2.40 per capita. Newfoundland spends 10 times as much as we spend. Let the Premier look at the facts; he is obviously uninformed.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: How does the Premier explain this lack of attention under his stewardship to this most important matter in our province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, in comparing the situation in Newfoundland and how it is treated and how we deal with it here in this province, the Leader of the Opposition's researcher should do a little more homework.

Take Fanshawe College, for instance. I know the Leader of the Opposition visits it regularly; it is close to his riding, and it may even be in his riding. I happen to have a list of the apprenticeship programs here, as to how many are in attendance and whether more could be helped in those programs

Mr. Sweeney: They do not finish them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) was great at the elementary level, but at the post-secondary level his knowledge is somewhat limited.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition that when it comes to the total factor of training or manpower training within industry initiated by government, within the college system and within the secondary school system, our record outperforms that of any jurisdiction in Canada or the United States.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, is the Premier actually denying in this Legislature that 43 per cent of the kids who start in grade 9 do not end up with a grade 12 certificate? Is he denying that fact? Is he also denying the fact that the absolute number of apprenticeships in this province declined this year over last year? That fact is one that works a great hardship on our young people; it puts us behind other countries and it points to a really serious gap in the way in which we treat the average student in this province. Is the Premier denying those facts?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will not remind the leader of the third party of what he has said about so many young people and so many workers in this province and how stupid they are. He can really provoke me into saying something about that --

Mr. Rae: I never said that. That was never said for a moment and the Premier knows that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He has said to the people in American Motors --

Mr. Rae: That is a fatuous statement and the Premier knows it is not true.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: The Premier knows it is not true.

Mr. Mackenzie: It is the only way he can answer it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: The Premier can withdraw that remark; he knows it is not true. He can withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: I never said that. That was never said for a moment and he knows that is not true. That is a fatuous statement and he knows it is not true.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: He can withdraw that remark. He knows that is not true.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I suggest you draw to the Premier's attention that under the rules of this House one cannot impute motives. I ask the Premier to withdraw. He cannot suggest that statement was made. I ask that you make him withdraw the allegation he has made imputing motives to my leader. We are not going to settle this unless he withdraws it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on the point of privilege, I am just quoting from the Toronto Star, where the leader of his party is quoted as saying, "It's in the interests of those who run the economy to keep a certain number of people stupid." That is the quotation.

Mr. Rae: All right. That is exactly what you are doing.

Mr. Mackenzie: You agree with that. That is exactly what you are doing. Keep them poor and keep them stupid.

Mr. Martel: Withdraw the imputation.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: To answer the question, I do not think there is any question that over the last year and a half or two years the number of students or young people involved --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: One year only.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- one year only, the minister tells me -- in apprenticeship programs was a direct reflection of the economic situation in this province.

I should also point out to the leader of the third party that we have had some modest degree of difficulty on occasion over the years in getting apprenticeship accepted to higher levels. I used to deal with this as Minister of Education when we were trying to introduce greater recognition in the secondary school program for the two-year and three-year vocational programs. We met a modest degree of resistance from some of the unions the leader of the third party so effectively represents. I was there for the discussions. He can shake his head as vigorously as he likes, but it happens to be true.

I should also point out to the leader of the third party that no one is disputing at all the percentage or figures as to those young people who graduate from grade 12 or grade 13. I should point out to him that in terms of any comparative assessment, whether with western Europe, the United States or throughout Canada, the numbers of young people who leave our secondary system in the four-year program or the two-year special vocational program compare very favourably. In fact, across Canada it is probably the highest.

It is higher in the United States because it has had a greater tendency to move people through the secondary school program to, say, a junior college, but in terms of the quality of what we are offering here and the level of excellence that is achieved, our system compares favourably. I would say without any reservation it is superior to almost every state of the union.

Mr. Peterson: I want to get back to the question of skills training, excluding colleges and universities.

Hon. Mr. Davis: How can one do that?

Mr. Peterson: Look at the figures. They are not included. I am giving Statistics Canada figures, comparing everybody on an equal basis. In that area, the national average is some $13 per capita. Ontario's record is $4 per capita. The government's performance is dismal by any standard.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: How can the Premier justify that in 1970-71 the province was participating to the extent of 34 per cent in skills training and occupational training programs with the federal government and today the contribution is 12.3 per cent? How does he explain that, by any statistical measure, compared with any other province our performance is the worst?

Hon. Mr. Davis: There are some valid areas of difference. I am not saying that what we do as a government represents perfection. I have never acknowledged that. But when the Leader of the Opposition is making these analyses, would he please understand that he cannot compare programs within provinces.

10:30 a.m.

If he looks carefully, he will find that a portion of the apprenticeship program is offered through the college system. The academic portions are there. These do not show up in the statistics he has been using here in the House this morning. What he has to look at is the total amount of money we are allocating in the college system and the secondary school system and in what we are doing with business and industry.

I would suggest, with great respect, that in total dollars this province is not behind the other provinces of Canada, it is ahead. One has to look at the figures and how we administer these programs in the total context.

Mr. Peterson: You are wrong in every respect.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker. my new question is for the Treasurer, who once again is acting as the defender of extra billing in Ontario. Why does he continue perpetrating the great lie when he goes around saying it is only the rich who are extra billed in this society? What evidence does he have to support that preposterous suggestion?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, we have debated this many times over the last several years. I would remind the leader of the third party that in the case of almost all the opted-out specialties, the vast majority of the bills submitted by the doctors who are extra billing are on an opted-in basis. The statistics will make that fairly clear.

The honourable member would presume that the doctors are extra billing the people less well off in society. I know many of those doctors and know many of the patients and I say that in the vast majority of cases they are extra billing the better-off in society.

Most important, I think the fundamental question is, who will pay to rectify the small number of cases that can otherwise be rectified where the doctors are billing the wrong people? One thing we know for certain is that in the Canada Health Act we are going to shift the total cost, or pretty close to the total cost, of extra billing from those who are currently paying the freight to those right across the system. Therefore, when we absorb that $50 million or whatever into the tax base, something has to give somewhere else.

It is safe to say that whether we choose to find that extra money through an increase in taxes or a decrease in expenditures or an increase in the deficit, people who are not currently extra billed, who do not have the resources to help pay that extra amount, are going to suffer. That is the fundamental inequity in the Canada Health Act. It militates in favour of the better-off in society and militates against the worse-off in society.

Mr. Rae: That is utter nonsense and the Treasurer should know it. He must know it. Why is he going to impose a tax on the citizens simply because he is not prepared to deal fairly with all the doctors and all the citizens of this province? The only reason there is a revenue problem as a result of the Canada Health Act is that he is so determined to stick it to the average taxpayer of this province and see that the medical profession gets to eat its cake and have it at the same time. That is the only reason there is a tax problem and the only reason there is a revenue problem.

Is the Treasurer suggesting for a moment it is only rich people who have operations and require an anaesthetic? Is he suggesting it is only rich people who have to go to an obstetrician or a gynaecologist? The clear evidence is that whole groups of doctors are opted out of the system and that rich and poor people alike are affected by the practice of extra billing. He knows that is the case. I do not know how he can stand up and continue denying it when he does not have a single shred of evidence.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The point I made was not with regard to the numbers of doctors who are opted out. What I said very carefully was that the bills submitted by the doctors who are opted out indicate --

Mr. McClellan: What about the anaesthetists?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In the case of anaesthetists the figure is 27 per cent, so in fully 73 per cent of cases the anaesthetists --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The facts always cause the member some problems. I understand that.

In 73 per cent of cases, anaesthetists are not extra billing. That is pretty decent prima facie evidence that in most cases anaesthetists are not extra billing.

Mr. Martel: How stupid can you get?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There goes that word again. It is a nemesis.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member would put the proposition that in 27 per cent of the cases where anaesthetists are extra billing they are attacking the poor. With respect, the evidence would just not sustain the proposition he is putting. In any event, the important case on behalf of those people less well off in society is that he is asking them to pick up the tab.

Just so that we put this in some perspective, when one talks about --

Mr. Rae: No, you are asking them to pick up the tab because you are not prepared to take on the profession. That is the truth. Tell the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Once the Premier (Mr. Davis) reminds the member of his earlier silly remarks, he is really not the same the rest of the morning.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The workers at American Motors are upset with him.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They were before, so do not worry.

I remind the member that the important amendment made to the Canada Health Act calls for binding arbitration.

Mr. Rae: They are not upset with me.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Those who know who he is.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That reduces the size of the problem significantly.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I must say I have trouble with the Treasurer's logic. What logical evidence is there to assume that he has to extract that additional $50 million out of the public hide in any way or other? Why not just stop the practice? What is he afraid of? Is he afraid they are going to leave or that they are going to cheat? Why does he assume he has to give them another $50 million just because of that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The leader of the Liberal Party will find out that both Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, who made the original recommendation in this regard, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare -- some days but not others, I would admit -- have both said that in the event extra billing is banned, other arrangements are going to have to be made to enrich the fee schedules in order to compensate the opted-out specialists more adequately.

Mr. Peterson: So you are going to punish the ones who are opted in.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We are not punishing them.

Mr. Peterson: The squeaky wheel gets oiled.

Mr. Speaker: May we quickly, briefly, hear the answer?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Sean, would you speak to your leader?

Mr. Conway: We pay a referee to be consistent.

Mr. Speaker: Order. But surely it is Friday.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Might I just emphasize those are not conclusions reached only by the Ministry of Health and this government. I repeat, if the member believes that proposition is not accurate, if he believes the doctors can and should just be opted in and we will be able to retain them, if he believes all that to be so, he should take exception, not with this government, but with Monique Bégin and with Mr. Justice Hall, both of whom are relied upon, but not by us, as beacons of judgement in this regard.

Mr. Rae: Since 1981, Ontario health insurance plan premiums have been raised by 42 per cent by the Tory government; from $480 a year per family to $680 a year, an increase of $200. It is already the case that those in the province with modest means, making about $15,000 a year, when we include OHIP premiums are the most highly taxed taxpayers in all Canada and OHIP revenues now provide more to the Treasury than corporate tax revenue.

How can the Treasurer possibly justify an increase in taxation to the average taxpayer in Ontario for the simple reason he is not prepared to work out a fair deal with the doctors of the province that ensures every single doctor is opted in? Why should that be stuck to the taxpayer just because he does not have the courage to do what he has to do?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is interesting the leader of the New Democratic Party says it is just because we will not work out a fair deal. If the Canada Health Act comes in, I presume by the question he is acknowledging there must be a "fair deal" struck anew with the doctors of this province, given the opting-in basis. That is again consistent with Monique Bégin, again consistent with Mr. Justice Hall, both of whom have said the specialists will have to be paid more out of the opted-in schedules.

