The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CLOSING OF TREE NURSERIES

Mr Miclash: It has come to my attention that the Ministry of Natural Resources is planning to shut down the bare root stock nurseries in Orono, Thessalon and Dryden. There have been several newspaper reports which clearly outline the local employment and economic implications of this action, which would further destabilize already precarious local economies.

I will speak to the situation in Dryden, though obviously the three situations are similar in all but climate.

It has been pointed out that the growing conditions in Dryden differ from the proposed amalgamation site in Thunder Bay. There is a greater chance of frost and wind damage in Thunder Bay since it has frequent periods of cold weather and a smaller amount of insulating snow. It seems only reasonable that trees adapted to the local climate would have a competitive biological advantage.

There is also an expectation that the added distance from nursery to planting site will increase the potential for damage to planting stock and security of supply.

While we all hope changes are made to reduce the impacts of harvesting on the environment, no one can ignore the great strides that have been made in making forest operations more environmentally benign. A large part of this can be attributed to the predictable supply of high-quality replanting stock produced by conscientious and concerned workers. While artificial regeneration is not the only answer, it would be foolish to eliminate an important tool in the battle to ensure a future forest.

CALEDON INFORMATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

Mr Tilson: I would like to extend sincere congratulations to the newly renamed Caledon Information and Community Services, formerly Caledon Information Centre, on its 20th anniversary to be celebrated this Friday, October 19.

In 1971, the Bolton Contact Centre was established to provide support to Bolton area residents. As the area has grown, the need for additional services has also grown, and today the Caledon Information and Community Services centre offers critically needed support in a variety of areas.

Caledon Information and Community Services is continually working on various projects aimed towards the establishment of essential community support services such as transit for the disabled in rural areas, a home support services directory and the Caledon assistance fund, which provides posters to be used at local grocery stores.

Caledon Information and Community Services' vision of a three-location multiservice centre located in Bolton, Caledon East and Alton has recently become a reality. This multiservice centre now offers Caledon area residents access to various human service agencies and direct-service government departments without going outside their own community.

I commend the effort and dedication of all those who have played a role in the success of Caledon Information and Community Services over the past 20 years. I truly believe this organization has been and continues to be an excellent investment in the future of the residents of Caledon.

CHEMICAL SPILL

Mrs Mathyssen: On Sunday, August 10, at about 7:55 am, a CN freight train derailed at Longwood near the community of Melbourne in Middlesex. Freight cars were twisted and strewn about the site and a vaporous white plume of chlorosulfonic acid rose over the track and drifted southward towards the homes and farms in the immediate area.

The train crew quickly surveyed the situation and notified the CN control centre. In turn, CN notified the appropriate officials and agencies. Within minutes, officers from the Ontario Provincial Police were on the scene to divert traffic, set up roadblocks and evacuate area residents.

Others who responded to the crisis were the Glencoe and Melbourne fire departments, the CN response team, Du Pont, the owner of the spilled chemicals and representatives from four Ontario government ministries, as well as St John Ambulance, the London-Middlesex medical officer of health and the reeves of the two affected townships.

Every precaution was taken to ensure the safety of residents and that proper cleanup was undertaken. Houses were washed down, the air monitored, crops tested, livestock attended by a veterinarian, contaminated site soil removed and the site restored. The Ministry of the Environment continues to monitor area wells.

What I want to convey to the House is the prompt, effective and professional conduct of those who served my constituents so well. Among them were Paul Phillips and Robert Bailey of the OPP; Don Agar, Ministry of Agriculture and Food; Geoff Chandler, Ministry of Community and Social Services; Charlie Murray, Rod Baird and Dan Boehm, Ministry of the Environment; Dr Doug Pudden; Maureen Griffiths, Ministry of the Solicitor General; Joel Blackmore, reeve of Ekfrid, and John Groenenwegen, reeve of Caradoc. Thanks to all.

HUNTING AND FISHING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr McClelland: Last Thursday, in response to a question from the member for Timiskaming, the Minister of the Environment responded in the following manner:

"I am still the champion of the environment but, unlike previous ministers of the Environment, I am not alone in my cabinet in championing the environment. I am one of a collectivity of champions of the environment within our cabinet."

She went on to indicate she would consult with the Minister of Natural Resources about the advisability of moving forward with the request for an environmental assessment, a request filed by the Ad Hoc Committee to Save Algonquin Park.

I can only assume that her good sense and past record on environmental assessment was sacrificed at the door of the Whitney Block as some sort of offering to the good Minister of Natural Resources.

If she and her cabinet colleagues are such champions of the environment, why did the ad hoc committee not receive any communication from her office? There have been no letters, telephone calls or faxes sent by the Ministry of the Environment as of noon today. The Minister of Natural Resources made his decision and, in the result, effectively made the decision for the Minister of the Environment as well.

The citizens making the request surely deserve at least a response from the Minister of the Environment, at least a phone call perhaps, to discuss the validity of their request.

I say to the Minister of the Environment, if this is a cabinet full of champions of the environment and consultation, she has a big selling job to do in the ridings of Muskoka-Georgian Bay, Victoria-Haliburton, Parry Sound, Hastings-Peterborough, Frontenac-Addington and Renfrew North, to name but a few of the ridings where the Minister of the Environment has to sell the idea that she is the champion once again.

AREAS OF NATURAL AND SCIENTIFIC INTEREST

Mr B. Murdoch: I would like to bring to the attention of the House the complete disregard shown to my constituents by the Ministry of Natural Resources office in Owen Sound. This local office has announced to my people that its staff will survey private property, looking for areas which they believe are of natural and scientific interest.

If a land owner objects to this intrusion, a local official has said the ministry will not trespass, but it threatens it will not give any assistance if the land owner wishes to have his or her property rezoned. As well, the local office has told people that if they wish to have the "areas of natural and scientific interest" designation removed, they must pay for their own geologist's expert opinion, and even if this is accepted by the ministry, a public meeting on the issue still has to be held.

This heavy-handedness cannot be allowed to continue. Since there is no mention of ANSI in the Planning Act, nor are they covered under any of the ministry's legislation, the perception exists that local officials are frightening and antagonizing my constituents on a whim.

1340

I have tried on numerous occasions to contact the minister's staff in Toronto by phone on this issue. I have written and faxed letters. Nothing, no response. My constituents are angry and frustrated. They are fearful that their land is no longer their own.

I would ask the minister to quickly explain the actions of his local staff or very soon, I am afraid, he will no longer be able to count on co-operation from the residents of Grey.

CO-OP WEEK

Mr Martin: I am pleased to rise today to recognize Co-op Week, October 13 to 20, and Co-op Day, today, October 16.

To mark these important events, the Canadian Co-operative Association is sponsoring a reception today for members of this House at 5 pm in room 247. Please join with me on this occasion to meet the current and future leadership of Ontario's co-operative sector.

More than two million Ontarians belong to co-operatives and credit unions. The assets of credit unions in this province total over $10 billion. Although credit unions are probably the best known of our co-operative institutions, the co-operative approach has been successfully applied to a wide range of services and enterprises: agriculture, manufacturing, day care, publishing, housing and food services.

In my own riding of Sault Ste Marie I think particularly of several fine examples of co-operative ventures: the Ascu Community Credit Union and the Northern Credit Union; Vesta Housing Co-op, the newest of several housing co-ops; several day care co-operatives, and the Offing Community Development Group, a resource to co-ops in Sault Ste Marie, to name just a few.

The theme this week, as credit unions and co-ops in Canada celebrate with colleagues around the world, is "Together we make the difference." Co-ops and credit unions do and will make an important difference here in Ontario. I am pleased to express this word of congratulations and encouragement to them.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr Offer: The residents' associations in my riding are angry. They are angry at the Minister of the Environment and angry at the Premier. As you are aware, Mr Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has expanded the capacity of the Britannia landfill site in my riding. That site was slated to be closed. Local agreements had been made, plans undertaken, costs incurred, but the Minister of the Environment stopped everything. She has ordered the expansion of the site without any hearing whatsoever. There is no place for the residents to voice their concerns, no forum to discuss the social, economic and environmental impact of the expansion of this site.

It was just over a year ago that the now Premier stated no expansion of a dump site would take place without a full environmental assessment hearing. Now that is exactly what is taking place. The residents in my area have asked to meet with the Minister of the Environment to tell her of the impact of her decision on their community. They will do so in the privacy of her office, at a time and place of her calling. They will do so because they feel this issue is of crucial importance to the future of our community. The response by the Minister of the Environment to this request for a meeting is no.

The Credit Valley Residents' Association and other neighbouring communities are going to be visibly expressing their outrage at this government by marching on the dump this Saturday. As they say in their notice: "Eight million dollars has already been spent by Peel council to select an alternative site, yet the debt-ridden NDP government wants to spend more tax dollars to do its own study. Stand up, be accounted for. Let's stop this government waste." I could not agree with them more.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Health. Her government is putting delivery of health care services at Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital at risk. Officials at SMH are projecting a deficit of $1.3 million. To deal with this deficit, the hospital is implementing cutbacks which are expected to save $628,500 over the balance of this fiscal year. On an annualized basis, these cuts amount to more than $2.1 million for a full year. SMH is still faced with a deficit of $176,500 this year.

The cutbacks being implemented by the hospital include the loss of 45 full-time jobs, and 22 of the 34 beds on the Elizabeth II ward will be closed. It is my understanding that part of the problem, which I might add is highlighted in the NDP's Agenda for People, is caused by the fact that hundreds of seniors across this province are staying in acute care hospital beds because of a shortage of appropriate support that would allow them to live in their own homes and their own communities. The minister knows that nursing homes and homes for the aged provide care at less cost than if hospital beds are used. Where is her commitment to nurses and the care of seniors in this province?

The cutbacks in health care services are traumatic to this community. The government is providing fewer services to the people of Simcoe East at a time when it is demanding that they shell out more to pay for the government's $10-billion deficit.

The minister is putting health care services at risk in Ontario.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr Christopherson: As members know, municipal campaigns are taking place throughout the province in anticipation of election day on November 12. As this is the first municipal election held during this term of Parliament, I know all members wish our municipal counterparts the best in their pursuit of public office.

Having spent five years on city and regional councils, I am well aware of the growing importance local governments play in our communities. It is the level of government that is closest to the people and most affects the quality of life for our citizens.

This provincial government has committed itself to working closely with local governments to enhance their ability to deal with the increasing burden that is placed on them.

I am very proud of the vision brought forward by all our candidates in my community of Hamilton. They have envisioned a future for Hamilton as one of Canada's leading centres from both an economic and quality-of-life standpoint. Our success will depend not only on the strength of our economy but also on the leadership provided by our municipal government.

It behooves all of us at this level of government to commend those outstanding citizens who offer themselves and stand for municipal councils and boards of education. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the House to join me in thanking these individuals on behalf of all Ontarians.

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to a certain bill in his office.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The following is the title of the bill to which His Honour has assented:

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act to provide for an Employee Wage Protection Program and to make certain other amendments.

Loi portant modification de la Loi sur les normes d'emploi par creation d'un Programme de protection des salaires des employes et par adoption de certaines autres modifications.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ATIKOKAN ASSISTANCE

Hon Miss Martel: Earlier this year my colleague the Attorney General and member for Rainy River, Iain Angus the federal member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan and I visited the town of Atikokan, which is located northwest of Thunder Bay. We were there at a very difficult time.

We attended a public meeting in this small community of about 4,000. At that time, Atikokan was a community in crisis.

The two largest employers, Atikokan Forest Products Sapawe sawmill and Proboard Ltd, a waferboard factory, had closed their doors. Almost 80% of the town's workforce was not working. The people who met with us on that day told us how this crisis was affecting their lives. They wondered if the town would survive and they turned to this government for help.

Since that time, the community of Atikokan has received good news. Last spring, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp and the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology through the Northern Ontario Development Corp, provided $1.5 million in loans to Atikokan Forest Products. The Sapawe sawmill resumed operations and put 160 people back to work.

Today I have more good news. I am pleased to inform the House that the heritage fund has secured a loan guarantee of $3.6 million for Proboard Ltd. This will give the company the working capital it needs to start up again, restoring 190 direct jobs in Atikokan and 143 indirect jobs throughout northwestern Ontario.

This loan guarantee will make it possible for the plant manager at Proboard Ltd to buy the company from its American owners. Unless the company is sold, Proboard will shut down permanently. The Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp recognizes that this plant is a viable one and supports the purchase.

The heritage fund is securing stable jobs for northerners, whether these are new jobs created through advanced technology or increased business investment or jobs that are restored after initial layoffs. We are helping northerners maintain the dignity that comes with holding a job. Through these jobs, we are helping to sustain the economies of communities like Atikokan.

1350

My ministry will remain active in Atikokan. We have worked closely with the community to make the Sapawe and Proboard transactions possible. The Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp is also now funding a study, to be conducted by independent consultants, that will act as a guide for future economic planning in the area.

The study will examine Atikokan's potential to become an integrated woods industry complex that will make the best use of the human and forest resources available within the existing industrial and municipal infrastructure. It will also identify specific opportunities for local development and diversification.

The study will be overseen by a steering committee with representatives from labour, the forestry industry and the municipality, as well as staff from the ministries of Natural Resources, Industry, Trade and Technology, my own ministry and the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp.

This is good news for the small town of Atikokan, but it is also good news for northern Ontario. Our efforts to create a viable, integrated local economy in one small northern town will provide a model for other towns facing similar problems and decisions for the future.

We are sensitive to the problems encountered by the woods industry across northern Ontario and we are working with all the affected communities to upgrade their operations and expand their markets.

The government is determined to work with all northerners to build a revitalized and more stable economy. Atikokan is no longer a community in crisis; it is an example of what can be accomplished through determination and the co-operation of labour, business, municipalities and the province.

I hope all members will join with me in celebrating the success of this community today.

RESPONSES

ATIKOKAN ASSISTANCE

Mr Brown: I am very pleased and our party is very pleased with the efforts of the northern Ontario heritage fund to help the people of Atikokan. We believe that the people of Atikokan, as in many small communities and even some large ones in the north, are in crisis and in peril, and anything that can be done to help them is something we think is agreeable. We congratulate the minister and the board for their help to the people of Atikokan.

Having said that, we have some concerns about the viability of the entire forestry industry in northern Ontario. We wonder, as most northerners wonder, about their jobs all across the north. We know that community after community is facing difficulties in the sawmilling industry and the pulp and paper industry. We know northerners have concerns for their economic wellbeing in the long-term.

We know the ministry has been plugging holes, kind of sticking fingers in dikes over the past year, but what we are looking for is a viable policy for the forestry industry in the long haul in northern Ontario. We have to know our mills are competitive and viable. We think that is important to northerners and we are surprised, if not shocked, to see the government not moving as an advocate for northern Ontario.

We are surprised that the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines has not led the charge against Bill 118. The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines seems to be for a 44% increase in the price of electricity. Do the members know what effect that will have on the viability of the sawmilling industry in northern Ontario if we increase its costs by 60% during the term of this government? That is what is happening. Do the members know what will happen in the pulp and paper industry, where they are huge consumers of electricity, if they face those same kinds of increases? That attacks the very viability of the northern economy.

Just the other day we had people in from the Ontario Mining Association who were telling us about the effect on Ontario's mines of the projected increases that are going to happen over the term of this government. Many of them may not be viable with a 50% increase in the price of electricity. That affects the northern economy.

Mr Speaker, you probably know, although not all members know, that northern Ontario consumes 13% of the electricity in this province, a disproportionate amount. That is not because northerners are wasteful people. It is because we have resource-based industries that use electricity in large quantities to remain viable.

We have a huge expanse of land. We have residents across 90% of this province who have no choice as to natural gas or any other less costly alternative, and they are going to be hurt by a government policy that is pro high energy prices. It is clearly a government policy, because it is not just with hydro rates; it is with gasoline, it is with a whole myriad of initiatives that this government has taken in order to do whatever its ideology has it do.

What we are looking for is having the north looked after in cabinet. We want policies that make our northern economy viable. We do not want the Minister of Northern Development and Mines standing in this House, making announcements as she did today because the economy is that bad. We want a vibrant, viable economy that will create jobs for northerners and sustain our children's future.

We have been surprised that this government, a party that had always claimed it was for the north, has done things like attack our infrastructure. There is not as much money being spent on northern roads as there was in the past, yet we are collecting more taxes. We look at communities like Sault Ste Marie where the Algoma Steel problem exists, and we are looking for a viable continuation of that enterprise. We look at the Sault and we find it cannot compete with Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, for gasoline prices at the very time this government is increasing taxes on gasoline by 3.5 cents.

We are happy about the announcement the minister made today. We wish she did not have to make this kind of announcement, because the north should be viable.

Mr Eves: To echo some of the comments made by my colleague the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, it is all very well and good for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines to stand in the House and make the announcement she made today, but this is the sort of announcement we have seen all too frequently in recent months. We have seen, just last week, a problem at Sturgeon Falls. We have seen problems at Elliot Lake. We have seen problems at Kapuskasing and many other northern communities.

It is fine to try to address the problem after it has occurred. We are doing nothing, it seems to me, to address the causes of the economic problems in northern Ontario, to use the northern heritage fund for its main purpose which was, as I understood it when it was created, to diversify the economy of northern Ontario, to protect it from being in the vulnerable position that many communities in the north are in, being basically one-industry towns.

We also have to start addressing the issue of competitiveness, which does not seem to be addressed by this government. My colleague the member for Algoma-Manitoulin makes some very good points with respect to power costs, for example. Now here is something the province can do. We are debating the very bill in the House, Bill 118, and we have been for some time. This is something the government can do something about.

I can recall when the minister was a relatively newly elected member in this chamber. My colleague the leader of my party and I spoke in favour of a resolution she introduced in the House. I believe it was the very first piece of business she introduced as the new member for Sudbury East. She was castigating the then Liberal government for its lack of action with respect to economic diversification in northern Ontario. She was calling for the establishment of a northern heritage fund. She was calling for a meaningful fund. I am not quoting her, but I am, I believe, paraphrasing and recalling what she said at the time.

She said that to throw $35 million a year at the problem was a joke, it was insignificant, that it was really just the same amount of money Mr Bernier, when he was the minister, had put into the northern development fund; that if you wanted a true northern heritage fund, you had to make a serious commitment and $35 million a year was nothing other than taking the same dollar figure that was used 10 years ago in this province with respect to economic aid in northern Ontario.

If the government really wants to do something about addressing the root causes of these problems of various communities in northern Ontario, it will do something serious with the northern heritage fund and start addressing the causes instead of the problem after the fact.

Mr McLean: I want to comment briefly on the statement made by the minister, but I want to comment on the part that deals with the study.

The northern Ontario heritage fund is now funding a study to take place for the future economic growth of the north. Different ministries are going to be involved in that study -- the Ministry of Natural Resources is one -- and so is the forestry industry.

I want to make sure the ministry is aware of some of the programs we believe are being put in place in this province. My understanding is that there could be 30 million fewer trees planted in the future; 30 million fewer trees is a lot of trees for the wood industry. I say to this government that when its people are dealing with this study, that is one of the most important aspects they should be looking at. Over the years the policy has been that we would plant three trees for every one tree harvested. This government is saying it is going to plant 30 million fewer trees. Where is this government's commitment to the forests in the north?

