L030b - Mon 22 Jun 1998 / Lun 22 Jun 1998 1
ENERGY COMPETITION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA CONCURRENCE DANS LE SECTEUR DE L'ÉNERGIE
The House met at 1830.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
ENERGY COMPETITION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA CONCURRENCE DANS LE SECTEUR DE L'ÉNERGIE
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 35, An Act to create jobs and protect consumers by promoting low-cost energy through competition, to protect the environment, to provide for pensions and to make related amendments to certain Acts / Projet de loi 35, Loi visant à créer des emplois et à protéger les consommateurs en favorisant le bas prix de l'énergie au moyen de la concurrence, protégeant l'environnement, traitant de pensions et apportant des modifications connexes à certaines lois.
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I'm delighted to be able to participate in this discussion on Bill 35 to break up Ontario Hydro. As all of us know, there is a statue of Sir Adam Beck at the bottom of University Avenue, at Queen and University. Sir Adam Beck was one of the most well-known civil servants. He was knighted to a great degree for the service he provided to Ontario and especially for his contribution to Ontario Hydro. He is looking north. He is looking to the Legislature, and if his eyes and his head were not of bronze, he would surely today give us some recommendations. He might even shake his head and roll his eyes.
This bill is about the breakup of Ontario Hydro. The fact is that the breakup of this almost 100-year-old mon-opoly of hydro-electric power in Ontario is being done very quickly. The question arises of how this is going to be accomplished. The Premier said to us today that he doesn't believe, when he looks at gasoline prices across Ontario, that gasoline prices are in fact at the point where all the oil suppliers get together, and for some reason on weekends the price of gasoline goes up. What will it be for Hydro? Will it be that the Premier will say, "I'm not quite sure what is going to happen here, but let me assure you about one thing, and that is that the prices that municipal hydro officials are paying and that we're going to be paying in the city of Toronto are going to go down"?
I know, for instance -
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Sorry to interrupt the member, but I don't believe there's a quorum in here. Would you check for that, please.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Would you please check if we have a quorum.
Acting Clerk at the Table (Ms Tonia Grannum): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Acting Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Parkdale.
Mr Ruprecht: I want to draw attention to an article in the Globe and Mail on June 19 by Terence Corcoran. He says that the Premier thinks that since the gasoline market is uncompetitive and regulation is the answer, he believes that the gouging oil corporations have something to do with the prices at the pump and that gas prices "should be equalized across the province." Then he goes on to say that the Premier has a bird's eye view of the situation and doesn't believe that can be accomplished. What is his view going to be about deregulation? What is his view going to be about electric prices at Ontario Hydro?
This is turning a giant experiment in central planning and regulatory control into a bit of a circus, I'm afraid, and I'm not sure the position on the government benches is going to be very clear on what is going to take place with deregulation, on what is going to take place in terms of sneaking it back into the private sector in terms of privatization.
What will happen? I'm not sure, after we look at the 160 pages of Bill 35, that the answers are in here. It's a long document. It's short on answers and I think we're going to have a long way to go before we get them.
Let me just tell you that two days ago I rang a doorbell in one of my constitencies and on the door it said "Medallion Homes." Do you remember what that meant? "Medallion Homes" meant that everything is done electrically. The doorbell is electric, of course the heating is electric, the water heater's electric, everything in that Medallion Home is electric. That was happening when electric rates were cheap, and today when we're looking at hydro prices and when we come out with the fact that hydro prices today are the third highest in Canada, it does not speak very well in terms of ability to attract industries to Ontario, creating jobs for Ontario, when the prices are this high.
I remind you that we look at these homes that were established a few years ago, all done electrically, and they are being switched over to gas. I have said this before: The millions of dollars that taxpayers are spending on changing electric water heaters to gas water heaters is something we wouldn't have to do if hydro rates were reasonable. In fact today we know they're very high and the question remains, what will happen after privatization? What will happen after it's split up or deregulated? The answers are not here, we suspect, as does the chair of Ontario Hydro when he says: "I'm not sure about electric prices in Ontario. I'm not sure, and the reason I'm not sure is because any time it has been accomplished in the United States that a hydro corporation was split up, any time that took place, prices did not go down, they went up."
When you look at historical precedents and you know that hydro rates have not gone down under similar circumstances, what would make us believe today that these rates would go down? Mr Farlinger, who is the chair of Hydro, says, "My friends, we have to take a leap of faith in something not based on statistics." A leap of faith is not something based on the reality, but a leap of faith is what it says: It's faith. In short, there might be a decrease in hydro rates, but just as well there may not be. That's why we're asking the minister today when he said not too long ago, and I quote him, "We know this will be a recipe for lower prices in every jurisdiction," followed quickly by a quote from the chair of Hydro and he says: "I don't know. It's a leap of faith."
We're asking the minister today, what makes him think that splitting up Hydro in Ontario today is indeed going to lower prices? That question he cannot answer. That question no one in the government can answer. After looking at 160 pages, the basic question of how to protect the consumer is not being answered, the very basic question, not just in Toronto but out on the farms where you've got transmission lines and the cost might even be higher. Will they be protected on the farms?
1840
Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): It says so in the bill.
Mr Ruprecht: Will we be protected right here in Toronto where it should be a bit cheaper if you split up Hydro?
I heard just now: "Yes, it will be done. In fact, there will be some kind of guarantee." But there cannot be a guarantee. My friends, remember this, your own Premier is on the side of the angels when he says, "I believe there are gouging oil companies which gouge the consumer and there should be one standard rate across Ontario." He's on the right side, but man, oh, man, he's got to send out four MPPs with cameras because there's no control, four MPPs with cameras taking photos of those gouging oil companies and those gas stations that are trying to charge us more on the weekends. Four of them are going out and taking photos. Sure enough, have you been out last weekend? Have the prices gone up? They haven't gone up. Yes, he is somewhat right when he says there may be some gouging oil companies.
But my friends, if he says that, then what about Hydro rates? We know what's going to happen. I'm sure most of us will agree that there will be an indirect switch, that it'll be done by the back door. You will have privatization. Are the oil companies going to then buy part of Hydro? Are they going to be outlawed from buying? Even if they do, and even if other corporations buy it, will that necessarily mean that the consumer is being protected?
After 160 pages we know one sure fact, and that is, right now the debt of Hydro is $32 billion. Let me repeat it: $32 billion, and that does not include Darlington and that does not include the atomic section of Hydro, atomic power. At $32 billion of debt, it would mean that for every one of you and every one of us, for every Ontarian, it's $2,900 of debt.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I have a few comments to say to the member for Parkdale as a result of that rendition of the bill that I hadn't heard as I read it.
The first criticism he made today talked about how quickly we have moved. I think everyone in the House knows that we laid out in the Common Sense Revolution, that the Premier laid out in the Common Sense Revolution, that he was going to look at Ontario Hydro and at a better way of doing things because the system needed to be changed. Since that time, ministers and people involved in this have gone through stakeholder consultations, we've been involved with consumers, we've looked at different opportunities. "Quickly" is not something you could call this. In fact people have been asking us to move ahead with this because the pressure in the community to do something about electricity prices is phenomenal.
Also, the member talked about the price of electricity and how it's just got to go up. He says there is nothing that shows us prices have gone down. I have to say that the evidence just doesn't bear true. When you look at deregulation and at gas prices and the way they have gone in the last five to 10 years, you can see gas prices have declined, so you see it when you deregulate.
You can also see it in examples like Australia, where they have gone through this deregulation phase and have experienced real cost savings of between 20% and 40%. We also have it in England. When they did this, prices fell by 15%. So it's very important that we recognize that there's a potential for savings as we look for management efficiencies, as we look for better ways of doing things, as we look to take out the little percentages that everybody is making along the line as it moves out to the consumer.
This is a really good bill. I'm happy the Liberals are supporting it and I look forward to the member for Parkdale having time to read it.
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): It's always a pleasure to comment on the comments made by the member for Parkdale. As we know, he has been around this place for a good number of years and knows of what he speaks.
In terms of Bill 35, he brought forth a good number of issues that I'm hearing. As you would know, in the north we're always concerned about higher rates, whether it be gasoline prices, consumer gas prices, whatever. Of course, the member for Parkdale indicates that we will certainly be looking at higher rates here, and there's nothing to show that we will not be looking at great increases for our hydro-electric power. As you will know, the climatic conditions in the north actually make for more of a cost impact on our households and families, whether it be hydro-electricity, gasoline or whatever.
The member also goes on to talk a little bit about the debt that Ontario Hydro presently has. I think he puts it well in terms of indicating to the taxpayer of Ontario that we are all part of this debt and we are all responsible for the debt that has been incurred.
The member has also indicated that Bill 35, as with many other pieces of legislation brought forth by this government, has not been well thought out. We always find things that are definitely wrong because of the lack of time put into such things as Bill 35. All one has to do is go back to the fiasco of Suncor and remember what great problems it created for the government, another prime example. We could go on and on and talk about pieces of legislation - Lands for Life is another prime example which parallels Bill 35 - that are not well thought out.
Again, I would just like to commend the member for Parkdale on what he has said here in the Legislature.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): The member for Parkdale makes an excellent point when he talks about the promise of lower prices for electricity. That's part of what the government is trying to sell with the introduction of Bill 35 to deregulate the hydro industry, but there's really no guarantee in this bill that there are going to be lower prices.
I know the member for Huron likes to say over and over again that the experience in other jurisdictions is that prices are going to go down - "Just look at the gas marketing business; the prices went down" - but the fact is that there are no real assurances in this bill that will guarantee to consumers that rates are going to go down.
We would like to see an assurance like that in the bill, and we'll be moving an amendment to ensure there is that protection for consumers, because we think that is very important. That's the promise being held out by the government, that rates are going to go down. All of us would like to see lower utilities bills; I certainly would. I know that when I mentioned last week that I was a consumer of electrical power there were some members in the government who were surprised by that. But most of us are electrical consumers, and it seems to be increasing all the time with a lot of those time-saving devices. We really need some assurance that rates are going to go down, other than just the bald statements of members of the government.
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): It's not often we get a chance to comment on some comments made by the member for Parkdale, but I appreciate the opportunity.
We are making progress in this House. Normally, the Liberals are opposed to everything. They were opposed to more jobs in the province; they were opposed to lower taxes in the province; they were opposed to less government in the province. We've made some headway here, because now we have a Liberal member standing up and saying he's not sure where he is on this particular issue. He's one of the few people who aren't sure, because the unions are in favour of this, the environmentalists are in favour of this, the large consumers are in favour of this. The member for Parkdale is not sure yet whether he is in favour of this, but that does represent progress, because normally we're used to the Liberals being opposed to absolutely everything we introduce in here.
1850
He talked about there being no guarantee of prices staying down. Of course, over the last three years, I guess, we've forced the prices to stay down because the Premier - one of our election platform planks was that we would guarantee that hydro prices would not rise. However, if we allow Hydro to continue to function the way it has functioned, with its $32 billion worth of accumulated debt - which by the way includes Darlington - if we'd allowed Hydro to continue to operate in that particular way, of course prices would have had to escalate. That brings with it higher costs for people who want to come to our province, because it's an attractive place, and create new jobs. If we don't get our arms around the cost of energy, they will find some other jurisdiction to go to.
So Bill 35, introducing competition to the generation and sale of hydro in our particular province, is great news for the people of our province. It's great news for the employers, for the employees and for the investors. I'm sure, as the parliamentary assistant said, should the member for Parkdale get a chance to read the bill, he too would endorse it as a great-news bill.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Parkdale, you have two minutes.
Mr Ruprecht: Thank you very much, members for Chatham-Kent, Windsor-Riverside and Huron, for your comments. Let me quickly remind you that there are a number of questions that have to be answered and they're not answered. There is a multitude. Let me just give you three or four.
Who will be stuck for paying Hydro's $32-billion debt? Will it be retail farm electricity consumers or the average taxpayer? Who's going to be stuck for it? Will it be you? Who will pay for Hydro's $8-billion plan to bring its nuclear plants up to gear? Who will pay for that? What's the answer? You don't know. Will industry regulators be able to be tough watchdogs with the power to make sure that Harris's plan does not result in a windfall profit for companies and higher costs for consumers? Who's going to be sure about that? Suddenly you're not so sure.
Let me just tell you one thing, quickly, about the member for Huron when she says, "We're moving quickly." Yes, you moved just as quickly two years ago when you bought $200 million worth of Suncor to get a window into the oil company. What happened? How much was lost? Over $200 million was lost because of your quick action. That's what happened.
Finally, let me quickly talk about the environment. Do you trust Hydro with the environmental problems that we're going to be creating? I'm reminded of Highway 404. What are they planning to do right now? They're planning to take the highway right by a river system, right next to the Black River, near Sutton, Ontario, and that's the government for you. So, do we trust this government to think about the future? Do we trust this government to think about a great view that will guarantee the regulators that there will be sufficient incentives to ensure that hydro rates will be lower?