I take it the member endorsed that position and, therefore, someone has to fund it. There is only one way to fund these things. I know this will be a revelation to the member but the way one funds --

Mr. Rae: I never suggested that and you know it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, so the member does not agree with those positions. I understand, he does want to have it both ways. I understand and I have become used to that.

10:40 a.m.

FRENCH LANGUAGE RIGHTS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Premier. The Premier will recall that in October 1983 we had a series of exchanges on the subject of French language rights in Ontario. He will also know that since that time there has been a major setback for the cause of minority rights in all of Canada because of the attitude and position taken by the Conservative Party in Manitoba with respect to the constitutionalization of language rights in that province.

I am sure the Premier is aware of the psychological impact that the activities of the Tory party in that province and the failure to progress with respect to minority rights in Manitoba have had on French-language minorities throughout Canada and in particular in our own province.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Given what has happened in the past few months and the particular role Ontario plays in Confederation and the leadership role it should be playing in this area, why does the Premier continue to be so reluctant, according to recent press reports, to move ahead and make official what in many ways is already happening? Higher standards need to be set.

Why does the Premier continue to be so reluctant to move ahead when I believe there is such a strong degree of consensus within the province that we should be moving ahead in this area?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on the latter view of the leader of the New Democratic Party. I do not know whether he reflects a point of view that is accurate, and I say with great respect that I am not sure he does.

I point out to him, and I am sure he is aware of this, that there is a very real distinction between the legal positions in this province and in Manitoba. People who draw parallels do so without understanding the historical and legal situation of our sister province and what our legal obligations are here in Ontario.

It is fair to state, and I review some of the history of this, that it was this province and this Premier that insisted on the inclusion within the Constitution of this country of the right for education of our young people in either of the two official languages. That to me is fundamental to any concept of preservation of language or culture. I think that is at the basis or root of anything we do in that regard, and it was this province that insisted that section be included.

It is fair to state that this government has taken what we believe is a very responsible and sensitive approach to this issue. As the leader of the New Democratic Party himself acknowledges, we have in many respects met, shall we say, the programs or even the law of some our sister provinces in terms of the provision of services to the Franco-Ontarians of this province.

This will be further strengthened in the legislation the government will be introducing whereby it will no longer relate to questions of heads of families. Where the situation is such, the obligation on the boards for either the francophones or anglophones to provide an educational service in either French or in English will become part of the law of Ontario.

I recognize the sensitive nature of this issue. I know the statements made by some of our national politicians. But I say with the greatest of respect that we have moved in this province in a way that has been generally acceptable and that has increased the level of service to the Franco-Ontarians. We have done it by policy, we have also done it by statute, and I make no apologies for what we have done and what we have accomplished.

Mr. Rae: I just say to the Premier, and I say it as directly as I can, that he is missing a great opportunity. He is denying to a great many francophones across the country a chance to see that they can live in their own language outside Quebec with a great sense of confidence and understanding in the attitude of the majority.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: I would simply like to quote for the Premier a statement made by his federal leader, Mr. Mulroney, on June 2 in the newspaper Le Devoir, where he said the francophone minority in Ontario does not have "des droits écrits, solides et irréversibles dans une constitution" -- the francophone minority does not have written rights that are solid and irreversible in the Constitution -- and he said he finds that "anormal" -- he finds it abnormal.

Why does the Premier disagree with his federal leader on this most important and pressing national and provincial problem?

Hon. Mr. Davis: One of the great complexities we have faced as a province is, shall we say, the lack of understanding by people in other parts of Canada, one in particular, as to the comprehensive nature of the programs existing here.

I point out, and I know I have argued this both ways, that it is intriguing the leader of the New Democratic Party argues when the law of Ontario is there, and it is pretty clear-cut, that there is not the same measure of protection as if it were in the charter. I understand the differences; I understand the abilities to amend the federal Constitution are far more complex than an act of this Legislature. But I point out to him that part of our policy with respect to Franco-Ontarians is entrenched in the law of this province, and I do not think he can ignore that.

The educational provisions, when they are finished here, will compare favourably with those of any other province of Canada, and I say with the greatest of respect that the provisions for francophones in this province in the field of education, which is basic, will be far superior to those of the anglophones in Quebec.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, it is true; it will be. The member knows it and I know it.

With respect to what Mr. Mulroney observed in June, I suggest the member ask Mr. Mulroney his views now, because Mr. Mulroney has begun to understand just how comprehensive we have been, how much we have done and how much is in the form of statute. I noticed that in recent months Mr. Mulroney has not been making observations about French-language services here in Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker. the Premier should endorse John Turner's statement of yesterday. Ontarians would be satisfied with that sort of statement.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Roy: Surely the Premier understands that constitutional guarantees give more security than provincial legislation. Surely he understands that what the Franco-Ontarians are asking for is no different from the guarantees that other groups were given under the charter, whether it be the women, the native people or the citizens of this province.

Accepting the fact that he has progressed in the field of education and in the field of justice, that there is provincial legislation there --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Roy: Just be patient with me, please, Mr. Speaker. What is the Premier's reluctance in the twilight of his career to seize this opportunity -- lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: I hope I am not offending him by saying that.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Roy: What is the Premier's reluctance to give constitutional guarantees in all areas where he is giving the services now -- something along the lines of the resolution I put forward -- and at the same time to set a tremendous example for all of the country, for our friends both to the west and to the east? This is an ideal opportunity to do that before the Premier moves on to other things.

10:50 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Day by day, I feel the member for Ottawa East has really moved on to his other career and that this is sort of a part-time situation for him. Twilight can be a very prolonged period, and I would rather be in that twilight than never have been around at the rising of the sun, as in the case of the honourable member's party.

I will not become provocative today and remind the member of the ambivalence, the contradictions, the lack of unanimity, the changes in position, almost within hours, of the community party of Ontario which sometimes uses the name "Liberal." I will not remind him of that.

Mr. Conway: I will not remind the Premier of the Carleton by-election.

Interjections.

Mr. Conway: You were so clear. You were so prime-ministerial. Your hands will be dirty forever for that. You ought not to talk about anyone.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Renfrew North will please contain himself.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I partially agree with the member for Ottawa East that, in terms of perception, having certain rights entrenched in the federal Constitution may create the feeling that there is a stronger guarantee. But I should point out, and I will go through the history of it again, it was this province that insisted the educational right be included in the Constitution. That to me is basic to what is paramount in this issue, the preservation of language and culture.

I regret, though, the feeling that may exist in some circles where they question, shall we say, the strength of a provincial statute. The member has been here and he has supported the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) in terms of the justice field. It is without question the law of Ontario. I say without equivocation or hesitation that Franco-Ontarians have every reason to be totally secure that no Legislature in this province is going to alter that particular legislation. Why should they not be secure? Of course they are.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is quoted as opposing entrenchment of official bilingualism in the Constitution. In his response to Mr. Trudeau he has used the words that there is the potential for some expression, part of it based on misunderstanding, that everybody would have to become officially bilingual. Those were the Premier's words.

In view of the fact that the situation has become more intense and more serious, and the Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, has specifically urged Ontario to act, and that the Manitoba situation underlines the necessity for action now, can the Premier indicate whether there is any evidence of that misunderstanding, evidence that could not be offset by the ample resources the government has in terms of public relations and communication with the public?

For that matter, has there been even one example of misunderstanding or backlash that has arisen in response to the government's law in this province to make French an official language in the courts? If those things have not happened, why can the Premier not exercise leadership, like his predecessor, John Robarts, in entrenching language rights in the Constitution of Canada? Why can the Premier not be like Mr. Mulroney or Mr. Robarts rather than being like Mr. Filmon?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will not get into any parallels. I say with the greatest of respect to my predecessor, for whom I have great respect, that the only entrenchment that has taken place was through the Education Act and through the Charter of Rights, where this government insisted education be a part of the charter.

With the greatest of respect again, the honourable member himself, when he used the phrase "make Ontario officially bilingual," pointed out in his phrasing of the question one of the perceptions that exist in this province. I think there is some concern about that, perhaps exaggerated in some areas. I have always endeavoured to point out that the entrenchment of certain rights in the charter would not make this province officially bilingual, but the member highlights part of the problem of perception himself when he uses that very phrase.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) asked me a question, and I will try to respond as rapidly as I can. I will quote from the Leader of the Opposition; "My question, just in time, Mr. Speaker" -- I guess this was after; I will not read the preamble -- "is how could the Premier be happy with a ministry such as the Ministry of Correctional Services that has had an untendered contract since 1976 with Montfort Blanchet and Associates. It now totals some $327,000 and is in clear violation of the government's own Manual of Administration. How can he explain that? When is he going to take the problem seriously?"

I gave a tentative answer: "I have always taken problems seriously but, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, never myself, which is something he might learn some day." That was just a little word of advice.

After many hours of careful research -- and I was up most of the night trying to get this answer ready for the Leader of the Opposition; I know the many hours of public service time that went into preparing this response -- I would say, in that he has not had his daily press conference on these issues today, that I do not intend to make a practice of this. I suggest that when he has other brown envelopes and wishes to ask questions about them, he direct them to the individual ministers. But in that this was asked of me, I will do my best to answer it.

Perhaps the honourable member's researchers thought the Ministry of Correctional Services was involved in retaining consultants Montfort Blanchet to advise on the calibre of wine served in the correctional institutions. Montfort Blanchet offers a service in the field of medical, dental or psychiatric services to the institutions. The figures are very simple: 1976-77, $15,821; 1977-78, $26,326; 1979-80, $58,838, and so on; and last year it was $49,114, for a total of $327,289.

These annual payments are contractual retainers. They ensure 24-hour medical coverage 365 days per year and permit Montfort Blanchet -- which is in the medical business, not in the wine-tasting business -- to charge specifically for service-chargeable health care functions requested by the correctional centre. The honorariums are increased automatically by the same increment received by the senior medical consultant to the ministry as determined by the Civil Service Commission.

I think it is felt by the ministry that when one is providing a health care system to one of the correctional institutions, there is some merit in retaining the same group of doctors to continue the provision of this service. This has been looked at for some six years by the Provincial Auditor, and no comment has been made.