1400

ORAL QUESTIONS

INVESTIGATION INTO RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS

Mr Elston: Yesterday I stood in my place and raised a point of privilege concerning the events of the day and the investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police. The Premier, who could have stood on the same point of privilege at least to comment, chose not so to do.

However, when he left us here in the House to complete question period, he told the press in the briefing session that occurs traditionally after he leaves this place that he would be as upset as I was by the carrying out of government-directed OPP investigations against opposition members. Can the Premier tell us that he has ordered a cessation to this government-directed OPP investigation of our activities?

Hon Mr Rae: I am going to let the Deputy Premier and Treasurer answer this question.

Hon Mr Laughren: Perhaps the members will allow me to give a little background to this issue.

Mr Elston: A point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I asked the Premier to talk about investigations of opposition members. It is a point that I think he should have the courage to stand up and say he does not support. When he took the press outside this House yesterday he told them he was upset. I cannot tell you why he believes he can fob this off on the minister and not answer a very direct and short question.

The Speaker: I must inform the honourable Leader of the Opposition that there is nothing out of order. The standing orders allow ministers, including the Premier, to redirect questions.

Hon Mr Laughren: First, let me make it perfectly clear that what the OPP is doing has nothing to do with an investigation of opposition members. That is a completely unfair and unwarranted allegation on the part of the leader of the official opposition.

Members understand that in the Ministry of Treasury and Economics we deal with a lot of documents that are very sensitive. If they were released before they were supposed to be released, there would be all sorts of situations in which people could realize some monetary gain. If we waited until that occurred, we would surely be criticized by any opposition leader worth his or her salt.

This member certainly is worth his salt. We would be criticized for waiting until a sensitive document had been leaked or released before it was supposed to be. We are simply taking precautions now to make sure this does not happen.

Mr Elston: I say to the Deputy Premier, who is also the Treasurer and also responsible for this investigation, that he will know, and the former Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet, the one prior to the member for Dovercourt's appointment there, confirmed in June of this year that the police had been investigating my colleague the member for Halton Centre with respect to a release of information out of the Ministry of the Environment.

We also understand there is a decision pending in the Ministry of Labour to send the police after whatever they can find with respect to the release of that document around September 1. Will the Deputy Premier and Treasurer ask the Premier, the head of the government, who is directing the Ontario Provincial Police investigations into each of these incidents, to cease and desist and to declare publicly that he does not sponsor, support or direct the public service to support and sponsor his government-directed Ontario Provincial Police pursuits of freedom and democracy?

Hon Mr Laughren: The leader of the official opposition is using the most unfortunate language in his question. I do not think he needs to do that to make his point.

The document that was released 10 days ago was not a sensitive document. The point is that surely we do not want to wait until a very sensitive document is released when it is not supposed to be, because at that point the leader of the official opposition would be quite within his rights to rise to his feet and say: "When you knew the process was not airtight, why didn't you do something about it then? Why did you wait until a really sensitive document was released?"

It is not fair to imply that the OPP is investigating the opposition or any member of the Legislature. We have asked them to examine the process and see where we could tighten it up. It is not a case of our directing them to whom they should talk. They make that determination by themselves, not through us.

Mr Elston: The reason the Premier passed this off was that he was unwilling to take responsibility, even though he knows what is going on in his government. He refuses to stand up and say once and for all that he does not condone the pursuit of opposition MPPs and others by the police, directed by his government.

The Premier directed the current minister responsible for Management Board to quickly issue a report and a public document on whistle-blowing. I guess I have to direct this again to my favourite storyteller from Nickel Belt.

Mr Bradley: The Premier won't answer it.

Mr Elston: Does the Premier want to answer? He does not want to answer.

The current Chairman of Management Board indicated at the time he released his paper on whistle-blowing and the protection of public servants who felt that they should provide the public with an understanding of what was being considered inside government as not applying to protect a public servant who released a document like the Ministry of Labour document.

Will the Deputy Premier and my favourite storyteller from Nickel Belt tell us in the House that the fullest and broadest range of protections will be provided under his whistle-blowing paper and the pursuant legislation and that in fact the release of documents to opposition MPPs will be covered by his protections under whistle-blowing?

Hon Mr Laughren: I wish the member opposite would not confuse the rights of the civil service to blow a whistle, as we say, when there are allegations of serious wrongdoing with the release of a budget document or other sensitive documents from a ministry. There is no relationship whatsoever between those two. This has absolutely nothing to do with the right of the civil service to reveal wrongdoing --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- and for the leader of the official opposition to imply that there is some kind of pursuit of the members of the Legislature is completely false. He does his own cause a lot of harm when he engages in that kind of hyperbole and exaggeration.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, these guys are trying to intimidate so many of the people in this province. They talk about open government and they are trying to shut us all down. That fellow over there, whose 20th anniversary has just passed, is one of the people for whom I have a great deal of affection and admiration, but not when he talks like that.

1410

SALARY OF ONTARIO HYDRO CHAIRMAN

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, I will not ask the Premier; I will ask the member for Kitchener, who I understand has given about 10 minutes of his time to the press earlier today, to give us a little of his life now to talk a little more about the $400,000 salary he has indicated will be paid to the chairman of Ontario Hydro, even before there is a public review of the salary levels of executives. Will the minister indicate to us that there will be a public hearing on the review of the executive salaries in Hydro at the Ontario Energy Board?

Hon Mr Ferguson: Bill 118 very clearly sets out who will decide the remuneration for the chair of Ontario Hydro. It is very clear.

I have asked the Ontario Energy Board to do an examination not only of the chair's salary but of the other executive positions at Ontario Hydro. I suspect that will be undertaken very early in the spring.

Mr Elston: He did not answer my question whether it would be a public review. Does the minister not know that under the current Power Corporation Act it is the mandate of the cabinet to review and approve the salary of the chairman of Hydro? Will the minister advise us that cabinet has reviewed and approved the salary and provided some basis for approval for the board's decision, which was taken in an interim fashion in September at its board meeting, to pay Mr Eliesen the $400,000 about which the minister has spoken?

Hon Mr Ferguson: It is normal practice for boards of directors of corporations to set the salary for the chair.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, would you not agree that premiers who are too chicken to answer questions about the overall mandate of government should not be allowed to heckle? The Premier can heckle only if he has enough guts to stand up and answer questions and defend what the government is doing.

The Speaker: To the member for Renfrew North, my reading of the rules says no members are to be interjecting during debates and questions, regardless of the level of participation by anyone, a rule that does not seem to apply too often.

Hon Mr Ferguson: It is common practice for the board of directors to set the salary for the chairperson of Hydro right across this country and indeed in most provinces. This certainly is not out of step. To my knowledge, at no point has there been any cabinet discussion of Mr Eliesen's salary.

Mr Elston: This minister does not know what he is doing. Let me explain to him that under subsection 3(6) of the act, which talks about remuneration, "The chairman and the other directors appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall be paid such remuneration and expenses by the corporation as may be determined from time to time by the Lieutenant Governor in Council," ie, the cabinet. It is not the practice on an ongoing basis for them to do that; it is the ministers' duty as a cabinet to do the work. It is the current provisions of this act which bind them to make sure they do the approvals.

Is it true this member is authorizing the payment of the difference between Mr Eliesen's current salary at a deputy minister's range and the new salary of some $400,000-plus or thereabouts, on a retroactive basis? When Bill 118 comes into effect, will he confirm that and also that they as cabinet people have approved this whole arrangement?

Hon Mr Ferguson: That is not the case at all. I think the operative words in the clause the honourable member just read are "from time to time." I suggest he read it again.

Mr Harris: My question is to the Premier. On May 14, long before the current Minister of Energy was in his place, a letter was written to the Premier from eight members of the board of directors of Ontario Hydro, including the labour representative on that board. The letter states, "In our judgement, Mr Eliesen does not have the experience and the proven managerial record to qualify as the chief executive officer."

Since the Premier overruled, by retroactive legislation, the experts' concerns, could he tell this House what he personally knows that the majority of the board of directors on May 14 did not know? Other than Mr Eliesen's NDP political affiliation, what qualifies him to be chief executive officer of Ontario Hydro?

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Eliesen was chairman of Manitoba Hydro. He was also a Deputy Minister of Energy in Ontario, appointed by the previous Liberal government. Those are the qualifications Mr Eliesen has brought to the office. I will say to the leader of the third party that I think he is quite right when he says there are others who have had a different opinion with respect to Mr Eliesen. The government took the view that we had the right to appoint a chairman of Ontario Hydro, and we have confidence in Mr Eliesen's capacity to act as the chief executive officer and the chairman of Ontario Hydro.

Mr Harris: I think the Premier and this government clearly have changed the rules of the game in order to put a political puppet in charge of Ontario Hydro. If it was political philosophy the Premier wished to inject into Ontario Hydro, he could have appointed him chairman. Nobody argues that this is not indeed his right -- he could have appointed him chairman of the board -- but many non-partisan experts clearly feel Mr Eliesen is not qualified to act as chief executive officer of Ontario Hydro.

Other than being given similar appointments by other NDP governments -- I checked through Mr Eliesen's resume -- one of the longest jobs he ever held was as Ed Broadbent's researcher. That seemed to qualify him for other NDP governments to elevate him into this role as chief executive officer or chairman of a crown corporation, Hydro, in their provinces. Does the Premier really think it is in the best interests of Ontario and of Ontario Hydro to put what is obviously a political appointee in charge of this province's largest crown corporation?

Hon Mr Rae: I think Mr Eliesen's capacities, experience and abilities are a matter of record. He was the chairman of Manitoba Hydro. He was appointed as a deputy minister by the previous government, where he served with distinction, and I think those who served with him will speak of his personal abilities, managerial skill and commitment to public service. I say to the leader of the third party that I think his personal attacks on Mr Eliesen are unfair and unwarranted and that I think Mr Eliesen's abilities will justify the confidence the government has placed in him.

Mr Harris: They are not my personal attacks. They are the judgements of the majority of the board of Hydro as of May 14. I do not pretend to be able to judge whether he has that capability, so I rely on the experts. I understand his political connections, and there are things he can do.

Ontario used to be able to boast low cost and a dependable supply of electrical energy to attract investment, yet one of the first things this Premier's appointee does is to hike rates by nearly 12%. Maybe it is to pay for his Christmas bonus, rumoured to be $75,000. Perhaps the Premier could explain that one. Maybe it is to further cushion his already fat pension package. I hear that if the government can survive six years, it is worth about $300,000 a year; I do not know. But I do know it will further hurt Ontario's competitiveness.

1420

If the Premier wants to play political games, I suggest he play with something other than Ontario's energy and other than Ontario Hydro. If he wanted to give Eliesen a job, there are thousands of political appointments that he makes every year, and they are being filled faster by NDP appointments than I have ever seen in the history of Ontario. The Premier could have hired him to keep John Piper and Gerry McAuliffe company. He could even have made him chairman. But I ask the Premier, why CEO, a position that should be non-partisan, that should be non-political, and that for the sake of Hydro should have a longer lifespan than the life of his government?

Hon Mr Rae: First, let's try to demystify this a little bit. In terms of the letter, the experts whom the leader of the third party describes were in fact political appointees of previous governments, Liberals and Tories. Those are the experts to whom the leader of the third party refers. I have nothing against those people; they are entitled to express an opinion. I read their letter with care and made a different decision.

Second, I hope the leader of the third party would recognize that someone like Hugh Macaulay, who was chairman of Ontario Hydro for many years, was not exactly a figure unknown to the --

Mr Harris: He wasn't CEO.

Hon Mr Rae: Well, he was the chairman of Ontario Hydro, working for it.

Let me say to the leader of the third party that Mr Eliesen has had extensive experience in the energy field. Mr Eliesen has extensive experience in the hydro field. He is someone whose experience and good judgement are, in my opinion, going to be of value to the public of this province. The member's attacks on him are unwarranted and unfair.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Harris: My second question is to the Premier as well. This morning I met with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. We have over 60,000 farm families in this province, yet this government was barely able to scrape together $35 million. This was $35 million in aid at a time when every other province, every other country in Europe and the United States are massively subsidizing in excess of that. It is less than $600 per farm family, farm families that have investments of from $300,000 to several million dollars on the line.

I wonder if the Premier could tell me this: How is it that the most he could find --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. To the honourable leader of the third party, I regret having to interrupt. It is quite difficult to hear the question being posed because of one of the members on the opposition side. I ask that all members allow the honourable leader of the third party to place his question.

Mr Harris: How is it that all the Premier could find was less than $600 per farm family to help out in this crisis, yet he was able to dole out $417,000 per job for 650 mining jobs in Elliot Lake? Can he explain to me why miners in Elliot Lake mining uranium at four times the world price were worth $417,000 per job, but our farm families with all these investments in their farms, earning substantially less than half what a miner earns, if they are successful at all, qualify for $600 per farm family? Could the Premier justify this priority to me?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say first of all to the leader of the third party that he is quite right. The Tory contracts on uranium, signed, sealed and delivered by the Tory party of Ontario and handed on to future generations, have proven very expensive. That is what those Tory contracts have done. Finding a way to move away from those contracts without devastating the town of Elliot Lake, when the member's colleagues from northern Ontario have been asking us to do that, to make sure we did not simply devastate Elliot Lake -- the leader of the third party has always talked out of one side of his mouth. It is not fair to come in here --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the Premier take his seat, please.

There is certain amount of unleashed energy that is quite evident in the chamber. When members have come to order, we can continue, I hope in a little more calm way than we have in the last couple of minutes.

Mr Harris: The Premier, in pointing fingers instead of dealing with reality today, points out that a former government made a mistake in signing long-term contracts for uranium far in excess of the world price. I agree. It is a matter of record. I acknowledge the mistake. We made lots of mistakes and we will make lots more.

But the reality of the situation is that the government is not helping Elliot Lake by perpetuating that mistake at $417,000 a miner for another five years. Where are the Premier's priorities? The $250 million is double what 60,000 farm families, affecting some two million people in communities in this province, need to survive. Where are his priorities? The $600 per farm family is a slap in the face. That is saying to farm families: "Go away, disappear. We'll buy our food somewhere else."

Hon Mr Rae: I really think playing one group off against another, playing northern Ontario off against southern farmers, is the opposite of the way this province, in its best traditions, has seen itself and worked.

No one has worked harder than the Minister of Agriculture and Food to respond to the crisis we are facing. No one on this side of the House believes the $35 million we put forward as a package for this period of time is enough or is the answer. The member has to look at the context of all the other programs that are in place with respect to agriculture in the province. More than $350 million is being put forward by this government in this area. We are continuing to work very hard with the farm community, with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and with other groups. We recognize the seriousness of the crisis in the farm community.

Let me also say to the leader of the third party that I really think he has to be consistent in terms of the message he is trying to deliver. The message I am hearing from his colleagues in the Conservative Party is cut, slash, cut. Then when it comes to a particular group he meets with, he is only too happy to stand up and say, "I want you to spend here; I want you to spend there." I ask him to show a little consistency in this regard.

Mr Harris: I am happy to show consistency. The Premier's NDP cronies say you cannot hold an opposition party to what it says in opposition. Is that not what they say now? That was the Premier in opposition. You can't hold him to that. He was in opposition; ie, you cannot trust opposition parties.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

1430

Hon Ms Gigantes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask you to rule on whether the member is giving a lecture or asking a question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: All right, whoa. That is enough. I would ask the House to come to order. I realize these are contentious issues, but at the same time there must be a bit of restraint practised.

To the member who raised a question about the question being posed: Members who pose questions normally provide a preamble. The preamble may be interpreted by some to be lecturing as opposed to leading up to a question. Within a short period of time I ask all members to place their questions, to make them direct and succinct. Would the member conclude his question.

Mr Harris: I am happy to continue the lecturing preamble to my question.

Let me say this to the Premier. I said today to the farmers and I am saying this to him --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Sarnia.

Mr Harris: -- and I said this as well to the people of Elliot Lake. That $125 million the farmers wanted, I am identifying where the money would come from. I am saying Elliot Lake would have been better off with $125 million in new projects, in investments in the future, instead of uranium at four times the world price, and $125 million would have benefited 60,000 farm families. That is where the Premier can find the money; that is what I am suggesting. I believe I am consistent, I believe I am being honest. I am saying, "Spend the money there, and here is where you can get it."

The Speaker: Would the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Harris: I have the integrity to stand up and say, "Here is where you can find the money. You misspent it in Elliot Lake." What does the Premier say to that?

Hon Mr Rae: This is what I say to that. The decision of this government to ask Ontario Hydro to phase out the operations rather than simply cut them off cold turkey in Elliot Lake was the best way to proceed in the circumstances. It provides the most hope for transition. It provides the most opportunities for an effective transition to the future, for alternative jobs and for diversification. The alternative would have been much harsher for Elliot Lake.

I would also say in answer to the question with respect to Ontario Hydro's decisions regarding the contracts and keeping them in place on a reduced level for a reduced period of time, changing that decision would have no impact on the overall size of what we could do this year with respect to agriculture.

We are going to continue as a government to address concerns of farmers, but I will say this very clearly to the leader of the third party: I will not pit farmer against miner; I will not pit farmer against auto worker; I will not pit farmer against the consumers in this province. That is not the way to proceed. That is not the way to build a better Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It is difficult, I realize, but members are going to have to exercise some restraint. A little bit of calm would go a long way.

SALARY OF ONTARIO HYDRO CHAIRMAN

Mr Conway: I have a question for the Premier and it follows along questions asked earlier today and yesterday about the salary of the newly installed chairman and chief executive officer of Ontario Hydro.

Since the salary in question is, by my reckoning, the largest salary in the Ontario public or parapublic sector of my acquaintance, certainly the largest salary over which this cabinet has a say, can the Premier indicate to me the following: When his cabinet appointed Mr Eliesen as chairman and CEO four or five months ago, he will acknowledge it had to do so under the Power Corporation Act as amended in 1989. That act, as my leader made plain, makes it very clear that the responsibility for the setting of the remuneration of the chairman's salary rests with the cabinet. Will the Premier indicate, as the leader of that cabinet, what his cabinet agreed to in that connection?

Hon Mr Rae: As I said, it was not dealt with extensively by cabinet at all, but the salary now being paid to Mr Eliesen is his salary as a deputy minister.

Mr Conway: I accept that. Anyone who knows anything will understand what is at issue here. The Premier and Marc Eliesen were party to this deal. I suggest they wrote this deal. According to Hydro, the understanding clearly is that the salary of the chairman and CEO will be retroactive to his appointment date in the spring of 1991. Let there be no confusion on that account. My honourable friend the member for York South is a very bright and capable man. He would not want to insult the intelligence of this Legislature or the public beyond on that point.

Given what the Premier has said, and I think rightly so, about the need for all of us to pull in our belts, to appreciate the tragedy this recession is visiting upon the Ontario community, does he not believe that this salary, reported to be in excess of $400,000 for the chairman and CEO, Mr Eliesen, his friend, his appointment, to say nothing of Mr Holt's salary at some $325,000, should be reviewed by this government, particularly in light of the restraint message that has been given about by the Premier, and that a $400,000 salary, representing a tripling of Mr Eliesen's pay, particularly at a time when Hydro is going to increase the hydro rates by 45%, is inappropriate and contradictory to the Premier's and the government's restraint message?

