Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ONTARIO HYDRO AFFAIRS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the interim report of the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs, dated May 24, 1979 re: NPD reactor at Rolphton.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am awed by the proportions of the audience I have, both in front of me and behind me at this point, but only momentarily so.

I want to briefly give what I would describe as a bit of an overview with regard to this report from the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs dealing with the Rolphton station. For the most part, but not totally, I shall refrain from dealing with the specifics of the NPD station, but it seems to me there are a number of other related aspects in connection with the committee’s work in this report that it would be useful to bring to the attention of honourable members as they are considering the vote they will have towards the end of this evening, hopefully a majority vote to respond to the majority request of the committee.

Mr. Hennessy: The chairman is not biased.

Mr. MacDonald: Is the member for Fort William interrupting even before I get started? He is not in the north, he is down in the civilized south. He should just relax.

Mr. Nixon: Quit fooling around.

Mr. Hennessy: Say that when you come up north.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on May 24 the minister spoke with regard to what is described in Hansard as “nuclear plant safety.” Let me give three brief comments by the minister in that ministerial statement. He said: “Yesterday the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs passed a motion that the government direct Ontario Hydro not to reopen the Rolphton NPD nuclear generating station until such time as the committee had finished its review of nuclear safety matters.”

A little later: “Rolphton is currently shut down for routine maintenance. The maintenance is not related to the emergency core cooling system.”

Finally, he concluded: “If the control board” -- the Atomic Energy Control Board -- “determines that the concerns being expressed” -- namely the concerns of the citizens of North Renfrew -- “have any validity, we have been assured that it will take the necessary steps to see that any deficiencies are corrected. This will not require any action by the government as Ontario Hydro will automatically comply with any order issued by the control board.” In other words, what the minister did was in effect opt out of the situation and say that normally Ontario Hydro responds to the orders and directions of the Atomic Energy Control Board. Therefore, in this instance they were going to treat it as a normal case; if the control board gave them permission to open again the government wouldn’t intervene.

I have two comments I would like to make with regard to the minister’s statement. The first one is by way of a protest. If my tone is relatively quiet, it hides a growing indignation with regard to this minister’s practice in relation to this committee. What the minister did was to come into the House and give a ministerial statement which repudiated the substance of the report that was going to come from the committee before that report had been formally presented to the House. Presentation of reports comes after ministerial statements, and I, on behalf of the committee, wasn’t able to make that report until an hour or so after the minister had repudiated it in advance.

If this had been the only time this had happened I would ignore it. I’d say it was a momentary aberration on the part of a minister who is normally rather co-operative and congenial in his approach to fellow human beings and other agencies within the Legislature. But it is at least the second time. Last fall, the select committee brought in a recommendation that half of Bruce heavy water plant D should be stopped and stored, and the other half should be finished and that the government then consider what it would do, commission it or mothball it at that point.

Everyone knew, because the select committee has always operated in a totally open fashion, what our decision was in the latter part of September or early October. The House didn’t open until October 24. There was no opportunity for myself on behalf of the committee to report that to this House. Yet in the intervening period the minister, with a speech that I would like to believe was written by somebody other than himself because it didn’t sound in character, delivered to the Hanover board of trade --

Mr. Nixon: His deputy is a great speech-writer.

Mr. MacDonald: -- or chamber of commerce, repudiated what the committee was going to report when it got a chance to report. In fact he not only repudiated it, he rather contemptuously repudiated it.

Hon. Mr. Auld: No, no.

Mr. MacDonald: He said these people who gloom and doom --

Mr. Nixon: These Jeremiahs, he called them.

Mr. Ashe: That’s one right behind you.

Mr. MacDonald: That’s the word I was looking for. These Jeremiahs in the province who don’t think --

Mr. Hennessy: Speak for yourself.

Mr. MacDonald: -- we can play a role in producing more heavy water so that it will be running out of both ears and not just one ear -- that was the prospect -- and therefore we would be in a position to make our contribution towards selling Candu reactors all across the world.

Mr. Nixon: If they could only get the boilers right.

Mr. MacDonald: We all know what happened. The minister gradually had to retreat from that rather ill-conceived and ill-judged position. Some 10 weeks after he made his statement, Hydro pulled the rug out from under him completely and did precisely what the committee requested. So the minister, if I may lapse into the vernacular, made a bit of a fool of himself by repudiating the committee’s recommendation in advance.