I say with the greatest of respect that I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will find some specific examples where improvements can be made, but I think on this occasion he struck out.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the facts as the Premier recites them are quite accurate; he had only to read our research to find that out. He should not have wasted a whole night, because when you get tired you do not always act the right way.

Let me ask him this question. That contract has been going on for seven years. The Manual of Administration -- and I am going by memory; I think it is in section 50.4 -- says no contract shall run longer than three years. That is the government's Manual of Administration, not mine. This contract is clearly in violation of his government's Manual of Administration.

How can the Premier tolerate that, particularly in the light of the pattern of contracts that are violating his Manual of Administration? That is the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, I doubt if the ministry were to tender in that sense of the word --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, the member has walked into this; let us try to deal with it intelligently and logically. I know it comes as a great shock to him to find out --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Pardon?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I could not hear you.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: When I am tired, I do not hear very well.

Mr. Speaker: Answer the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Actually, while I was up all night getting this answer ready, I really feel quite healthy this morning.

Mr. Peterson: You look terrible.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know I look terrible. I know the kind of things the member says about us: "We look terrible." "We have nannies at home." I have to tell him that when Kathy saw that piece the member wrote about himself in the Toronto Star where he said, "We have nannies at home," she said, "My goodness" --

Interjections.

Mr. Conway: If I might tender a bit of advice --

Mr. Speaker: I might give you a bit of advice.

Take a look at the standing orders and see what they provide.

11 a.m.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: It is unfair when you call us to order when you tolerate that kind of prime ministerial digression time and time again.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have cautioned the member once and I shall not caution him again.

FRENCH LANGUAGE RIGHTS

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. It involves a question that was previously raised in this Legislature. Leaving aside all partisan rhetoric or anything like that --

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Oh.

Mr. Boudria: If this question is not serious for the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Gregory), it is for me as a francophone, and the same goes for the rest of the members opposite.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Boudria: As a Franco-Ontarian in this Legislature, I am asking the Premier, will he convene a meeting of the three party leaders in this House with a view to coming to a unanimous resolution of all party leaders vis-a-vis the improvement of francophone rights in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, I think there are two issues here. I answered and I hope I answered to the satisfaction of the leader of the third party. While there was a disagreement between him and me, I say, again with the greatest of respect, that in the provision of services, which I distinguished from the question of entrenchment, I do not believe there is any need to convene a meeting of the three party leaders.

I make no apologies for the policies, the programs and the legislation we have introduced. If the member is critical of existing legislation, he should feel free to be so or to have his leader say that, as a party, it would do some things differently or go much further, whatever the direction might be. I do not see that any convening of a meeting of the three party leaders on the issue of provision of French-language services is necessary. If he does not feel what we are doing is adequate, he has every right as a member to say so, or he can ask his leader to say so, and he can make that point of view publicly known.

Mr. Boudria: I recognize I have the right to raise these issues in this Legislature. However, at the federal level at least, we have demonstrated that trying to deal with these matters in a manner which is not partisan, and which could be arrived at by consensus, is perhaps much more effective than what we have seen in Manitoba recently and in Quebec for a longer period of time. I think the leadership approach which could be demonstrated by having a unanimous resolution vis-a-vis improvement of services would be better.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Boudria: Will the Premier not share that view and will he not convene a meeting of the three party leaders in this Legislature vis-a-vis improvements for francophones in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will not belabour the point, but I find the question just a little strange. My recollection is that on most of these issues, when the government has introduced legislation, announced policies or informed the House of expansion of policies, there has been a real degree of unanimity. There have been criticisms that we have perhaps not gone far enough. I just do not see any purpose being served in having the three leaders deal with the question of French-language services in the province. I distinguish between that and the question raised by the member for York South (Mr. Rae).

VISITOR

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, we have a very distinguished visitor in the government gallery today. I am only sorry he is in the government gallery. He is the federal Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I know he will not be co-opted by the other side, but I think he deserves a hearty welcome from this House. He has done an outstanding job for this country in international trade.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my words of welcome to Mr. Lumley. I apologize to the members of the House since the two leaders have asked their questions, because Mr. Lumley is here to be co-opted by the Premier of this province on matters very relevant to the general economy of Ontario.

Mr. Peterson: He is too smart for that. He is a lot smarter than that.

Mr. Conway: He remembers Pierre Benoit.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ALLEGATIONS OF HARASSMENT

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour regarding the confusion that has arisen among Ontario workers in the labour movement as a result of the evidence accepted by the Ontario Labour Relations Board in the Stan Gray-Westinghouse case. I want to make it clear that I will not be asking the minister to comment directly or indirectly on that decision or on that case.

Is the minister prepared to make a clear statement that it is not the policy of this government to intimidate or threaten workers who attempt to exercise their rights and obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I anticipated this question and, in anticipation of two meetings I had with interested groups, I sought an independent legal opinion. When I say "independent," I am referring to an opinion outside of my ministry. I have been told that because there are ongoing appearances before the Ontario Labour Relations Board and there is the possibility of civil action, I should make no comment whatsoever.

Mr. Wildman: I understand the minister's position, and he did notify me of that, but it is my further understanding that at this time there has been no civil suit filed with the court. I do not see, therefore, that there is a problem.

What I would like the minister to do is to affirm here today that it is not the policy of this government to intimidate citizens of Ontario from the exercise of their democratic rights in informing elected members of the assembly of their concerns and grievances, whatever they might be.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: With the greatest respect to my colleague opposite, I have to accept either his advice or the advice of very learned counsel. I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that it would be more appropriate for me to accept the advice of learned counsel.

I am prepared to answer at a later time the question he has raised today. I am not suggesting I will not respond to it. I will not respond to it at this time, but I will make a commitment to respond to it at a later and appropriate occasion.

JUNCTION TRIANGLE

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. On January 12, in the Junction triangle area, several students and three teachers fell ill at a local skating rink and displayed symptoms of severe health problems. It is now March 23 and the ministry has not yet announced the findings of the investigation into the incident.

Can the minister tell us whether officials of his ministry have established the identity of the firm that keeps poisoning our neighbourhood, and is he prepared to make this information public?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, my ministry staff in the Junction triangle area have carried out intensive investigations of the possible emission source for the particular problem that has been identified by the honourable member. I regret to say we have not as yet been able to identify the source of the contamination, the fumes or the odours that emanated from a supposed industry in the triangle. I regret to say that because we too would like to know where the source was and then, I can assure the member, our ministry would move on it.

It is an incident that has not been repeated. I regret that it happened. No one has come forward with evidence that would give us the kind of specific information we would require to proceed either to lay charges or to take some action against the industry or against the source in question if it was not an industry. I cannot identify the source because we simply do not know.

11:10 a.m.

Mr. Ruprecht: This is indeed very interesting. I have no reason to believe the minister does not take this seriously, but I was told by his staff that they had identified the firm and that they were going to make it public on April 6. My supplementary would have been whether he would be making it public today.

I am very surprised that the minister now tells us he has not found the cause of this poisonous air emission. Several kids and three teachers were poisoned; they did not even go back to school for the whole week. If his staff cannot identify what these kinds of problems are, then I must ask him what his long-term proposals are to clean up this area so these kinds of problems, continuous air emissions and poisonous chemical spills do not take place.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I did not indicate that I would not be prepared to release the identity of the industry in question to the House when it was made known to me. I have not been advised of the specific identity of that industry. If the member knows it, then perhaps he can identify it and release it to the House. I do not have that information.

The member knows as well that the cleanup in the Junction triangle is a very sensitive and very complicated matter. We have established community groups in that part of the community in order to have free, open and complete access to all of the information we have as a ministry with respect to activities that are ongoing there over a long period of time.

There have been some very substantive cleanups already that have been undertaken and completed. I cannot guarantee the member that there will never be an upset in any industry in Ontario, let alone the Junction triangle, butt can tell him we are very concerned about it, concerned to the point that we are spending very large sums of ministry money to monitor that situation on an ongoing basis, but we are doing it with the best interests of the community in mind.

We are not making, I might add, and do not provoke me on this one because I have heard some of the member's statements --

Mr. Ruprecht: Provoke the minister? People are getting sick and he stands here telling us he cannot do anything about this.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: -- none of which has been proved. Some of the allegations he has made have bordered on irresponsibility and the member knows it. He has gone ahead and frightened people unnecessarily on this question. I have to take strong issue with that.

Mr. Ruprecht: Yes, it is irresponsible. Kids end up in the hospital. The minister is irresponsible because he is not acting on this problem. We want him to spend more money on this to investigate these problems.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member will please resume his seat.

Mr. Ruprecht: He is the one who is irresponsible in this matter.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The member should look at his statements.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ruprecht: What a bunch of nonsense. All these kids are in the hospital and the minister says "irresponsible." What a bunch of nonsense.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I will not caution the member for Parkdale again.

Mr. Ruprecht: We want the minister to act on this, Mr. Speaker.

ASSISTANCE FOR LAIDOFF WORKERS

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Given the government's enthusiastic words about employment recovery and economic growth taking place in industry, can he tell us why there was nothing in the throne speech which dealt with positive measures to take care of workers in layoff situations, such as notification, justification, shorter hours, an end to planned overtime, or some form of priority in terms of transfers?

Given the fact his own ministry's figures for January of this year, the latest figures available, showed there were more workers laid off in January 1984 than there were in 10 of the months of the previous year, and that out of the 4,395 additional projected layoffs, over 50 per cent or over 2,300 were in the city of Hamilton, what is there in the throne speech to give some hope the recovery is going to assist these particular workers?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting and appropriate question because just after question period yesterday the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) and I met with the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour and some of his colleagues and we discussed some of those same matters. Those are matters the Treasurer is very concerned about.

An invitation was given to Mr. Pilkey and to his people yesterday to bring forward some proposals to us before the final decisions are reached in respect to the budget.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Bellwoods on a point of order.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, when he was replying to a question from my leader, the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) gave some quite important information to the House, but his figures do not jibe. Could I have the Treasurer's attention during my point of order?

The figures the Treasurer gave to the House were that 27 per cent of anaesthetists were extra billing their patients and 63 per cent of opted-out anaesthetists were not. Those figures do not add up to 100 per cent. I wonder if the Treasurer could take the opportunity to clarify the record.

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a point of privilege. You may ask a question.