Hon Mr Rae: Perhaps I will not lay it on the way he has laid it on me, but I will just say to the honourable member for Renfrew North that it is precisely because I felt a review was necessary -- first of all, let me say to the member, if he thinks there were any discussions by me with the Hydro board or with Mr Eliesen with respect to his remuneration, he is completely wrong in that regard. He has made that allegation as a statement of fact in the House. I just want to say to him that it is completely false.

The decision of the Ontario Hydro board -- and let us be fair again -- to set not just the remuneration of the chief executive officer, with respect to the proposed amendments under section 118 with respect to the future --

Mr Conway: You appointed Eliesen under this act.

Hon Mr Rae: Let me just finish. I listened carefully. That is right, and under this act he is being paid a deputy minister's salary. With respect to the future, the Ontario Hydro board has made a recommendation.

Mr Elston: Bob Rae, come on.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I am being interrupted by the Leader of the Opposition. I wonder if he would let me reply.

Mr Elston: Listen, Bob, you are telling us a story that is unbelievable.

The Speaker: Order. We actually were doing quite well.

Mr Conway: You would call that lying. You would have called me a liar if I had said that in here 18 months ago. You look after Marc Eliesen. Do something for my farmers.

The Speaker: I ask the member for Renfrew North to come to order.

1440

Hon Mr Rae: If I could just respond both to the Leader of the Opposition and to the member for Renfrew North, it is precisely because the numbers became known to me that I discussed this with my cabinet colleagues and others and we said, "This is a concern." Then we looked at the other salaries being paid in Ontario Hydro to senior vice-presidents, to presidents, to senior executives, and that is precisely why we decided we wanted to have an independent review by the Ontario Energy Board to give us its opinion with respect to what comparative salaries there are.

That is exactly what we have asked for. I do not want to prejudge that review the cabinet has asked for. I do not want to prejudge what the conclusions of that review will be. I know this is going to fall on deaf ears, but I would ask the honourable member to be fair with regard to the whole situation and the entire level --

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his remarks, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I see the member smirking. We all know what that smirk means.

Mr Conway: It's my Bob Rae smirk.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Mancini: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Some six months ago, giving a speech in the Legislature, I used the same term that the Premier has just used about words falling on deaf ears. The member for York East immediately rose, and I want to know why the member for York East was so anxious to rise in my case but sits in his seat when the Premier uses the same words.

Hon Mr Rae: If I may shorten this discussion, I apologize to the House and to the member for York East.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, who is now better known as the Minister of Garbage. The Minister of the Environment has to be aware of some eight barrels of PCB-contaminated oil that have been left unsecured in a residential neighbourhood in Hamilton. According to the Hamilton Spectator, officials from the Ministry of the Environment have known since July 12 about the existence of these barrels. The ministry has left the barrels of PCBs there, placed them in stronger barrels maybe, but left them on the present site.

Will the Minister of the Environment please explain to this House how her ministry could so flagrantly ignore this hazard for over three months and why these barrels of PCBs have not been moved to a secure facility?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me begin by saying that we have certainly not ignored these barrels for the last three months. We were contacted on June 27, 1991, by a person who asked for our assistance to dispose of the barrels. He was informed that they were his responsibility, that they were on his private property and that he must have the contents analysed, the barrels secured and the waste in them looked after. He indicated he was financially unable to do that and as a result my ministry staff instructed him to make sure they were securely stored. The stronger barrels the member referred to were provided. They are sitting on private property on a site that has been fenced, and we have been endeavouring to work with the region, the local municipality, to have them moved to a safe site approved for storage of PCBs.

Mr Cousens: The people in Hamilton are certainly not satisfied with the solution the minister has been working on since June 27, when she first heard of it. It even becomes worse when that length of time has elapsed.

None the less, there is a larger question here that has to do with PCBs. I have raised with the minister before the issue of the whole question of the storage of PCBs in the province. We still have PCBs in Whitby harbour. In fact, there are literally hundreds of storage facilities across this province with PCBs ready for disposal. What is the minister's long-term strategy for PCBs? How are we going to deal with PCBs in Ontario? We cannot just keep fencing them up. We cannot just keep leaving them where they are. We have to have a solution to this very important matter. Could the minister tell us what her long-term strategy is?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think it is a very fair question. It is a problem of a material that is hazardous when burned, as we have seen happen accidentally, which exists in storage sites all across this province and there are no easy solutions to dispose of it. As I am sure the member is aware, Environment Canada announced in the summer of 1988 a five-year phase-out program for PCB waste, including high-level liquids. I think it is fair to say that my ministry, although I was not the minister at the time, waited in anticipation of some solutions to the issue from Environment Canada. Those have not progressed to the level that will allow us to deal with the issue.

We are certainly preparing regulations and looking into what kind of a provincial action plan we can put in place, but in the meantime let me assure the member and the people in Hamilton who are concerned that there are many storage sites for PCBs which, when safely secured, are perfectly appropriate until we find a safe solution to the problem.

CAT SCANNER

Ms Haeck: My question is for the Minister of Health. She recently announced new eligibility criteria for hospitals seeking the Ministry of Health's approval to purchase and operate computerized axial tomography scanners.

Mr Bradley: This is a Jim Bradley question.

Ms Haeck: As she is aware, people in my riding, St Catharines-Brock -- and obviously the member for St Catharines too -- as well as those throughout the Niagara region, have expressed their desire to have at least one more CAT scanner operating in the region. Can the minister tell me, and obviously the many interested viewers, how hospitals go about applying to purchase CAT scanners?

Hon Ms Lankin: I know the member for St Catharines-Brock has expressed great interest in this, as have other members of the House from the Niagara region. It has been an ongoing topic of discussion I have had with members from that area.

On September 20 we announced a new policy with respect to hospital acquisition of CAT scanners. I just want to let everyone know that those guidelines were developed co-operatively with a working group. It involved the Ministry of Health, the Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario radiologists' association and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. It was felt new guidelines were needed because we are dealing with a technology which, when the original guidelines were put in place, was thought to be new and revolutionary and one we should control the expansion of tightly. I think we view it now as a technology that should be used instead of older diagnostic methods.

Hospitals have been informed of the new guidelines. They are asked to submit proposals in keeping with those guidelines, and we will be also seeking advice from district health councils with respect to their recommendations as well.

Ms Haeck: As a result of a recent meeting of the Niagara District Health Council with myself and a couple of other members, the council advised us that it has received four proposals from local hospitals regarding CAT scanners. Can the minister possibly tell us, and obviously the many viewers watching, what will happen if the district health council recommends that more than one scanner should be purchased for the Niagara Peninsula?

Hon Ms Lankin: If the district health council, in its assessment of the region, feels that more than one is required, the ministry will look at that. There is a list of criteria that must be met and the district health council's recommendation will be very important, but there are other things we will be looking at.

They will consider needs assessment, showing justification. That will be part of what they look at. They will also look at the impact for both the hospital and the regional health care system. From the ministry's point of view, we will be looking at whether a business case has been made, whether relative cost-benefit analysis has been done and whether the hospital is in an operating deficit or not. Those sorts of criteria will be the responsibility of the minister to review.

I should also say that there were 10 outstanding requests from hospitals. In fact, a couple of those are from the Niagara region. Those will be dealt with first before we go on to new proposals that are coming in.

1450

SALARY OF ONTARIO HYDRO CHAIRMAN

Mr Elston: I have a question for the Premier. I wonder how the gentleman who has told us that he has asked for this independent review by the Ontario Energy Board can explain to us that as of noon today my advice is that the Ontario Energy Board has not been advised that it is to conduct such a review.

Hon Mr Rae: It was my understanding that this was to be done. We certainly reached this conclusion some time ago, and as far as that --

Mr Elston: When?

Hon Mr Rae: Some time ago.

Mr Elston: I wonder if the Premier will tell us when they decided to have this review conducted.

Hon Mr Rae: It is my recollection that it was a matter of a few weeks ago that this decision was made.

Mr Elston: And no transmission?

Hon Mr Rae: I can only tell the member that was when the decision was made.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr Turnbull: My question is to the Treasurer. Two weeks ago, the Ministry of Transportation released a study on the trucking industry in Ontario. It concluded that the Ontario truckers are at a competitive disadvantage to their US counterparts. According to the report, costs of repair, maintenance, fuel and overhead are lower in the United States. David Bradley, president of the Ontario Trucking Association, is quoted in the Windsor Star as saying, "This industry is still reeling from the first round of diesel fuel increases, and the thought of paying higher taxes in January is simply too much for many truckers."

I am sure the Treasurer will admit this report clearly shows that the Ontario trucking industry is in crisis. Will he not today please cancel the second level of the fuel tax increases?

Hon Mr Laughren: There is no question whatsoever that the trucking industry in this province is in some difficulty. I perused the report to which the member refers. To be fair, I think the report does indicate that a short-term fix is not the answer to the problems in the trucking industry, that while the problems are serious, they are basically structural in nature. It is simply a fact that there are too many trucks for the amount of goods to be hauled. In my view, a reduction or a cancellation of a fuel tax increase that is set for 1992 would not resolve their problem, so, no, it is not my intention to cancel that proposed tax increase.

Mr Turnbull: In a letter the Treasurer wrote to the Ontario Trucking Association, he stated that the tax was necessary for environmental reasons. I would put it to the Treasurer that having more American truckers deliver goods in Ontario is going to do nothing to help the Ontario environment.

Fuel is not a luxury for truckers; it is a cost of doing business. This tax is going to add an average of $2,000 out of the pockets per trucker per year. They are already experiencing financial difficulties. How will this tax help the environment when truckers have no money to buy more environmentally efficient equipment?

Hon Mr Laughren: To be fair, I indicated in my previous response that the problems in the trucking industry are more structural than they have to do with the price of gasoline. I might add that the price of gasoline is not irrelevant in the cost of doing business for the trucking industry. I appreciate that fact. I would also remind the member, though, that there is a prorated charge on American truckers who drive in Ontario for the price of gas they pay here.

Mr Turnbull: You're not policing it well enough.

Hon Mr Laughren: I am telling the member that is simply the case, and fair-minded observers of the trucking industry will confirm it when I say that the real problems in the trucking industry are, first, deregulation on both sides of the border. The member opposite should know as well as anyone that the federal deregulation is hurting the trucking industry, as did the provincial deregulation. Second, the recession has had a major impact on the trucking industry as well. There is absolutely no question about that. Finally, we believe we went some way when we put a moratorium on the issuance of any new licences. It is not as though we have simply been sitting on the sidelines watching the trucking industry go through its difficulties. As a matter of fact, we look forward to some kind of positive response from the federal government as well.

COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTRES

Mrs MacKinnon: My question today is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. As the minister knows, the community information centres provide a highly personalized information and referral service to all their local communities. It is important to keep in mind that the role of the community information centre is especially crucial during tough economic times, which we find ourselves in now as a province.

As the minister is well aware, her ministry funds 58 out of 81 centres, and the CIC in my riding of Lambton county is included in that number. Unfortunately the overall funding for community information centres is quite low. Taking this into account, what is the minister's commitment to the CICs in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Haslam: I understand the member is concerned about community information centres and the funding. I would like to point out that many other MPPs here as well as cabinet people have met with their local CICs to discuss the funding. Her question was, what is our commitment to the CICs in Ontario? The Ministry of Culture and Communications is leading a team to conduct a review of public access to government human resources information. One of the things we are looking at is how CICs fit into the information network, as well as partnerships with other ministries.

I would like to point out that after three days in the ministry I visited a CIC in Parkdale and was quite impressed with the work they do. I am taking a very good interest in these.

Mrs MacKinnon: Is the minister implying that her ministry does not intend to continue to fund the CICs, and if this is the case, is the minister not aware of the importance of the community information centres to local communities in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Haslam: As I mentioned, I did visit a CIC in Parkdale. They do play a very important part in our communities. I was impressed with what they do and the new database some of them have. I was shown how they work in the community. I would like to point out that in 1991-92 they received a 5.5% increase in operating grants and I would like to assure the member that we are doing everything we can with respect to CICs and the issue of funding the CICs.

SALARY OF ONTARIO HYDRO CHAIRMAN

Mr Elston: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. We were just told by the Premier that weeks ago they had decided to talk to the OEB and have it conduct the investigation of the salaries we have been discussing here in the House. I wish to quote from the minister in his answer to the member for Renfrew North yesterday, October 15, "I will be asking the Ontario Energy Board to do a review of all the salaries of the executives at Ontario Hydro." Can the member who is now minister responsible for energy in this province tell us why he has not carried out the instructions of the cabinet and the first minister?

Hon Mr Ferguson: First of all, as the member knows, the board will not be meeting until this spring to look at the matter, so I did not feel --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Ferguson: As a result, I did not think time was of the essence in putting together the letter to send to the energy board. However, I want to advise the member that I have already viewed two drafts of the letter. I was not happy with the first draft or the second draft. When the final draft is prepared and signed, I will be more than happy to provide him with a copy. Might I also add that publicly I have been on record numerous times as saying that I will be asking the energy board to examine this matter.

Mr Elston: It is interesting that as of September 4 the Premier had received a fax from a group of people who were concerned about the $400,000 salary and had asked him to intervene and to send, I guess, a policy direction to the board of directors to deal with the issue of the salary. Here we have the Minister of Energy, however, confirming the fact that there will be a retroactive payment, a double payment, to Mr Eliesen pending the review by the energy board some time in the spring.

1500

Will the Minister of Energy tell us here today that there will be no retroactive payment to Mr Eliesen between the date of his original appointment and the date of the completion of the passage of Bill 118 in this House and that in fact Mr Eliesen will receive only his deputy minister's salary up to the end of the review conducted by the Ontario Energy Board?

Hon Mr Ferguson: Mr Eliesen will receive whatever he is entitled to receive. He will not receive two salaries. Members opposite are trying to infer that on the one hand he is going to receive a Hydro salary retroactive --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Has the minister completed his response?

Hon Mr Ferguson: On the one hand, members opposite are trying to infer that Mr Eliesen, who is currently drawing his deputy minister's salary, will receive that salary up until the passage of the bill. Once the bill is passed, they are inferring that he is going to get this retroactive package and, in essence, draw two salaries later on down the road. That is not the case at all.

This government is doing what the Liberal government never had the courage to do. We are asking the Ontario Energy Board to do a fair comparison, not only of Mr Eliesen's salary but of the salaries of the other senior vice-presidents and directors at Ontario Hydro. We are asking them to compare their salaries with those at the other major utilities across the country to make sure they are fair, to make sure they are in line and to make sure the public is being served.

EASTERN ONTARIO VEGETABLE GROWERS' CO-OPERATIVE

Mr Villeneuve: In view of the absence of the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I will ask the Deputy Premier about problems being faced by the Eastern Ontario Vegetable Growers' Co-operative.

This is the only processor of vegetables in eastern Ontario. Last year, they did $26 million worth of business. They have met with the government, they have met with the Minister of Agriculture and Food and they have met with the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food. They are short $500,000. We are not talking about the kind of money that de Havilland or some of the northern communities got or the increase the civil service got; $500,000 is the difference between staying in business and shutting down the production of 12,000 acres of vegetables in eastern Ontario.

Will the Deputy Premier and his government look at this in a positive light and send them a clear message that this government is going to reach out and give them a hand?

Hon Mr Laughren: Rather than give the member opposite an inadequate answer, I would prefer to take it as notice, talk to the Minister of Agriculture and Food and get back to the member.

PETITIONS TOBACCO TAXES

Mr Carr: I have a petition signed by 1,468 residents of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the present high levels of taxes on tobacco products are excessive and contrary to the interest of Ontario's two million smokers; and

"Whereas high tobacco taxes are contributing to retail theft and to our province's cross-border shopping crisis; and

"Whereas these punitive taxes and resulting lost sales are contributing to inflation as well as costing jobs in Ontario; and

"Whereas high cigarette taxes are regressive and unfair to low- and modest-income citizens,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That Ontario's tobacco taxes should not be increased in 1991 and further that these taxes should be repealed and a new lower and fairer tax be introduced."

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr J. Wilson: It is my privilege to rise and present a petition to the Legislature of Ontario on behalf of the good people of my riding of Simcoe West. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the Queen of Canada has long been a symbol of national unity for Canadians from all walks of life and from all ethnic backgrounds;

"Whereas the people of Canada are currently facing a constitutional crisis which could potentially result in the breakup of the federation and are in need of unifying symbols;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore the oath to the Queen for Ontario's police officers."

That is signed by a number of people from Collingwood, Wasaga Beach, the township of Nottawasaga, Sunnydale and the village of Creemore. I too have affixed my name to this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr White from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee recommends that Bill Pr1, An Act respecting the City of Toronto, be not reported, it having been withdrawn by the applicant.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 15th report and moved its adoption.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 104(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ELEVATING DEVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ASCENSEURS ET APPAREILS DE LEVAGE

Mr Ruprecht moved first reading of Bill 139, An Act to amend the Elevating Devices Act.

M.Ruprecht propose la première lecture du projet de loi 139, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ascenseurs et appareils de levage.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptee.

Mr Ruprecht: This bill would require landlords of residential premises containing elevator devices to enter into an agreement for regular maintenance of the elevators. It would also require landlords of residential premises to keep elevators in service except during such times as the elevator has been taken out of service for maintenance, repair or replacement.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SOCIETE DE L'ELECTRICITE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 118, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

Suite du debat ajourne sur la motion visant la deuxième lecture du projet de loi118, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Societe de l'electricite.

Mr J. Wilson: I am pleased to rise once again today to speak on Bill 118, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act. Just to recap, as a starter, my remarks of October 3, I spent a great deal of time debating this bill with members of the government. As we get back to Bill 118, we recall that the bill makes the chairperson of Ontario Hydro the chief executive officer of the corporation. He is not only chairperson, but Marc Eliesen, the government's NDP appointment, also becomes the CEO of Ontario Hydro.

Bill 118 increases the membership on the board of directors of Ontario Hydro from 17 to 22, an attempt by the government -- albeit a successful attempt, since it has a majority in this Legislature -- to stack the board of directors of Ontario Hydro in favour of the NDP and its socialist policies. Bill 118 also allows the Minister of Energy to issue policy directives that would be binding on the corporation.

1510

I will stop there for a moment before I continue with what else the bill does. Subsequent to my debate and my colleagues' debate in this Legislature on Bill 118 on October 3 and 4, we read in the Globe and Mail on October 5 that the Municipal Electric Association was giving some praise to the government because the Minister of Energy had made an announcement pretending to appease the concerns that had been raised by the Municipal Electric Association and by public utilities commissions in my riding of Simcoe West, the town of Wasaga Beach, the town of Collingwood and the amalgamated town of Alliston, Beeton, Tecumseth and Tottenham. Those concerns though, I and my colleagues are here to tell the government, have not been alleviated by the Minister of Energy's announcement.

The Globe and Mail reported in a headline on October 5, "Utilities Win Bout Over Bill 118." Marv LeClair, the chairman of the Municipal Electric Association, is quoted as saying, "We are delighted that the government has realized that Bill 118 was unacceptable legislation that could not go forward without major changes."

The Minister of Energy apparently had written to Mr LeClair on the Wednesday of that week, the minister apparently welcoming "the input and constructive proposals." The minister's office issued a news release saying it would work on proposals for implementing fuel substitution based on further consultations.