These are legitimate questions. These legitimate questions beg for legitimate answers. I would only hope that when you look at it, when you look at this bill, at the end of it you're giving us these answers.
Mrs Johns: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I ask for unanimous consent to be able to answer the questions that the member opposite has put forward.
The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I hear a "no." Further debate?
Mr Marchese: Not to worry, the member for Huron is going to get more than two minutes in the next couple of hours to respond. She'll be very happy. She'll have the time. I urge the Tory members on the other side to give the member for Huron all of the two minutes in order for her to respond to me, to the member for Parkdale and anybody else who is going to speak later. Please, the member for Huron would love for us to believe that after careful reading we will all realize that "the benefits of this bill are so transparent that anybody objecting or opposing is coming from a different planet," I'm assuming she would be saying.
We believe, and myself in particular, that this bill leaves the door open for privatization. I know, member for Huron, you don't want to even contemplate the thought and you haven't ruminated on the topic at all - neither you nor Premier Harris - because you haven't got the time to reflect on privatizing this particular issue. I understand that. But I genuinely believe that's what your agenda is all about. You see, I know that you could not be so foolhardy as to recommend at this time of the political game a privatization of Hydro, because you couldn't trust the public to believe you with that issue. So you will formulate it - I know, you're shaking your head again. Bear with me for a little while. You presented this bill in such a way as to make it appear that what you are doing is something that all the stakeholders are happy about and it's truly competitive, rates are going to go down, the environment - God bless - is going to be protected, the stranded debt - God bless - will be dealt with at some point; everything is okay. Just read the bill and go home. Like a few of the soccer teams that have just lost the games in the World Cup: Go home and you'll be happy. I tell you, when you go home after the World Cup, you're not a happy crowd. There's a loss here. There's a loss, and a big loss, that I believe we need to address. We're going to raise these questions.
It's interesting, because the member for Parkdale, and others of course, has raised the issue of Sir Adam Beck and, coincidentally, you've just invited Sir Graham Day to come and deal with issues of privatization.
Mrs Johns: Director of Ontario Hydro.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Huron, please.
Mr Marchese: The member for Huron wants to participate. I understand.
In 1910 or so we had Sir Adam Beck, who in my view was a visionary and understood that utilities of this sort, Hydro, needed to be public and you couldn't trust the private sector to take hold of an issue such as hydro that everybody needs. He knew that it's something that should belong, quite appropriately, in public hands. He did his utmost to make sure that the type of people over there wouldn't break it up in his time. They're finally doing it.
I contrast Sir Adam Beck with Sir Graham Day. It's interesting, both sirs, knighted by the Queen: one good sir who realizes the importance of public ownership, and the other good sir who wants to privatize anything that moves, in this case Hydro.
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): He's a serial privatizer.
Mr Marchese: I wouldn't say that. Others have commented about that. But it's so fascinating that you have two sirs on the opposite extremes: 1910, public; 1998-99, private. It's fascinating.
Member for Lake Nipigon - Speaker, through you, always - why do you think that Sir Graham Day would have been invited to join Ontario Hydro as a board member?
Mrs Johns: Expertise.
Mr Marchese: Expertise in privatization, member for Huron. That's the trade he engages in. We're talking big bucks here. Come on. He wasn't invited because he's a nice guy. He is, in fact. I was there in the committee when we interviewed him. I was chairing the committee that day. He's a nice man, but the guy is here to teach you some lessons. He's going to prepare you five years hence, once this bill is passed, on how to privatize this whole affair. Why else?
You could hire his expertise as a consultant. Why put him on the board? Pay him a few bucks, get his good knowledge, or even write him a letter and say, "Sir Graham So-and-so, give us some of your good thoughts on this matter." No, that wouldn't be okay. You've got to get him on the board. Why do you want him at the board, member for Lake Nipigon? Through you, Speaker. You want him there because this guy is going to give you the advice you need to privatize.
Member for Huron, I know you will shake your head each and every time I raise these points, but I'm not speaking to you; I'm speaking to the public. The debate is between us and you on the other side, and the audience watches us. The question is: Who do they believe? That is the real question: Who do they believe? We make arguments and the Tories make theirs. At the end of the day, I think the forces of good will triumph over the forces of evil and the people will see that.
Does Ontario Hydro need to be decimated or broken up? The Tories make the argument that it's broken, like so many other things they said Ontario is broken on and about, and they need to correct it. Every time they put in their hand to correct a problem, they've caused so much more misery that each and every time we've had to have other bills to rectify their previous problems.
It's a question of trust. The member for Huron obviously believes the public is on their side. All we can hope for is that the public will see through the agenda of this government.
1900
I don't believe Ontario Hydro is broken. I believe we've got a problem that needs to be fixed. I believe the Tories caused the Darlington nuclear power station. Those fine Tories of the day said, "Darlington will only cost a couple of billion. Trust us," and from a $2-billion problem, we now have a $14-billion problem that they accumulated. Trust the Tories for that. So I suspect that perhaps what she's saying now is that maybe indeed it is broken in that regard, that they made some fundamental mistakes that they cannot of course renege on. They can't take credit for that, because why would you take credit for a $14-billion problem?
We New Democrats of the day attacked that idea because we said, "This is a costly problem with a lot of costly problems down the line to take care of." I tell you, and I'll get into it if I have a moment, talk about decommissioning costs for nuclear power stations, or talk about disposing of the wastes from nuclear power stations. We haven't gotten into that. Member for Nipigon, we haven't even got into those costs yet, but the cost of disposing of waste from nuclear power stations is going to be egregious.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Oh, that's your word for the day.
Mr Marchese: It's a big word for a big problem. The cost for decommissioning is egregious as well. But you know something? They don't talk about that. I tell you, the public will have to bear the cost of that, through the consumer and/or - their favourite word - the taxpayer. I suspect their big clients are going to save a few bucks out of that one.
They talk about this stranded debt: "Don't worry, successor companies will take care of that problem." A few people, the other competitors, are not likely to be paying for that particular cost of it.
Interjection.
Mr Marchese: Yes, the member for Huron will correct me when she gets there and tell me to read the bill. But this stranded debt is going to be, at the end of the day, very big. I suspect that number will be very high, and the public will pay the cost for that, I can tell you that.
We froze hydro rates when we were in government, but to hear this government, you'd imagine they're the only ones who froze them. We froze rates when we were in government and you continued with that. There's never any mention of the fact that New Democrats froze the rates.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Our freeze is older than your freeze.
Mr Marchese: We froze the rates, member for Huron. Speaker, we've got a problem here, I tell you. They are either on a different planet or not, but I've got to tell you, we froze hydro rates. Check it, member for Huron. Please do that. I'll wait for you. I've got nine more minutes. To hear them say it, they're the only ones who started that freeze. Even the member for Scarborough West or East -
Mr Gilchrist: It's been three years. No, wrong.
Mr Marchese: Centre.
Mr Gilchrist: Wrong.
Mr Marchese: He's from Scarborough anyway. Even he doesn't know that we froze the rates. The point is, if we've got a problem with Ontario Hydro, we should do what Sir Adam Beck said: Keep it in public control. They argue the rates will go down on the mere premise that once you set a competitive market, rates will automatically go down. We haven't had competition in this country, or any industrial country, since the 1910s or 1920s. Competition has been dead for years. You witness gas rates, gasoline rates, you witness bank rates or trust rates; they're all the same and they move within the same pattern, with slight differences from one to the rest - very slight. There is no competition in the market, and I've got to tell you, when we're dealing with this issue, rates cannot be guaranteed, ever, except on the promise of this government the rates will go down.
Speaker, I ask you: Do you believe them? That's what I ask the public: Do you believe them, on the sole basis of their promise, on the sole basis that that's what they say? There is no guarantee about that and never will be.
The member for Huron talks about the great success story in Britain. They socialized the debt and they privatized the profits, meaning a few of the big boys made a whole heap of money and the rest of the public sector, the taxpayers, picked up the debt. That's what this is all about in every issue imaginable. It's socializing the debt and privatizing profit. Some of their friends are going to get rich out of this. That's why the American consultants and companies are here, and that's why British consultants in the energy field are here, because they know they're going to make a buck.
Mr Wettlaufer: That's rubbish.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Kitchener.
Mr Marchese: The member from Kitchener is going to have his fair time in the House. I love to hear from him all the time.
Mr Wettlaufer: That's rubbish.
Mr Marchese: That's okay. He's fine. He has got to defend his interests. The interests of Tories are to defend their private interests - the biggest, most profitable, most corporate successes we've got connected to Tories. It's handing down the profits to more of their friends, over and over again. With every bill presented in this House, that's what we're talking about.
There is no guarantee of lower prices, never will be. When we get to the issue of privatization, they say, "Oh, we're not doing that, at least not for five years," and once the five years is over, I can guarantee you, member for Huron, whether you're here or not - you might give me a call five years hence to say: "You were right. We talked about this with the minister. The minister never mentioned privatization, but, member for Fort York, you were absolutely right. The agenda is about privatization."
That's what it is, and it's all premised on the whole point of lower aid, from the point that Ontario Hydro is broken, it needs to be decommissioned and that only through that kind of politics are we going to be able to see a better break for the consumers, so it's a question of whether you trust these people.
At the level of the environment, we worry. We believe this bill could leave the environment at risk. While the bill says that the minister may impose emission caps on outside generators, there is no guarantee that he will do so. Do I believe the minister when he proposes in the legislation that he may impose emission caps on outside generators? I do not. If he really believes in getting tough with polluters, why didn't he write into the bill the requirement for regulations that do just that? In my view, it looks like the air is going to get dirtier, not cleaner. Witness the number of people who are commenting on the government's history on the environment and the savage attacks on this government, including the federal Liberal government, with respect to environmental violations. The air is getting dirtier all the time.
These people decided to have the environment deregulated or, put differently, companies are regulating themselves. We are entrusting companies with our physical health, for them to do the right thing. Do you believe a company is going to regulate itself if it means that they are going to lose millions of dollars to clean up their own mess? They're not going to do it. They put our lives at risk. This government puts our health at risk by saying that companies can regulate themselves. That's wrong. It isn't just wrong; it's morally wrong.
1910
Our health is getting worse all the time, and my humble view, not being a doctor or anything of that sort, is that many of the cancers that we are experiencing are directly related to the pollutants that are coming out of thousands of our industrial plants across Ontario. My view is that most of the cancers we are experiencing are due to that.
Mrs Johns: It's in the bill.
Mr Marchese: No. In the bill it says, "The minister may put emission caps." That's what the bill says. Member for Huron, you speak to the "may" part of it. If you want to deal with the "may" part, change it and put it in the bill. Put in the bill that it will require regulations to do just that and put caps on emissions in the bill. I don't trust you at all. "You" I mean generally, generically, for the government, because I believe some of you are sincere in your individual efforts to do the right thing, I have no doubt about that. But what I am witnessing generically here - generally speaking, I haven't seen good things coming out of this government as they relate to the environment. That's why the attacks against you are scathing. You can dismiss it, as most of you do, as your ministers do, but you can't get away from it.
If the Liberals were there, those guys would be different, wouldn't you, member for Timiskaming? Because Liberals are better. They've got a heart, like Mr Chrétien at the federal level. They have a heart, not like the Tories: "We have a heart. We would be better." But they've got the same ugly record when it comes to the issues of environment. You guys and you guys are no different when it comes to these issues.
In a booming economy, the money is there to do the right thing on most issues as they relate to the environment, health and education, and you're squandering it away through your income tax cut, wasting it on people who don't need the money, in a healthy economy, both at the federal level with those Liberals and at the provincial level with you Conservatives squandering our money away, giving it to people who don't need it when it should be going to monitor the environment and spending on health. This bill forebodes privatization. Guaranteed, in my view, you will not see rates go down. Environment will be endangered by this type of bill. The stranded debt will be big. I will be paying it and most of the consumers will be paying it, and the big guys are going to get away with a whole big break.
I urge people watching to take a look at this bill, as the member for Huron says, and watch. Five years hence this will be privatized. That's their agenda.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Scarborough East.
Mr Gilchrist: Indeed, for the second time today, we have heard from the member for Fort York.
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Same speech.
Mr Gilchrist: It is more or less the same speech we heard earlier on a totally different motion, but of greatest concern -
Mr Guzzo: You can't do that in this House.
Mr Gilchrist: I have heard that. Of greatest concern is his suggestion that somehow there is a different approach being taken by our government compared to what was taken by his government vis-à-vis the protection for consumers. In fact, he suggested to the people watching tonight and to anyone who will be reading Hansard afterwards that under his government there was protection against prices going up.