Mr. McClellan: I am giving him an opportunity to clarify the record because it is important.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: The figures are obviously inaccurate.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just to clarify the record.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, in preparation for my budget I was trying to do some instant mathematics in my head and subtracted incorrectly. In fact, it was 73 per cent.

BIRTH OF MEMBER'S DAUGHTER

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I rise on a happy occasion to announce to the House that the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) and his wife are now the happy parents of a baby daughter whose name is Victoria. I am sure all members will join with us in wishing the entire family all the very best.

VISITOR

Mr. Rae: I would also like to draw attention to the fact that we have in our presence today the happy face of the former member for Fort William, now a distinguished federal candidate in Fort William, Mr. lain Angus. I am sure the members will want to renew acquaintance with him.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 28(b), I am not satisfied with the answer the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) has given and I would like to give notice that he should answer on the late show.

PETITIONS

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner) and his constituents, the Peterborough Christian School Society Inc., I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, appealing to the honourable members of the Legislature for help in redressing an injustice having to do with what it feels is an unfair burden and, in effect, double taxation.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by approximately 90 constituents in the Wallaceburg area, which reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to appeal to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"As Wallaceburg area residents of the Chatham-Kent riding, we appeal for justice towards independent schools. This is not an appeal for charity. We have dutifully paid our taxes. We are entitled to receive at least some of the moneys we have paid for the education of our own children."

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by several constituents living in the great electoral district of Renfrew North, which reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men; whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

It contains 110 signatures from the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk.

Mr. Edighoffer: I have a petition, Mr. Speaker.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

This petition is signed by more than 100 people who are employed within the riding of Perth.

11:20 a.m.

4-H CLUBS

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) has not been here for the last two or three days to get involved with agriculture.

I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the 4-H program of the province has been and is a worthwhile and indispensable service to the youth of rural and urban Ontario; and whereas the viability and effectiveness of the program requires continued interest, support and participation by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food,

"We therefore petition that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food be ordered to provide continuing assistance to 4-H Club work, including providing direction to leaders and members, providing staff to conduct farm visits and to provide adjudication of 4-H books and projects."

This is signed by approximately 90 people of the Tiverton area in Bruce county in my riding.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I wonder if we could have you give us on Monday a report on the health of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell). I am concerned that he has not been in the House for question period since the session began four days ago and we do have some very important questions we want to ask him.

I am a little concerned about the minister's health. Are the farm bankruptcies that are taking place bothering him to the point where he just cannot come into the House, or is there some other reason? Would you mind reporting on Monday, please?

Mr. Speaker: I must point out to you that is hardly a point of privilege. Further, that is not one of my responsibilities. However, I am sure the government House leader has taken note of what you have said and will determine an answer for you.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the following changes be made in order of precedence for private members' public business:

Mr. Breithaupt for Mr. Conway as number 2; Mr. Spensieri for Mr. Breithaupt as number 14; and Mr. Conway for Mr. Spensieri as number 32.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ZETA PSI ELDERS ASSOCIATION OF TORONTO ACT

Mrs. Scrivener moved, seconded by Mr. Jones, first reading of Bill Pr 18, An Act to revive Zeta Psi Elders Association of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

CENTRAL BAPTIST SEMINARY AND BIBLE COLLEGE ACT

Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Mr. Rotenberg, first reading of Bill Pr4, An Act to incorporate Central Baptist Seminary and Bible College.

Motion agreed to.

SCANDINAVIAN-CANADIAN CENTRE ACT

Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Mr. Rotenberg, first reading of Bill Pr13, An Act respecting the Scandinavian-Canadian Centre.

Motion agreed to.

MORAMOS HOLDING CLUB OF ESSEX ACT

Mr. Cooke moved, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, first reading of Bill Pr1, An Act to revive the Moramos Holding Club of Essex.

Motion agreed to.

BAPTIST BIBLE COLLEGE CANADA AND THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY ACT

Mr. G. I. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. McKessock, first reading of Bill Pr15, An Act to incorporate Baptist Bible College Canada and Theological Seminary.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ACT

Mr. Kerrio moved, seconded by Mr. Edighoffer, first reading of Bill Pr10, An Act respecting the City of Niagara Falls.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. Charlton moved, seconded by Mr. Allen, first reading of Bill Pr41, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Charlton moved, seconded by Mr. McClellan, that pursuant to standing order 34(a), the ordinary business of the House be set aside in order to debate a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the lack of financial and political accountability revealed by Ontario Hydro's decision to commit power consumers to pay $700 million to replace the pressure tubes in Pickering nuclear generating station units 1 and 2, without any possible review of either the appropriateness of the expenditure or the causes of the problems which led to that expenditure, a decision which will expose Hydro maintenance employees to additional health and safety risks because of Hydro's determination to proceed with the retubing of the reactors before special remote handling devices have been developed.

11:30 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to point out to all honourable members that the notice of motion has been received in time and I will be prepared to listen for up to five minutes as to why the member wishes to set aside the ordinary business of the House.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order before the arguments are put forward. I would like you to consider, while the arguments are being put, the efficacy of using this procedure in this way to order the business of the House.

I am sure my colleagues are going to advise you that the debate should go forward and I have a feeling it will, and we are looking forward to taking part in it, but it seems to me that the procedure ought not to be used as a House leaders' gimmick to order the course of events of this House, but in fact be left to true emergencies.

If it is decided that a debate on Hydro is proper and in order, and I believe it is today, surely there is some other way we can achieve that besides going through this charade of trying to convince you to approve something we all know is going to happen. Why do we not use the procedure for real emergencies to set aside the regular business, instead of this kind of a funny game?

I am looking forward to the debate. I do not like the procedure with which we are entering it.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised by my friend's remarks in that we think it is a genuine emergency and that is what it was moved for. If an accommodation was made because there was elected to this Legislature a new member who had friends in for his introduction to the House, we believe there was no gimmickry about it; we did it in good faith to accommodate the new member and at the same time not reduce the importance of the motion we presented today. It was submitted to the Speaker's office last Tuesday, I might suggest to my friend.

Mr. Nixon: That is the questionable aspect of the emergency.

Mr. Martel: I want to tell my friend that if he is suggesting the House should not decide these issues, who is he suggesting should? Should it rest entirely with the Speaker, who can rule it out of order so we do not debate it at all, or who rules it in order? Usually it is left to this Legislature.

All the House leaders attempt to do is to facilitate the bringing forward of any particular emergency resolution. We do the same with no-confidence motions. We try to facilitate the better working of the House.

I am surprised and I am going to sit and wait with interest and watch what the Liberals do in the future in terms of emergency debates. I am not going to ask for recognition by the Speaker of whether it is an emergency. Then this House does not have the final authority on whether it wants to debate the matter, with direction from the Speaker as to whether he considers it to be an emergency.

I am surprised. Maybe the Liberal House leader should take up the request of the procedural affairs committee, which on a number of occasions has invited us to present ourselves and discuss changes. Maybe he should accept the offer and present that view, or at least ask Mr. Speaker to send the matter to the procedural affairs committee for consideration. The blunderbussing this morning really does not do anyone any good whatsoever.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, let me say that I, along with my two colleague House leaders, have always believed that while the rules lay down the guidelines for the operation of this House, a certain degree of flexibility is often necessary to carry on the public business of this province. Therefore, we put motions and make agreements, as we did this morning in changing the order for the private members' debates. We assume those orders will not be changed, but they are changed from time to time by agreement.

We have here before us a rule, a standing order, that says if a motion is put on a particular subject and is defeated it cannot be brought up again, and yet it is agreed that it is something that is of a certain urgency perhaps, if you so decide, Mr. Speaker. If the normal course of events had followed, that motion probably would have been defeated yesterday and therefore could not have been reintroduced.

It was probably the wish of at least some members of the House that this subject be discussed and that we work out an arrangement. I understand my friend the House leader of the official opposition, but a certain degree of flexibility comes about from time to time. We may not always like it, but each one of the three groups has benefited from it from time to time.

Mr. Speaker: Do I sense a certain unanimity to forgo the five-minute arguments? Is it the will of the House to proceed without putting arguments forward?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Agreed.

Before the debate proceeds, I do have some reservations about whether the motion complies with the standing orders. However, if it is the will of the House to proceed, so be it. I call on the member for Hamilton Mountain and remind him he has 10 minutes to make his case.

RETUBING OF NUCLEAR REACTORS

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I will make a couple of comments about the emergency nature of this debate in spite of the ruling you just made. It is important for us to understand the very important nature of Ontario Hydro spending and the huge potential impact it can have in the province over the course of the next number of years.

It is our view that Hydro spending and the cost of its continuing with its emphasis on the nuclear power program in Ontario and the problems which are evolving in that program may very well be the one single item that cripples the ability of this province to recover economically, a recovery which, although the government keeps telling us has started, is very slow to proceed, especially for average individuals across this province.

There are a number of facts which have come to light over the last few months, during the break period, which have made this debate necessary. In the public accounts committee, my colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) moved that there be a public inquiry into the matter. Unfortunately, the government members blocked or voted against proceeding with that investigation. I remind the House leader of the Liberal Party that this party did attempt other methods of getting at this issue, and we moved an emergency debate on the issue only when it became very clear we had no other way of getting at this very important issue.

The reality is that the problems which have been clearly defined in terms of Pickering units 1 and 2 are not the only problems which confront Ontario Hydro in its nuclear power generation program. In the minister's statement this morning, he made the comment, "Pickering and Darlington can be brought on line with the expectation of extended lifetimes of their reactor components and there may be work to be done on operating reactors to prolong the useful life of their pressure tubes." That has to be the grossest understatement I have ever heard in this House.

Hydro, in conjunction with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., is doing ongoing studies not only of the reactor tube problems in Pickering units 1 and 2, but is also doing studies on the reactor core problem in all the other operating units 1n this province. As the minister is no doubt aware, Pickering unit 3 will be shut down in April in order to take a sample tube out of that reactor for testing.

A joint study done by Ontario Hydro and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. on the pressure tubes indicates we may be into problems with the zirconium-niobium tubes, the so-called better tubes, in four years. That has implications not only for the entire electric power grid in Ontario but also for Darlington, which has not even come on stream yet, because the tubes in the Darlington plant will be of the second type, zirconium-niobium.

11:40 a.m.

The minister can say what he likes in this House. We have talked extensively with officials from Ontario Hydro and their comment is that they believe the zirconium-niobium tubes will last longer than the Zircaloy-2 tubes, which have been the major problem at Pickering units 1 and 2, but they do not know how much longer. Their own study shows, as I suggested, that we could be into potential problems by 1988, some four years away.