Mr LeClair, at the end of the Globe and Mail article, said: "We argued that Bill 118...would allow any government to force Ontario Hydro to do anything the government said, and then make electricity consumers pay for it through a hidden tax grab."

I say to Mr LeClair, to members of the public and to members of my riding that this has not changed because the Minister of Energy put out some pappy socialist press release that in reality, when one examines it, did not really in any way address the concerns expressed by the people of my riding, hydro consumers in this province, both large and small, and the Municipal Electric Association. In fact, as my colleague the member for Lanark-Renfrew, our Energy critic, pointed out on October 3:

"The amendments to Bill 118, as presented yesterday, are a joke. From the beginning, this legislation has been flawed and unnecessary. This week the government bungled the delivery of new amendments by having a backbencher, instead of the minister, attempt to deliver the joke.

"I can see the minister being embarrassed to deliver it, because the amendments vaguely address only subsection 9a(1) by the addition of the following: 'On matters relating to the corporation's exercise of its powers and duties under this act.'

"Ontario has no guarantee in the future of a reliable source of power at cost." That was the crux of my argument that day also. "Policy directives still give the minister too much power. Fuel switching at Ontario Hydro customers' expense is ludicrous and not an acceptable business practice.

"The government will not save 700 megawatts of energy. It will transfer it into 2,389,100,000 BTUs of fossil fuels at the expense of the ratepayer," and create more pollution in the process. "The government will do this in a dictatorial fashion, without the approval of the elected municipal governments."

The message I would like to send out in my short remarks today, because I have spoken at length on this bill in the past, is that the Municipal Electric Association should not be fooled by the Minister of Energy's attempt to address its concerns. Those concerns are real.

If one takes a look at the amendments, sure, the government says it has now put some limits on its ability to give policy directives to Ontario Hydro for anything it wants Ontario Hydro to do, such as the assistance package it gave to Elliot Lake through Ontario Hydro, some $250 million in job-maintaining money to Elliot Lake and Kapuskasing. Sure, the government says it has put some limitations on that and the board of directors of Ontario Hydro will continue to have some say in how Hydro is run, but the fact is the NDP is stacking the board. They are increasing the membership from 17 to 22 -- NDP appointments.

They are giving a salary to Marc Eliesen, the new chairperson and chief executive officer of Ontario Hydro, of $400,000 a year. Yesterday I read -- I am sorry, I could not find the source this morning; I think it is sitting on my desk in Collingwood -- that he is also getting a year-end bonus of some $75,000. The government denies this. That is arguable. We will have to wait until the estimates come in next year to see exactly how much money Marc Eliesen makes over the year.

Ontario Hydro itself tells us in a memo of September 10: "Rod Taylor, director of Hydro's executive office, has advised me" -- and this is to one of our policy researchers -- "that Mr Eliesen did not request a salary of $400,000 as the media reported. Mr Taylor said that when the amendments to the Power Corporation Act are made in the upcoming session of the Legislature, Ontario Hydro will compensate their CEO at a level the board has deemed appropriate for that position."

That is consistent with what the minister has told us. It is not necessarily $400,000, but the board will decide what it will be. "And by the way, we've stacked the board, so if we want him to get $400,000, he will get $400,000."

Hon Mr Wildman: What did you guys pay Hugh Macaulay?

Mr J. Wilson: The Minister of Natural Resources may want to listen to this. He may learn something.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order. Will the member take his chair, please? The honourable minister, the member for Algoma, will facilitate the process of this House if he refrains from constant interjections. The member will continue.

Mr J. Wilson: Actually, I do not mind getting under the skin of the Minister of Natural Resources, the minister responsible for native affairs, because I do not like NDP socialists very much. I like him as a gentleman and as a member outside this House, but I do not like their policy. If some of the things I say get under their skin, tough. I know they are having a tough time as a government. They have kind of gone for a nosedive in the polls, but it does not mean they have to heckle opposition members who are trying to point out the errors of their ways.

What they should do is listen. They accuse other governments of never listening to the people. When it comes to Bill 118 and a number of other pieces of legislation, we are trying to find the essence of why they want to do this, why they want to socialize Ontario Hydro. They should come clean with the public. They should tell us what their true agenda is.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member will take his chair, please. The Chair has already pointed out to the government member to refrain from interjection. I think the member will do well to speak to the issue before us for debate.

Mr J. Wilson: I think if you review my comments, Mr Speaker, you will find that I was addressing the issue at hand. You may take liberty with my remarks, but I will protest if you do.

Going back to relevance to the bill, going back to the comments about Mr Eliesen's salary, Mr Taylor at Ontario Hydro has confirmed that it will be in the $400,000 range. The minister tells us today that Bill 118 does not make the chairman's salary retroactive, that Marc Eliesen is continuing to get his $140,000- or $150,000-a-year deputy minister's salary. He tells us also today in answer to questions by both the member for Bruce and my leader, the member for Nipissing, that the government has asked the Ontario Energy Board to do an assessment and review of the salaries of the chairman and other high-ranking senior officials in Ontario Hydro.

Let's look at some of the salaries across the provinces. This is what the review will likely find. In some instances we were not able to find exact salaries and I beg the indulgence of the House there; for instance, Maritime Electric. If a member of the Legislature cannot get the answers, I do not see how the Ontario Energy Board has any greater right or any greater privileges than I do as a member.

Maritime Electric would not tell what it pays its chief executive officer, and admittedly Newfoundland Light and Power would not either. New Brunswick Electric Power Commission, though, did say. Carol Estie, the compensation manager for New Brunswick Power, confirmed that its CEO receives $124,000 a year, and that compensation level, to be fair, is currently under review. I do not think it is contemplating $400,000 though.

Saskatchewan Power Corp also says it is unable to report what its chief executive officer makes. This is great. This is just as bad as in Ontario. Manitoba Hydro says its chief executive officer makes $122,500 annually. At the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority apparently the CEO earns $175,000 annually; Hydro-Quebec -- now there is one that is comparable to Ontario in terms of size -- a fairly large salary, $212,000.

1520

In the other provinces reported, nobody makes near what the NDP is planning on paying its appointee. I understand it was unconscionable for the Liberal government to pay its chairperson of Ontario Hydro the astounding salary, but my understanding there is that it had a couple of people at a lower salary. The government has combined the jobs, given it to one person, granted, paying him an astronomical salary. It is still going to have to justify this.

To talk specifically about some of the concerns of public utilities commissions, I just want to relay once again the concern of the public utilities commission in Sault Ste Marie. In a letter to my leader, the member for Nipissing, Mr Hugill, chairperson of the public utilities commission in Sault Ste Marie, first of all begins by stating in the letter -- and this is the same for all PUCs whether in my riding or in any of the 312 PUCs in the province -- "Our mandate is to provide a safe and reliable supply of electricity and water to our customers at the lowest feasible cost."

Just to go on to the letter, the chairperson talks about how the PUC, being at the grass roots, is very much responsible and directly responsible to the electorate and to the ratepayers. It says:

"Our concerns lie in the fact that Bill 118 is a direct attack on the long-cherished principle of power at cost." On October 3, I spoke a great deal about power at cost and that long-standing principle. "Ontario has, since 1906, followed the principle of power at cost and has reaped the advantages of a strong and competitive industrial base over these many years, with the key element in this being the supply of electricity by Ontario Hydro and public utilities commissions.

"However, Bill 118, if passed as written, would change the fundamental relationship between government and Ontario Hydro by allowing the government to issue policy directives that are binding on Ontario Hydro even if they have nothing to do with Hydro's current business, that being the provision of safe, reliable electricity. Bill 118 would change Hydro's mandate to include anything the government says it should, such as social assistance or regional development. The effect is that the local electricity consumer will pay for these directives through electricity rates."

We are told that the expected rise in hydro rates for consumers -- that is, household consumers and business consumers of hydro -- the compounded effective rate could be anywhere from 35% to 45% over the next three years. Needless to say, that will drive another peg in the economic coffin of this province and continue to drive more businesses out of the province since we are not competitive now; we are the highest-taxed jurisdiction in North America.

If the government raises hydro rates because it has some sort of socialist philosophy and new mandate for Ontario Hydro, it is going to drive more businesses out of the province. Heed our warning. Please listen to us. We are echoing concerns, bringing concerns from our constituents, from public utilities commissions that know their business, that know the business of Hydro in providing safe, affordable, reliable electricity far better than any member of this government. The government should listen to them.

I want to read another paragraph from the public utilities commission of Sault Ste Marie because it is reflective of several hundred letters we have received in our caucus on this bill. It says:

"The net effect is that Bill 118 will force electricity rates up, resulting in economic hardship for Ontario residents and businesses, and discourage much-needed economic growth. We are already seeing the negative effects of misguided policy on the Ontario economy, and strong action to oppose the government is required."

Just for the record and for the interest of all members, the member for Nipissing, leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, responded by saying to Mr Hugill:

"As you are no doubt aware, our party is opposed to Bill 118. We object to the provisions which allow the government of the day to issue policy directives which are binding on Ontario Hydro. The open-ended nature of this bill essentially allows any government to force Ontario Hydro into actions which may well be based on nothing more than political considerations and not necessarily in the best interests of consumers.

"This NDP initiative puts the integrity of Ontario Hydro at risk and may result in the utility engaging in activities beyond its mandate of providing safe, reliable power at cost."

The member for Nipissing goes on to say:

"In fact, as we have seen by recent appointments and policy directives such as the Elliot Lake assistance package, the current NDP government is already using Ontario Hydro as an instrument to further its own political, social and economic agenda. The cost of these and other so-called government initiatives will be unfairly borne by the hydro consumers over and above the actual cost of power."

The government did not have the courage, when it was bailing out northern Ontario communities, to come back to the Legislature, to be honest with the people of Ontario and say, "We're going to bail out Elliot Lake, Kapuskasing and Blind River, and it may require a greater deficit." Our option would be that they had the courage to come back to this Legislature and say: "We're going to take that money from other expenditure areas. We've now decided that northern Ontario is a priority, so we're going to put in $250 million to save 600 jobs."

That is well over $400,000 a job. It would be better to give these people an annuity, put the $400,000 in the bank for them and let them live off the interest. They could live the rest of their lives quite comfortably.

None the less, they did not have the courage to come back to the Legislature and be honest with people, as they campaigned about so often, so they direct Ontario Hydro. They do it, in my opinion, without legislative authority. I do not know where they get the authority to do this. They have done it. Now Bill 118 is here. They are asking for the legislative authority. We are being asked as legislators to give them retroactive legislative authority for something they have already done, which they have not consulted with the people on.

This all flies in the face of what the NDP candidates said in the last election and what the Premier has said for years. He has said for years that he did not like retroactive legislation, that governments must be honest and open and forthright with people, yet in every act the government has taken, it has taken the opposite approach. We are told by some of their strategists: "That was then, that was when we were in opposition, but this is now. We're in government."

It is totally unacceptable, but we are willing to work with them. We realize this government is here for the next three or four years. Our role in opposition is to try to bring some common sense back to the system, to show them the error of their ways, whether it be in Bill 118 or the myriad of other socialist legislation they have brought in and are bringing in. We will be here to do that. We will be here to join with the people of Ontario to try to bring some common sense back, and we hope the government will listen. We hope on Bill 118 they will listen, because they are going to do irreparable harm.

As I said in my remarks on October 3 and will say again in conclusion today, God help the next government in this province. They are going to have to clean up the NDP's economic disaster. They are going to have to straighten out Ontario Hydro and the brownouts that will probably occur at that time. We are told by the Ontario Energy Board, for instance, that the government's misguided $6-billion energy conservation program and directives will not save enough electricity to ensure that Ontario remains competitive and that we have some economic growth over the next years. In fact, their misguided policies will lead to brownouts in five or six or seven years' time.

They will not be the government then. They will be in opposition, screaming like they have always done, about brownouts in the province. We will probably be the government and we will have the inability, as is so often the case, to explain to the public, "Six years ago, we tried to explain this was what was going to happen." We have already had brownouts, as I mentioned in my remarks in the House on October 3, in the town of Collingwood and that area.

They have created unemployment through the bailout in Kapuskasing. They protect 600 jobs in the north, but the effect in my riding has been to put at least two contractors I know of and their staffs out of work over the winter season and through next year, because some $16 million was taken out of the Hydro region in my riding, had to be diverted to head office so head office could put it in the kitty to help the government bail out northern Ontario communities.

1530

Do two wrongs make a right? Does saving some mining jobs in the north give the government the right to put people in my riding out of work?

I would hope the answer is obvious to the government. I would hope the government would realize that the $16 million that was diverted from my riding was being used very sensibly on a long-term and ongoing project to upgrade the lines through our area so that we can address the brownout problem that is already occurring in parts of the province and parts of my riding.

The government's solution seems to be to drive out major industry and it is going to save a whole pile of megawatts. That is hardly an economic strategy. That is hardly an industrial strategy. They may be able to go back to their environmentalists in a few years and say: "We didn't build any more nuclear power plants. We lived up to that campaign promise." I do not know what they are going to say to the hundreds of thousands of people who are being put out of work though as a result of their misguided policies, as a result of hydro rates that are going to go through the roof in the next few years.

We know this from objective people. We know this from people who do not have a political axe to grind. We know this from a number of good servants in this province who are trying to lay the facts out before the government when it comes to Bill 118.

I will yield the floor soon because I understand the government House leaders have come to an agreement that there will be some more public debate on Bill 118 and we welcome that. There will be two weeks of public hearings outside of Metropolitan Toronto and in the communities of Ontario. There will be another week back here in Toronto and there will be a week of clause-by-clause review of Bill 118.

I hope on this piece of legislation that the government will listen and act on what it hears. I think they have not quite read Webster's Dictionary or they do not have a full understanding of the Oxford meaning of consultation. It requires not only meeting and listening but also taking what has been heard in a meeting and incorporating that as part of the decision-making process and acting upon what has been heard. That is the part of the formula and the part of the definition of the word that this government fails to understand, I believe.

I would ask during the hearings and further debate in this House on Bill 118 that the government listen and bring some common sense back. They should save themselves. They are not going to be the government in three or four years if they continue to act in the manner they are acting. They will not be the government. Even their socialist coalition will fail them. Believe me.

They must bring some common sense back to government. They cannot just use the words "common sense" because we use them. We mean it, and we have a long track record of using common sense in this province. They have to actually show the people of Ontario that they are governing with the best interests of all Ontarians in mind, that they are not captives of a few groups only but that they have the good interests of all Ontarians in mind.

Simply that is what I would ask the government to do, to listen and to govern for all the people of Ontario.

Mr Huget: I listened with interest to the comments of the member for Simcoe West. While I certainly do not agree with any of his projections and speculations, and that is quite clearly what they are, I would remind him, though, in terms of the specific issue of the Municipal Electric Association and its concerns, that the Ontario Minister of Energy on October 2 announced that the government would introduce changes to Bill 118 in order to address the concerns and some of the misunderstandings that have arisen since the bill was introduced in June.

The minister said the government is determined to make Hydro truly accountable to the government for the first time in Ontario history and at the same time equip the corporation with further powers to save electricity and ultimately bring cost savings to electricity consumers.

He also specifically noted that the changes he was proposing were designed to clarify misunderstandings and concerns raised since the bill was introduced in June and, in particular, he identified clearly the concerns of the Municipal Electric Association and a number of the municipal electric utilities. He was clearly seeking to be responsive to their concerns.

When he opened debate on Bill 118, the minister also said the government would be listening closely to what is said. He informed the House that the government would be responsive where appropriate. The government and he are responding to those concerns.

Sections of the bill will be clarified to ensure the government's intent that any policy directives that are issued relate to the corporation's exercise of its powers and duties under the act and do not lead to an extension of these powers and duties by means of government directives.

That is the intent of Bill 118. There are no hidden agendas. There are no hidden motives. I do not think it serves anyone well to hear members of the third party go on a tangent about non-existent policy.

Mr Ruprecht: The member for Simcoe West makes two compelling points that I know you will appreciate as Speaker. One is that the present NDP government will no longer be the government. We could of course go on about that discussion, which I will not.

But the second compelling point he makes asks the most important question of the debate: What is Hydro all about? What is the mandate of Hydro? Is the mandate of Hydro to continue in some kind of social experiment? Or is the mandate of Hydro to provide power at cost? If it is the latter, to provide power at cost, then what the member for Simcoe West indicates is very logical, namely, the inability of this government to rein in Hydro to the point where power at cost is the main mandate and the main point.

It is clear that if, indeed, Hydro decides to provide millions of dollars for social experiments in the north, in the south, in the east, to the point where they might even want to get into eradicating our food banks, then we would have to ask the question again that the member for Simcoe West raises.

Obviously, as we read the bill, as we read hopefully the new amendments, as we understand the whole question of the debate, Hydro is organized to provide power at cost. Consequently, social experiments must be paid out of another kind of budget. Hydro cannot be held at ransom to the point where these kinds of experiments are being paid from that budget; it should be another budget. The Treasurer has to figure out from what budget social experiments are being paid. While we would agree to some extent that some of these issues are correct, nevertheless the main focus must be on the mandate of Hydro.

Mr Johnson: I listen today with some concern because I think the members opposite have not understood maybe as well as I have, maybe as well as other members of the government have, exactly what the purpose of Bill 118 is.The idea that Ontario Hydro is going to be some kind of a social service agency is appalling and it is wrong. I did not read that in Bill 118, and I think for them to stand on the other side and tell the people of Ontario that this is a fact is wrong. I think that is wrong. It is incorrect.

I think the people of Ontario have expected that all along they have been paying for their hydro at cost and unfortunately, because of bad management many years ago in the province of Ontario and maybe bad management in Ontario Hydro, but I would say at least from the government side of management, we find ourselves today in a position where we have to increase the rates dramatically. That is unfortunate, but the people in Ontario understand that they must pay for their hydro at cost, and fortunately we are working to make sure these costs are kept to a minimum.

1540

Mr Conway: I want to pick up on something the member for Simcoe West said about the growing controversy concerning the chairman and chief executive officer. I know that members on the government side are anxious to point out that in a previous incarnation Bob Franklin was not just chairman but president and CEO, all of those jobs rolled into one. What we now have is a situation in Bill 118 where Mr Elieson, a very good friend of the Premier, an active New Democrat -- and I do not hold that against him. I do not think the government should be embarrassed by --

Mr Hope: Then why do you keep bringing it up? You must have something against it.

Mr Conway: Why do I bring it up? Mr Speaker, if you will restrain your colleague.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the member to address the chair with his comments and not to speak directly across to members and have a conversation.

Mr Conway: I expect you to restrain our big-mouthed friend, the member for Chatham-Kent.

The Acting Speaker: Please take your seat. I ask the member for Renfrew North to direct your comments through the occupant of the chair and we will not have this situation in the House.

Mr Conway: And I ask you, Mr Speaker, as an impartial referee, to restrain the loquacious member for Chatham-Kent, whose interjections in this House are becoming increasingly interesting. There was one earlier this afternoon that, had I been in a less pleasant mood, I would have been up and I think I could have embarrassed him to some extent.