I know it has been a while for the member, but let me take your mind back to the years immediately after your election. Let's start with 1990, where hydro rates went up 5.9%; in 1991, 8.6%; in 1992, the biggest one-year increase in hydro rates in the history of Ontario Hydro, almost a century of service, an 11.8% hydro rate increase; followed by a 7.9% increase in 1993. In fact, to give the member his due, having increased the cost of hydro rates by over one third in less than four years, they realized the error of their ways, and in 1994 they did freeze it for that last year. That also, you will recall, was the year they didn't bother having the House sit, and so there was no democratic input there, in very stark contrast to our five-year guaranteed freeze. Zero means zero, not a 33% increase.
Dealing with the facts I'm sure is a great frustration, but the fact of the matter is that the Hydro bill will lead to savings, dramatic savings.
Mr Miclash: Just a few comments on the comments made by the member for Fort York. We have already heard the rate hikes under his government brought back to his attention, in terms of the NDP government and the great number of rate hikes we had at that point.
As we heard earlier, the consumer out there is really concerned about what will happen in terms of the Hydro debt, the billions of dollars, in terms of we the ratepayers and we the residents of Ontario. People don't realize what $1 billion means to the entire province, to the entire population, to them individually. It's scary stuff, and there's some real concern about who will eventually pay.
I spoke earlier about rates in Ontario. It seems that we in northern Ontario are a little more concerned about any rates, because if they go up in southern Ontario, as we've seen with gas prices, we'll watch them skyrocket in northern Ontario. We've had our lesson in terms of gas prices, and we're certainly concerned about hydro rates under this bill.
The member talked a little about the $14 billion involved in terms of the Darlington nuclear power station. Again, some very large numbers, very hard numbers to realize, but who will pay?
The question of trust: Do we trust this government? As we've seen in other bills - the Lands for Life is a prime example - can we trust this government with anything, after we see the mess they've made with that legislation and what they've done for northwestern Ontario? It's a matter of trust. Do we really trust Mike Harris and this cabinet, this government, who try to ram everything through at every possible turn?
I commend the member for Fort York for his comments.
Mr Pouliot: I too enjoyed the comments from my friend and most distinguished and eloquent colleague the member for Fort York, warning us, cautioning the members that the pitfalls are many, reminding the members of this House and the general public that Ontario Hydro has a debt of $32 billion. Ontario Hydro is also right in your side pocket when it comes to the Canada pension plan; they have a debt approaching $3 billion.
Ontario Hydro is about to embark on an expenditure anywhere from $6 billion to $11 billion or $12 billion because the nuclear plants are not functioning very well. They need to be fixed. When all is said and done, you're looking at upwards of $40 billion.
Does the bill say that when you privatize or when you invite competition, hence lessening the ability of Ontario Hydro to pay its debt - who will pick up the bill? Would you buy a company with a $40-billion debt? What the government will do is pass that responsibility on to the taxpayers and tell us that in the future maintenance will be the same, and large projects will be capitalized by Tom, Dick and Harry Tory? It's not going to happen, because those people don't have the power of the purse to fund a project like Darlington up front, $14 billion. No one in the private sector will do this. It's not lucrative. They want a return on investment. The Tories are supposed to understand that. It's a sad state of affairs. We'll have an opportunity to go into some more detail.
1920
Mrs Johns: I'm losing a little faith. A couple of days ago the NDP said they were going to listen carefully to the debate and make a decision after debate, and I'm afraid right now that they're not moving towards seeing what a good bill this really is.
There are many pitfalls, no question, to changing Ontario Hydro, but maintaining the status quo and keeping Ontario Hydro the way it is, with the debt incurred every year, with all the problems it has, is craziness.
The main issue I got from the member for Fort York today was how upset he was with the people we were appointing to the board. I would just like to say, in the minute I have left, that he commented about us using board members who had expertise. I agree that previous governments did not look for expertise when they chose a Hydro board. I agree with that. When the NDP were in power, they appointed Michael Cassidy, who was a former provincial NDP leader and a federal MP, to the board. What expertise does he have in electricity, I ask you? Kealey Cummings they appointed to the board, the former national secretary of CUPE and an executive of the Ottawa Centre NDP. Elmer McVey is a prominent Canadian Labour Congress member and NDP member.
We're out there looking for expertise. We have brought to the board some people who have expertise that is unquestionable: We have brought Sir Graham Day to the board; we have brought someone from Laidlaw. When I sat in the select committee, I listened to Maurice Strong, who was appointed by the opposition.
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, you're disturbing the peace.
Mrs Johns: He made some costly -
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, en français, modérez vos transports.
Member for Fort York, you have two minutes to respond.
Mr Marchese: I want to remind the Tory members that Darlington began with the Tories and continued with my good buddies to the right here, the Liberals. It's a $14-billion problem. They started it by saying, "It's only a couple of billion; trust us," and continued it, and it later came to $14 billion. And when you get to the issue of disposing of the waste, the cost connected to disposing of the waste of that nuclear station, the cost to take it to space is going to be astronomical. The cost to dispose of it in the centre of the earth - astronomical. It's going to be with us forever. This is the serious cost we have to worry about.
In relation to rates, we started freezing the rates in 1994. Maybe the member for Huron didn't have enough time to check that, but we started doing that. The NDP did that, followed by the Tories, who kept the rates down.
We have a legacy, a history, of a Darlington problem, just to name one. We're still dealing with this legacy. But they would rather we forget that, because those are old days. Yes, they happened, costs are there, but there's nothing we could do. Now we've got to fix the problem so we have to decommission Hydro; we've got to privatize it.
They're bringing expertise, all right. Sir Graham Day has privatization expertise. That's why he's there. These people, whenever they appoint them, there's a reason. This is not just because he's a fine Conservative fellow but because he's an expert in privatization. That's why he's there.
I urge the public, on this particular issue, to give careful review of this bill, because rates will not go down, the environment will not be protected, the stranded debt is going to be huge and we are going to pay.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I'm especially honoured this evening to have the opportunity to say a few words relative to Bill 35, the Energy Competition Act. I'm not really planning so much to talk about the legislation itself. This is enabling legislation.
I am a little concerned, though, about all the negative discussions that have been taking place to date. I have yet to hear either of the opposition parties assess the situation presently with Ontario Hydro, assess the nerve and the courage that the chairman of Hydro and the Minister of Energy have to initiate change. I don't understand why you're so afraid of change, because it's been going on all our lives and it's going to continue to go on.
This evening I would like to spend the time I have talking about some of the history of Hydro as it was in earlier days. In the beginning, the responsibility for Ontario's electricity industry rested with the private sector. That probably shocks my colleague across the way, because he doesn't feel that that has ever been good or can take place in a positive manner. Going back to the 1880s, steam-driven generators were powering mills and lighting a few main Ontario streets. By 1890, most towns of 3,000 people or more had electricity provided by privately owned thermal-electric plants. Five years later, the Niagara River was harnessed for electric power at Niagara Falls, New York. That's the generating plant on the American side. This was the first major hydro-electric station and it started a new pattern for electric power in North America.
Many power leases were held by private utilities serving local areas, but hydro-electric power was limited to those who could afford it and service was unreliable. Public sentiment was growing for reliable, low-cost power, and for choice over who provided it. That, through this new legislation, is going to do exactly that: It's going to give the customer a choice of the source of supply.
In 1900, the Toronto Board of Trade stated that the Niagara River was the most economical source of power for Toronto, but there was the question of who should own and operate the transmission lines from Niagara. In 1902, 25 small businessmen and municipal representatives met at the Walper House in Kitchener where they discussed how to bring cheap, long-distance electric power from Niagara Falls to about a dozen municipalities in southern Ontario. The crusade was on to make public power serve the common man.
Around that time the Mackenzie syndicate, a private Toronto group, obtained a power franchise in 1903. Their goal was to control Toronto's electricity, as they controlled the Toronto Electric Power Co and the Toronto Street Railway, the biggest users of electricity in the province. The syndicate obtained an irrevocable franchise to generate electricity from Niagara Falls, for a yearly rental of $25,000.
Adam Beck, mayor of London and Conservative member of the Legislature, became an advocate of public power. A bill creating the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario received royal assent on May 14, 1906. Its mandate was to deliver power to its customers at cost. Just over 92 years ago, on June 7, Adam Beck was appointed as its first chairman. The commission was designed to provide Ontario's electric power needs in the most cost-effective way possible and to accomplish important public policy objectives such as industrial development and rural electrification.
Those are the objectives today. If we don't keep those things in mind, Ontario will not hold its place as an industrial province.
In the same year, the government introduced An Act to Provide for the Transmission of Electrical Power to Municipalities, legislation that enabled municipalities to buy power from the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario.
1930
It took Beck four years to get his first power line and eight years to acquire his first generator. In October 1910, Beck staged his first ceremonial switch-on of electricity in Kitchener, where it all began. As he flipped on the switch, the stadium was flooded with light, and lightbulbs in the street spelled out "Power for the People." Ontario had another chapter to add to its history books.
Electricity was new and a scientific wonder to people. You couldn't see it, smell it or touch it, but at the flip of a switch it was suddenly there to run machines, streetlights, move railway cars and do a thousand other useful jobs. A lot of people still today, when they flip the light switch, don't realize that they are connecting the circuit back to a generator and transmission line at some location.
I can recall back in 1947 or 1948, I think it was, the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, which was Ontario Hydro at the time, had promised the village of Elgin in South Crosby township power for Christmas. Between the weather and the road conditions and so on, time was sneaking away and Christmas was coming at us, so there was a lot of overtime and so on put in. The people who lived in the village had enough faith in the system that they had already gone out and bought appliances, stoves and fridges, and even Christmas tree lights. By the time we were ready to try it on Christmas Eve, the engineers had designed the circuits for general load and already, without much notice, we were picking up peak loads. You can imagine the embarrassment it was, but it was solved and at about 10 o'clock that night, on Christmas Eve, the village was lighted and the children were extremely happy to have actual Christmas lights on their trees.
At first, the Hydro-Electric Power Commission was the distributing agency for power purchased on behalf of the municipalities. Construction of a transmission system to distribute power began in 1909. Transmission lines ran from Niagara to Toronto and a dozen other municipalities in southern Ontario which had signed contracts with Hydro. The commission purchased power from the Ontario Power Co at Niagara Falls for distribution to the municipalities. At that time, the commission was in the transmission business only and did not own generation. During the early years, private enterprise continued to develop hydro-electric resources, but these were all later acquired as the commission extended electrical services to municipalities across the province. In 1917, the Hydro-Electric Power Commission purchased the Ontario Power Co plant at Niagara Falls, the source of its original power. This was followed in 1922 by the acquisition of the Toronto Power Co's plant at Niagara.
Of course, with the First World War, demand for power grew. As industry backed the war effort, the demand for electricity from Niagara tripled in four years. So Adam Beck sent engineers and surveyors into the Niagara Gorge to find a site for what would become the mightiest power station in the world. They found it on the rock face of Queenston Heights at Niagara Falls, and plans began for a large hydro-electric plant on the site.
It's interesting to note that because of the cost and the size of the project, the plan was put to a province-wide plebiscite and the voters approved. The commission did the construction itself. It took 2,000 men at an average of $35 a week just to dig the canal; they moved five times as much material as was used to build the Great Pyramid. Critics of the Hydro-Electric Power Commission said the utility's capital expansion plans would drag Ontario into a bottomless pit of debt, but it soon became apparent that the province's appetite for electricity was insatiable.
Beck died in 1925, leaving the commission the biggest power operation of its kind in the world, with the world's biggest hydro-electric station. He had started to fulfil his promise to bring electricity to the remote areas through subsidies for rural districts. You notice that the Minister of Energy has announced that this rural rate assistance will continue for electricity under the new act.
Even Sir Adam Beck at that time saw Niagara being fully developed. The next large site was the St Lawrence Seaway project, which of course was followed up after his time.
The commission eventually expanded north and built transmission lines through hundreds of miles of virgin forest to reach mines at Copper Cliff and Red Lake. These lines did not have the density of customers that we would be looking for in a business situation, but the desire to serve and the return in employment and development of the north made it worthwhile.
After the war, consumers wanted a different kind of electricity, because back in those days we had 25 cycle. You know what 25 cycle is: The light goes out 25 times a second, whereas on 60 cycle it goes on and off 60 times a second, which is not noticeable to the naked eye. In order to standardize it across the province, there was a major project taken on to standardize it all at 60 cycles.
I had the pleasure of working in St Catharines at the time and at Chats Falls on the Ottawa River. Chats Falls was 25 cycle and was the controlling station for the 25-cycle system, along with Queenston at Niagara. In the first job I had at St Catharines, at ND-21 and NF-23, we had the three cycles there to deal with. We had the 60 cycle, the 25 cycle, and we had a 66-2/3 cycle over at the steel plant in Hamilton, with one isolated feeder to feed that plant.