Mr. Haggerty: He’s got his wires crossed over there.

Mr. MacDonald: I just want to say to the minister it isn’t cricket to make a practice, as he has done consistently so far since taking over this ministry, of repudiating the reports of select committees before there is a chance to present them formally to the House.

That’s just by way of a therapeutic exercise. I feel better now that I have chastised the minister.

Mr. Hennessy: Well, sit down.

Mr. MacDonald: Let me get down to a more substantive comment. When the minister made this statement on May 24 -- I don’t know what happens on occasion, indeed I am not only intrigued, I am totally baffled by what happened between this ministry and Ontario Hydro -- the report the minister gave was grossly incomplete and inaccurate. To argue that it was accurate would really be manipulating the facts.

What the minister said was that, “Rolphton is currently shut down for routine maintenance. The maintenance is not related to the emergency core cooling system.” Interestingly enough, the minister this afternoon, I thought a little self-consciously, sort of got the record up to date before this debate by a ministerial statement in which he told us all that had happened at Rolphton; but I am puzzled as to why the minister was not told in the first instance what really had happened in Rolphton so that he did not unwittingly mislead this House and the public.

If I may borrow from my good friend from the north, the member for Fort William --

Mr. Hennessy: We’re not friends.

Mr. MacDonald: Last January, our sessions were started with a characteristically delightful outburst from the member for Fort William to the effect that Hydro had misled and manipulated -- hung out to dry, so to speak -- one Minister of Energy after another, by misinformation or incomplete information. He was really uttering a cry of protest on behalf of Ministers of Energy who had been --

Mr. Hennessy: I don’t know what those words mean. You’re just putting words in my mouth now. I can’t even pronounce those words.

Mr. MacDonald: I am just giving an erudite translation of what my friend said.

Mr. Hennessy: That’s not the way I said it. You’re embarrassing me.

Mr. Nixon: Don’t let him misquote you.

Mr. MacDonald: In short, without going any further, I hope the minister has found out why he was given such incomplete information. One of the things we are attempting to do in this committee, not only with regard to Rolphton but generally, is to restore, to the extent that it is possible, Hydro as part of the nuclear establishment out in the public, where the nuclear establishment is having a tough battle to retain its credibility these days -- indeed, so much so that the Premier delivered what the CBC news described as a tough lecture to them just a couple of nights ago.

I hope never again will that kind of thing happen where the minister is fed information that is incomplete, if not inaccurate -- or incomplete to the point that it becomes inaccurate -- when he is reporting to this House.

Let me move from that and more to the substance of the issue. I hope the House realizes that the NPD station at Rolphton is a demonstration station. It was the first station that was commissioned and put into operation in Ontario, in 1962. It produces 10 megawatts of power.

Mr. Haggerty: I thought it was 20.

Mr. Ashe: As usual, the NDP have half their facts.

Mr. MacDonald: Is it 20?

Mr. Hennessy: Twenty megawatts. Sure.

Mr. MacDonald: Is it 20?

Mr. Hennessy: Sure.

Mr. MacDonald: The member corrects me. It is 20 megawatts of power.

Mr. Ashe: It is 22.5 megawatts, to be exact.

Mr. MacDonald: Okay. Don’t nitpick for a moment. It is 20 megawatts of power, as compared, for example, to a Bruce or a Pickering, which is producing 3,000 megawatts or more with four reactors in each instance. In other words, the amount of power being produced at Rolphton is so inconsequential as to have no impact at all on the generation of power by Ontario Hydro.

Mr. J. Reed: Especially in the summer.

Mr. MacDonald: At any time. We all know, for example, that in Ontario at the moment we have an excess generating capacity of something like 20 per cent. Beyond our peak load and the necessary reserve of 25 per cent, we have an excess generating capacity of something between 3,000 and 4,000 megawatts. The 20 megawatts that Rolphton produces is inconsequential. We could shut the station down for ever and, as far as the grid is concerned and the power flowing through the grid and meeting the needs of the people of Ontario, it would have no consequence at all.

Secondly, generally speaking, Hydro’s generating stations have a very credible record in terms of the generation of power. In fact at one time we were given a table, and among the first five stations in the world one will find two or three of the stations are in Ontario. They have mastered the technology, they have been able to cope with the technical problems and they are producing power at a larger percentage of capacity than virtually any other station in the world. That cannot be said of the NPD station at Rolphton.