I want to make the point that what we have got in Bill 118 is a retroactive provision that concerns the powers and the remuneration of Mr Marc Eliesen. There is no question that Mr Eliesen wrote Bill 118. He was in a complete conflict of interest as he empowered himself. What we have got now is an individual who is going to be paid apparently some $400,000-plus, with obscene pension provisions, to be chairman and CEO at the same time as we have Al Holt earning some $325,000 plus bonus to be president. I am very concerned that we have got a political hack as the CEO of Ontario Hydro.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Conway: The NDP has a right to appoint a political hack as chairman, but I cannot remember when we had a political hack as CEO.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask all members to try to keep within the two-minute time frame. The member for Simcoe West has two minutes to respond to questions and comments.

Mr J. Wilson: I appreciate the member for Parkdale's support of some of the comments I made. I appreciate the member for Renfrew North clearing up who is getting paid what at Hydro and when. I would say to the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, an NDP member, that either he is right or 312 public utilities commissions in this province are right. I would ask him to weigh that for himself. Either 312 public utilities commissions and the Municipal Electric Association are right in their contention about the effect -- not what is actually written in the bill, the legal jargon in the bill, but the effect it will have on real men and women in this province and hydro consumers.

He should not debate with me, I would say. His debate is with the 312 public utilities commissioners and the public utilities commissions and the almost 10 million people who consume electricity in this province. Those are the people he is here to represent. Those are the people he is responsible to. For his own sake, I hope he responds in an open and fair manner and comes clean with the people of Ontario.

Mr Wiseman: I am pleased today to rise to continue the discussion on Bill 118. I would like to begin with a few general points. The bill says, "There shall be a board of directors of the corporation consisting of a chairperson, a vice-chairperson, a president, the Deputy Minister of Energy and not more than 18 other directors." That is in the bill. That is a fact. It is reality, or will be a reality. "The deputy minister shall not vote at any meeting of the board." The deputy minister has been assigned to this board to create a greater liaison between the government and Ontario Hydro in order to encourage greater accountability.

The next subsection is, "The chairperson is the chief executive officer of the corporation." It is my understanding that this was the way it used to be. This is merely a return to the way it used to be.

"The directors appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, other than the chairperson, shall be paid such remuneration and expenses by the corporation" -- and this is the section that has created great angst for the members across the floor, that the chairperson shall be paid and that this should be determined by the board of directors.

I would now like to move to subsection 9a(2). One of the issues that is important in this debate is the issue of the accountability of Ontario Hydro to the Ontario government, not just the NDP government but presumably governments in the future that way down the road will also have to deal with this. They say that this is going to be a one-way street, that there will only be one direction of directives, that there will only be one way that Ontario Hydro will receive directions about what it should do. This is not the case, because subsection 9a(2) states, "Before issuing a policy directive, the minister shall consult the board with respect to the content and effect of the directive on the corporation."

In a consultative process it would be hoped that the power of argument and the persuasiveness of argument would prevail and that the direction Ontario Hydro would then choose or the government would then choose for Ontario Hydro would be clearly discussed and agreed upon in these consultation processes. We know, and the honourable member for Renfrew North has implied on many occasions, that this is not going to be without political and ideological considerations. This may or may not be the case, but it has been my experience that when rational, intelligent people sit down and discuss issues from all sides, you get better policy. It is the hope and the intent of this section to create that kind of an atmosphere.

Subsection 9a(3) says, "The directors shall ensure that policy directives are implemented promptly and efficiently." So they should be.

Subsection 9a(5) says, "The board shall report to the minister whenever it exercises a power or performs a duty to which a policy directive relates," therefore establishing two-way communication between the board of directors of Ontario Hydro and the government of Ontario.

I would like to turn now to some of the other issues that have been raised with respect to this bill. I would like to ask a question. Where do you find social experiments in Bill 118? There is no area in here where it says social experiments are going to be the case. What we have seen with Elliot Lake and Kapuskasing is this government's commitment to the belief that contracts entered into in good faith should be met. The residents of Elliot Lake came to Queen's Park and made persuasive and compelling arguments that they moved to Elliot Lake in good faith, believing that there would be a 20-year supply of uranium from that community to Ontario Hydro. They uprooted their previous lives and moved to Elliot Lake in good faith because that was the bargain that was struck there.

I for one believe that a bargain entered into should be a bargain kept, unlike perhaps some of the other members who would dissolve those bargains for the expediency of price. What price can you put on the disrupted families, the destroyed lives, the broken promises and the torn-apart dreams of the people of Elliot Lake if you do not at least try to stick to the bargain that was made and entered into in good faith with them? I would be very disappointed in any government that would not do that.

1550

The cost of hydro in Ontario: This is a very important part of the debate, but it is only implied through the bill that costs are going to be increased. I would like to point out that the cost of building the Darlington nuclear generating station has put excessive burdens on the cost of generating electricity in Ontario. In fact, it has added somewhere in the neighbourhood of $13 billion to the cost, to the debt guaranteed by the taxpayers of Ontario.

I do not believe any private corporation could have incurred that kind of debt without the kind of guarantees the province of Ontario has put up for Ontario Hydro. Power at cost, cost when, cost paid when and who pays. The federal counterparts of the Progressive Conservative Party take great pains to say that the federal deficit is a deficit on our children. I find it strikingly odd that they would not carry the comparison over with Ontario Hydro.

Having said that, the cost of bringing hydro into the marketplace is still going to be 25% to 30% lower in this jurisdiction than it will be across the border, and it is clear from what I have learned about the Clean Air Act in the United States that this cost advantage to Ontario is going to grow and become much larger. If I could just digress for a moment to explain that, I think it would be useful to the House.

The Clean Air Act in the United States is going to be implemented through what are called tradeable permits. How is this going to work? The first thing that is going to happen is that the Clean Air Act in the United States and its implementation over the next four to five years is going to reduce the volume of SO2 emissions by at least 10 to 12 million tons, to a cutoff level of 13.5 million tons. The SO2 emissions that are remaining will be distributed: 8.5 million tons to the utilities commissions, and five million tons to other industries.

All the SO2 emissions will have to come down to that ceiling level. That is going to be a very costly process, especially for the midwestern United States, which has to put in coal scrubbers and machinery to remove the SO2. So their costs are going to have to go up, because predominantly they are becoming more and more reliant on coal generation, as there are very few, if any, nuclear power plants being built in the United States. What will then happen -- this should cause some concern to those of us who are concerned about the environment -- is that if a utility commission reduces its levels below the allowable levels on its permits, it can then trade the surplus to other utilities commissions around the United States or within its own organization to come down to the levels.

It is going to create huge amounts of costs within the United States, which will give Ontario a cost advantage because we have the capacity -- non-nuclear capacity -- available to us. Ontario Hydro, in its own report, made this fairly clear, that there is unused capacity in the system which can be expanded to supply energy.

The scare and fearmongering I have heard here about brownouts, about patients who are hooked up to lifesaving equipment losing that because Ontario Hydro has lost the capacity to generate, is nonsense in the extreme. They are more likely to suffer the consequences of electrical interruption with a storm or a tornado -- since we are getting them here in Ontario now -- or hurricanes, which we have also had, or high winds where trees knock down electrical wires. But even with that, I do not know of a hospital anywhere in Ontario that does not have a backup diesel or gasoline generator. So it is patently unfair to indicate that we are going to have people all over the province, such as at hospitals, losing their electrical energy in cases of emergency.

I would like to continue by pointing out that within Ontario Hydro and within Bill 118 there is a section for a conservation program. "The cost of an energy conservation program to a municipal corporation or commission may be treated by it in its discretion as a current operating expense or as a capital expenditure." Rather than see that as an added burden to the taxpayers of Ontario, I think we should see this as an opportunity to move forward with energy conservation in programs that will allow us to free up electricity that then can be used to expand the industrial base and to promote economic recovery in this province.

I would like to be able to rise today and say that Ontario Hydro is the leader in this area, but unfortunately under the previous administrations Ontario Hydro has lagged far behind private sector companies in the United States that are doing even more. I would like to point out that the Southern California Electrical Utility Co, or SCE, in the United States has hired its chief adversary, an environmental lawyer who was able to cause that utility some $6 million in embarrassment with a lawsuit that he brought forward because it was being negligent in its environmental responsibilities. They hired him, an environmentalist, as their chief executive officer and put him in charge of the fifth-largest privately owned utility in the United States. What would it be if we should have had some of them with Ontario Hydro for the last 10 years?

As I said earlier, it is somewhat disappointing to me to read that a private sector company is able to do so many things -- and still make a profit -- that Ontario Hydro has not yet even considered doing. It is being dragged into the 20th century kicking and screaming, and having what I would consider to be archaic thoughts being projected across the floor from certain members.

I should say that the chief executive officer's name is John Bryson and what he has said is, "Why build a 1,000-megawatt plant in the teeth of opposition from not-in-my-backyard activists when you can get the same return by conserving the equivalent amount of power?" Is this not what Ontario Hydro is doing under the New Democrats? Is this not what we want it to do; that is, to conserve energy?

How are they going to do this? They are going to do this by selling $13 to $18 energy-efficient lightbulbs for $5. I smiled when I read that, because that is exactly what we have taken a lot of heat for in Ontario, having Ontario Hydro do the same thing. It is okay in the private sector, but if a public sector company does it, then somehow or other it is wrong. I have a little difficulty with that.

1600

SCE also pays industry customers to buy efficient motors and pumps. Ontario Hydro has the same kind of program to encourage an industry in my riding to move towards the efficient rewiring of motors and gives it grants and support to do that. Ontario Hydro has given a grant, thousands of dollars, to a company in the riding of Simcoe West, Lemmerz-Magna Industries, to improve the energy efficiency of its ovens for aluminum smelting processes, and it is part of this program that can be expanded under Bill 118 that puts me under duress. In fact SCE, a private company, has invested $105 million in conservation that will grow to $2 billion on sales of $7.4 billion, considerably less than what is available to Ontario Hydro.

In some cases I think the private sector is further ahead and that we could learn from it and proceed. This energy that will be available will be a huge incentive to attract industry to southern Ontario and encourage economic renewal.

That is not all this company is doing. Southern California has one of the greatest pollution problems in the United States. They have temperature inversions where carbon monoxide levels become very high and where people who are asthmatic have to stay indoors and have special air filters on their windows so that they can have clean air. Southern California is perhaps being forced to move much further and much faster than other jurisdictions that do not suffer temperature inversions.

To that end, their requirements for energy are becoming more strict in terms of how clean that energy is going to be. In fact, SCE is considering starting a multibillion dollar program where it will supply service stations. Instead of buying gasoline in the service stations, one will be able to exchange one's batteries for batteries owned by SCE and have battery-operated and battery-driven cars. Mr Bryson of SCE is also looking into the expansion of electrical rail systems throughout southern California, which is something I think we could look at here.

There are examples around the world of what can be done, and that is why section 95a, the cost of conservation, is an important section. In the past the utility has shown a reluctance to do these things on its own, and it is important for us to make sure we move ahead.

I do not want to spend a lot of time this afternoon talking about this, but I would like to close by saying that we face an important environmental consideration, not just here but around the world. We are faced with a situation where coal generating stations in eastern Europe, for example, have completely devastated certain areas of eastern Europe, like Silesia, where the pollution levels are very high.

There are alternative methods to generating electricity other than burning fossil fuels. In my own riding, for example, I have one too many landfill sites. But the Brock West landfill site, which contains about 15 million tons of garbage from Metro and Durham, produces methane gas and, through a co-generation agreement between Ontario Hydro and Eastern Power Corp, is now burning the methane gas from that landfill site and producing electrical energy.

Mr Runciman: How much?

Mr Wiseman: That is a good question. I do not think it is big enough to --

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Wiseman: Sorry, Mr Speaker. I will answer the question later.

The amount each of these generating stations can produce individually may not seem like a lot, but according to the Ontario Hydro study, the total amount that is possible in Ontario through what it calls the non-utility generation plan is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2,107 megawatts of non-utility generation. This is a fair amount of electrical generation.

Mr White: How many nuclear stations?

Mr Wiseman: I think it is at least two Darlington stations. But I think Darlington has one reactor up about 30% and the rest are still having problems. That is one of the problems. I am glad the member raised that because it is an important point.

The opposition member for Lanark-Renfrew has indicated on more than one occasion that we are going to run out of electrical generation capacity over the next few years. I do not think he is right, but his solution is to build another nuclear power plant. We have been building Darlington for a number of years and it still is not up and running, not to mention the fact that Ontario Hydro at Pickering is running at about 63% capacity. I do not like to run down Ontario Hydro. In terms of electrical utilities it is an excellent one, but I think we have to be realistic about the comments we are making. I have a lot of residents who work at Pickering and at Darlington and they are constantly making me aware of the importance of that option.

However, having said that, it takes an awfully long time to build a nuclear power station that works. It is stretching the imagination a little to think that we could build a nuclear power station overnight, and that is the kind of image that is being left.

In closing, since this is second reading, this bill still has to go to committee with its changes. There are possibly other amendments available, but I think this bill takes us down a road we need to take. We need to look at energy as a component for economic renewal. We need to look at it as a component of forming the basis of the new industrial growth that has to happen in southern Ontario. It is through this bill that we are going to get a better interplay between Ontario Hydro and the Ontario government, so that when the goals are set and policy directives are arrived at there is consultation, discussion, a focus for long-term growth and a mutual understanding of how that growth can be achieved in partnership and co-operation.

I support this bill and thank members for the time.

Mr Conway: I have just a couple of very quick points. I was interested in what my friend said about Elliot Lake, and I want to take him back to the order in council signed by the Lieutenant Governor on behalf of the new government here in June. I said a couple of weeks ago, and I repeat, that any scrutiny of that order in council makes it plain that the Bob Rae government blackmailed Ontario Hydro into a $250-million regional development scheme for Elliot Lake. There is no question about that. A reading of the order makes that abundantly plain. I have no difficulty with an assistance package for Elliot Lake, but I have a great deal of difficulty with making the hydro ratepayer pay that bill.

The member makes a good case for certain aspects of government policy and I respect him for that. If he wonders why people are concerned about this government's policy and this bill, it is because of what we have already seen. We have seen chapter 1 at Elliot Lake and chapter 2 at Kapuskasing.

The second point my friend raises is the whole conservation ethic. No one in his or her right mind could oppose the conservation ethic. Of course we have to do more. In an age of plenty some decade or two ago I suppose we ought to have done more, but the supply at that time was much greater than the demand and we got into some pretty conspicuous consumption habits.

1610

What I object to about the conservation ethic, and more particularly about the conservation policy that is being advocated by some, is that for those of us like myself and others -- I think of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, for example -- who essentially represent rural constituencies, the farmers have no option.

I was talking to a dairy farmer the other day. His hydro bill is $12,000 to $13,000 a year. The conservationists want to drive that rate up to $20,000 in two or three years' time. That is a 50% increase, and the farmer has no choice. There is nothing he can switch to.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. I would appreciate it if all members would adhere to the time allocation, especially members who are experienced in this chamber.

Mr Conway: Do you have a point you would like to bring to my attention, Mr Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: I believe I have made my point. My job is to keep good order.

Mr Conway: And balanced order; a good referee sees both sides.

The Acting Speaker: I am trying to do that, precisely, as fairly as I possibly can, and appreciate your co-operation in that regard.

Mr Mammoliti: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My colleague the member for Renfrew North used the term "blackmail." He said the Bob Rae government blackmailed Ontario Hydro. Is it parliamentary to use that word in this place? I would like you to rule on that perhaps.

The Acting Speaker: I thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. I will review Hansard. I am not sure of the language that was used and the connection in which it was used. I assure you I will review the record.

Mr Hope: I would like to comment on my colleague's analysis of what is going on around Ontario Hydro and what we see in the United States and other parts of this world.

When I have talked to the agricultural community and also the business community, one of the major concerns has been consistency in energy policy. There really has been no direction in energy policy. A lot of them have been entrapped by changes of direction in governments all the time.

One of the important elements brought out in my colleague's speech today was the issue of dealing with management direction and making sure the leadership capability is there to meet the needs of the communities we serve. Indeed for the rural members it is very important that when we formulate policy for Ontario Hydro, we make sure the leadership is there to assist those rural areas, especially my own, and that the agricultural community, the farmer, the small business person who is changing or making sure his plans are energy efficient is not being led down the garden path and that the energy policy will not change two, three or four years down the road.

We should start to reflect on this bill to make sure the direction, the leadership ability, is there. As my colleague pointed out, a number of private enterprises are providing energy and making major strides. Meanwhile Ontario Hydro still has a long way to go.

Mr Ruprecht: I have listened to the comments of the member for Durham West very carefully and I can only come to the conclusion that he suffers from selective perception. On this side of the House we have a memory. If I did not know any better and thought only in skewed terms he might even have a point. But essentially the point is that we cannot shift to alternative sources of energy.

His suggestion that we should get into electricity for cars may be a good one, except that the prediction is that three years from now electric energy will cost over 50% more, if you add 44% and the GST and other taxes. Under those circumstances we simply cannot think about any alternative sources of energy. We would not be able to drive an electric car simply because for most of us it would be too expensive. To talk about electric cars and not to include a cost-benefit analysis in this kind of statement is ludicrous. I would think the member for Durham West in his brief remarks -- he has two minutes left -- might address himself to the fact that I predict the rates will be over 50% in three years, and cars may not be able to driven under those circumstances.

Mr White: I would like to commend my colleague the member for Durham West on his talk. As usual, he has demonstrated excellent research and knowledge of this whole issue. I think his survey of the issue is very comprehensive. I would like to pick up on a couple of points he made.

One that I have had brought home to me very acutely recently is that people are sick and tired of huge hydro rate increases, increases they were not prepared for because in the past the cost of hydro was disguised and hidden from them. The actual, real cost has to be dealt with. It has to be part of the economic renewal package.

The conservation issues my colleague mentioned are very significant as well. Those conservation issues, those environmental issues, and the economic renewal package have to go hand in hand. There are real costs, and there are also real costs in ensuring the most sound environmental, ecological generation of power possible.

Part of that, of course, is conservation. Part of that is a diversity in the activities Ontario Hydro offers. Ontario Hydro has been renowned for tremendous feats of engineering, but it has not been renowned for a huge diversity and variety of engineering, such as is starting to be the case with this government. We are starting to generate real diversity in terms of conservation techniques and energy savings. Those energy savings will have tremendous benefits in the long term. Those are the issues that my colleague brought up and that I would like to commend him for again.

Mr Wiseman: I would like to respond to the member for Parkdale. The reality of the automobile and the need to move to a more energy-efficient method of transportation is being defined in the United States within the Environmental Protection Agency and within the Clean Air Act.

In order for a fleet -- and "fleet" means all the cars produced by a company such as General Motors -- to reach the tradeable permit standards allowable in the United States, the company is going to have to reduce the number of emissions that are available. They can do that within the fleet by trading off emissions created by gasoline against the tradeable standards created by battery-driven automobiles to bring them down to acceptable emission levels. There is no choice in this. This is going to be law within the United States. The Big Three auto makers in the United States are well aware of this and are working towards creating fleets that contain cars driven by electrical energy alone.

I would hasten to add that if it is economical to put a car into the southern California market, where costs for electrical generation are anywhere from 30% to 40% more costly than they are here, we should be able to do the same thing with our cheaper energy. The greater the diversity, the cheaper the energy. I wish I had more time because there are more examples of where energy efficiency and energy ingenuity are creating a good basis for economic growth.