I could go on here but I know my colleague wants to share some time with me. I just want to say that the parties who are dwelling on something negative towards change, I wish they wouldn't do that. If they have an alternative to change, I'm very interested in hearing it, but I don't like to be put in a position to fear change. We must also recognize that the vision of the past has been fully realized and it's now time to take Ontario Hydro into a new century. It's time once again to blaze a new trail of success.
The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement that the member for Durham East share his time with the member? There was no request for it. Agreed? Agreed.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'm very pleased to make my small contribution to Bill 35, An Act to create jobs and protect consumers by promoting low-cost energy through competition, to protect the environment, to provide for pensions and to make related amendments to certain Acts - a very comprehensive piece of legislation.
You've got to recognize first that in my riding of Durham East - and I'm speaking perhaps for some of the members in Durham. There are two nuclear plants in Durham region. There's the plant in my riding, the Darlington plant, and in Minister Ecker's riding there's the Pickering nuclear plant. All of the residents in Durham region are very much concerned that we proceed with safety first. That's the most important thing.
How long has this discussion been going on? I have to look back. Recently I was a member of the select committee looking at Ontario Hydro Nuclear. That was an all-party committee that worked very hard, with the very respectable Mr Kwinter and Mr Conway from the opposition party and Mr Laughren from the third party. I would say it was a very amicable committee.
There were a series of recommendations from their report that I could share with the members here tonight. Those recommendations pretty reasonably expected that the government would move forward with a competitive model. I've prepared some notes on this and in the limited time I'll try to put them on the record.
1940
I've looked at several questions that I raised in the research. Restructuring in other jurisdictions is one issue. For example, England, Wales, Australia, Argentina and California have led the way. In fact this is not a new experience and other provinces such as Alberta and other areas in the United States are looking forward to forming new partnerships as well.
I must digress here for a moment and recognize that the licensing and regulating portion is not within provincial jurisdiction. The previous speakers I heard today mentioned Sir Adam Beck. That was the foundation of Ontario Hydro as a corporation. What we're talking about is not the federal regulatory jurisdiction area; we're talking about providing a framework for competition. In fact, the Macdonald report title was A Framework For Competition. I don't think it precedes this government. I think the Ontario Hydro board of directors has contemplated the need to look at itself and restructure it.
I think Maurice Strong, when he attempted to redesign a more competitive, more responsive Ontario Hydro, may have gone a bit too far. I read in the paper just this past week that they're now hiring back the very people they laid off. But the new team under the current chair, Mr Farlinger, has put safety first, and that's why they've shut down - in fact they've reduced the production of the nuclear facilities by some 22%.
Competition, I believe, will keep people's eye on the task at hand. With the Energy Competition Act, Ontario plans to create a competitive business climate that promotes job creation and investment through new technologies, new services and new ways of doing business, while protecting consumers and ensuring that electrical prices are as low as possible.
One of the members today spoke of the debt that Ontario Hydro has. I'm going to quote from the financial statement or the 1996 Annual Report of Ontario Hydro. Under footnote 19 it talks about stranded debt, industry changes and asset impairment. This is a very important part of a corporation that has not, to my understanding, been responsive to the need to restructure itself. In that footnote 19 in the 1996 report it clearly says:
"The Advisory Committee on Competition in Ontario's Electricity System (the Macdonald committee) was asked to make recommendations on options for introducing competition within Ontario's electricity industry. The Macdonald committee estimated that a $15-billion reduction in Hydro's existing debt would be required to restructure Hydro along more commercial lines and to offset unrecoverable assets. Ontario Hydro has carried out further analysis and has estimated that a debt level that is between $10 billion and $21 billion less than the current level would result in a more appropriate financial structure for the corporation...."
This is the 1996 report. It's a footnote on the financial statement, recognizing that perhaps somehow the industry overnuclearized the whole production capacity of Ontario Hydro. This framework and competition will allow for other producer groups to emerge to make competition work in favour of the consumer.
This government isn't stuck with their head in the sand, thinking that the Power Corporation Act is unamendable. This government has the courage to look at and salvage a very fine industry by putting in place the right leadership and the right legislation to make competition work for the people of Ontario.
I'm confident, after having sat for 11 weeks with the esteemed members of the committee, that safety is first and, in the restructuring, safety will be what the consumer gets.
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'm pleased to get up and comment on the two speeches within the shared time from the members for Lanark-Renfrew and Durham East. In particular, I'd like to comment on the very fine presentation by the member for Lanark-Renfrew, who really gave us a very full history of Ontario Hydro, a history that, until the last few years, we as Ontarians can all be proud of. Ontario Hydro was certainly a leader in the generation of hydro-electric power, for sure, in the world. Many other jurisdictions followed suit, especially with their capturing and harnessing of the tremendous power that we've been blessed with via Niagara Falls - not only a tremendous wonder of the world, but a tremendous source of power.
I think it is a compliment to Ontarians in the past too that we were the very first jurisdiction to understand that access to a utility such as electricity should be in the public domain and not in the private domain. That is something that Ontario, as the member pointed out, really realized back in 1906. It was a sharp contrast, and one of the many contrasts of why we are different from our neighbours to the south of us, in the United States of America. On some of these basic issues, very quickly after the discovery of these utilities we understood that it was in the people's best interests to have these remain in the public domain.
Times have changed and so has Hydro. I'm going to be the next speaker and I might save some of my remarks continuing on with the history of Hydro and why this change, which I don't think anybody in this House is afraid of, is necessary today. I'll get back to that when I stand up next.
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the remarks of the members for Lanark-Renfrew and Durham East. To the member for Lanark-Renfrew, very little criticism. Most of his speech was focused on the history of Hydro. The only thing he did accuse us of was that we were afraid of change. I just want to go on the record as saying to him that, quite the contrary, we embrace change so much that we're really looking forward to it in the next provincial election.
Aside from that, however, I would just like to say to him that I enjoyed his remarks. Obviously his 36 years at Hydro served him well in terms of commenting on this issue. The fact that at a moment's notice, in terms of me taking my place here in the House, he swung over and talked about Hamilton and referenced Stelco, I thought was a nice touch as well, confirming the personal knowledge he has. In that regard, I intend to clip out these Hansards and put them in my Hydro file and use them very much. If down the road anyone dares challenge any of those facts in terms of the history of Hydro, Leo, I intend to tell them that they came from no less an authority than yourself. I want to thank you for that. I enjoyed it.
In the remaining seconds I would only comment to the member for Durham East, because he didn't have long enough to get caught up in the normal twists and turns that he does, that I know that Floyd Laughren is watching this, given his new role. I'm sure that your mentioning how amicable things were would have him with about six one-liners that he wishes he were here to deliver. Knowing I couldn't meet those, I won't attempt to do it except to let you know that there are some really good one-liners awaiting you from the lips of Floyd Laughren.
Mrs Johns: I'd like to thank the member for Lanark-Renfrew for his talk. It was very informative to learn about the history of Hydro. I have been working with the member for Lanark-Renfrew recently on the Electricity Transition Committee. He's involved with a number of different stakeholders who come forward and talk and give direction to the government about where we should move in the future. As I have said earlier tonight and in previous discussions, we have been involved with a number of stakeholders and I think the member could tell you that there has been a great deal of consultation.
The member for Durham East has been involved in Hydro for a number of reasons: because he has one of the power plants in his riding, but also because he was involved in the select committee. At that time he heard about changes that needed to happen as a result of the past history of Ontario Hydro, back through the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and the early 1990s. There needs to be change to be able to make Hydro go into the future.
1950
They have lots of opportunities there. They have a wonderful chairman, by the name of Bill Farlinger, who works hard to make sure that we move forward into the new century and that the new company is able to compete. He has worked very hard with the government to ensure that Genco and Servco, the new companies, will be viable. We also have a new president, by the name of Ron Osborne, who has come from Bell, and before that from Maclean-Hunter. Both of those men bring a great deal of business experience. I believe they are prepared to work with Ontario Hydro's successor companies and to ensure that these companies are well run, that in the future they're able to compete and that the mistakes of the past will not be made in the future. I'm very optimistic and I'd like to thank my colleagues for their comments today.
Mr Miclash: I too would like to just comment on the remarks made by the member for Lanark-Renfrew and thank him for the history. As the member for Hamilton Centre has indicated, these two will be in my portfolio when I go into the next all-members' debate on Ontario Hydro. He's given us some very good facts, not only about the history of Hydro but also his personal involvement, which I think is important to know. He talks about Niagara Falls and the Christmas lights coming on and all that kind of stuff.
But I think what the folks out there today who are watching this right now are really concerned about of course is the future. The member mentioned Red Lake. Yes, there is a great amount of industrial growth in terms of mining and activity around the mining in Red Lake, but I can't tell you how worried industry is when it comes to what the hydro rates are going to do to them, whether it be mining in Red Lake, as the member has indicated, whether it be the forestry industry, the pulp and paper mills that we so much depend on in northern Ontario, or whether it be the regular consumer out there - all a great amount of concern.
We talk about trusting the government when it comes to a bill like Bill 35. I can only go back to many areas where we haven't been able to trust this Premier, this government. Again, it creates a little bit of anxiety among not only the major industries, the major shareholders in terms of industry in the northwest, but the consumer out there as well.
Again, I thank the member for the past, but I must assure him that the thing I hear about when I speak about Ontario Hydro to any constituents is certainly the future and what the future will bring when we look at hydro in the northwest.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Lanark-Renfrew, you have two minutes.
Mr Jordan: I would like to thank all my colleagues for their very positive and kind comments. Relative to the history of Hydro, it's something that all of us in Ontario can be very proud of over the years. Something I'd like to point out on Bill 35 is that the agreement that we have across the province is also relative to municipal electric utilities, the Power Workers' Union, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and large industry. People generally are looking forward to choice of supply.
I want to especially thank my colleague the member for Durham East for his contribution. As you know, he was a member of the Hydro select committee examining the problems for nuclear energy in Ontario, and of course his is one of the ridings with a nuclear plant located in it.
I want to especially thank the member for Hamilton Centre for his kind remarks and his positive approach when I said that they fear change and he said that maybe we also should be fearing the change that's coming. I guess they have already experienced it, but that's part of being here. We have to be ready for change.
The member for Timiskaming, thank you very much, and the member for Kenora.
Mr Speaker, from here I would say, with the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy, that this bill is going to go forward with good discussion and certainly a positive end.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Ramsay: I'm pleased to be able to take my turn in rotation to speak on Bill 35, which really does open up competition in the generation of hydro power in Ontario. It is called the Energy Competition Act. Contrary to what has been said, I don't think there is that much opposition to this bill in this House. We certainly, and I personally, embrace the opening up for competition of hydro generation in this province. In fact, over the years, working in my northern Ontario riding of Timiskaming, constituents who wished to build very small hydro generating systems using the power that is available in very small rivers without having to dam up that waterway in any way that is very destructive to the land have been frustrated by Hydro's unwillingness to embrace other and smaller forms of hydro generation. Really over the years, especially the last 40 years, they have bought almost totally into nuclear power generation and ignored many of the alternatives, not as the one big answer versus nuclear power, but as supplementing the way Hydro could supply and generate power to Ontario.
I've always thought that was a shame, but this act will correct that when Ontario Hydro is broken up into two corporations, one being entrusted with the supply of power and the other with the transmission of power. The generating company, Genco, will not only be able to purchase power from the Ontario-owned generating assets that will become part of that company, but will also be able to consider bids, applications, from other power generators from outside the province that would transmit power into the province, or other entities like some of the constituents I've represented in the past who would like to open and operate their own generating systems within the province. Genco would, at a competitive rate through market forces, be forced to consider purchasing that power and putting it into the grid system. That's an excellent change and something that is needed.
I forgot to mention to the member for Lanark-Renfrew when he mentioned 25-cycle power that it's very interesting that up until two years ago the very last hydro line in Ontario that had 25-cycle power ran from Timmins to Virginiatown, Ontario, where there was a gold mine. That gold mine was in existence for over 60 years and all of its equipment underground ran on 25-cycle power. As long as that mine was viable, Hydro had been forced to supply that 25-cycle power to that mine. I see the member is there. I'm referring to the Kerr Addison mine in Virginiatown and talking about the very last 25-cycle line that was in existence up until about two years ago. Unfortunately, different events conspired to put that mine to an end, but it had 60 very good years and, as I said, ran on 25-cycle power.