The costs involved in the ramifications of this are astronomical. The minister made the point this morning that the retubing of units 1 and 2 at Pickering will cost $420 million. That is just the direct replacement cost, and the minister knows that only too well. The cost of replacement power in addition to that is rather significant.

The minister carefully neglected to mention that this retubing is going to be done without the assistance of remote equipment that is under development. There are going to be substantial health and safety risks to the employees involved in the retubing. He also conveniently forgot to mention that this remote replacement equipment that is being developed is going to cost $600 million plus, because we have seen the way things escalate. Also, it will be another two and a half or three years before it is ready.

The advisability of proceeding with the retubing of Pickering units 1 and 2 is in question because of the unanswered questions about the tubes in the other reactors in this province, including reactors that are not even completed yet, and the total cost of running a system that has to replace tubes for which it did not budget or plan to replace at such early periods in the operation of those units.

The economic potential for hardship and disaster in this province as a result of Ontario Hydro's borrowing and spending is already out of line. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) this morning quoted a figure of $64 billion over the next 20 years, but that totally excludes the potential costs implied by the problems currently being encountered with the nuclear reactors.

We have a situation where Ontario Hydro's debt in 1982 was almost twice the size of the Alberta heritage savings trust fund. Hydro's financial forecasts for the period 1982-85 are that by 1985 Ontario Hydro will be paying $1.8 billion a year in interest alone. Between 1981 and 1985, Ontario Hydro will spend more than $5 billion on interest payments alone. In 1985, Hydro's debt and debt-related charges will be $24.6 billion, larger than the total provincial budget.

If we take those understandings and add the cost of replacing the tubes in reactor units 1 and 2, the potential cost of having to replace all the reactor tubes at the other units at Pickering and Bruce and the potential shortfall in the lifespan of the tubes at Darlington, we are looking at a situation that no longer in any way, shape or form resembles the situation that Hydro has touted over the years in terms of cheap power from nuclear power generation.

Not only does it no longer resemble that position, but also it now presents us with a situation where we may face very difficult economic circumstances in the money markets in the province if Hydro goes through the process of retubing all its reactors as it finds the problems are greater than were first envisioned, and it is very likely this will happen.

Last fall we were told the retubing in units 1 and 2 would be done gradually over time. Since that time, in the short span of three or four months, Ontario Hydro has learned the problem is much greater than it believed and those reactors will not be started up until the retubing is completed.

Hydro is in a position where it does not know how serious the problems are, and the government is in a position where it is pushing us to continue down that road not knowing what the answers are. It is our belief that this matter should be put to a full public inquiry so we can get to the bottom of the problem and understand what the economic potential for problems in the future is before we proceed blindly down an alley that involves huge billions of dollars.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to join in this debate. We have now set aside the motion in a sense and we do not have to address ourselves to it, so we can get into the meat of the subject, as it were.

When one mentions Hydro, one immediately thinks of Niagara Falls, or those of my age group do. Of course, it gained an honourable tradition because of that involvement primarily in the time of Sir Adam Beck. But I am afraid the whole connotation of cheap electrical power has been built only on the past performance of Hydro and more specifically on the great hydraulic generation at Niagara. In truth, we should be changing the name of Ontario Hydro to something like Hydro Enterprises Inc. or some such more meaningful name, because of the digression of Ontario Hydro from its first premise that it would be able to supply very reasonably priced power across this great province.

I am pleased the minister is here and is going to participate. I wonder how much longer he as an individual and his government are going to continue to be apologists for Ontario Hydro, setting up within a great democratic process a new house, if you will, the house of Hydro, within which it has the ability to do what it will. Hydro has told many ministers in the past that it does not have to answer to this House, which made it possible in the first place. Those ministers who have been honest with us in this House have gone a step further and suggested they did not realize what they were stepping into when they stepped into those hallowed halls of Hydro and got mugged in the corridors.

11:50 a.m.

There should be a new order of things. The government owes it to the public of Ontario to accept a new order of things, to decide that the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes) is going to set up a policy structure that Ontario Hydro will have to fit into and be more competitive. How hypocritical can we get when we allow Hydro to take charge of alternative energy sources, of those things they can do with or without, to talk about alternative energy, conservation and all the things that should be in competition with Hydro and not within their house to decide to do what they will?

I hope this debate today will at least point out to the minister that this party has been very constructive in sitting through many hours of discussion at the select committee where we had, I would say, the foremost experts in the nuclear field appear before us -- scientists, economists, people related in every manner to that whole new concept of generating electricity. We have supported the nuclear involvement. It would be stepping backwards not to. We are in a very sophisticated society.

My quarrel with the minister and with Ontario Hydro is that we have put that responsibility on a group of people who have not accepted it in a responsible way. If proper monitoring had been done, if there had been a proper movement into the nuclear field that was a little slower and carefully monitored, we could stand up and say, 'We are the leaders in the world in this field." That has not happened.

Witness the fact that Ontario Hydro now is attempting to tell us it had anticipated what was happening. We all know it was developing automated equipment to look into this serious problem that has not yet been developed. Needless to say, it did not anticipate this at this time.

We have been led by Ontario Hydro down the path of many errors that are threatening the future of the nuclear science in which we have led the world. It is about time the minister accepted the bill put by my colleague the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. A. Reed), which would have made Ontario Hydro more accountable through this House to the people it is supposed to serve.

The minister knows that we, as a party, have been actively involved since the fall of 1983 in questioning him and the government regarding the problems of the pressure tubes, hydriding and the garter spring movement.

We have not been able to get the answers that should have been given, because I am not sure the minister was given the information immediately by Ontario Hydro. That is not a surprise. I can recall in the select committee that the chairman of Ontario Hydro, having heard that the new minister, who was a little naive, had suggested more information would be flowing from Ontario Hydro, pointed out to the new minister that the information would flow at the rate the chairman decided it should and in some instances would not flow at all.

The minister can see there is nothing new at Ontario Hydro, except for the fact it is beginning to spend so much money that the rates are going to increase astronomically. Unless we put a bit of a halt on it, it is going to continue that way to the point where it is going to be very difficult for many people in our society to meet the new costs.

While the government at the appropriate time decided Ontario Hydro should not become a political football, it was also very convenient to have the long lever of the former minister, Darcy McKeough, who told Ontario Hydro he could not talk to it meaningfully, and all he had to do was cut off its source of funding. It seems to me it did not hurt Ontario Hydro at all to have Darcy McKeough apply the brakes and slow down a part of this empire-building.

That reminds me that over a good long time now, we in this party have proposed the re-establishment of the select committee. It seems we have the endorsement of the interim chairman at Ontario Hydro for whom, incidentally, I have a great deal of respect. I know he hopes to have a chairman chosen and get back to his former job.

I think the time has also come when we in the Legislative Assembly should have a little more to say about the choosing of the chairman, so we do not talk about removing the politics from Ontario Hydro and then have only a person who carries a blue card able to be chairman. I do not understand how one can sit there and decide that is not a bit hypocritical.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: People of the highest qualifications come that way.

Mr. Kerrio: It is a fact. I have not heard of a good Liberal -- I would like to have the job offer. If the job were offered, I might be tempted to accept.

lnterjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Niagara Falls has the floor.

Interjections.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I am having a very difficult time here.

The Deputy Speaker: I have the same observation. The Minister of Energy is going to reserve some comments.

Mr. Kerrio: Some of the interjections make some sense, but not all of them.

In any event, it would augur well for the citizens of this great province to have a feeling that there might be some consensus among the parties, as we have with the Ombudsman, that we would have a chairman truly representative of a broader cross-section of the people to whom we supply power. The job must be more important than being able to move into that slot someone who has no experience whatsoever. In the person of Milan Nastich we have one of the first chairmen, maybe since Beck, who knows something about Ontario Hydro when he steps into the job. That is a revelation in a sense.

With the greatest respect, I say to the minister that if there were some new sense of movement in the direction of accountability and responsibility, he could start the movement in that direction. It would augur well for the Legislature and for Hydro itself, and it would be more in keeping with what the public expects of a great utility, to respond to their needs in a way that is answerable to them as the shareholders of Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in this debate regarding workers' safety. It would be worth while to take a moment to explain to the members and to the general public some of the things that are done by Ontario Hydro in these generating plants to measure and control radiation.

The measure of radiation on people is called a rem, and maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiation are established by the Atomic Energy Control Board, based on the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Whole-body dose limits of five rems -- often referred to as 5,000 millirems -- per year for occupational exposure and 0.5 rems for the general public were established in 1958. They were reviewed in 1965. They were reviewed again in 1972. The International Commission on Radiological Protection at that time decided there was no biological evidence to justify a reduction in those dose limits.

Ontario Hydro ensures that radiation doses in nuclear stations are kept to a minimum. Every person who works in the station has an individual identification which measures the amount of radiation on that person. That is important, because some people seem to think the measurement is the number of hours in a room, the number of hours in a reactor or something of that nature. Each person is individually identified with his social insurance number so he cannot work in one plant in one province and then go to another province and work in another plant or something of that nature, because the Atomic Energy Control Board supervises this.

There are personal radiation friskers. There are foot and hand monitors as one goes about different areas in a plant. There are doorway monitors. The process is not unlike going through airport metal detectors.

The record of Ontario Hydro in this area has been excellent. There have been no permanent disabilities or fatalities in nuclear plants as a result of radiation exposure.

12 noon

We should all realize that as individuals we get about 80 millirems of radiation exposure per year, whether or not there are any nuclear plants. We get about 40 millirems every time we have a tooth X-ray. We get the same when we have a chest X-ray. There is an amount of radiation received by individuals. The time I toured the Pickering plant, the guide who was showing me around had his tooth worked on that day and had an X-ray. As he said, he had more radiation from that X-ray than he received in a total year of giving tours of the Pickering plant.

Ontario Hydro has about 5,000 employees working and training in its nuclear plants. All the employees at nuclear stations receive extensive training in radiation protection.

The objective at Pickering is to replace the channels with a minimum of radiation exposure to the workers and reactor downtime. The retubing will begin using personnel shielding and specialized tools which have been under development for a number of years now. As they become available, they will be increasingly used. This special equipment will allow the task of tube removal to proceed with a low radiation dose to workers, albeit it will be somewhat slower than with the fully automated system.