1620

Mr Brown: It is an important debate that is taking place here today and that will take place in this Legislature over a period of time, because this is in my view a very important bill before this House and one that needs to be considered very carefully.

I have had some interest in Hydro issues and energy issues in this province since my election in 1987. I sat on the select committee on energy in both its incarnations in the previous Parliament, once as the vice-chairman. Because of that I consider it a privilege to be able to offer at least some views on this bill.

I also think it is important that I have something to say because I happen to be our party's critic for northern development. In my view and the view of our caucus, those in the north will perhaps be the ones who suffer the most because of this piece of legislation.

Third, I am entering into this debate because I represent the riding of Algoma-Manitoulin, a riding that includes the city of Elliot Lake. I think it is important that we state our position and state clearly our party's view and my view, which has been consistent over time, about Hydro's proper use and Hydro's obligations to the community of Elliot Lake.

I would like to talk for a moment about the luxury, maybe, of being in opposition. The luxury of being in opposition is that you can present your views in any manner you wish and hopefully the public will believe you. That is what you strive for, to have the people believe you have a better view of the world than the government party or the other opposition party or whatever interest group might be out there with some particular view. That is what you do.

When you go to government, there is a report card. When you go to government, you can see the effects of your policies. They are not debated on some college campus, about whether this was correct or incorrect. The people have a report card. They can see clearly what the result of that particular policy is.

With Bill 118, with the amendments to the Power Corporation Act, we are going to be able to judge in 1994 or 1995, or whenever, whether the bill delivered the goods, whether the bill did what the government said it would do. It is not going to be some academic debate; it is going to be a matter of public record. I think the realities are not going to be as pleasant as the government would have us believe.

I have received, as have many members, letters from hydroelectric commissions. I have only three hydroelectric commissions in my riding. Two of them are very small and another is in Espanola. This letter happens to be from Espanola, which as an aside is the energy conservation capital of Ontario. This is a community that is a pilot project; it is power savers. The community has got together with Ontario Hydro to put together a program to buy energy conservation. This is a program that is rich. This is a program that will help my constituents in Espanola keep down the costs of electrical energy. But this is an experiment. Hydro is to find out after two years how much real conservation it can buy, and at what price, and price is important.

The hydroelectric commission in Espanola says:

"On behalf of the Espanola Hydroelectric Commission, I am writing to express our opposition to Bill 118. Bill 118 threatens to destroy Ontario's long-cherished principle of power at cost by making electricity rates a new source of tax revenue for the provincial government.

"Under Bill 118, the provincial government would be able to issue policy directives that bypass the democratic legislative process binding on Ontario Hydro and that could force Hydro to do things that are outside its current mandate: the provision of safe, reliable electricity. In addition, Bill 118 would force Ontario electricity consumers to pay for these policy directives through their rates. This is unacceptable.

"We also object to the sections in Bill 118 that permit Ontario Hydro to subsidize fuel substitution through electricity rates. This is unnecessary, as market forces alone are enough to encourage certain types of fuel switching.

"The Espanola Hydroelectric Commission supports the campaign of the Municipal Electric Association to change Bill 118 in the areas of policy directives and fuel substitution. Bill 118 is flawed legislation that sets dangerous precedents and allows a new, hidden tax grab by the provincial government."

This is what is being said by a hydroelectric commission that is in the throes today of one of the most active energy conservation programs in the entire world -- not just Ontario, the entire world. They are not happy. They understand the ramifications of this bill, the intent of this bill and the public policy this bill represents.

I have a little bit of memory about what has happened on power corporation issues in this place in the last three or four years. What I find pretty difficult to understand is that we had Bill 204, a bill put forward by the former Liberal government that divided the positions of chairman, chief executive officer and president in a way that was not done before. Under this piece of legislation, the chief executive officer was also to be the president and not the chairman.

What is interesting is that not only did we debate the bill in this place, but it went to committee hearings. There was a long and useful public hearings process on Bill 204. What is really interesting about all this is that as far as I can discover, having sat through most of it, the NDP did not have a particular problem with that bill. Quite frankly I cannot recall whether it voted against or for it on second and third reading. The reason I cannot recall is that there was no recorded division. If they were opposed, it was not a strong opposition. Out of that, they agreed to these things. They agreed to what the Liberals wanted done.

What really was done there? In Bill 204, we got a memorandum of understanding between Hydro and the Ministry of Energy to foster greater co-operation and co-ordination of the provincial electricity system. The terms of the MOU also directed Hydro's board of directors to ensure that Ontario's electricity was provided at the lowest possible cost over the long term.

There was a strengthening of Hydro's mandate for energy conservation programs. Ontario Hydro was given authorization to provide incentives and technical assistance to encourage more parallel generation. There was increased public awareness and involvement in the overall rate-setting process and a requirement that Hydro submit its long-term strategic plan and annual operating plans to the Ministry of Energy.

It had a requirement that Ontario Hydro submit regular system development plans to the Minister of Energy to detail Hydro's most up-to-date forecast of electricity demand, plans for conservation, energy-efficient measures, power purchases and generation proposals. It had the designation that the chairman of Ontario Hydro be a separate position from that of chief executive officer. The NDP had no problem with this, or at least only minor opposition.

1630

To point that out, I have the NDP's great and wonderful solution to Bill 204. This is kind of interesting, if you look at this. This is what those good old New Democrats wanted to see added to Bill 204. Actually, it was an agreement of the entire committee, a unanimous agreement, that we send this letter to the then minister. This is heavy-duty stuff that shows they had a real problem with the way Ontario Hydro operated. What they said was:

"The select committee on energy has completed its hearings and deliberations on Bill 204. During the course of those hearings there were a number of issues brought to the attention of the committee by deputants which do not bear directly on Bill 204 but which relate to the practical implementation of items dealt with in the bill or matters directly related to the consideration of Hydro's preferred plan.

"The committee believe that the question of avoided costs must be resolved quickly. The committee feels it is imperative that this item be a part of the public review of Hydro's preferred plan. The select committee on energy was made aware, through presentations to the committee on Bill 204, of concerns regarding the review of Hydro's long-term plans, the monitoring of Ontario Hydro's conservation and energy-efficiency programs and the strengthening of the role of the Ontario Energy Board. We hope that you and the Ministry of Energy will carefully consider these concerns when developing and implementing further policy and legislation. The committee feels these matters are of urgent concern."

Does that sound to anybody out there as if they had great problems with Bill 204, a bill passed in 1989, two years ago? No, I do not think they had great problems in 1989. As a matter of fact, as I remember, what they really wanted was the Ontario Energy Board to be able to set Hydro's rates. They wanted the Ontario Energy Board to set them, not this Parliament, not the government; they wanted the Ontario Energy Board to do that. I just leave members with that. Bill 118 then comes as a total shock because it reverses what was done in Bill 204. Why did that happen? Why this sudden change of policy? Was it enunciated in An Agenda for People? No, I did not see that being said in the great Agenda for People. It was not there.

Mr Conway: Where was it?

Mr Brown: I think, as my friend the member for Renfrew North is pointing out, it was in the mind of a Deputy Minister of Energy we know and love. What we end up having is this bill Mr Eliesen has written that confers most powers on Mr Eliesen; quite an astounding thing for a New Democratic government to be doing.

I suggest that the government does not have a mandate for this. I suggest the government did not tell the people it intended to do this. The government did not tell the people of Ontario it had a hidden agenda to increase the taxes through their hydro rates by 60%. My residential constituents will pay 60% more in the four years this government is in power, and if it decides to stay for the full five, I am afraid of how much it might cost.

If you are a farmer on Manitoulin Island, at Wikwemikong, Manitowaning, in Burpee township or Sheguiandah, you are in big trouble. We have some of the finest dairy herds in this province in that area, and farmers consume tremendous amounts of energy to produce the milk and the other good things the people of Ontario have taken for granted. They have no choice; there is nothing they can do. There is no way the people on the farms of Algoma-Manitoulin can switch to natural gas. The last time I looked there were no pipelines. You cannot get gas at Massey. You cannot get gas in the township of Salter. It cannot happen. There is no way for these people to take advantage of some of the wonderful conservation we expect rural northern Ontario to pay for so their city cousins can get cheaper energy by switching.

That is a remarkably shortsighted policy and I do not think my constituents, the constituents of most rural ridings, or any rural riding for that matter, will appreciate having their bills go up 60% so they can pay for someone in Toronto to switch to natural gas. I do not think they will like that idea, I do not think they will accept that idea and I do not think it is going to endear this government to the people of Ontario.

In the north we consume 13% of the electricity in this province, and that is mostly because we are resource-based. Our mines and our forest products industry use tremendous amounts of electricity in their processes and, yes, they are interested in energy conservation. I know of quite a number of mines that have active energy conservation programs. I know pulp and paper mills that are working very hard to reduce their reliance on electricity, yet still they will be major consumers of electricity.

We know our pulp and paper industry and our sawmill industry are experiencing the worst of times. They are expected to be competitive on a global basis in a situation where they are having difficulty selling their products, and when they do, it is at a price that is just too low. To add to the burden of these enterprises, the huge increases in electrical rates may be the doom of many of these industries, and therefore the cause of great dislocation in the cities, towns and villages of northern Ontario.

I do not think that is acceptable to any of us and I do not think my constituents want to put up with this. I look forward, as all members do, to a long hearing process as we go across northern Ontario to find out what the folks out there really think about the kind of rates this government thinks they should pay.

One of the contentions the government seems to make continually is that the social policy we are following by providing assistance to Elliot Lake and to Kapuskasing should be paid for by the ratepayers. I want to make it extraordinarily clear that this party and I have fought consistently for Elliot Lake. We have fought consistently for programs for Elliot Lake. We are looking for economic opportunities for Elliot Lake, for diversification for Elliot Lake. We are proud of the work that was done in Elliot Lake prior to the election of 1990 and are happy with what has happened afterwards, at least so far as it has gone to this point.

We are unhappy, however -- and I have said this from the first, as my party has -- with the idea that the ratepayers of Ontario Hydro will pay that, because my senior citizens in Elliot Lake are going to see great increases in their electrical bills. When we are trying to attract seniors to retirement living programs, they are going to pay more. They are already paying what they think is too much, and it is one of the things we are hearing over and over again in my constituency office and, I am sure, in meetings of seniors in Elliot Lake, wherever they might happen.

They do not feel it is fair that they are having this increased burden placed on them because of their economic difficulties. They do not believe that. They do not think Ontario Hydro should do it. Who do they think should pay? I will tell members who should pay -- the consolidated revenue fund should pay what it takes to diversify Elliot Lake.

1640

I think that is because they know Elliot Lake has contributed a great deal to the province. Elliot Lake has contributed to the coffers of the province through mining taxes and all the other taxes, through the income taxes of the miners, through the sales taxes they have paid, through everything else, into the consolidated revenue fund, and they believe it is time they got some of those taxes back.

I agree with that, yet what we have is not the consolidated revenue fund providing the economic diversification fund for Elliot Lake. Who is providing that? It is the ratepayers of Ontario Hydro. Is it because, with a $9.7-billion deficit, they did not really think they could justify at cabinet taking it from the consolidated revenue fund? Is it because Ontario Hydro was there with a $6.5-billion revenue? It looked like it was somebody who was just ready to be plucked. I think that is exactly the reason.

Since its inception as a mining community in the 1950s, Elliot Lake has gone through some bad times and some good times. The last time it was in a bad situation, when the uranium market went soft, the federal government came to the rescue. The federal government, under the direction of the then Prime Minister and their local member, Lester Pearson, decided it should buy the uranium from Elliot Lake and stockpile it. They stockpiled it and held it. When the federal government disposed of it, it made a considerable profit -- not a bad deal for the people of Canada and certainly a good deal for the people of Elliot Lake.

Hon Miss Martel: A good deal for Rio and Denison.

Mr Brown: The Minister of Northern Development and Mines seems to ignore the fact that Ontario Hydro and the government of Ontario have made decisions together for a number of years. When Ontario Hydro signed the contracts with the two mining companies, it did so with the consent of cabinet and after a review by this Legislature.

Interjections.

Mr Brown: The minister knows they were reviewed by a committee of this Legislature that the present Minister of Housing sat on.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order, please. The honourable member for Algoma-Manitoulin has the floor. Interjections are not in order. If you wish to participate, there will be time after the member has completed his remarks.

Mr Brown: The point of this is that on at least two occasions the Legislature of this province looked at the terms of the contracts. The New Democratic policy, if I recall, was that the contracts really should not be issued and what they should do was nationalize those mines. They did not. It did not happen. The Conservative government at the time awarded those contracts, but what people seem to forget is that Ontario Hydro, although a major purchaser in Elliot Lake, did not buy the bulk of the uranium.

Unfortunately, we had in Elliot Lake the layoff of 2,400 people last year. Not one of them had anything to do with Ontario Hydro. Those layoffs came because of contracts that were offshore. Tokyo Electric, Duke Power and others cancelled their contracts with Elliot Lake, and when they cancelled those contracts, 2,400 men and women in Elliot Lake became unemployed.

This government, some time ago, then cancelled the Denison contract Ontario Hydro had, putting another 1,000 out of work next spring, and continued until 1996 the Rio contract in Elliot Lake, keeping some 600 people or so employed at the Stanleigh operation. These are difficult times for the people of Elliot Lake and the North Shore, and help should be and must be provided to a town that exists, or a city that existed, solely because uranium was found about 18 miles north of Highway 17.

For a town to diversify takes some money. It takes some continuation of the process, and we on this side are pleased that the government is involved in Elliot Lake and providing assistance to the people there, but we are not pleased that the government has said the responsibility belongs to Ontario Hydro. "Ontario Hydro, you pay $250 million, and we plan to pay, as the province of Ontario, about $15 million." It is a good deal for the government of Ontario, but a tremendously bad deal for the people who pay the electrical bill once a month.

That is the kind of problem we have in the north and as we are talking about diversifying Elliot Lake. Today we had Atikokan. We have had Kapuskasing. We are going to have problems in the Sault. We know all those things and we know the answer is diversification and more industry. Are we going to attract industry to a province that seems bent on and determined to increase the rates by 45% or more?

I think that makes the difficulties of Elliot Lake, of Kapuskasing, of Sault Ste Marie, of Atikokan, just that much more difficult. It certainly makes it more difficult for the smaller towns and villages of the north to compete and just for people to live their lives the way they did three years before. When you find that a cost that is associated with your daily life increases radically when, if you are a senior, your income has not increased, if you have just been laid off your job logging, if you are having a hard time making ends meet on the farm, if you are on a fixed income in one of the small towns, paying that Hydro rate will become more and more onerous.

I know government members are going to say, "Yes, but the conservation programs are going to help," and yes, they are, but who are they going to help? Many of the senior citizens, many of the people on unemployment insurance cannot afford to get into this game. No matter what the incentive is, they do not have the cash.

I have some experience with conservation first hand. I just had the fun, the pleasure --

Mr Conway: Fun?

Mr Brown: Fun might not be the right word -- of putting a ground-source heat pump, at a tremendous cost, into my home. That was the option. If you are going to be efficient and conserve energy, for me, who lives where there is no natural gas, a ground-source heat pump is the thing to use.

Hydro provides me -- and I thank Hydro very much -- with a $1,000 grant to put that in. That is nice. They provide me with a $12,000 loan they brought the interest rate down on. I am very happy about that, but even so I will be 10 years at least getting my money back. Fortunately I can do that, but there are a lot of people out there who cannot afford to take that kind of burden on, and there are a lot of bankers who would say to them, "You can't have that $12,000 loan from Ontario Hydro because you can't pay it back to me." For those people, we have a huge problem.

1650

What the government is doing with this bill and the policy it indicates is putting the burden on the people in this province least able to pay. They are putting the poor, the seniors and the people on fixed incomes in a terrible, impossible position while they allow the yuppies, the people with money, the people with the ability to do some of these fancy-dancy things that I agree are important. They are the people who are going to do them. It seems backward to me to have the poor subsidize the rich. It is Robin Hood in reverse.

I am really worried what the economy of the north will do and what effect it will have on the people in my constituency. The people at Sheshegwaning, the people at Sucker Creek, the people at Whitefish Falls are going to have problems -- in an economy in the north which is not very strong -- paying the kinds of bills this government is bringing forward. I am glad I am not one of the 10 New Democrats in the north who have to go home and explain to the people how wonderful the government's energy policy is and how wonderful the government's programs are. They are not going to buy it, because they will not have any money.

What is Bill 118 really about? Bill 118 is about stacking the board of directors of Ontario Hydro so that the energy policy of this government will go forward regardless of whether it is in the interests of the consumer of electricity. It is instructive to note the last time anybody in this country stacked something to make people pay more money. As I recall, it was to get a tax through in the federal jurisdiction, the GST. A certain Prime Minister, who will remain nameless, appointed additional people to the Senate of Canada so that he could get his way. It seems to me that what we are doing here is exactly the same thing. We are appointing more members so that the Premier and the chairman of this corporation can do what they will without any regard to the concept of electricity at cost.

The reason for that, and I think it is one of the most interesting provisions in Bill 118, is that it absolves the directors of liability. Can members believe that? Why would they want to absolve the directors of the corporation of liability? Do they not want people who are responsible? Do they not want people to carry out their duties knowing that if they fail to do so, there will be recourse? I suggest that any corporation with a board of directors that is not liable for anything, which is virtually what this legislation says, should not have a board of directors. They are just a bunch of lambs. They are just powerless to do what the ratepayers of Ontario want them to do. They are powerless to change that because they must listen to Chairman Bob and Chairman Marc give them their directions.

I do not think any corporation with a board of directors that is not responsible to the ratepayers, or in this case to the shareholders of the corporation, the people of Ontario, really even needs to have a board of directors. Maybe we should go back to the days when Ontario Hydro was just a ministry of the government. If that is what the NDP wants to do, it could save us a lot of trouble if it would just make the Minister of Energy the chairman, and the deputy minister could run Ontario Hydro directly. Maybe that way we would get that long-sought-after accountability that seems to be what these people on the other side are after.

But it is not about accountability. If it were about accountability, it would be about accountability to the Legislature. It would even be accountability, as the member for Hamilton Mountain used to suggest back at the select committee on energy, to the Ontario Energy Board. That is where it would be. The accountability would be to someone other than the government.

The government has control of Ontario Hydro and has had for decades. There is no question who runs Ontario Hydro. The Premier of Ontario appoints the directors; he knows who is there. The chairman is appointed by the Premier; he knows who is there. There is no question the government had proper accountability or at least could suggest to Hydro that this is what it do. I do not think that has ever been a problem.

The people of Ontario deserve a board of directors that is responsible to them. If the government wants more accountability at Hydro, perhaps it should have a mechanism that brings that policy before the Legislative Assembly, in either a committee or this place, so we could have a vigorous debate about what Hydro is doing. The sun would shine on Ontario Hydro and we would really see into the policy Ontario Hydro wants to follow.

I was interested that my friend who was just speaking was talking about the environment. There are some huge questions around the environment that Ontario Hydro will have to face in the next 25 years. He was alluding to the SO2 emissions in the United States and he was talking about the restrictions that will happen regarding the emissions into the air, which usually end up over Canada at some point.