We embrace this change because, from the very glowing history that the previous speaker gave about Hydro, in that last 40 years, like many other very big corporations, it became a monolith. I suppose "monolith" in this case is probably a very nice way of saying a monster, because that's what it became. It became a monster but it became a kind of a multi-headed monster. The nuclear head was extremely powerful and tended to dominate the rest of the body of that monster. In fact, when many members have talked about the investment into Darlington, that nuclear monster of Hydro was so powerful that it would intimidate governments into the belief that they had to continue to support the investment to build the Darlington nuclear generation system. While, "Yes, we've spent maybe $2 billion to $3 billion at this one particular point in time and we have to spend some more," which eventually I think came to over $12 billion to build Darlington, the threat always was there, and not just so veiled, that you certainly wouldn't want to be the government responsible for having the lights shut off in Ontario. Of course, no government would want to be responsible for that, and Hydro became almost a threatening monster to whatever government of whatever stripe came into being in Ontario.
2000
I guess what has really brought all this to a head is Hydro's inability to manage that nuclear monster. Unfortunately, they let their ability to manage, to train their employees properly, to supervise the management and maintenance of those nuclear plants properly, slip. Where we were really a world-class entity when it came to those things, we let it slip. That was wrong, and it has brought us into the mess we're in today. We have tremendous debt now in trying to refurbish those plants, many of which are closed today and many of which may never reopen again.
I hope that through this reorganization the old entity of Ontario Hydro will be able to reorganize itself, through this act, that it will be able to build anew, with a fresh start, as it did in 1906 with Adam Beck, when he had that dream of a publicly owned power utility in this province. It was a tremendous dream, and the dream really is still alive. Even though we have competition, this formula captures a unique combination of a public utility owned by the people of Ontario while at the same time allowing some competition to enter the system so that Ontarians can be assured - and I hope they will be assured - of the cheapest possible power available.
In all the deliberations here in this House, we have not had a commitment from the Minister of Energy, Jim Wilson, that we will get the cheapest power available in the country. Up until a few years ago, that was always the case in Ontario. Ontario led the way in North America of the cheapest power. That has not been the case over the last few years, and I hope that through this needed reorganization we will get back to Ontario being a leader in providing clean, low-cost electrical power.
Today, "clean" is an operative word. We have to ensure that we don't just go for the very cheapest power source, which might be coal, for example, which can be, if it's unscrubbed, through the chimney system, one of the dirtiest sources of power available. As previous members have said tonight, our air has been getting dirtier over the years, and we cannot let this new entity produce power at any cost. That would be wrong, and it's going to be important for Genco, the new generating entity, to ensure that all suppliers to that generating arm of Hydro supply power not only at the very best cost but by using the very cleanest method of producing that power.
In fact, I would say that if it came down to a choice between cost and the cleanliness of producing it, we have to err on the side of the environment and ensure that we are producing power in the cleanest way possible. That has to be done. Next, though, it has to be the most economical way of producing it, for sure.
I wish the minister well with this, and the new entities, as this bill goes through. I know the present chair of Hydro is preparing his corporation for that split. From that will be formed the two agencies within those companies.
The one agency we look at with much curiosity is the agency that is going to take the debt, and that will be the Ontario Hydro Financial Corp. That poor little company - that's not a company I'd like to be part of - will inherit a $32-billion debt. That is going to be a problem, and we haven't seen the hocus-pocus magic yet from this government as to how we are going to be able to manage that debt, let alone try to pay that down, without increasing the cost of power to the users in Ontario. That is going to be the big trick here. That will be the sleight-of-hand they'll have to do. That will be the magician's trick that will have to occur, the smoke and mirrors, if you will.
We're all going to be watching that, because ultimately all of us as Ontarians are responsible for that $32-billion debt, just as we are responsible for the government's debt. Over the years the government of Ontario, all governments, has guaranteed that debt of Ontario Hydro. It's now going to be called an orphan debt. It now will be transferred to this company, yet we are all responsible for it. That is still an answer we're waiting for from this government, as to how that debt is to be managed. It must be managed if Ontario is to be a world leader with clean and cheap power.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Comments and questions?
Mr Christopherson: I'm pleased to rise and comment on the remarks by the member for Timiskaming. I jotted it down while he talked about the cheapest power, that that was always one of our strengths, as it should be, given the ability to produce hydro-electric power. But when he talked about the cheapest power, meaning of course the cheapest rates - he mentioned it later on in his comments, but I think the two are directly linked; I don't think it ought to just follow in a speech one after the other - the stranded debt and how much of it becomes stranded debt and who pays for it has as much to do with factoring in the cost of hydro as the actual bills that are sent out by the new entities. Obviously, the stranded debt that is kept on by the new corporations is going to be factored into their costs, which would somewhat inhibit the ability to have the cheapest rates based on pure production costs.
On the other hand, if it's offloaded and it no longer appears on the books of the new corporation, I grant you, the bills every month won't have that factored in, but we as Ontarians will be paying that somewhere else. Given the fact that the amount of debt has not been identified and that the minister has incredible unilateral power - ironically, to use a pun - to decide how much and who gets it, we, in scrutinizing this bill, need to be very focused on what happens to this stranded debt as it relates to what the costs are going to be for power for consumers, because consumers and taxpayers, vis-à-vis Hydro, are indeed one and the same.
Mr O'Toole: I'm pleased to respond to the member for Timiskaming. I'd like to include a couple of remarks with respect to safety. I think it's very important to my constituents, as it is to all of our constituents. On the nuclear side, two thirds of the electrical production is from nuclear. In the last year, there has been a decline of some 22%. You have to recognize the quick action of the board of directors under Farlinger to bring in the integrated independent performance assessment team to look at the decline in the production capabilities. As you know, they came up with the nuclear asset optimization plan, called NAOP, where money was set aside to bring the operations up to a higher standard of performance. In the interest of the investment, they have actually shut down the B station at Pickering as well as the A station at the Bruce site.
I still want to remain committed to saying that this restructuring is not just an issue of nuclear; it's an issue of the proper utilization of all the assets and investments. After all, that debt load, that $30-billion debt they have, is shouldered by every Ontario citizen. We heard during those public consultations that there are other modes of production, as the member for Timiskaming has mentioned, whether it's wind, gas-fired plants or indeed selling our excess capacity, at certain grid times, to other parts of North America. In an open economy, there are a lot of choices for Ontario Hydro, as well as the generation side, to include many more options for production. That's what we heard during the public hearings process. Thank you for the remarks, to the member for Timiskaming.
Mr Miclash: I have just a few comments about the remarks made by the member for Timiskaming. He talked about competition in the area of hydro. Throughout the northwest and particularly in the far north, there are communities that are certainly looking forward to the development of small hydro-electric plants, I guess you would call them. A good number of them are presently on diesel generation, and I'm talking about the remote ones, and they depend at the present time on the Ontario Hydro system. Sometimes that can become fairly frustrating for them. The member for Timiskaming made a good point in terms of bringing these communities forward, off diesel generation, and the development of their systems, where they could possibly put something back into the grid as well.
2010
He talked a little about Genco and what's going to happen in terms of the purchase of the grid system. I think there is a great amount of fear out there. People are anxious about the fact that they, as the taxpayers and citizens of Ontario, are responsible for what we're calling an orphan debt, some $32 billion. The taxpayers are quite concerned about that. We come back to the issue of trust: Can we trust this government to handle that properly in Bill 35, and how we can actually move forward with that? I compare it to a good many parts of legislation we've seen from this government already. In the northwest, their track record is not good when it comes to trust. We have to talk about the Lands for Life and compare this to that process. There is absolutely no trust. It gives me a little bit of anxiety as well.
Mr Marchese: I'm happy to see the member for Timiskaming as sanguine as he is. He obviously has a great deal of faith that this can be pulled off relatively well and for the benefit of the consumers, or at least he hopes. I don't have the same hope or trust. I believe there is an underlying problem behind all of this. He believes that competition is going to be good, in his mind, that the market forces will take over and rates will go down, but that, in my view, is only a hope. I don't believe it goes beyond hope. I believe this is a fundamental problem.
If we're going to see competition in hydro rates as we see the competition in mortgage rates, he's not going to get a break and neither are his northern friends. The mortgage rates, some people might argue, are very competitive. Well, they're all the same. It doesn't mean that if you bring another 10 banks into Canada you're going to get better, competitive rates. I argue that you're not going to get it. This competition is not necessarily going to give you, in and of itself, lower rates. In fact, this competition could very well bring in environmental risks that I talked about earlier. While the bill says the minister may impose emission caps on outside generators, there is no guarantee that he will do so. My view is that competition won't bring rates down, but it will bring in cheap coal and therefore great environmental disasters for us.
By the way, I have no faith; maybe the member for Timiskaming does. I think hydro rates in the north are going to skyrocket. I believe we are controlling rates at the moment through the system we've got. Once you break it open, I'm not sure you're going to have the same protections. We see some smug Liberal faces on the other side. Maybe they believe it. Let's look to it and see if it happens.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Timiskaming has two minutes to respond.
Mr Ramsay: I'd like to thank all the members who commented on my speech. In closing, I would like to comment on the very issue that the member just talked about; that is, rural rates. Representing a northern riding and a predominantly rural riding, the rural rate structure of Ontario Hydro is extremely important, as it is to many members of this House.
We have to realize that the second-largest industry in this province is the agrifood industry. It is extremely reliant upon good, clean electrical power at a good cost. That's very important. The rural rate structure is extremely important for the viability of rural economic development and our agricultural community. That is something we have had some assurances from the minister on, and we will certainly hold him to that, that the rural rate structure is there for not only the north but southwestern Ontario, eastern Ontario, all of rural Ontario. Rather than fearmonger, I guess we'll have to wait and take the minister at his word.
We'll certainly keep him to his word that it is going to be there, because it's extremely important. It's an equalization of power rates, if you will, within this province that gives rural and northern people a bit of a competitive advantage, puts us on a level playing field with other parts of the province when it comes to access to electrical energy. While we strive for new developments, having that ability to access electrical power at a very good competitive rate means that whether you're in the east or the southwest or the north, you would be able to develop that agricultural industry or that sawmill or that mine or that mill processing the minerals of that mine. That will be there because you have access to cheap energy. That's going to be very important. All of us in this House, especially from this side and especially those who represent rural ridings, will certainly be watching this government to make sure those rural rates are low.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Pouliot: Of course we support competition. The New Democratic Party has long recognized that the essence of our system is based on competition. One only need visit any marketplace to readily agree with competition. But we don't support competition at any cost. There are some conditions, some checkmarks that you must adhere to, that must be examined in closer scrutiny.
Competition in terms of Ontario Hydro needed to be done; make no mistake about it. I for one and we as a party support competition at Ontario Hydro. But our anxiety is most legitimate, because when you buy a corporation, you get the assets and you also get the liability. When we look at the liabilities of the said Ontario Hydro, they're very much in debt. In fact, they've exhausted almost every possibility of borrowing. The debt is $32 billion, if you can comprehend such a vast sum. On top of that, when it costs them more to borrow, Ontario Hydro turns around and borrows from your Canada pension plan. They owe the Canada pension plan C$2.747 billion, and in US dollars another $137 million. Some of the members opposite are saying, "Who's going to pay for the debt?" Ontarians will.
Ontario Hydro is independent. The debt is backed by the province of Ontario, but it is a separate entity. It does not, except by some statutes, answer to the province of Ontario. But since the debt is so massive, they need the broad shoulders of all Ontarians to tap capital markets.
When I look at the Ontario debt - this is the budget book, page 118, 1990. You will recall, perhaps somewhat vividly if you followed politics in 1990, that the Ontario debt was $39 billion. It was $89 billion in 1995, and then on June 8 - remember the ill-fated day, the day that will go down in history, when a revolution started in this very province? Who would have thought? I didn't expect a revolution of such magnitude to take place. But they placed ads in the papers and some of them answered the ads, and they hung on and coat-tailed the top guy, the Premier, and a few members of his entourage, and by a stroke of political good fortune for them, they found themselves right here at Queen's Park. We welcomed them. They still had this little manifesto. At first I thought it was a blue version of Mao's red book, but for those people Maoists are to be found only in Maui, so there is no fear.
They had this little revolutionary document. It talked about the NDP debt; it talked about what the Progressive Conservative reform was going to do in the next four or five years of their mandate. At every move they were applauded by all the backbenchers. There was only one train leaving the station then, and the spear carriers, the foot soldiers, were right on the platform, supporting the driver, the engineer. They were going to put things in good order. I can assure you, there is no such thing with these people. They can run a boutique, they can run a shop. Let me tell you: in 1995 debt $89 billion; in 1999 it will be $110 billion - four years after. What gives?
Mr Christopherson: It can't be. You must be reading it wrong. Is that the government book?
2020
Mr Pouliot: It comes from the Office of the Premier, the Minister of Finance. On top of that, they're not counting the debt of Ontario Hydro. Ontario Hydro owes $32 billion, plus it's going to cost them another $10 billion to overhaul Hydro; it costs a lot of money to repair their nuclear plants.