Ontario Hydro estimates that the automated system will be available for use in early 1986 and that retubing will be completed by mid-1986 or early 1987. The personnel involved will be from Ontario Hydro and the subcontractors. Some radiation dose to personnel is inevitable during the retubing operations. However, minimizing the radiation dose to the work force is the prime consideration in the planning for the retubing operations. Ontario Hydro is confident that it will maintain exposure limits set by the Atomic Energy Control Board.

The fuel will be removed from the reactor to the fuel storage bay, reducing the radiation at the reactor face. The reactor will be decontaminated using a dilute acid. Heavy water will be drained from the reactor, and the systems will be flushed with ordinary water to reduce the tritium in the working area to very low levels.

There are many personnel shielding cabinets that will provide extra shielding for the personnel who are working close to the reactor face. There will be special lead-lined boxes or flasks into which radioactive components will be placed as they are removed from the reactor. About 100 specialized tools are being developed and there is a manipulator control system which will reduce worker contact or the amount of radiation that the worker will receive.

I want to sum up by saying Ontario Hydro is not interested in any way in exposing any person in Ontario or any of its employees to any undue levels of radiation. I am confident it can carry this out with little increase in worker radiation dose above what was anticipated when the project was planned.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise that I wish to participate in this debate. As the members of this House will well realize, it was my motion in the standing committee on public accounts that called for an inquiry into the blatant mismanagement of Ontario Hydro by this government.

The government realized that motion had so much public support and there was so much concern among the public that it could not use its usual tactic of defeating the motion and, instead, it amended the scope of that inquiry. The very topic of this debate would not have to be dealt with in this House at this time in a short debate had the government members of the public accounts committee not organized in a systematic way to limit the scope of that inquiry by that committee and by the Provincial Auditor.

Experts could have been brought before our committee. The public could have had an opportunity to see exactly what was going on in Ontario Hydro. By amending the scope of the inquiry, the Conservatives prevented a reasonable, rational public study. One can only conclude the Conservatives were so fearful of their own policies, so fearful of Ontario Hydro policies and so fearful of the policies of the Ministry of Energy that they had to do a coverup and not let the public know exactly what was happening.

They did not want the public to know the actual costs. They did not want to let the public know the actual dangers. They did not want to let the public know how many times, projection after projection, they had been badly informed and how many times there had been overruns on those projections. They did not want to let key officials be cross-examined in detail before a committee, before the public and before the press because if they did the public would realize just what bad management exists in this government and in Ontario Hydro.

Not only was the government contemptuous of the public, not only was the government contemptuous of the opposition, it was also contemptuous of the auditor of Ontario. The Provincial Auditor requested that he make a series of reports to the committee as various parts of his investigation were completed, but the Conservatives would have no part of it. They would rather have a two-day wonder in which the Provincial Auditor would file massive documents before the standing committee on public accounts, before the public and before the press and hope it would blow over in two or three days.

That is exactly the game they are playing; so what we have is a short debate in this House.

It is time we called Ontario Hydro to public account. They have made disastrous errors in forecasting and mistaken judgements about the consequences. They have given Ontario a power system that is vastly overbuilt, inflexible and vulnerable to the kinds of accidents we have seen.

Hydro is neither responsible nor accountable. It is clear that in the early 1970s its projections for future growth were far above the actual growth rate. It is also clear that its projections of the costs of repairs in each of these stations were badly underestimated.

I have gone through some of the disasters in the projections of Darlington in some detail in this House, but let me deal with the accidents at Pickering and Bruce, the six serious accidents we should be looking at.

First, August 1, 1983, Pickering unit 2, fuel channel rupture: Hydro's first loss of coolant accident occurred when a crack two metres long -- in other words, six feet -- developed in one of the unit's 930 pressure tubes. Radioactive heavy water spilled into the building and was recycled as cooling water. Two fuel rods were lodged in the crack.

The pressure tube containing the fuel rods was removed and sent to the Chalk River laboratories of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. for metallurgical analysis. A progress report indicated that blisters on the tube contained zirconium hydrides, which could make the metal brittle. Those are the same, of course, that will be used in the Darlington station, and the unit will not go back into service until the source of the accident is discovered.

August 5, 1983, Pickering unit 1, heat exchanger leak: Less than a week after the first accident we have a leak in one of the two moderator heat exchangers, causing a shutdown of the reactor. The leak resulted in the release of 4.5 litres -- in other words, 1.5 gallons -- of radioactive tritium into Lake Ontario.

August 7, Pickering unit 5, shutdown error:

Hydro's newest reactor was shut down when the operator threw the wrong switch while testing a reactor pressure valve. Eight valves opened, allowing additional heavy water into the primary heat transport system. The pressure rose and the reactor shut down automatically. It was out of service for two days.

September 2, 1983, Pickering unit 6, fuelling system leak: A fuelling machine outside the reactor leaked, spilling two tons of radioactive heavy water into Lake Ontario

September 3, 1983, Bruce unit 3, boiler tube leak: A radioactive heavy water leak from a boiler tube spilled heavy water into the reactor building, causing a reactor shutdown. There are eight boilers with 4,200 tubes in each boiler at Bruce. The reactor was shut down for nine days.

September 3, 1983, at Douglas Point, heat exchanger leak: A leak occurred in the shutdown cooling loop while the plant was inactive, spilling three tons of heavy water contaminated with 6,000 curies of tritium into Lake Huron.

What we have is not one accident but a series of accidents in a very short period of time. As we finally got the information from Ontario Hydro in dribs and drabs, we found, first, that the accidents were more serious than expected and, second, that the costs are much higher than originally projected.

12:10 p.m.

This government rose to a new height of hypocrisy in the speech from the throne. On the last page of that speech it lectured municipalities and other groups saying that it would take steps to make municipalities and those group agencies adopt value-for-money accounting procedures. When it comes to their own system, they do not develop those very procedures.

Indeed, when it comes to having the Provincial Auditor examine those procedures, the Conservative members on the public accounts committee do a coverup, try to limit the scope of inquiry, try and do limit any inquiry into future costs, which is surely what the public and this Legislature should be concerned about.

It is bad enough that Ontario Hydro has blundered time and time again, over and over again, in past projections, but this government does not want even to allow the auditor and the public accounts committee to deal in a systematic way with finding out how realistic the projections are for the future. We have a bottomless pit into which the citizens of Ontario are pouring dollar after dollar to a company that is not accountable and a government that after 41 years in office does not feel it has to be accountable to the public, the press or this House.

In the throne speech we have a statement on public accountability -- no, it is not a statement; it is a sermon -- by the municipalities that I would say is the equivalent of the devil giving a sermon on honesty. This government has not been accountable when it comes to energy. Ontario Hydro has been constantly under in all its projections concerning not only costs but also safety. What we are facing is a major problem of accountability on the part of Ontario Hydro and the government. Before this government lectures and sermonizes municipalities and other bodies, it should clean up its own act.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate. I was listening to the expressions presented by my other colleagues in the House. It seems as if I am hearing the litany for about the seventh or eighth year in a row. I wonder really what has changed. Surely the government has watched the financial integrity of Ontario Hydro erode to the point where it has a debt ratio now of over 0.8, something responsible corporations, which expect debt ratios of 0.4 and 0.5, call totally irresponsible.

Surely the litany, which is basically accurate, should have flagged to this government the best part of a decade ago that something was seriously wrong with the structure as it governed Ontario Hydro. The minister has been unable to obtain information. I dare say the minister still has not even seen the Petrosar contracts which have cost millions and millions of dollars for unpurchased oil. Surely the government must realize it has no real way to be accountable to the people of Ontario for Ontario Hydro except through one medium, that of the Treasurer.

I am just long enough in the tooth to recall when one of the minister's predecessors, the Honourable Darcy McKeough, imposed spending limits on Hydro. I recall the president of Hydro the following day holding a press conference and predicting brownouts and blackouts in this province by 1980, I believe.

I heard today the statement by the minister that we had reached in Ontario a peak consumption of 19,000 megawatts. I wanted to rise and ask him for how long this winter it had lasted. Did it last for four hours or six hours, and what kind of load management techniques were put into place to handle that eventuality? I wish the minister had more experience in his position so he might know what the phrase "load management" meant.

I am very concerned with the kind of projection for capital demand we see in the long-range financial projection. Incidentally, it should go on record that this financial projection was made prior to the recognition that retubing was necessary. It is a litany that we are going to have a per capita cost of $18,000 for every man, woman and child in Ontario.

Everyone knows we use electricity, but now Ontario Hydro is telling us to use it for low-grade end uses. There is the intensive advertising program with the gobbling oil furnace that somehow tries to mislead us into believing it is better to go electric when we know there are cheaper and far more thermally efficient alternatives. It is a litany of an organization that the government has allowed to run totally out of control.

The problem is that some of the good things that have resulted from the technological innovation and the moves we have taken in new directions are in danger of being permanently disbanded and destroyed as a result of the government's failure in this regard. I refer specifically to what I call the nuclear bubble.

My party has gone on record as supporting nuclear power and its development as one of the options, one of the energy choices for Ontario. But we have said, and will repeat it time and again, that that technology should compete on a fair and equal footing with the other energy options that are available. It has never been allowed to compete on an equal footing.

The overexpansion of the system has been used for political purposes. It was during the last election that the Premier (Mr. Davis) announced a speedup at Darlington. It is a tragedy because what we have now is an industry that is overinflated and desperate. There is no more hardware to be produced simply because the demand is not there.

My friends can say we can talk about options, choices and all the rest of it, but we have come to the point where we have painted ourselves into an economic corner on this matter. As a result, this government will destroy and disperse the nuclear industry in Ontario, the one it so proudly touted at one point, because it will bring it to a point where it has nothing to do, where the men have no more work to do, because there will be no more demand for the product. The nuclear industry then, for whatever benefits it may have, will be forced to disperse and to shrink.

12:20 p.m.

Think about that. Think about all the political flag waving the government has done over the years, resulting ultimately in the industry's destruction. I fear to talk about these things because, if members look at the record, most of the predictions we have made from this side of the House since 1976 have come true. We told the government that the projections for future consumption were too high and the overbuilding had to be curtailed. There was only one man in the government, the then Treasurer, who understood that, but I suppose the politics of the hour did not favour it.

We are headed into a most serious crisis. We have been gradually moving towards it over the last seven or eight years, but now it is incredibly serious. The people of the province, the taxpayers of Ontario, whether through hydro rates or through taxes, as the government is proposing, will end up paying for that folly. They will pay in spades because we will end up with a system we have to write off. Somehow we will have to find the way to do it.