What is interesting is that Ontario is buying more and more power outside our jurisdiction and is contributing to fossil fuel use in the United States. As someone concerned about the environment, I wonder if that is really good public policy on the part of Ontario Hydro. Is importing our pollution any better than creating it ourselves? It may be the government answer, but I am concerned about that, and more concerned that the future this government sees for electricity generation is more fossil fuel use. This bill, as a matter of fact, talks about allowing Ontario Hydro to pay to move to natural gas. Ontario Hydro can pay to subsidize the consumer to move to natural gas. That is an interesting concept, to move from electrical energy to burning fossil fuel. It is one we should, and must, think about.

I wonder too about the greenhouse gas emissions. I wonder whether this government has any idea or any policy, because I have not seen it, regarding the lowering of greenhouse gas emissions in the province. Some of the most advanced countries in the world are actively pursuing that goal -- look at Germany or the Netherlands -- and are actively attempting to lower their greenhouse gas emissions.

I would like this Minister of Energy to stand up and explain to me what this government's policy is towards greenhouse gases. I want to know if by the year 2005 we are going to see a net reduction in the amount of greenhouse gases emitted in this province, and not just in electricity but in the fuel switching that he is causing and in the importation of fossil fuel use through having electricity purchased in an adjacent American state. I think those are critical issues the people of Ontario want to know about.

1700

I have been a strong proponent of parallel generation and cogeneration. We talk about it, but when we talk about it we have to have a look at the amount of emissions we are getting there, because the atmosphere does not know the difference between SO2 emissions and greenhouse gas emissions. It does not know whether it came from a private source or a public source. The atmosphere does not know that and the effect is the same.

I want to know whether this Minister of Energy has thought about that question and can assure the people of Ontario that the amount of acid gas and greenhouse gas emissions are actually going to be lower rather than greater. I would be surprised if he could answer that in the affirmative because I do not think he knows. I do not think there is a policy towards that.

The environmentalists in this world, the scientific community, are telling us that if greenhouse gas is not the number one environmental issue confronting our societies, it is the second. I am not sure what the first is. In my view it is the most important issue facing this planet, yet we have heard nothing about fossil fuel use. We seem to have a bill, rather, that encourages it. I am concerned about that. I am worried and I think everybody over there should be.

I hope the minister can come before us and say, "By 2005 we will see a 10% reduction in the amount of greenhouse gases that are allowed in this province." I would really want to see that. I think it is something the select committee on energy was looking at in the last Parliament. We were looking for the government of Ontario to provide a lead role. The former minister had started that process two ministers ago, and we have yet to hear in what direction Ontario Hydro and the Minister of Energy intend to go with what I believe to be an important issue.

There is a plan. I do not know whether the members over there have seen this book. This is the book Ontario Hydro put out. It is their 25-year plan for providing electrical energy to Ontario. It contains not just one plan; it contains quite a number of plans. It also tells us some interesting facts.

One of the facts, as I mentioned before, is that northerners use 13% of electricity. It also tells us that the north is a net importer of electricity, and everybody knows that when you are a net importer, the money is flowing out. I think northerners want the money to be flowing in. This plan has some great suggestions. As a matter of fact, I think there are 30 or so plans in here.

I want to tell members about the government's anti-nuclear moratorium, which is going to last for two years. I thought that was very interesting, seeing as the plan was before the environmental assessment and could not happen anyway, so it really was not a very meaningful sort of plan.

There is a way to do that over there. I just want to read from this case 26, which tells the government how this could be done. The advantages of this plan: "It has the lowest impact on electricity prices from 2000 to 2009" -- that is good -- "and the lowest net borrowings over the plan period." That is great too. It has a "more equal mix of fossil and nuclear energy, when the whole system is considered. Fossil energy will provide 34% of the electrical energy, and nuclear 39%. There are public concerns about nuclear safety and radioactive waste disposal. Case 26 features no new nuclear stations." Existing ones are still there but there are no new ones.

What are the disadvantages? There is "a higher 25-year plan cost." "The expected cost of case 26 is $857 million" -- in 1989 dollars -- more than the proposed case. "There is a 97% probability of case 26 being higher cost.... Costs to 2044 are $3,004 million higher than case 15." While it meets acid gas limits, it does not provide for margin under the upper forecast. "Under upper, median and lower load, case 26 exceeds illustrative CO2 targets of 24 Tg." I do not know what that is; 1,000 tons per year. Average annual CO2 emissions are very high. It does "not have the flexibility to respond to tighter acid gas regulations or CO2 regulations." In other words, you cannot decrease acid gas emissions or greenhouse gas emissions. It has "the lowest Ontario goods and services content and the lowest Canadian content," and it has a "poor balance of trade relative to other cases."

That is the electrical future we are looking at if the government pursues the policy it is pursuing, some $3 billion over the period of the plan. The effect of that on consumers today would be quite interesting. I would like the government to fight an election on that particular idea.

We have heard the government claim over and over that the problem for these higher rates that it needs -- I should remind the public that the electrical rates in this province last year increased about 8%. It depends on who you are a customer of, what part of Ontario you are in, whether you are a direct consumer or whether you buy from one of the utilities. This year they are forecasting, I think, 12% or 13%.

Mr Huget: It is 11.8%.

Mr Brown: I am told it is 11.8%. That is the minimum and that is the bulk rate. In some places, I understand, it is as much as 29% because of the particular utility. In others it will be more like 12% or 13%.

They say the problem is the nuclear reactors, and they are right. There is no problem. We all have concerns with how well our nuclear reactors are performing, but last year when rates went up 8%, the nuclear reactors were operating, according to my information, at 63% of capacity. The good news for the government is that during the first six months of this year they were operating at 70% of capacity. As anybody would know over there, a good number for a nuclear reactor system to be operating at is 75% or 80%. Our reactors have been operating at 12% better than the world average over time.

For them to suggest that we need a bigger raise this year than happened last year when our nuclear reactors were producing less seems rather odd. I think the public of Ontario and the members in this House will have to have some questions asked about that particular bit of mathematics, why the reliability of the service improves by 7% and yet the rates have to increase another 50% over what they had the year before. That to me is quite an astounding bit of mathematics.

I have rambled here for a bit and raised -- at least I hope I have -- a few concerns, but what I am trying to express is our total dissatisfaction with a bill that will allow Hydro to do some things that I do not think the people of Ontario want it to do. I would suggest to the government that the best thing to do with this bill is to withdraw it and start over from scratch. I am not even sure it really needs a new bill. Given the government's at least tacit consent to Bill 204, the previous amendment to the Power Corporation Act, I can see no real useful purpose for this bill unless it is just to make Ontario Hydro a lackey of government.

It has nothing to do with accountability. It has everything to do with whether the government can raid the treasury of Ontario Hydro, and I believe that is what this bill does. It is not in the interests of my farmers; it is not in the interests of my loggers; it is not in the interests of seniors in small towns; it is not in the interests of anyone in rural Ontario, and I would suggest to the government that it certainly is not in the interests of building a strong, viable, competitive Ontario economy that can compete in the world marketplace we are now in.

If anyone suggests that this is the case, I will be glad during public hearings throughout the north and throughout the rest of the province to discuss that. I hope the government can accede to those, because I think the people of Elliot Lake and the people of Espanola and the people of Manitoulin Island and the people in our first nations would like to speak to a bill that provides a 44% increase over time if this vehicle for public policy is allowed to stand.

1710

Mr McLean: I would like to comment on some of the remarks made by the member for Algoma-Manitoulin and just add briefly to some of them that he has already made. I too had letters and resolutions from municipalities that have been concerned with Bill 118. The city of Orillia Water, Light and Power Commission has sent me a letter and a resolution. The village of Allensville, the town of Penetanguishene and Coldwater village have sent me letters.

The major concern they have is with regard to the flaws in Bill 118. They indicate that this legislation is flawed. It is a blatant attempt by the Minister of Energy to exert more control over the operation of Ontario Hydro if it is passed. It would make the chairperson of Ontario Hydro the chief executive officer of the corporation and would increase the membership on the board of directors from 17 to 22.

The appointment of the Deputy Minister of Energy as a non-voting member of Ontario Hydro's board of directors would allow the Minister of Energy to issue policy directives approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council that would be binding on the corporation. It would allow Ontario Hydro to promote switching from electricity to fuels which are more efficient. That is what the member really was making the major point about in his remarks.

It is a well-known fact that the relationship between Ontario Hydro and this government resembles the famous feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys. If Bill 118 is passed, it will mean the lights will be turned off at Ontario Hydro. It will mean that long-term planning will suffer and this province's power industry will continue to be downgraded.

The reservations about Bill 118 have been made well known in this Legislature. The letters I have received from the water, light and power commissions in my riding have been very explicit. I am glad it is going out for public debate and we will all be able to discuss it.

Mr Mammoliti: I am one for criticism. I actually enjoy getting criticized once in a while. I think it is important. I have ultimate respect for most of the members opposite, especially when they criticize. For the most part, they know what they are talking about when they are speaking.

However, I do have a concern in this particular case, because here we have a group of individuals and members of this Legislature, very well respected individuals in their constituencies I am sure, who stand up and criticize us in this particular case. I do not think they have the right to criticize us in this particular case.

They had the opportunity to address a lot of these issues. I am talking about both governments here. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives have had opportunities in the past to address the very important issues that we are addressing in this particular bill that they are criticizing, and they did not. When we talked about renovations, for instance, they let it go and they let it slide and they let it pass. Of course we have to take that on and it is going to cost the public some money, but we have enough guts to say that it is needed. If we hold it off any longer, if we take the example that other governments have shown us in the past, then it is going to cost them more in the long run.

At least we can say that we have taken it on. We have had the guts to take it on, guts that certainly have not been proven by previous governments in this particular case. I would say my colleagues: "Just leave it alone. You are making yourselves look bad."

Mr Conway: I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Algoma-Manitoulin for what I thought was a very thoughtful speech covering a number of the aspects of Bill 118 and particularly the energy policy which informs it.

I sincerely hope that people in the chamber and anyone watching listened carefully to what my honourable friend said about his own experience in rural Ontario of converting from one source of heat to another, in this case from one kind of electric heat to another. He was too modest to indicate what those capital costs were, but I know something of what the total bill was. Fortunately, he is a member of the Legislature, and as we all know, we are very well paid and job security is first rate.

But it is going to be a real issue. It is going to be a real issue for all of us who represent rural Ontario. I repeat for what has to be the 14th time, the fundamental inequity in this NDP energy policy as presented in Bill 118 is that Hydro ratepayers, irrespective of what their capacity to pay is, are going to be asked and expected to pay for regional development programs such as we have seen in Elliot Lake.

Hydro ratepayers, irrespective of their financial situation or their alternatives, are going to be asked to pay through their rates for fuel substitution, largely in urban Ontario. As my honourable friend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin has so poignantly indicated, a senior citizen living in rural Algoma is going to be stung with a regressive tax policy that any self-respecting New Democrat should be ashamed of. I cannot believe that if they know what is underlying this policy, they are prepared to endorse it.

Mr Cousens: The rhetoric that we have in this House from the opposite side which tries to rationalize the direction this government is taking is totally unacceptable, and it is a rare opportunity that I am taking to agree with the member for Algoma-Manitoulin. I happen to believe that his presentation and approach is honourable and consistent with the long-term traditions of what the utility is supposed to do.

I do not think the New Democrats have begun to understand the damage they are doing to this province and to this utility by the kind of changes they want to make in Bill 118. If there is anything the member could do when he is speaking about this, it would be to be a little bit more angry. He is too nice to them. They come along and they think he is almost being a nice guy.

I do not know how we can get them to wake up to it. The policies of this government are sick. They are wrong. They will not work. Now come on. Go along and beat them up next time. The member comes from up north; he comes down here and he is just too sweet and kind. He has got to let them know that we are not going to tolerate it. In this House we are going to scream, we are going to shout, we are going to yell, because they cannot come along and use Ontario Hydro as an instrument of their social policies. This is exactly what they are going to do, and it is wrong.

If they are going to do it, they should bring it into the Legislature, not sneak it in the back door through Ontario Hydro. They want to change the number of directors on that board so they can fill it with more of their friends. The friends they have got that they are putting in there do not have the background that makes for a good organization. Why do they not get some people who have some experience and some background so they can bring some leadership to it instead of Marc Eliesen and some of these people?

It is wrong what this government is doing. The province is suffering with financial problems, with the economy suffering, and what this government is going to do is bury us even further under the muck of a New Democratic government that does not understand that it is destroying something that has taken years to build up.

Mr Brown: I appreciate the member for Markham's comments and I will attend his class in theatre 101 at the earliest possible convenience. I think the essence of this bill, though, is quite easy to understand. It is a bill that provides the government of Ontario a tax grab, a grab that is unfair because it hits all levels of income the same, whether you are in Renfrew, Algoma-Manitoulin or Kenora, whether you have a job like Marc Eliesen's that will pay in excess of $400,000 a year or you are attempting to get along on the senior citizen's allowance. You are going to pay the same no matter what.

1720

The policy of this government is clear. It should be especially clear to northerners. It is a high energy price system. They are trying to drive the prices of fuel and electricity out of sight so they can get their beloved conservation, because when the economy goes down, so does the demand for hydro. We have had the best conservation in this province's history in the last year, and the reason is that our manufacturers, our mines, our pulp and paper industries and our sawmills are closing. That is why I am so upset. I have great difficulty in going to my constituents and saying, "But it's for the greater good; it's for the betterment of mankind." It is just bad public policy.

Mr Wiseman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The honourable member for Markham did a very dishonourable thing. He accused us of lying. That is unacceptable parliamentary language in this House. We heard it. I think he should withdraw that comment.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, I had no idea he was listening. I withdraw it.

Mr Wiseman: Since the sojourn that I had with the honourable member in Washington, I listen to everything he says.

Mr Runciman: I am going to make a brief contribution to the debate. We are adhering to an agreement with the House leaders with respect to the timing of this debate.

One of the elements of this discussion that has been particularly fascinating for me --

Interjections.

Mr Runciman: Do you want to interrupt at this point, Mr Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: Would the member for Yorkview take his seat, please. The member for Leeds-Grenville has the floor.

Mr Runciman: As I was saying, perhaps one of the most fascinating elements of this debate has been the participation of the member for Renfrew North, who has come out of a self-imposed hibernation for the last year to be very active. I think he was in something of a blue funk since the September election.

I find it interesting, to say the least, to hear the views of the member for Renfrew North, who was at one point, I believe, the deputy leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario. He talked very vehemently yesterday about a payroll tax. He has talked about Mr Ostry, the head of TVO and how we should have got rid of Mr Ostry. He has talked about taxation policy of the Liberal Party of Ontario in general, and he was in a position, I would have thought, to have won a few of these battles in cabinet. Apparently he did not win any of them, given the contributions he has made here in the last few weeks. It is passing strange, I suspect, that one would not resign after losing so many significant battles within cabinet. In any event he is here, he is participating actively, making a contribution. I am glad to hear it.

I share the points he raises with respect to rural consumers of electricity and the costs they have to assume as part of their operating costs, and the great difficulty in operating in rural Ontario now. What Ontario Hydro is doing at the direction of this government is going to exacerbate these problems, no question about that.

Mr McLean: They hired Eliesen.

Mr Runciman: My colleague points out that the Liberal government hired Mr Eliesen, and now Liberal members are being critical of his current appointment. I am not going to be critical of Mr Eliesen's appointment, because I think it is too early to reach a judgement with respect to his performance.

I want to say though that I served for a brief period of time as the Energy critic for my party and I also had the opportunity to serve on the select committee on energy, again for a brief period of time, and I was not reluctant to criticize Ontario Hydro. I think they have done a most effective job in many areas over a great many years, but I think there have been legitimate criticisms of them in the past with respect to the number of employees and with respect to wages. I think most of us can draw upon a number of summer student jobs in our areas in Ontario Hydro. They are far and away the highest-paid summer jobs for students. They are giving $16, $17, $18 an hour for summer students, and I think that is reflective of the way Ontario Hydro is operating.

I have friends who have worked for the heavy-water plants operated by Ontario Hydro who worked with me in the chemical industry many years ago talking about the waste and the complete disrespect, if you will, of efforts to cut down on costs and waste within the operations of Ontario Hydro. I think that is endemic throughout the system. We are talking about a public monopoly.

The member for Chatham-Kent made some references earlier to the monopoly situation and private sector efficiencies, and perhaps he was, in his own way, endorsing the idea of privatization. In many areas of Ontario Hydro operations we can endorse privatization of the generation side. I think the transmission side has to stay within the control of the crown, but on the generation side we can see a much greater expansion of the role of the private sector. That is essentially what I want to confine my brief comments to this afternoon.

I think we have a problem with respect to private sector generation and the problem essentially seems to lie within Ontario Hydro. I am hoping that this government, through the Minister of Energy, will play a more active role here. I think there is an effort -- and this has been consistent; I saw it in my days on the select committee -- of Ontario Hydro protecting its own turf. If you look at the role of the non-utility generation branch of Ontario Hydro, it is a very small branch and is undoubtedly overwhelmed with applications and expressions of interest for non-utility generating facilities. In my own riding -- and I want to raise this issue today -- there is a proposal for a cogeneration facility which would generate 240 megawatts. It is a pretty substantial generating facility which would utilize excess steam heat from a chemical process.

This proposal would benefit Ontario in a significant way. We are talking about approximately $200 million initially coming into Ontario, a $100 million capital contribution in my riding alone. We are talking about significant provincial income taxes over the life of this project in excess of $200 million and about millions of dollars in municipal property taxes, not to mention millions of dollars in goods and services and supplies annually purchased as a result of this and the number of jobs that are going to be created -- permanent, secure, skilled positions.

We are talking about what is essentially an environmentally safe option and something that I believe this government, through its crown corporation, should be actively pursuing, but we are not getting the kinds of messages and signals back from Ontario Hydro that lead us to be optimistic. What we are hearing now is that Ontario Hydro is going to limit cogeneration projects to 50 megawatts. What in effect they are doing by coming in with that kind of rule change in the middle of the game is effectively ruling out, for the most part, private sector involvement in the establishment of cogeneration facilities, because there are not the economies of scale for any private sector investor to get involved in 50-megawatt cogenerating facilities. I think we have to do more to persuade Ontario Hydro, and perhaps we have to do it through the Minister of Energy and through this Legislature, to make increased efforts to co-operate and encourage private sector generating facilities in this province.

1730

Another area I would like to see Ontario Hydro take a look at is the sale of hydro to New York state. One thing that Ontario Hydro is saying to people who want to get into cogenerating operations is, "We don't want to buy your hydro, and we won't let you sell it to the United States."

We are producing natural gas in Canada which is going into the US, where it is utilized for the generation of electricity. They are creating jobs and drawing investment into the US using our natural gas, while Ontario Hydro is telling us in Ontario that we cannot utilize it for that purpose. It makes no sense whatsoever and is something I would not think an NDP government would be supportive of.

I may have the municipality wrong, but I think a cogenerating facility has been constructed Oswego, New York. I think it is on stream now producing significant megawatts of power for consumers in New York state using Canadian natural gas. That is wrong and offensive. If Ontario Hydro is not prepared to get involved in correcting it on its own, I think this government has to do something to ensure that it does take place.