Now they're saying, "We want some competition to give you cheaper rates." Ontario Hydro is saying, not too loudly because they have to abide by the marching orders, "How will we be able to pay our debt as a private entity, supposedly separate from government, if you don't give us the ability to make a profit?" Their mandate is to produce electricity at cost; at a reasonable price and at cost. "At cost" means including factoring in the debt; that's part of the cost.
We've talked about the government's inability to balance the books. They are saying right here that they will go from $89 billion to $115 billion. We know that Ontario Hydro will add possibly another $10 billion within three or four years to that debt.
Keep watching the coupons; you know, when you watch the financial paper? A friend of mine in Manitouwadge reads financial papers at least three times a week. We go for a coffee and he tells me, "Look at these" - he calls them coupons; I guess they're the bonds and debentures. There are the federal ones. He won't mind me saying this. Harry is not a very exciting fellow, but I'll say something about Harry: He knows debentures, he knows bonds, he knows debt, because he partly makes a living at it. Mark my words, they will have to increase the dividend. In other words, because they are a higher risk, because of the massive debt and their inability in a competitive marketplace to raise more money, unless they wish to raise electricity rates, they will have to pay an eighth, sometimes a quarter on long-term bonds. A quarter of a percentage point is not much, but you multiply over 30 years and the dollars start to mount. When you're talking about long-term massive debt, it means, if I may be so bold, one heck of a difference.
I believed, because they said so, that they would bring an uncanny ability to cut, cut, cut. It's the fourth year of their mandate and they have a $4.8-billion to $5.1-billion deficit, depending where you look for the accounts. I'm very disappointed in the government in terms of fiscality, that they are not capable, in times of unprecedented prosperity - my friend Harry tells me that this is the longest bull market ever. He tells me, "Gilles, a bull market is when things go up." The price of commodities is in the dumps a bit but manufacturing is doing very well. Cars are selling very well. You go to Wal-Mart or you go to Canadian Tire and you trip over one another. I know, because Harry also says, "Be careful, because consumer debt is also at an all-time high and consumer saving is at an all-time low." You've got to blend all this.
But when you talk about Ontario Hydro, there is no guarantee that the new kid on the block will put money forward to fund massive projects. Remember those days of the ice storm? Eastern Ontario was massively impacted. Would a private entrepreneur render the same service in Ottawa and other fine places in Ontario? I don't think so, because the bottom line is that it's profit-motivated.
We have nothing against profit. We encourage profit. We applaud when people do well, because communities do equally well. But there are many questions that need to be examined, need to be answered. It's a big boat. It's not that simple.
What about the environment, Speaker? Were you outside today? It's muggy. Some people can hardly breathe, they have to stay indoors, because the humidex reading at 3 o'clock reached 38 degrees. It might make it worse.
The Acting Speaker: Comments and questions?
Mrs Johns: I'm going to leave it to one of my colleagues to talk about the creative accounting that was being done by the member for Lake Nipigon. I would like to remind him, though, that he lives in Canada and it's Revenue Canada as opposed to the IRS.
What's important to recognize is that when we're talking about Ontario Hydro and the change that is going to go on, what happens right now is that Ontario Hydro already has this debt. Through years of mismanagement and change and just from doing things very differently, it is $32 billion in debt. As it is right now, ratepayers in the province pay money to Ontario Hydro and Ontario Hydro pays back some of that debt every year. Last year they paid back $600 million. They will continue to do that for the ensuing two years. Debt is being paid down now, and it will be paid down after we go through the process.
What's going to happen, as outlined in sections 51 through 81 of the act, is that all the assets and liabilities will come out of Ontario Hydro and they will go into this financial holding company. The assets will be valued for Genco and Servco, and liabilities will be associated with those debts that are fair and reasonable for them to carry. Admittedly, there will be some debt that isn't covered by assets, and we will have to pick that up through a number of different charges, and the government has outlined these charges in the book. We will continue, though, to pay off the debt as we have in the past. This should not lead to an increase in hydro rates. We're paying off $600 million now and we will continue to pay off millions of dollars in the future.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'd like to thank the member for Lake Nipigon for his very informative words. Although he didn't really stick to the issue, to Bill 35, I think he did so in his very unique and informative way. Really, what he talked about was the revolution and the reforms in the revolution, how the revolution affected the Conservative ideas and how the Conservative ideas became Reform's. Some people would call them the Reformers as opposed to the revolutionaries.
What the member for Lake Nipigon was trying to say was that his friend Harry put up lots of flags for us to be aware of. Harry sees a lot more in this than maybe we in the House or the average Ontarian, and Harry is concerned about what is going to take place with Bill 35. What the member for Lake Nipigon warned us about is that we have to be careful that we manage the rates effectively, that there is a competitive marker.
More than markers, we have to be aware: What exactly is the direction of the government? How are we going to ensure that the environment is protected? I think that's one of the roadblocks that may be down there, that we may be very concerned about in the future.
He was also saying that it's time the revolution slowed down; it's time we evaluated the harm the government has done. It may be the time that we sit back and ask, is the change in the best interests of Ontarians? Bill 35 has the opportunity to be a very effective change, but the member is saying that you have to manage it very carefully.
2030
Mr Christopherson: I would also like to commend my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon, and of course his good friend Harry for the sage advice he has given him and that he, in due course, was able to relay to all of us here.
I noted that my colleague, in referring to Hydro, at one point said that Hydro is a big boat. I immediately thought yes, I know the story about another big boat that people thought couldn't get into serious trouble in any way, shape or form. We know how that ended up.
I thought it was also very instructive to have the member point out that the provincial debt, for all the government's tub-thumping about the number, at the point that the NDP finished our term in office, being $89 billion, a very significant number, by the end of this government's term the amount will be $115 billion. I realize that members will stand up and say that there were built-in cost accelerators that would have made it even higher, and I grant you it would have been higher, but people need to take a look at what is happening to the health care system, the education system, the social services system, our municipal government system and all the pain that the average, middle-class, working family have gone through as a result of this government's agenda and the $5 billion-plus they have given to their corporate friends. How comfortable does the average citizen feel that this government will be fair in dealing with the $32-billion outstanding debt? How fair are they going to be, given their track record?
Mr Gilchrist: I don't think we need any lectures from any of the members opposite on the subject of debt. They wrote the book, they wrote the sequel, and they've got the film rights.
The bottom line here, as much as the member for Lake Nipigon would like to suggest otherwise, is that the debt exists today as a result of decisions made by his government, the Liberal government, and yes, former PC governments. It is a reality that we must confront, and as the member knows, it's one of the main inspirations for why we're moving forward in restructuring the energy industry.
How anyone could accept that the status quo somehow is a protection against the initiatives we're making here is just incredible. I guess the member opposite would have us see more debt pile on. You're not satisfied with $32 billion, just as you weren't satisfied with $100-billion debt in the general accounts. The reality is that we inherited from you an economic engine that was stalled. Not only was the engine not running; you had sabotaged the works. It has taken a lot of tinkering, a lot of repairs, to get that engine running again.
The economy is booming, something you hate to see, but the economy is booming. We believe the same turnaround management can be applied to Ontario Hydro.
While your government was adding one third to the cost of hydro rates, one third just in the first three and a half years of your mandate, you were also adding staggering debt. Privatization ultimately perhaps, but in the meantime we don't even need that. A new management style is precisely what's needed to guarantee no supplementary debt.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Lake Nipigon has two minutes to respond.
Mr Pouliot: Thank you for the warm response, members for Scarborough East, Hamilton Centre, Sudbury and my good friend and colleague the member for Huron, who said that I, inadvertently perhaps, indulged in creative financing. Oh, there's no such thing. This is a very massive debt, and it's illustrated in the document, the budget book: $89 billion when they took over and now it's $115 billion.
This year is their fourth year of office. Last month they came up with this document, $5 billion, but they also had a tax cut of $5 billion when fully implemented. I say very simply to the government - it's my recommendation, and we're here to help you - why don't you take that $5 billion and pay your debt, and then, with surpluses, you can reward Ontarians. But what you did is you went the other way. You imposed a tax cut, which is not fair for the less fortunate or for the middle class, but it benefits greatly those who need it less. It's a choice they made and they did so at their own peril.
I would like to kindly remind the member for Huron that when you form a holding company, you transfer the debt from the guarantee of the province, still the guarantee, and then you go to a holding company.
It reminds me of what happened in England. It was funded on the FTSE. That's where it was floated, on the London exchange. So what's the difference between a debenture or shares or preferred shares?
Interjection.
Mr Pouliot: It's the same thing, Madam. The thing is, you cannot hide $32 billion worth of debt. It's not in your fantasy. It's $32 billion, which is real, and Ontarians will be left holding the bag, which is most unfortunate.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Rollins: It's a great privilege to speak on Bill 35 today. I think we need to go back in time a little bit to see where we started out with Ontario Hydro. I can remember as a young boy going out to the farm and plowing matches. Ontario Hydro had their huge trailers out there and wanted to make sure that you used the hydro: "It's yours, use it. It's reasonable. It's not highly expensive." It worked out very well.
I can well remember, in the rural riding that I represent now, new lines being put in, new buildings being wired. I remember going into some buildings that had coal oil lanterns in them, and they weren't hunting camps; and barns the same way.
Hydro has progressed, but one thing that progressed a lot faster was our debt. The debt all of a sudden ballooned out of control. That has caused us a lot of problems.
I know in the riding of Quinte, the Trent River used to provide a lot of power. It's very fine and free to the environment. It's water power, water turbines. I know we have three or four people who have bought up property on that river and are only waiting to see this bill passed and put through so they can start to develop and build and put that power in our lines and put it out to the community. When those people invest - and that's private money that can generate off that river. I know the Trent River at times, in the spring, has an extremely heavy flow of water and in the summertime it drops down like all the rest, but it still generates a lot of power.
In my riding we have two paper mills that work on the Trent system and they have turbines relatively close to their power. We have a couple of villages and cities further up the Trent that generate their own power. I think when this bill comes into play, this is something we'll be able to allow those people to develop.
I know they worry about the stranded debt, but with every kilowatt that is put through those power lines, a portion of that will be put towards our debt. I think most of us will live long enough to see that debt paid off. I know the opposition party over here thinks that will never happen, but in other jurisdictions around the world, for example, in England, Wales, Australia, Argentina and even in California - and I think some of my good friends across the way might have slipped down to California at one time or another.
The member for Lake Nipigon spoke about Harry, that he had a lot of things. I don't know whether he was referring to Harry Rosen or Harry the stockbroker. I'm not too sure which he was talking to.
Interjection: He deals with them both.
Mr Rollins: He has a lot of dealings with both. Maybe one has a better rapport than the other, I'm not sure, but I know there are other jurisdictions in the world that have that kind of competition. Other provinces such as Alberta have opened up the market. It is widely accepted in the essential services to deliver safe, reliable electricity, with many partners in the business. I think that's a very great opportunity.
New opportunities will emerge in the North American electrical industry, changes from monopoly-based to one of competition. Evidence shows that electricity restructuring bring many positive benefits, including - and listen to this - a fair price based on competition in a market that's open to many buyers and sellers.
As a buyer, whether you're buying clothes or whether you're buying electricity, I think it's important to you to have that opportunity to be able to buy where you see fit. We have never had that opportunity with Ontario Hydro. They have had a monopoly. We haven't had the privilege of asking somebody else whether we can buy it cheaper, because if you want hydro, you've got one choice. I guess you could produce a little bit of your own if you had a big enough windmill on top of your house or if you had a little generator out behind the garage or something along that line, but it's a pretty minimal amount of power that you can do other than buy it from Ontario Hydro.
2040
It's a greater choice for the customers. They may be able to buy it from somebody producing hydro in California, and you can buy it here in Toronto, you can buy it in Orillia and you might even be able to buy it up in Lake Nipigon; the opportunity to buy that at a better price.
Yes, we've had five years of frozen rates and it stayed very steady, and we want to continue that. The potential for the system widely improves the safety and the reliability of environmental protection. I know and you know that there's a lot of water supply in this province that can be put to good use as far as turning turbines and it doesn't hurt the environment. It's one of the friendliest things we have. We always have to worry about the fish, but that can be looked after.
There's more efficient distribution of electricity, a more businesslike approach to the system, planning and investments, a better overall balance between supply and demand, and improvement to the overall financial health of the system.
With the Energy Competition Act, Ontario plans to create a competitive business climate that promotes jobs. I know that's a hard thing for you people to hear, "to promote jobs," but with building a few new turbines and creating a few new jobs, these people might even come to work some day. When they're going to work, using a little bit of electricity, getting paid for it, the other thing they do is pay taxes. Those are the things we need to have to put us into the right kind of position so that we can continue to pay down that debt that we inherited.