Indeed, without getting any further into it now -- I will leave it to other members of the committee to deal with this, as I am sure some will -- the documents we now have with regard to the Rolphton station for the future activities of the committee indicate that there were 18 shutdowns at Rolphton in 1978. Three of them were for maintenance and 15 of them were forced outages.

[8:15]

Translated into the vernacular, that means they were not intentionally shut down but because of some sort of emergency. That is a record which is a pretty appalling record by comparison with the rest of Hydro. We now discover too that not only were they shut down for maintenance in this instance, but they were shut down because there was a radioactive leak in the emergency cooling system. Other authoritative voices say that there were other rather serious problems.

In short, we don’t need the power, and secondly, Rolphton is not the kind of station that we should be proud of in terms of its record. I would suggest that we have nothing to lose in that loss of power and we have everything to gain in terms of a clear-cut willingness on the part of this government to maintain in a shutdown condition, which it is now, a station whose record is so questionable at a time when we’re attempting to build a greater measure of confidence on the part of the general public with regard to our concerns for nuclear safety.

Let me make a final point. As I indicated earlier, the government has sort of opted out of the situation, taken refuge behind the Atomic Energy Control Board and said, “The decision normally is with AECB and we shall leave it with AECB in this instance. If they authorize Rolphton to start up again, it will. If they don’t, it won’t. We’re out of the picture.”

This raises another interesting problem which the select committee hasn’t had a chance to get into as yet; that is, exactly what is the working relationship between Hydro as the operators of generating plants and AECB? As everybody knows, the committee had an opportunity a few weeks ago to take a look at seven of the significant-event reports that were presented to the world by courtesy of Mr. Schultz.

As we examined those significant-event reports it was unclear as to exactly where AECB was in the picture. We know that at every plant there is an AECB representative, and presumably he knows everything that happens as quickly as it happens. We know that if it is an abnormal event or a significant event -- a variety of words and categories that are used at Hydro -- they have to report to AECB, and sometimes they report beyond what they really need to report. But AECB’s reaction is not indicated in the significant-event reports. We haven’t had the time to examine all the documents which are just now flowing to the committee. One of the things I think the committee wants to take a look at is that working relationship. What is the give and take between Hydro and AECB when there is an event, significant or abnormal or whatever they may want to call it?

I suggest there is an analogy here that I will draw to the attention of the House for a moment’s reflection. Within the last two or three weeks in the North American continent, we have gone through a pretty traumatic event in terms of an airplane crash in Chicago, the DC-10, and the role of the regulatory agency in connection with that, the Federal Aeronautical Agency in Washington. That is an agency which, it is alleged, has tended to be a little bit too soft and not scrutinizing enough in terms of regulation. Certainly in this instance the record speaks for itself, because within a matter of hours, a day or so after the DC-10s had been grounded, they were put back into flight.

Then, upon more careful examination, they discovered there were cracks in certain areas of the framework where the engines were mounted. They were all grounded again and we know that they have been grounded throughout most of the world ever since then. It raises a little bit of a shiver for those of us who use planes rather regularly and assumed that the examination and the imposition of regulations by the authority were very stringent, when we now discover there have been cracks that have been there for quite some time, cracks that weren’t normally detected and cracks that weren’t detected in the first review of the situation after the crash. It took the second or the third review before they got it.

I don’t want to pursue that analogy any further than to say this: I think that incident has raised in the minds of many people who are critical of the nuclear industry a question as to whether or not the AECB has appropriate standards; whether or not it is enforcing those standards; whether the supervision is adequate in all instances.

Rolphton’s power is not needed for the system. It’s record is pretty shoddy and problems with regard to safety of workers in the plants and possible lack of safety for the public are constantly being raised. There’s a very strong case for the government to respond to the majority report of the committee, which has suggested to the government that we order this station maintained in a shutdown condition until the committee has had an opportunity, for the first time in this country, to go into a thorough public inquiry into all matters of nuclear safety and make some recommendations as to how the situation can be improved so that we can at least still something of the growing apprehension in the general public.

I conclude by saying I think the case is fairly solid for honourable members of this House to respond by a majority vote in the House, as there was in the committee, for the maintenance of that station in a shutdown state.