This goes back to the question of co-operation of Ontario Hydro with private sector producers, the sharing and use of transmission facilities. We have all sorts of efforts under way to discourage the use of Ontario Hydro transmission facilities and we can indicate in eastern Ontario, in any event, where those transmission corridors are being underutilized. Private sector producers can utilize those corridors to bring them up to their maximum usage, and they can sell that clean power to New York state. Those revenue dollars come back into this province and this country. We are also creating jobs in this province and in this country and using our natural resources, not selling them off to the Americans.

These are the sorts of things where I think this government can play a very activist role, in ensuring that we create jobs and utilize these opportunities by co-operating and supporting private sector endeavours in the hydro generation field.

Mr Hope: I think it is important that I stand up and correct myself, so that the member does not misunderstand what I said. It is important that we learn to work co-operatively with private enterprise, but I firmly believe Ontario Hydro ought to stay a crown corporation. I really put a lot of emphasis behind co-operation and understanding so that we do not fall into the same trap as the federal government has under its purchase of Petro-Canada, where it is now the leader in jumping up prices of gasoline instead of the one trying to control the prices.

That is why I think it is very important that we keep it as a crown corporation, but that at the same time we have proper dialogue with other parts of this world that have developed energy efficiency in their communities and areas. He talks about being an exporter of a lot of services. That can prove beneficial to us, but one of the unfortunate parts that falls under that is selling to the United States under the free trade agreement. That has led us into very difficult situations. We almost have to give it to the Americans because of the contents of the free trade agreement on our natural resources. That is one of the disadvantages and an area that is outside our jurisdiction.

My father-in-law works for Ontario Hydro. I understand they can play an active role if we lead into a positive, open-door policy, which in the future will generate jobs in the province. That will be beneficial to all the communities in making sure we achieve the ultimate goals of lowering the price of hydro and achieving a better standard for the people of Ontario.

Mr McLean: I want to comment briefly on the member for Leeds-Grenville's presentation with regard to Bill 118. He made some excellent points in a nice, short speech that was to the point. There are some things I would like to comment on in his address and I would like to add some of my own.

It is interesting to note that a lot of the letters we have received from all the power corporations and commissions in Ontario are much the same. The one I had with regard to Bill 118 says:

It "threatens to destroy Ontario's long-cherished principle of power at cost by making electricity rates a new source of tax revenue for the provincial government.

"Under Bill 118, the provincial government would be able to issue policy directives that bypass the democratic legislative process, are binding on Ontario Hydro, and that could force Hydro to do things that are outside its current mandate: the provision of safe, reliable electricity. In addition, Bill 118 would force Ontario electricity consumers to pay for these policy directives through their rates."

They are telling me that this is unacceptable, and that is what my colleague has been talking about here this afternoon. They also refer to a section of Bill 118 that permits Ontario Hydro to subsidize fuel substitution through electrical rates. "This is unnecessary, as market forces alone are enough to encourage certain types of fuel switching."

The most important thing we found out today was that this bill is going to committee. Some people say they would rather it were fed into a wood-burning stove than into committee, but in committee at least individuals and utilities will have an opportunity to make submissions that will clearly highlight how the NDP has attempted to usurp the democratic process and downgrade Ontario Hydro's power industry.

Mr Huget: The member opposite has raised the same point a couple of times in terms of what the overall mandate and directives will be to Ontario Hydro. He continues to allude to an imaginary process that suddenly Ontario Hydro's mandate will be expanded to some other role in society, and he continuously raises the social service aspect of Ontario Hydro.

The minister has quite clearly made the statement in this House on several occasions that the mandate of Ontario Hydro will not be expanded. Any changes in anything involving Bill 118 and Ontario Hydro and its mandate are clearly to define movement within its current objectives, and that will be clarified. That point was made to the MEA. The member is aware of that. The point was made to the member and he refuses to accept it. I do not know how many times someone has to stand on the government side of the House and make it clear that we are consulting with the Municipal Electric Association and with its concerns around the mandate of Ontario Hydro and the issuing of the directives. Quite clearly the minister has said a number of times, "There will not be an expansion of mandate."

I think it is fundamental that the opposition parties in this House take it upon themselves to act and speak responsibly in terms of changes proposed to Bill 118. I do not find that it is in the interests of the public or of this House that there are continuous allusions made to an imaginary process. We must deal with the facts and with constructive debate on Bill 118 and nothing more. We look forward to full debate on this issue. The changes to Bill 118 are necessary.

Mr Sola: In retort to the last comment, I want to refer to Hansard. They are saying the minister has made statements in the House refuting the allegations the honourable member made in his speech. For example, on October 1, in response to a question raised by my seatmate, the member for Ottawa South, the minister said, "The intention of the bill is to direct Hydro in order to fulfil the mandate of the government of the day," not the mandate of Hydro but the mandate of the government of the day.

Later on, in response to a second question from the member for Ottawa South, the Minister of Energy said, "The goal and objective of Hydro is to provide power at reasonable prices." Reasonable prices and power at cost are certainly not the same thing. He may have stated something else later or prior to these statements, but these statements are still on the record. Therefore, you cannot judge the intentions of the honourable member by referring to something that is in Hansard, that was in response to questions particularly relating to the mandate and the intent and the social program of this government.

As far as imaginary allegations are concerned, I would like to point out that Elliot Lake is not an imaginary place; neither is Kapuskasing. They did not use social policy, government policy, to bail out those two communities; they used Ontario Hydro. It is up to the government to bail out those areas, but it is not up to Hydro.

1740

Mr Runciman: That is a good point, because one of the members opposite mentioned hydro bills starting to reflect real costs. That belies the fact that of course we are utilizing Hydro dollars in those two northern communities. They are certainly not real hydro costs. That is an effort to bamboozle the public with respect to the Ontario government debt. There is no question about that.

I regret that the member for Chatham-Kent had to get up and say he does not believe in privatization. That is indeed regrettable, but coming from a socialist, that is not surprising. He talks about keeping costs down, but I do not think that is going to be the case.

We have an article from one of the Toronto papers this weekend, with Larry Solomon of Energy Probe quoted as saying that "it won't be long before Ontarians are paying more for their power than any other jurisdiction in North America." The article goes on to say that Charlie Macaluso, a spokesperson for the Municipal Electric Association, believes that "as long as Ontario Hydro remains a public monopoly, with a $30-billion debt, it will continue to bleed taxpayers with exorbitant rate hikes." He is quoted as saying, "I don't see how we're going to get away from double-digit rate hikes unless we can eliminate the debt and government interference."

Getting back to Larry Solomon of Energy Probe, he says that anti-monopoly legislation has worked well. "It has lowered the price of power and has actually created gluts of power.... Privatize Ontario Hydro and we'll start to see our prices come down again." I do not think there is any doubt that this is indeed the case.

I made reference to natural gas, and they throw back free trade. Ontario Hydro has it within its power to ensure that we are utilizing Canadian natural gas in the generation of power in this province and not sending it off to the south. They have the power to do that. They should not blame it on the free trade agreement.

Mr Duignan: It is with great pleasure and delight that I rise in my place today. It is my first occasion to speak on behalf of my riding of Halton North. I understand that when one does that, it is the tradition of this House that one talks a little about one's riding and the people in it.

This gives me great pleasure, because I represent many people in my riding who have never had NDP representation before and who are more than honoured and delighted to have that representation because they now have an effective voice in the corridors of power, a person who listens to the people.

With respect to my riding, it lies west of Toronto and north of Oakville and Burlington, and is comprised of all the Halton region north of Derry Road. Halton North is what I like to term the heartland of Ontario, and that is basically what my riding is made up of. It is composed of many small urban clusters such as Campbellville, Brookville, Limehouse, Glen Williams, Norval and Hornby. It also has a number of significant urban centres such as Georgetown, Acton and Milton.

I mentioned the municipality of Milton last because I want to pay tribute to the former member from Milton, Walt Elliot, who sat as a member of this House from 1987 to 1990. He worked hard on behalf of the residents of Halton North, particularly in the work he did regarding the Niagara Escarpment, which accounts for about 30% of my riding. I would like to pay particular tribute to the work he has done in that regard.

I would also like to pay tribute to many members and former candidates of my own party who have laboured long and hard in the riding of Halton North to elect a New Democratic member, which they succeeded in doing in the last election, in particular Stan Allen, Fern Wolfe, John and Bernice Nichols and Bill Johnson, who has been a regional councillor for the last number of years and who finally is retiring.

I will now address the question at hand, that of Bill 118. It gives me great pleasure to take this opportunity to speak to that particular bill.

I believe the amended Power Corporation Act will enable Ontario Hydro and the government to work together in a more effective manner to deal with the economic, environmental and social wellbeing of this province. I believe the amendments to the Power Corporation Act will make Ontario Hydro more open and more accountable to the taxpayers of Ontario, which the previous government, when it had the opportunity, failed to do.

Bill 118 will give the government power to provide Ontario Hydro with policy direction not only because the taxpayers of this province demand it but because there is a need for increased Hydro accountability and a greater response by Ontario Hydro to public concerns and needs. It is our goal not so much to increase control but to make Hydro more responsive to public priorities and government policies.

What we are doing is really nothing new. Previous governments often provided informal policy direction in closed sessions with Ontario Hydro senior management. These directions often had hidden costs unknown to the people of this province.

What we have done is to simplify the process and make Ontario Hydro more accountable to the taxpayers of this province. We want to get away from the old practices of the previous governments. I believe Bill 118 will clarify the government's responsibility for setting the province's policy direction and the expectation that Hydro will carry out that policy.

The act also requires the government to consult with the Hydro board on the content and effect of policy directives. In this respect, the board's important role and responsibilities in ensuring the needs of the taxpayers are met in the best possible way. This will allow Hydro to move in new directions and to give greater emphasis to energy efficiency.

Under Bill 118 we will also expand the board from 17 to 22 people, giving greater access and wider representation of public interests on this board.

Some will say that we are stacking the board of Ontario Hydro. That is not the case. What we are doing is widening the representation of public interest on the Hydro board. Our government will be making appointments that are not affiliated with our party or indeed any political party in this province. That is our philosophy and that is our policy.

On the question of the salary for the chairman of Ontario Hydro, it is worth noting that the proposed salary level is considerably less than that of the previous chairman and chief executive officer, who started somewhere in excess of $500,000.

The proposed salary is also 25% less than the average salary of the chief executive officers of corporations with annual revenues in excess of $400 million. That is based on a survey of 150 public and private corporations in Canada. Ontario Hydro, with annual sales in excess of $8 billion and assets of over $40 billion, is much larger than most of these corporations. Also, a review of executive compensation at Ontario Hydro will be conducted by the Ontario Energy Board as part of the reference letter for the next rate review hearings. The OEB provides oversight of such matters for all major utilities in Ontario.

On the question of fuel substitution, when the government announced its restriction on electric heating in new social housing, it did so because natural gas instead of electricity for residential space and water heating is a much more appropriate use of energy. It is more cost-effective and will result in lower energy bills for those consumers.

The ministry also estimated that by enabling Hydro to encourage the conversion of electric heat in the residential market, electricity demand will be reduced by perhaps 700 megawatts by the year 2000. In addition to lowering heating costs for customers and increased environmental protection, fuel substitution will defer the need for large central generating facilities, thereby ensuring enormous savings for Ontario Hydro.

1750

It is our government's intention, as stated by the former minister when she introduced the proposed amendments, that Hydro should be able to promote fuel substitution where it is most cost-effective and where the market will not make it happen otherwise. In some cases simple education and information may be all that is needed to encourage fuel switching. On occasion, some form of incentive may be required. Where this is necessary, Ontario Hydro programs will be designed in a way that ensures it will be cost-effective and benefit the consumers.

On the question raised by some members in this House on the recent hydro rate increase, it is worth reminding the taxpayers of this province that it was the past decisions and mistakes of the Liberal and Tory governments such as the Darlington nuclear plant that have come home to roost, and those bills must now be paid.

It is worth noting that Darlington alone accounts for over one quarter of the increase this year and customers will face additional increases when the rest of Darlington is brought into service. Moreover, they will be paying for the $13-billion cost of Darlington over the next 40 years, a mistake of previous governments.

Any less of an increase would result in a very high and unacceptable withdrawal of Hydro's reserve funds. As members are aware, some $600 million has been withdrawn from the reserve fund in previous years. This is a situation that this government intends to avoid in the future.

The responsibility for rate decisions rests with the Hydro board of directors. I am confident that the board has taken into account all information at its disposal, including the Ontario Energy Board's recommendations, the state of the economy and the impact of the increases on customers. The necessary rate increases underscore the importance of the government's new energy directions, increased energy efficiency and conservation.

Our government will continue to encourage Hydro to launch new cost-effective energy management initiatives which will help to contain increases in customers' bills.

In conclusion, I want to remind members and the Ontario taxpayers of Ontario Hydro's huge debt, some $34 billion. It is due largely to the decisions of previous governments that built Darlington and other nuclear stations.

This government has declared a nuclear moratorium and has stated its commitment to conservation, increased energy efficiency and parallel generation. I believe these new energy directions contained in Bill 118 will postpone the need for a new large-scale generating facility and will make Ontario more accountable to the taxpayers of this province, which the people of this province have demanded for so many years and which previous governments ignored.

Mr Ruprecht: I must tell the members that I enjoyed the introduction the member for Halton North made to Bill 118, especially when he says Halton North has never had an NDP member in the Legislature before. I simply want to say to him he should enjoy his time here.

Mr Mills: What is that supposed to mean?

Mr Ruprecht: It simply means he should read into that statement whatever he wants to.

One important point was raised by the member for Halton North when he talked about the hidden costs associated with producing hydroelectric power. That is an important aspect, to talk about the hidden costs. The question I would like to raise is, what are these hidden costs for the taxpayers of Ontario?

The member for Halton North will know what the hidden costs are for the seniors of Ontario, who at one time I remember, Mr Speaker, and you will too, listened to the propaganda from Hydro saying hydro rates would be the cheapest form of energy in terms of the efficiency of heating one's home. Hydro said, "Please, everybody rip out your oil pipes and switch back to electrically heated homes." Many of my neighbours did, and I am sure the member for Halton North knows that many of his residents did the same thing.

The consequence of this kind of a promise will be horrendous. When we talk about increases of 15.5% this year and 44% -- and I would guess with the GST and the additional taxes even over 50% -- in three years, I would guess that many of the seniors who did switch to electrically heated homes will have to sell their houses because they are unable to make payments.

Mr Bisson: It is with pleasure that I rise to comment on some of the issues and facts mentioned by my colleague the member for Halton North. I think part of the debate being lost here -- and I think the member made a good point -- is that many of the things we are seeing now in regard to the increases through Ontario Hydro are because of some of the decisions made in the past.

Nobody knew, back in the 1960s and further, that the investment in nuclear energy would come to the price it does in the 1990s. The reality is that there were some decisions made back then to invest heavily on the part of Ontario Hydro, to go more towards generating electricity through nuclear power. We are now finding out, some 20 and 30 years later, that the cost has been quite astronomical.

What is also interesting, when you go through all that has happened with the nuclear generation in Ontario, is that the nuclear generation of the Candu reactors is a very good, safe technology, probably one of the best and most advanced in the world, but they are not running as efficiently as they should. That is adding dramatically to the cost of electricity within the province for consumers of Ontario Hydro. In fact, the numbers are running somewhere in the neighbourhood of half this increase we are seeing today of 11%, because of the efficiency and the costs we are having to pay today.

I would also like to make a comment. One of the members from the Conservative Party said earlier that maybe we would be better off putting Ontario Hydro into the private sector. God knows, I am not at all interested in that. I have seen that happen in the airline sector, and all I know is that some two years after deregulation of the airline industry into private hands, we are now paying twice as much for airline tickets. We are getting half as much service and a lot more inconvenience in the airports of this country and unable to get the service that used to be provided by a crown corporation called Air Canada at the time it was owned by the taxpayers and was providing very good service. To that idea I say no. As a New Democratic member I stand firmly opposed to that idea.

Mr Brown: I enjoyed the comments of the member for Halton North. I have some comments. We seem to be in a debate about nuclear power, fossil fuel, whether we could have more hydroelectric and whether we should have cogeneration and how much electricity we need and all that good stuff. We are talking about all those things when, as members will know, there is an environmental assessment being conducted right now. It is on Hydro's 25-year plan.

I have some concerns about the way that process has begun, because what has happened in this province is that the government has unilaterally made some decisions about what projects are in, what projects are out, what we should consider and what we should not. They have decided, for example, to spend an additional $240 million on conservation. The Ontario Energy Board has said Hydro is not spending that efficiently. Hydro cannot spend that and get value for the dollars it is spending. We are spending money that is not giving us the result. Members should not take my word for it, but ask the Ontario Energy Board. That is what it said.

Rather than debate need -- because the environmental assessment is looking at need -- why do we not ask the government to keep the integrity of the plan in place, present it to the environmental panel without a lot of ideological, political views and let the environmental assessment panel make those decisions? But that is not what we are seeing, and we think Bill 118 is going to cause more problems than all the rest combined.

The government stands there and says that it was the problem of governments before it for over 60 or 70 years. I do not think the people of Ontario are going to buy that.

Mr Huget: I would like to congratulate the member for Halton North on his first opportunity to speak in the House. I listened with interest to his comments.

I would remind everyone that I think it is worth saying that no one likes to see rate increases on anything today, but the roughly 11.8% increase that has been suggested is due largely to the costs of Darlington and some of the decisions made in electrical generation policy in Ontario over the last decade or two.

I remind members as well that even with the proposed increase, Ontario Hydro's rates are still approximately 24% or 25% lower than in most jurisdictions in North America. The argument that rates will make us non-competitive compared to the United States, for example, simply does not hold water. In fact, if I were a business in Ontario looking for reasonably priced energy, I would stay in Ontario because it is less expensive in Ontario than it is in most of the United States.

There are other factors that are leading to rate increases and that will continue to lead to rate increases, not the least of which is Darlington. We will need to pay the $13.5-billion Darlington costs over the next 40 years. We have problems with the transmission system. Major work has to be done to keep its integrity. There are a number of factors that lead to rate increases. Especially if we look at the nuclear moratorium -- the member from the opposition has raised that issue a couple of times this afternoon -- I frankly do not see the economic logic of expanding facilities that currently run at less than 70% of capacity. That is not good business.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Halton North, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Duignan: I noted with interest that my colleague the member for Parkdale made a reference to the fact that I should enjoy my term here because it will be the only one.

Mr Ruprecht: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I appreciate the time you are giving me. I just want to make sure the member understood me correctly. I did not say he should enjoy his time here because this will be his last term. I simply indicated that he should enjoy his time here.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. That was not a point of order.

Mr Duignan: I am glad the member for Parkdale clarified that for me. I intend to be here for many terms because I intend to serve the people of my riding.

Very simply, the people of this province have demanded time and time again and over and over again that Ontario Hydro has to be more accountable to the taxpayers and government of this province. I firmly believe our government and the Ministry of Energy will do that. Our government is prepared to act to make sure that happens. I am looking forward to the amendments to the Power Corporation Act, which will simply return Hydro to the taxpayers of this province and to the people of this province.

The House adjourned at 1803.