We have no place to go. Ontario Hydro cannot compete in the export market in the long haul. The Darlington nuclear plant cannot compete with James Bay and Hydro knows it. They were not even able to compete on a proposed contract with General Public Utilities; I think Detroit Edison got that contract.

So the government is in desperate straits. Until they take the kinds of steps we recommended, I believe, back in -- when did that bill come in, member for Niagara Falls?

Mr. Kerrio: In 1978.

Mr. J. A. Reed: In 1978 we first introduced the Ontario Hydro Accountability Act. Until they bring in some kind of legislation like that to force themselves to deliver an energy policy to Ontario and show where the electric power system fits into it and until they amend the Power Corporation Act to force Ontario Hydro to accept that energy policy, we will continue on this road to destruction.

If we think Hydro rate increase projections are bad now, obviously we ain't seen nothin' yet if the experts at Hydro are correct. I fear to look at the 1984 projections, because they will be far worse than the ones that were printed in 1983.

I hate to be negative. Ontario Hydro is a great institution but the government is destroying it.

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, before I start my remarks, one of the members was referring to an accident. I would like to correct him. I think it was an incident. An accident implies that someone was injured.

I am pleased to be here with my colleagues to talk about this subject of accountability. First of all, essentially Hydro can really do nothing of substance without the approval of cabinet expressed in an order in council signed by the Lieutenant Governor. We all know that Hydro cannot borrow money, cannot undertake capital projects, cannot buy or sell electricity and cannot purchase or sell property without the express consent of cabinet. In my opinion this indicates that the cabinet, through this Legislature, is accountable to the people of Ontario.

In total, Hydro has been the subject of 11 different reviews since the early 1970s. Ontario Hydro's record in this regard is exemplary. Through 10 years of legislative and public scrutiny Ontario Hydro has spent more than 79,750 eight-hour days in preparation and attendance at various hearings. The total costs to Hydro have exceeded $18 million. That, in my opinion, is part of the accountability process to the taxpayers of Ontario.

The balance between maintaining accountability to the public and yet providing greater flexibility for the corporation has always been very tenuous. As political scientists Allan Tupper and Bruce Dean point out, the contradictory world in which public corporations function could not be more obvious. We want them to be flexible, innovative, free and businesslike and to promote change; we want them to be reliable, predictable and to do what they are told. We want both because we value both.

I could go on and on, but I would like to give some of my time to the minister so he may respond to some of the criticisms from the opposition. In my opinion, Ontario Hydro is accountable. I remind members of the statement made by the former leader of the third party, Donald MacDonald, on January 7, 1981. He said he "never doubted that it was the best run utility in the world."

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to participate in this debate. A lot has been said about Ontario Hydro and the recent events, and a lot has not been said. It still remains to be answered. I want to discuss a few basic points with the minister and ask for his response to the basic points that have to be made.

As I am sure he is aware, I spent some time in Ottawa being briefed by the officials at Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and I met with the scientist who was responsible for resolving the question of what actually happened to the tubes at units 1 and 2. It was interesting that at the time of the meeting they seemed to have a fairly clear idea of exactly what had happened. There was no indication at that meeting that there was going to be the kind of full-scale retubing Hydro ultimately decided on a short three or four weeks later.

The reason I raise that is, if one looks at the history of the exchanges we have had with the minister since the incidents took place at Pickering, in a sense those exchanges have always been as follows. For example, after they closed down unit 2, I asked when I was first briefed by Hydro officials in August, "Why do you not take random samples?" They said, "We do not think we are going to need to take random samples." A few weeks later they were taking random samples.

On October 11, I asked why unit 1 was being allowed to go full blast when it was using the same zirconium tubes as unit 2. The minister answered: "That is under advisement. We are looking at that. We think it is safe." On October 27, unit 2 was closed for tests of pressure tubes.

The point I am making is that whenever one asks a question the response is always, "Everything is okay," regardless of what the announcement is all about. When it is unit 2 that is being shut down they say: "It is only unit 2. There is nothing to worry about. It does not affect the rest of the system." Then they shut down unit 1. There you have the beginning of an unfolding of a problem that is bigger than they were originally prepared to admit.

Interestingly, the minister stepped into exactly the same trap, the same hole -- I do not know if there were any aces in it or not but he stepped right into it -- when in answer to the questions I put to him today with respect to the implication of Hydro's decision to test at unit 3 he said, "It is a very different alloy and it does not have the same kind of problems."

I would like to refer the minister to the document that was referred to in this House when we had these debates in October, the document entitled A Review of Current Knowledge on the Effects of Hydrogen on the Pressure Tubes of Ontario Hydro's Operating Reactors.

I will quote for the minister exactly what it has to say about the implications for breakdown at Pickering and Bruce with respect to the hydriding problem with this different zirconium alloy. I will quote the whole paragraph. I am not going to quote selectively because when one hears each sentence one realizes just how unsure they are as to exactly what the problem is.

I quote from the document: "The time factors for the decision of tube removal for Pickering units 3 and 4 appear to be less severe. Hydride-related problems are more likely to occur closer to end-of-life according to current predictions." I hope the minister is listening to this. "However, the critical hydrogen concentrations which would result in problems have not been established and there is a general lack of confidence in predicted hydrogen equivalent concentrations. A change by a factor of two in the corrosion deuteriding rate, which is not outside the realm of possibility, would bring hydride-related problems by 1988. In particular, hydride cracking at operating temperature might occur."

12:30 p.m.

That is the current situation with regard to the scientific information that has been published and made available to us with respect to this critical question of possible hydriding and breakage of tubes at Pickering units 3 and 4 and for the entire Bruce system. I do not need to tell the minister it has implications for the Darlington system as well.

The reason I raise this particular example is that attached to this technical question, which we are not going to resolve in this Legislature, there turns a major financial problem. That major financial problem is based on the fact that Ontario Hydro's future is based on the absolute integrity of its nuclear operation.

I suggest to the minister that when he comes into the House and says, "It is the best system ever; there are no problems with it; there is nothing to worry about; everything is A-okay and it is our ace in the hole," he is saying things he does not know, Hydro itself does not know and no one, in fact, knows.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Look at the history.

Mr. Rae: We are looking at the history leading up to the incidents that took place last summer. We are looking at the history that has led to a replacement costing $700 million. I would remind the minister that it cost $740 million to build the four reactors at Pickering.

The history and the experiences are very recent. We are only now beginning to understand it is possible that during the life of a single reactor it is going to cost two or possibly three times as much in terms of the replacement of different parts of that reactor in order to allow that reactor to continue to operate at full efficiency and capacity. That is the implication of this one technical problem.

I say to the minister this tremendous overconfidence, which I know he has to project because that is the style of the government and the way in which it projects everything with respect to Hydro, that nothing can go wrong, there are no problems, there is nothing to worry about in the integrity of the system, is frankly not based on facts. It is based on a hope that everything will continue to operate exactly as it did prior to the incidents that took place last summer.

I do not think it is prudent. I do not think it is wise. I do not think it is smart. I do not think it is helpful or intelligent or fiscally responsible to base the entire energy program for the next 20 years on assumptions and hopes that everything is going to turn out okay. I do not think that is small.

We have put all our energy eggs into the nuclear basket in Ontario. We are one of the very few jurisdictions in the world that are doing that. We do that with certain risks, and in my view unacceptable risks, to the future of this province.

When the province says it is going to be moving from 30 per cent dependence to 70 per cent dependence on nuclear power while we have a number of technical questions that have such financial implications, it is irresponsible for the government to move ahead with Darlington at the speed with which it is moving ahead. It is irresponsible for the government to be overbuilding the system to the extent it has.

It is irresponsible for the government to continue to refuse to answer questions and to refer to a public inquiry what every other utility in North America is now coming up against, the fact that nuclear is far more expensive than it was ever anticipated to be and there are other alternatives which perhaps in the long run are cheaper and which would certainly provide greater balance to the system.

For the record, the minister has mothballed Wesleyville, R. L. Hearn, J. C. Keith, Lennox, Thunder Bay and Lakeview. Atikokan was on and off and now the minister has changed his mind once again because of public pressure. The point is, the minister has totally scrapped the non-nuclear alternatives in the system. He has totally underfunded hydraulic. He has done nothing about renewable energy.

The minister is doing absolutely nothing in terms of conservation. In fact, he has replaced "Preserve it, conserve it" with "Kiss an old flame goodbye" and "Buy electric, go electric" and the talking furnace. He has created a system that is overbuilt, running counter to the whole trend towards conservation, flexibility, balance and responsibility. He is consistently ignoring -- and I say this with the greatest respect to the government -- the evidence coming in from the rest of North America and the world that it does not make sense to become totally dependent on nuclear power by the year 2000. It is not smart or wise.

What is wise is a system that is balanced, has flexibility and a degree of accountability and responsibility to the public and that can provide a better deal. That is not the kind of hydroelectric system the government is creating for this province. It is going to live to regret it and, unfortunately, so are the ratepayers and taxpayers of this province.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and join in the very important debate which the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) has put before the assembly on this occasion. It seems to me it is even more propitious in the light of the minister's statement to the House earlier this morning.

I want to begin my remarks by being quite candid about my perspective. For the past nine years I have represented an electoral district in this great province where the nuclear industry was born and where much of it still resides. Over the course of three elections and nine years, I have been a very avid supporter of that great achievement in Canadian high technology. I say that quite unapologetically.

I say to my colleagues in the House today that I resent in some measure the ongoing assault so many people make on what has been a very great achievement in Canadian research, development and high technology. I say that as someone who represents 2,500 people I have an obligation to represent in that way, not just because I am their member but because I live and work with them.

I have no concern whatsoever in repeating what I said just a few moments ago. The Canadian Candu nuclear technology represents a very great, world-class achievement in the very area in which so many of us want to see greater achievement in the years and decades to come.

I have said to some of my colleagues, publicly and privately --

Mr. Rae: You are covering your ass.

Mr. Conway: The member for York South says I am covering my posterior.

Mr. McClellan: That is not what he said at all.

Interjections.

Mr. Conway: I am not ashamed to say in this House what I have said in North Renfrew and what I will continue to say. I think the Canadian nuclear technology is a great Canadian success and it is a world-class achievement of which we should be proud.