I recognize that after we have given an instruction to the government by a majority of this House it can, if it wishes, defiantly ignore it; and Hydro can ignore it. I hope that won’t happen.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I’m pleased to participate in this debate this evening. I must say I was interested to hear the member for York South discussing airplane catastrophes and that sort of thing in relation to what we’re discussing tonight.

Mr. MacDonald: The role of regulatory authorities.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I really don’t think they quite relate.

Mr. MacDonald: The role of regulatory authorities is the problem.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yes, and what do we do about Labour Day weekend on the highways, I suppose.

However, before I deal with some of the issues arising out of the motion itself, I believe it would be useful for members if I provided some background information about the Rolphton nuclear generating station generally, and about questions which have arisen over the past few weeks with respect to its operation specifically.

Rolphton is a 22.5 megawatt nuclear generating station which was designed and constructed for the purpose of demonstrating the feasibility of the Candu concept. It’s owned jointly by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, which owns the nuclear components, and Ontario Hydro, which owns the non-nuclear components and the land on which the station is situated. Rolphton was declared in service in 1962 and has been operating since that time. The success of the station and its successor, Douglas Point generating station, leads directly to the commitment by Ontario Hydro to the use of nuclear power for the commercial production of electricity and to the construction of Pickering station A and subsequent nuclear generating stations.

The member for York South said a few moments ago, “Let’s shut down Rolphton and look at what this small plant is doing.” Rolphton is presently being used by Ontario Hydro for a number of purposes in addition to its electrical generating capacity. These are to train and develop operational and maintenance personnel for nuclear power plants, to test new types of fuel and equipment, and to test the feasibility of new techniques, such as those relating to decamia -- decominta -- decominta --

Mr. S. Smith: Will someone wake the minister up. What’s that again?

Hon. Mr. Auld: There’s a second “in” in my text, that’s the problem. I can’t pronounce it.

Mr. Nixon: Once too often.

Hon. Mr. Auld: “Decomintation” is what I’m trying to say.

Mr. Nixon: What does that mean?

Mr. S. Smith: Decontamination, maybe? Why don’t you try that?

Hon. Mr. Auld: When you stick a second ‘i” in, what does that mean, Decomintationinuation.

Mr. MacDonald: You have trouble with your syntax; I have trouble with megawatts.

Hon. Mr. Auld: As is the case with all nuclear generating stations in Canada, Rolphton operates under a licence issued by the Atomic Energy Control Board under the Atomic Energy Control Act. The first full-power operating licence for Rolphton was issued in July 1962, as the honourable member said. That licence has been renewed from time to time. The latest renewal was issued by the control board on April 28, 1978 and expires on June 30, 1983. The licence is conditional upon the continued satisfactory operation of the station and is subject to annual review.

In 1976, following analyses by Atomic Energy Canada Limited of loss of coolant accidents for the Bruce A station reactor design, Ontario Hydro was asked by the control board to reassess the effectiveness of the emergency core cooling system in all of its operating nuclear generating stations, including Rolphton.

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, as one of the joint owners of the Rolphton plant, carried out the reassessment of the effectiveness of the station’s emergency core cooling system requested by the control board. That reassessment showed that while the Rolphton emergency core cooling system would not be effective in preventing fuel sheath failures for some break sizes and locations, the probability and size of any releases of radioactive material from containment in the event of such failures were within the limits approved by the control board. In essence, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited satisfied the control board that Rolphton complied with the terms of its operating licence.

Notwithstanding this fact, Atomic Energy of Canada and Ontario Hydro suggested and agreed to implement several equipment and systems modifications which would further increase the effectiveness of the station’s emergency core cooling capability. These modifications have all been made and all but two of them have been approved for use by the control board. Ontario Hydro expects to receive approval to use the remaining two modifications in the near future.

As members are aware, on April 27, 1979 a group of concerned citizens in Renfrew county applied to the control board for a public hearing into the safety of Rolphton. In its application, the concerned citizens’ group stated its belief:

One, that Rolphton is operating in breach of its licence and in breach of the control board safety standards; and two, that the licence for operating Rolphton should be revoked because its emergency core cooling system is inadequate and would be unable to prevent overheating in the reactor if the main cooling system failed.

The application of the concerned citizens’ group was considered by the control board and its staff. The control board concluded after careful consideration that the application did not contain any factual information which had not previously been considered by the control board in the course of its licensing and ongoing review of Rolphton. The control board further concluded that there was no reason to restrict the operation of the station or to hold a public hearing into the safety of the station’s reactor.