For example, in New South Wales, Australia, with consumer choice - and they only started it in 1996; I think some of you people can remember back as far as 1996 - they've experienced a 20% to 40% saving already since 1996 because they have choice. If it works in Australia, it might even work someplace else called Canada and it might even work someplace else called Ontario. My goodness, it might even work in downtown Toronto. They might even get a little bit better rate than they have.
In Victoria, Australia, in 1993, there was a major investment of US$18 billion, with a 6% decline in customer prices. Those are the kinds of things you can read about.
You sit over there all day long and keep saying, "It's never seen any place else." I don't know what pail you're looking into, but it would be nice to take the lid off another bucket, take a look in and see that something is working someplace else in the world, because it is.
You talked about England a few minutes ago. In England and Wales, legislation took effect in 1990 and residential prices fell by 15%. I don't know about you, but I would call 15% off my Hydro bill a win. I would call that pretty near a raise in pay.
In Argentina in 1992 there was foreign investment; four new generators in 1993. Wholesale prices eventually fell by 60% and then stabilized at 40% below former prices. These are facts. An estimated US$7 billion is expected to be invested in the industry between 1996 and 2001 in Argentina.
If Argentina can get American dollars into their investment market, why can't we in Ontario generate the same kind of climate with the same kind of payback so that we can suffer from that terrible thing: a decrease in the cost of electricity? I don't know whether Harry down there at the stock market or Harry at the clothes market can handle that decrease, but I know there are lots of rural people in Ontario who can handle that kind of decrease.
Mr Pouliot: Go to Quebec and see how it's done.
Mr Rollins: They say, "Go to Quebec." Quebec has their problems but Quebec has a pile of hydro that's being produced off that water. We don't have the pleasure of having quite such a big river running down through the middle of our province as Quebec has. However, that hydro can come on the open market and maybe some little town like Belleville or Ottawa wants to be able to buy that power from Quebec at a lot cheaper price and put it into the system. It might just happen to be a little bit of winner for us here in our town. We need to worry about putting the price down and making sure that price stays low.
When we look at all these other places around the world that have put some effort into opening up the market, into improvements for hydro users, regardless of where they are in the world, that only happened to do one thing: It was to see a little bit of a decrease in the hydro bill.
We all agree that we need flexibility. We need to have the laws in position so we can have that choice, to be able to pick up the phone and sign a contract with somebody who can produce that power. We need to have it guaranteed. We need to have some positions put in that we can guarantee that we're never without hydro. But it doesn't stop anybody else from producing it around the world or any place that we can hook up with here. Please give us that choice.
The Acting Speaker: Comments and questions?
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to congratulate my friend and neighbour from South Hastings on quite a good speech. He is, as always, a very practical man about these matters and he certainly raised a lot of quite good observations, although I did think he spent - I wasn't able to hear the entire speech, but I heard a good bit of it. He was quite enthusiastic in cheering the sunrise. I don't really gather that the sunrise is a matter about which there is much dispute or about which there is a great complaint.
Mr Gilchrist: I'll give you half a chance.
Mr Conway: There's my friend, the redoubtable member for Scarborough East. He's more compelling on the subject of public morality in election campaigns, but that's another subject.
I just want to say to the member from South Hastings that I think there is support on all sides about competition, particularly in generation. Ontario Hydro came to have a near monopoly on that front and that did not serve the province well. The concern that many of his constituents in rural Hastings have, as they would have in much of rural eastern Ontario, is, will the benefits accrue as completely and as quickly to Main Street, to small-town and rural customers, as the benefits of this policy will clearly accrue to Bay Street, the investment community and large industrial or wholesale customers?
The answer to that question will be in the policy itself. The policy is being advertised and certainly being supported in the main, because all of us hope and pray that the benefits are going to be of equal measure, not just for big customers but for residential and farm customers, and that people living in places like Thurlow and Sidney township are going to see those benefits, not just in the same measure but at about the same time as Bay Street and the big customers will see them.
Mr Pouliot: I want to commend the member for Quinte. From time to time we talk about commodities, be it oil and gas, natural gas, market conditions, and now I see he has shown a similar interest in hydro.
As the member for Renfrew has said, we will support any new competition. We repeat this: We're all in favour of competition. But what we wish to raise is the following, among others: What about the environment? Technically, how will you service the $32-billion debt? Who will assume the responsibility? What about service? What about reliability? What about funding of new projects? What about emergencies? Who will benefit? Will it be Falconbridge, which is the single largest client of Ontario Hydro? Will the average and small consumer have access to it? What will our policy be on imports? Will it be 50% hydro and the rest nuclear?
Those questions are legitimate, and I say to the member for Quinte, the people wish to know. As consumers living in Manitouwadge, we're not going to go out tomorrow or the day you muscle this bill through and start spending our money. We're not going to go to - well, we don't have such stores. I see Moore's, the suit people, their sensational summer clearout, and I say to the people: "Don't do that. Don't come and spend 120 bucks on a suit and your Ontario Hydro savings will put it into your suit pocket, because it might not be there."
We're waiting, we're anxious, but we wish to get answers to our questions -
The Acting Speaker: Time has expired. Comments and questions?
2050
Mrs Johns: I'd like to thank the member for Quinte for his presentation. It was a good presentation and it hits home for us rural members who deal every day with farms and different things in our ridings. We're very concerned about the power that we need to have to run those rural establishments.
The government was very concerned about this when they were putting the bill together. As a result of that, the government decided that we needed to maintain the status quo, if you will, for rural rate assistance. The bill doesn't change that at all. For the members who have looked at the Power Corporation Act before, they could look at section 78 in this act, which talks about rural rate assistance. We believe the rural customer must have an equitable access to reasonably priced power. They also have to compete and they need a level playing field. We have made sure that happens within this bill.
Right now, there are approximately 600,000 Ontarians who are able to get rural rate assistance. It's very important for electricity users in both northern Ontario and rural Ontario. We have grandfathered those people, 600,000 people in housing establishments and 100,000 farms, and they will continue to receive the rural rate assistance that they've received in the past.
I think this bill is very good news for rural Ontario and northern Ontario residents. They get the benefits that might flow to them as a result of a competitive marketplace and at the same time they're guaranteed that they will have the rural rate assistance they have been receiving for many years.
Mr Miclash: Just a few comments about the member for Quinte's remarks: He talked a little bit about rates; the previous speaker as well. Again, I go back to some of my initial comments where I indicated that folks throughout the north are really concerned about what Bill 35 will do in terms of their particular rates. We watch gas rates in the province, and as they go up in southern Ontario, they go up doubly in northern Ontario. There is a great deal of anxiety around this.
He talked a little bit about other jurisdictions where this is being done. I would like to know what those other areas were looking at in terms of the actual debt. We've heard a lot about the debt here in terms of Hydro as it is now, the orphan debt. We've heard a good amount about that. It all goes back to the anxiety among the taxpayers as to not only what they'll be paying in the future, in rural and northern Ontario, but what they will assume in terms of that actual debt.
He talked a little bit about the question of trust when it came to the actual development of hydro. I go back to the lack of trust for this present government. The use of water is something that we in the north are certainly interested in, in terms of the development of hydro generation, the use of the many sources of water we have up there. I spoke earlier about communities in my riding that are relying on diesel generation at the present time and on Hydro to come up and work out these plans with diesel generation, but who are certainly looking forward to the use of their water resources in the future. He touched a little bit on that.
Again, I would just like to compliment him on his remarks this evening.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Quinte has two minutes to respond.
Mr Rollins: I would like to thank my colleagues from Renfrew, Lake Nipigon, Huron and Kenora for the comments. I was a little bit shocked to see that my friend from Lake Nipigon would hold up a sign like that in case Harry was watching the show tonight and he was thinking of buying a suit someplace else other than his place. I think it would be quite a shock to Harry if he was listening and saw it on television. Maybe that's why he kept the advertisement of that suit turned a little bit sideways.
But I think that the guarantee of the rural rate structure being in place in the back of the country, back in Renfrew and in north Hastings and all throughout rural Ontario, that guarantee needs to be there. We also have to keep in mind that the rate for downtown Toronto, where there's lots of hydro being used, is still one of the highest cost structures to deliver that service that there is in Ontario. That's an interesting factor when you think that there's so much hydro used right downtown here, and yet the cost of delivering that service to those people, where it's very heavily populated, is extremely high. That probably is due to the fact that more work needs to be done on the supply service management of how to provide that service to the customers in that local area of downtown Toronto.
I want to also remind you that the environment has certainly been one of our leading concerns. That was one of the reasons all of us have heard that there were some nuclear generating stations closed down and taken out of service in just the last little while, because there may have been an opportunity to question the safety of those being there and we could have had a disaster. I want to compliment Hydro for being on top of that and making sure that was shut down.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I'm pleased to join the debate this evening on Bill 35, the Energy Competition Act. Let me begin by repeating what our critic so ably said, that yes indeed change is needed in Ontario's electricity marketplace. Our party and our leader, Dalton McGuinty, support a move towards competition. But competition has to provide advantages to all people in the market, particularly consumers, and it has got to apply those advantages and benefits equally across regions and across economic groups. We want to ensure, through broad public consultation, that this bill and the government's plans for Ontario Hydro don't favour big industrial or urban users over residential and particularly rural users.
All of us once in a while have to be reminded how important safe, reliable, low-cost energy is to economic development. We are going to have to do this change properly. We want to have an opportunity to have significant input into the bill and significant debate, because there are some significant issues which we don't believe the government has properly responded to.
First, who is going to get stuck paying for that $32-billion debt? Is it going to be retail, farm electricity consumers? Is it going to be average taxpayers? Who will pay for Hydro's $8-billion plan to bring its nuclear plants up to par? Who is going to pay for that? Will industry regulators be able to be tough watchdogs, with the power to make sure that Mike Harris's plan does not result in windfall profits for companies and higher costs to consumers? Those are the three main questions we want to debate here tonight as part of second reading debate and have an opportunity to talk about throughout this province through public hearings.
Let me take a moment to talk about the debt. It's currently estimated at somewhere between $30 billion and $32 billion. On June 9, Hydro's chair, Bill Farlinger, stated that Hydro's nuclear problems, that is, fixing or decommissioning seven nuclear reactors, could drive the debt as high as $47 billion.
2100
Members in this House know, but I'll remind the people out there who are listening to and watching this debate attentively, that all of us, all of Ontario's taxpayers, are on the hook for that debt. When Hydro's operations are split into two corporations, the new corporations will not be able to cover the cost of supporting this debt while still competing in the new electricity marketplace. The portion of Hydro's debt that will have to be left with the government in order for the new corporations to be called competitive is called the stranded debt. It's estimated that up to $20 billion of Hydro's debt will be stranded. Mr Farlinger, by the way, said it could be up to $30 billion of stranded debt.
Stranded debt is an interesting term because in fact it's not really stranded at all. Ultimately it's our responsibility, and how we set up this competitive energy market will determine to a large extent how the burden of dealing with that debt is shared and whether that burden is shared equally.
The government has said that it plans to table a report on the level of debt and options for covering the cost of the debt. It has some options, and let's remember what they are: a charge to taxpayers, a special charge to electricity consumers and/or generators. They say they'll give us that in July. We'll look forward to that, because like most of the people in this province we don't take the government at its word. We want to see the detail. So often much is hidden in the detail. What's that old saying? "The devil's in the detail." Well, in the case of this government no statement was ever more true.
We haven't talked a lot tonight about environmental issues. In my community of Windsor, right across the river, literally right across the river, they're about to fire up a Conners Creek coal-burning generating station to help offset peak demand for ConEd in Detroit - coal-burning, with all its attendant problems.
Bill 35 will allow the government to define pollution disclosure standards for electricity so that customers could choose the most environmentally friendly supplier. I'm looking forward to that - this coming from a government that shut down air quality monitoring stations, from a government that can't enforce fines on polluters in this province, from a government whose record is acknowledged by all independent observers to be abysmal. We simply don't trust, nor do we have the inclination to take anything this government says with respect to the environment seriously.
We can't ignore what this is going to do, and that ties us in to the nuclear power restructuring that's going on. The main plan for reducing the shutdown nuclear power stations in the short term is to increase production at coal-powered plants in Mississauga, Nanticoke and Lambton - coal-powered, coal-generated power.
The Minister of the Environment just this week talked about those horrible people in Michigan lighting up Conners Creek again. Yet at the very same time his government is turning in the short term - and that's what Consolidated Edison's plan is in Michigan - to coal-burning facilities, pollution-generating facilities, to deal with the problems created, admittedly, by a succession of governments that have not been able to come to terms with the reality of nuclear power.