Having said that, I want to indicate to the member for York South, who like all members has a genuine and personal concern about employment strategy for this province and its future, that it ought not to be lost on the member or on anyone else that 75 per cent of -- let me just quote the statistics.

The nuclear industry in Canada is a $4.5-billion operation, 90 per cent of which is concentrated in Ontario and much of which is resident in my riding. In Ontario, where 90 per cent of nuclear capacity is located, the industry employs some 30,400 people directly, or 76.5 per cent of the industry total, and a further 51,600 indirectly through spinoff industries. What I want to indicate in that context is that the nuclear industry is an extremely important part of the Ontario economy. I say again that it is a vital part of the economic present and future in North Renfrew.

I want to return specifically to the motion put by the member for Hamilton Mountain, because he very properly draws the attention of this assembly to the want of political accountability that has characterized much of the Hydro debate since March 19, 1981.

As a strong supporter of the Canadian nuclear industry, most of which is resident in my province with a vast majority of that being in my riding, that does not in any way prohibit me from saying to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes) and his 69 colleagues on the other side of this House that I am not happy with the attitude adopted by his government with the return of its majority in March 1981.

12:40 p.m.

I have had the privilege to have served with other members, including the former member for York South and the current member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe), on the select committee on nuclear energy, reactor safety and waste management. I thought that was on balance an extremely useful, productive and positive enterprise. It was not absolutely perfect because there were certain aspects of it which, I am sure, were not satisfactory for the utility, for the government and, I might even say, from my point of view.

Ontario Hydro is an extremely vital utility. It is an enormous, gargantuan, public corporation of which this Legislature must have a better understanding. In that respect, I do not accept as minimally desirable the offer made in the statement today by the Minister of Energy.

Let me quote from page 5 of that statement: "Accordingly, I have written to the chairman of the government caucus, the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson), the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party offering to have Ontario Hydro brief caucus members and answer their questions."

I say to the well-intentioned Minister of Energy, that is absolutely unacceptable. That is a perversion of parliamentary government as far as I am concerned.

That great public corporation which delivers power across this province has an awful lot to answer for today, as it has had since its inception 70-odd years ago. As a supporter of public power, I say to the Minister of Energy that it is not good enough to have the chairman of Ontario Hydro, at pleasure, visit the caucuses of this assembly. There ought to be a standing committee of this Legislature in place to deal with Hydro affairs.

I cannot believe any member of this assembly, whether in government or in opposition, would consider the minister's offer today acceptable, given the important financial, energy and political questions at issue here. I say to the Minister of Energy, who I believe to be an honourable, diligent and hard-working new Minister of Energy, that is simply not good enough.

As a defender of the nuclear industry, I want to be able to defend it openly in a committee of this House, to scrutinize it carefully and to criticize it reasonably. I worry about the industry that is so vital to my riding, because of the very way in which its alleged protectors in this province in the Davis government are handling it.

I also have a question in response to the statement here today where it says, at the bottom of page 4: "The federal and Ontario governments, which joined with Ontario Hydro in the initial venture of building the first two units at Pickering and which have benefited in the past from the excellent performance of these units, will also bear their share of the cost."

In the scrum outside following question period this morning, he might have elucidated on that important point. I do not know, as I stand here today, what he meant by that and I want to know. The place for me to find out, it seems to me, is in this chamber. I accept that there is a considerable degree of what one might call technical spaghetti that is difficult to unravel in the daily question period, or even in estimates.

I reiterate that this great public corporation which, according to my colleague and leader this morning is embarking on a multibillion-dollar borrowing program, has to give a better, more regular and more parliamentary accounting of itself.

As someone who has been here for nine years, I must tell the Minister of Energy that when the Chairman of Management Board reports on the final cost of the rehabilitation of Pickering units 1 and 2 two or three years down the road, I am not confident $420 million will be the final figure. If one were to look at the history to which the minister has directed our attention, one could conclude that $420 million, in constant dollars, will probably come in somewhere closer to $1 billion.

The ratepayers of Renfrew North, Lincoln and elsewhere are not happy about the way in which their public power utility has been giving an accounting of its operations.

One member in this chamber, the former mayor of Sudbury, the distinguished mover of the address in reply to the throne speech last night, has even gone so far as to say in a public place that Ontario Hydro has been engaged in "mafia economics." Not a nattering nay-sayer from the opposition said that; the soon-to-be minister from Sudbury city, the Conservative member from that great region made that charge a year ago.

I simply say to the Minister of Energy that we have very grave concerns about the particulars of his current engagement in this connection. As an unabashed supporter of the Canadian nuclear industry, I say to him that I want some answers that I do not yet have. There are extremely important questions that have to be resolved, not only in favour of the nuclear industry but also in favour of the ratepayers who will pay the price and of the province which is being asked, as my leader pointed out, to guarantee this great and ever-increasing commitment.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure we have the full time left, but I would certainly like to make some remarks to try to put some perspective on the debate we have heard here this morning.

The member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. A. Reed) alluded to his time in the House, the litany of events that have gone on and the rhetoric surrounding all the discussions on Ontario Hydro. I want to take him back even further than that in history. I want to take him back to the days towards the end of the First World War. I want to quote from a speech given recently by Mr. Nastich.

"Toward the end of the First World War, a relatively young Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario began constructing the first large-scale generating station at Niagara on the Niagara River, the Sir Adam Beck unit 1. Within months there was an outcry in the press. Charges of poor management came fast and furious. 'A far too costly, ambitious and unnecessary project,' they said. Twenty years later the building of that station was hailed as an engineering marvel and a much-needed part of Hydro's supply system." The member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) has hailed it here today.

"It seemed that poor management had become effective long-range planning. That is just as true today, but equally difficult to get across. Ontario Hydro still bases decisions on its best evaluation of Ontario's future energy needs."

I want to set the record straight for the member for Niagara Falls, who was hopeful that Mr. Nastich would soon have his old job back, by reminding him that Mr. Nastich never left his old job but has been filling very capably and ably the shoes of both the president and the acting chairman of the Ontario Hydro board.

It is important as well to get on the record some of the relationships that exist between myself, as the minister, the ministry and the government, and the Ontario Hydro management and board. It is important for the members to understand there is an ongoing discussion, there is an ongoing opportunity for me to share in the problems and value of Ontario Hydro that is without any formal presentation with which one would like to encompass and surround it in a legislative forum. It is a working relationship and it is important to me, as minister, to be able to report to this House. It is a working relationship that makes me confident, on a day-to-day basis, that Ontario Hydro and its operation and my responsibilities for reporting on Ontario Hydro's operations are real and expedited.

12:50 p.m.

I want to comment on some of the comments made by the member for Niagara Falls in the selection of chairman. In this House I have not noted a willingness on the part of the opposition members to take responsibility for the activities of Hydro; so I do not think it is fair for the members of the opposition to suggest they should take responsibility for the selection of the chairman who will direct the operation of Ontario Hydro.

I do not recollect Eaton's asking Simpsons who should manage their company. It is utterly ridiculous for the member for Halton-Burlington to go on suggesting this Legislature should have a willingness to --

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: What an outrageous comparison.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The member knows very well that I have not heard him compliment us on one occasion about the operation of Ontario Hydro. I have not heard it.

I also want to put on the record what the role of the board of Ontario Hydro is. It is a board that is selected for its capabilities, for its representation of points of view and for its public responsibility. I want to emphasize that if members are going to start demeaning this board, we will not find the quality of people willing to take those positions in their day-to-day operations.

I do not have to remind the member for Halton-Burlington of the memorandum of understanding; he has reminded me of it on occasion. I think it is something on which we will let the record stand.

The member for Renfrew North, I felt, was very eloquent and supportive of the nuclear industry.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: He posed some rather interesting comparisons. In his support of the nuclear industry he may want to have a word with his leader who, through his constant fearmongering tactics in this House on occasion and his constant criticism of Hydro, has no doubt placed the future of the nuclear industry in this country in jeopardy.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Perhaps the member for Renfrew North will want to use his persuasive rhetoric on his leader.

We are running out of time.

The member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip), who is the New Democratic Party critic on anything and everything, has referred to a motion he put in the standing committee on public accounts. I only want to remind him that the retubing at Pickering is the subject of some consideration in that committee. He put three points to that committee last fall. He got what he asked for and now he wants to broaden it; he wants to go on a witchhunt and to do all sorts of things. He put that motion last fall.

The member for Etobicoke, the expert on virtually everything, talks of a report in the Toronto Sun on March 2 about security at Hydro plants. The report said he emphasized once again, as he has on other occasions, "the need for Hydro to continue with a 'mix' of coal, oil and hydroelectric power plants. Hydro shouldn't rely solely on a high-risk source such as nuclear energy, he said."

I think all of us who have some interest in Hydro are rather pleased that Hydro chose to get out of oil as an option in its generating mix. However, I want the member for Etobicoke, who is the expert on virtually everything, to be reminded of that.

My friend the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn) talked about "incidents" versus "accidents." I remind the member for Etobicoke again that in the nuclear industry in the developed world there has never been a loss-of-life accident. One wants to keep that in some perspective. One wants to compare it with the tragic loss of life on the Ocean Ranger; not one ounce of energy was produced from that exercise.

It is important to keep some perspective on the performance of these reactors. You can travel outside the jurisdiction and compare it with the US experience, of which I have often heard, where 50 per cent capability is considered a reasonable average for the operation of their reactors, compared to Ontario Hydro's, which in many years has exceeded 80 per cent.

One wants to look at the financial responsibility and the response of the bond market to the recent issue. That speaks for itself, It speaks of the confidence of the financial market in the operation and the future of Ontario Hydro.

However, the most salient point must be the performance of Hydro: its rates; its reliability; the confidence of its users, both industries and home owners; the confidence of its investors in the bond market, and the confidence of the people of this province.

The Bad News Bears delight in their recitation before this House of the various events that have plagued that utility in the past six to seven months. They know there is confidence in that system, but they will not admit it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, just before I move the adjournment of the House, I might indicate the business for next week. We will be continuing with the debate on the speech from the throne.

On Monday there will be the address by a representative of the official opposition; I presume that will be the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson).

On Tuesday the leader of the New Democratic Party will add his contribution to the debate on the speech from the throne; the debate will continue until six o'clock. The House will meet on Tuesday evening, when we will consider the motion on the order paper for interim supply.

On Thursday there will be no private members' public business in the afternoon; we will continue with either the throne speech debate or the interim supply debate.

The House adjourned at 12:56 p.m.

March 23, 1984