I remember the Davis government was tortured by Darlington. I remember Liberal Treasurer Bob Nixon used to refer to Darlington as a black hole where money always went in and never came out. The New Democratic Party government wrestled with the issue. This government's taking us into a new field, introducing competition. The broad strokes of that policy we support, but we have to have answers to those questions and we have to be prepared as a Legislature to debate them completely and honestly when we deal with the important questions: the question of the debt, the question of what we do with our nuclear power facilities and the question of how we regulate.
The last point I wanted to make this evening deals with how this process will unfold from here, because this government has not brought forward lobbyist registration legislation. We think when you embark on a process that is this big, that involves this much money, that involves this kind of introduction to competition, there should be an open and transparent manner by which this Legislature and, by extension, the people of Ontario can judge the fairness of that process and who gets into it.
This government, unfortunately, doesn't take those matters seriously. So we say to the government, as you embark on this, as you embark on introducing competition, as you embark on bringing in more money - more money for elections, you've done that - how you let contracts for casinos and how you deal with this will say a lot about how the process eventually will work out. We'll be watching that carefully too because that issue, combined with the other substantive questions, is extremely important to this province and its people.
Mr Christopherson: I am pleased to respond to the remarks of the member for Windsor-Walkerville. I would again like to focus on the issue, and it was one of the ones the member focused on, of the stranded debt. The member for Windsor-Walkerville talked about trust and the fact that if you look in the legislation there's an awful lot of trust being placed in the hands - certainly power; I guess the question is whether there should be trust - but certainly the opportunity to do as they will, and in order for people to feel good about it, they would have to trust the government. When we look at the track record of this government in terms of trust that's been placed in their hands, you come up abysmally short.
Certainly on the whole issue of democracy, never mind falling short, you didn't even hit the screen, and I'm led to believe that we may see another motion tomorrow regarding time allocation on this bill also, which I think makes four time-allocation bills in the same number of days. So democracy in terms of trust is not anything anybody can rely on.
The government said during the election campaign, "Trust us, we wouldn't do anything to hurt education. Trust us, we wouldn't do anything to hurt health care. Trust us, we wouldn't do anything to hurt the disabled," and yet in every one of those areas major damage has been done in terms of the perspective of the average middle-class working family.
Certainly not your wealthy, powerful friends; they're all taken care of. That's the fear. The fear is that in watching you manage $32 billion of this debt in a way that is supposed to reflect the needs of the average person, there is no trust. There is a real concern your track record will be where you'll be in the future, and that is taking care of your friends.
Mrs Johns: I would like to thank the member opposite for his comments. I think generally he was supportive of where we're moving. I understand he has some issues and I'd like to talk to those issues.
The first thing I think is important is that people out there do have trust in this government. They have trust in this government that we're good managers, good fiscal managers, and that's what we're going to do with Ontario Hydro. We're going to fiscally manage it. It's $32 billion in debt. It's been in debt since time immemorial and it's time for people to manage the system and to bring it into the 21st century.
We are going to manage the system. We have the trust of the stakeholders. We have the trust of Ontario Hydro. We have the trust of the union, if you can believe that, and the environmental groups that this is the right thing. This bill, this act, has been accepted by all groups: consumers, unions, environmentalists, they're all saying that we have consulted, we've gone through a good process, and we will continue to do that.
The member from the NDP says, "They're going to time-allocate it." I find it amazing that we would have to do this in this bill. The Liberals like the bill. They want to work through the process with us to make sure that we are moving in the right direction. You would think that the NDP would want to get out there and hear what stakeholders have to say. But no, they're going to try and drag their heels through Thursday so that we can't get out there, we can't talk to the people, we can't start to get the stakeholders moving in the direction they want to. It's no wonder we have to time-allocate everything in this House. We have a good bill like this that we have had stakeholders involved in, and still they need more time in here. They don't want to hear what stakeholders have to say.
2110
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): First I want to commend the member for Windsor-Walkerville. He has always got a very interesting speech to deliver.
Changes are needed, that is definite, but I am worried at times when this government comes up with some changes, because with the changes that occur with this government, most of the time they haven't done any analysis before they implement some changes, and we could see at times the problems that we are going through. But definitely we need change. During last January's ice storm in eastern Ontario, most of the eastern Ontario were left in the dark for at least 23 days. Hydro had completely forgotten to have a plan in place. They had no communications plan in place. But all the time I can say the hydro linesmen did a super job in trying to restore the situation.
Yes, we need some changes. During the ice storm we could have gotten the Chaudière Falls in Ottawa to generate some power for eastern Ontario. We could have had the plant that was built by a doctor in Casselman on the South Nation River, but Ontario Hydro doesn't permit a private firm to develop power at the present time.
Definitely by the year 2000 what is going to be expected from this government? Will they implement an increase to try to compensate all the losses they have gone through during the ice storm? At the present time there is no guarantee that by the year 2000 there won't be any increase to the consumers of Ontario.
Mr Pouliot: I wish to thank the member for Windsor-Walkerville, in my opinion one of the best orators, one of the most articulate members of this Legislature. Thank you for reminding the government that the debt might go - this is the chairman of the board saying that; it's not one of us - from $32 billion to $47 billion. That's inclusive of fixing the mess of the nuclear plants.
If this is true, and there's no reason to believe that it might not be accurate, the Ontario debt under this government will have nearly doubled. That's the reality today. The debt of Ontario Hydro under this government will have nearly doubled.
When we ask questions about the environment they close their eyes, like they do so often when we talk about the environment. Today's newspaper, big, bold lettering, "Polluter Fines Drop Under Tories: Report." That's the largest-circulating daily in Canada, the Toronto Star. They say, "The environment ministry's budget was cut by 81% and its staff slashed to 1,494...from 2,208." Simply put, there are not enough people to monitor compliance, and you have these new players coming on, well-intentioned but in some cases without the expertise of Ontario Hydro. They don't have the staff. They have turned their backs on the environment. They have cut the budget by 81%.
When that dirty Ohio coal comes to feed, what's going to happen to the monitoring of compliance? That's what the member for Windsor-Walkerville wants to know. He wants to make sure that the legacy of electricity will not be hazardous to one's health.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville has two minutes to respond.
Mr Duncan: I want to thank the members for Hamilton Centre, Lake Nipigon, Huron and Prescott-Russell for their comments.
One other point I wanted to raise as I conclude my opportunity to participate in this debate, and that again is to quote Ontario Hydro chair Bill Farlinger who, as the government members well know, is a government appointee, a supporter of the government, a friend of the government, someone who has been called upon by the government, and he said that lower prices were a "leap of faith" as a result of this bill. I believe the government at the end of the day wants to ensure that we will have lower and competitive energy prices in this province and I believe Mr Farlinger wants to ensure that.
I would hope that as we embark on further discussions with the public, we will look at those questions: questions of debt, questions of pricing, the questions of equitably sharing, the changes that are coming about. I would hope that we'll have an opportunity to meaningfully review those particular issues. It would be a shame at this point if we couldn't.
This bill, in my view, is an important, major piece of legislation from an economic development perspective. Again, we all talk about the coming new millennium and what we have to be ready for. A re-energized energy market in this province whose aim and goal is to provide lower, more cost-effective energy is in everyone's best interests, and to the extent that we can find workable solutions to the question about stranded debt, how we decommission or recommission our nuclear assets and how we share both the cost and the benefits associated with that, that will be a telling point about the future of the energy market in this province.
I hope that the government recognizes those issues and is prepared to discuss them in a meaningful way, because even their own supporters in this process recognize that this path is fraught with much challenge and danger.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Christopherson: I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate.
Let me first comment on the response of the member for Huron, who said first of all, "The people" - I believe I'm quoting, but certainly it's close - "trust this government," and then I don't know what she said after that because any sentence that starts with that is not going to get too far with the public. The public does not trust this government. That doesn't mean that some of them won't necessarily still vote for you. I accept that you're going to get some votes out there, but I'm very confident that it won't be based on the fact that anybody trusts you, unless it's those who have already done very well by you, thank you very much, and they will have trust that a second majority government for you would mean even more for them.
She also said, "We want to get out there and talk to the people." That's rich. That is so rich coming from a government that just finished shutting down democracy on the whole issue of election finances and they shut down the whole democratic process on the issue of their new labour legislation. How rich to suggest under any other piece of legislation that they're anxious to go out and talk to the people. What a load. Give me a break.
I also want to reference the comments of my colleague Wayne Lessard from Windsor-Riverside. He of course is our critic on this issue. He said in his opening speech on our behalf that if you like what Mike Harris did for health and education, you'll love what he's going to do for Hydro. I think that's important to keep in mind when we're asked to keep the "leap of faith" that Mr Farlinger talks about.
It seems to me the last time we heard a reference to "leap of faith" was that great, progressive social issue called free trade, where we lost literally hundreds of thousands of jobs in Ontario. All that was under a leap of faith from a government that at every turn has hurt the most vulnerable, has hurt the people who can least afford to be hurt, and they're the ones to whom the government says, "We want you to trust us, and please join with us in a leap of faith." Every time anybody links arms from sort of the working world, the middle-class world, with Mike Harris Tories, when you take that leap off the cliff, the only ones who seem to have parachutes are Mike Harris and his cronies. Everybody else, when they that leap of faith, just fall, fall, fall, till they hit the bottom.
2120
Let me also comment on something the minister said in his opening remarks. He's quoted in Hansard as saying, "`How large is the stranded debt?' is a very good question." Then he goes on to say in the same paragraph, "We will have a full airing." This is scary, when part of what we're supposed to rely on is a fair process, after you've given yourselves all the authority you want under Bill 35.
The one thing you're asking people to rely on is that there will be a "full airing." I can remember hearing that on WCB changes. I can remember your response just the other day when we were talking about the Election Finances Act and its changes, under the new labour legislation that's going to do so much damage in the construction industry and elsewhere. It really is galling to have any of your ministers stand up and say in response to legitimate concerns raised, "Don't worry, part of our process will be a full airing," because in terms of Bill 36 and Bill 31 all that has meant is a full airing in your caucus room and nowhere else in this province. So the words of the minister are not that comforting.
Many of my colleagues have talked about the fact that we, like the other parties, are in favour of competition and see in this the possibility for improvement in the future. I want to go back and pick up on what the member for Lanark-Renfrew said when he talked about the history of Hydro and about Hamilton and Stelco. Make no mistake: Every Hamiltonian realizes that part of the reason the steel industry focused in Hamilton the way it did was because of access to and the availability of relatively cheap hydro-electric power, combined with our beautiful natural harbour and the then new rail lines that linked us with all the other major developing areas of the country as well as to the sources of raw material; in addition, I would quickly and proudly add, it was because we had a very strong, skilled, reliable workforce.
In the context of this debate, Hamiltonians understand fully the importance of hydro and of it being as inexpensive as it can be, recognizing that when we're talking about subsidies and when we're talking about debt like this, it's usually the average middle-class taxpayer who gets it in the neck.
We're very concerned, and you've heard the issues raised here - they're not going to go away - around the issue of the stranded debt. This is a matter of significant importance, I would argue one of maybe two or three of the most important issues facing the future of Hydro, and I want to reiterate, a lot of leap of faith around here that you haven't earned and trust that you haven't earned. It would be a lot better for the public if you had more answers to these questions around the stranded debt before you moved on the legislation, rather than saying, "Don't worry, we'll do the fair and proper thing afterwards." We've got too much of your track record to look at when we consider where you might go in the future.
A couple of other quick points. I want to mention the environment, again an issue of critical importance to Hamiltonians. Today there was another damning report about the backing away of your government in the Ministry of the Environment; report after report coming forward, credible reports. Organizations with a great deal of respect have come forward and consistently pointed to the same problems in terms of the environment. You know that your red-tape cutting in large part has meant deregulation of enforcement of proper and decent environmental standards, that in finding the $5 billion to pay for your tax cut, the Ministry of the Environment was one of your favourite targets, because it's something that quite often got in the way of your friends in terms of what they wanted to do.
You've slashed away at the budget and you've hacked away at the staff to the point where we finally had a major disaster in Hamilton with the Plastimet fire. You don't even have the guts or the decency to call a public inquiry, and I'm convinced now it's because of your concern over what will come tumbling out about what you did in that ministry that might have prevented the Plastimet fire had you not done that.
When you talk about, "Don't worry, we'll take care of the environment," we have some very serious concerns. I think that in large part, when the environmental groups are supportive of this, they're looking at competitiveness and alternative sources of energy. There hasn't been a whole lot of talk here about that, but a lot of them are looking for government initiatives that will support research and implementation of new research into solar power, wind power, and other sources of renewable energy that could compete with the traditional forms, not just competition between all your friends.
These are very serious issues that obviously I can't deal with in the 10 minutes the Tories' new rules have left us with, but those deserve to be answered. When we can't get answers to that here, then I think you can expect we're going to continue to oppose your ramming anything through that has the significance of Hydro in this province.
The Acting Speaker: It being almost 9:30 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2128.