As members are aware, Rolphton has been shut down since March 26 to repair a heavy water leak and to carry out planned maintenance activities. Ontario Hydro has advised me that it started up the reactor again on June 11. The station has been operating since that time at one thousandth of full power while Ontario Hydro carries out further checks on the station’s operating system. The control board approved the start-up after a thorough review of the results of the maintenance and inspection work and the tests carried out by Ontario Hydro while the station was shut down. Representatives of the control board will be reviewing the results of the further checks which Ontario Hydro is making on the station’s operating systems and, assuming that the results are satisfactory, will be monitoring Ontario Hydro’s activities in bringing the station to full power.

[8:30]

Having provided members with some background information on Rolphton and its operating licence, I would now like to deal with three matters concerning the station which have recently been the subject of comments and questions in this House and in the press. These matters are (1) steam generator leaks in January 1978, (2) valve failure in September 1978 and (3) steam generator and fuel channel closure plug leaks in March 1979.

The first two matters are described in some detail in Ontario Hydro’s 1978 report to the Atomic Energy Control Board on the operation of Rolphton. The final matter was, I think, dealt with in a statement I made to this House on June 4, 1979.

On January 26, 1978, higher than normal levels of tritium were discovered in the turbine room of the station, and a station alert was called. The purpose of the alert was to account for personnel and to declare the turbine room off-limits to non-essential personnel until the source of the tritium had been discovered and appropriate corrective action was taken.

Following that order, the station reactor was shut down and the level of tritium returned to normal within 40 minutes. The cause of the higher than normal levels of tritium was a leak in a tube in the steam generator which was repaired during the period of the shutdown.

The level of tritium released in the station’s effluent as a result of the tube leak was less than one per cent of the limit set by the control board.

In September 1978, during a regular semi-annual test of the station’s emergency light-water injection system -- one of the station’s two emergency core cooling systems -- Ontario Hydro discovered that a pin forming part of the operating mechanism of an isolating valve was broken and the valve was partially closed, even though there was no indication that this was the case. That valve is normally in an open position when the station reactor is at high power and in a closed position when the station reactor is in a cooled, shutdown stage. If the valve is in a closed position when the station reactor is still at high power, the emergency light-water injection system would not be available in the event of the loss of the normal fuel cooling system.

It is not possible to determine when the pin broke or for how long, if at all. The valve was in a partially closed position while the reactor was operating at high power. Ontario Hydro tested this system in early 1978 and found no problem. However, for whatever period the pin was broken, the station’s other emergency core cooling system was available to provide an emergency cooling system if it had been needed.

Repairs have been made and new procedures have been instituted to inhibit similar problems in the future and to ensure their prompt detection if they do occur.

In September 1978, slightly higher than normal levels of tritium were discovered in the station’s feedwater system. Upon subsequent investigation, Ontario Hydro discovered that this was caused by a small leak in the station’s steam generator. As the leak did not constitute a hazard or cause the level of tritium in the station’s effluent to exceed one per cent of the limit set by the control board, Ontario Hydro, with the concurrence of that control board, decided to continue operating the station until its next regularly scheduled maintenance shutdown.

In March 1979, heavy water began leaking from a fuel channel closure plug. All attempts to stop the leak while the station was operating were unsuccessful. Although the leak did not constitute a hazard and Ontario Hydro was able to recover and reuse the heavy water, Hydro decided to advance the date of its next regularly scheduled maintenance shutdown by about three weeks. During this shutdown, Hydro repaired the leak and carried out planned maintenance activities, which included inspection and repair of the leak in the steam generator which had been discovered in 1978.

As members will recall, on June 11, 1979, I made a statement to this House concerning emissions of tritium at Ontario Hydro’s nuclear generating stations. Attached to that statement was a paper outlining the emissions of tritium in the airborne and water effluents of Rolphton since 1973. Members will note that at no time during the period 1973 to date did the level of the emissions reach one per cent of the limits set by the control order.

Before proceeding further, I believe it is important that I put the matters which I have described into context for the honourable members and the public generally.

No one, least of all this government, is saying that Ontario Hydro equipment is perfect and will not occasionally fail, or that Ontario Hydro’s personnel are perfect and they will not occasionally make mistakes. In fact any equipment can fail and just about everyone makes mistakes.

It’s important to understand, however, that these imperfections are planned for and taken into account in the design and operation of Ontario Hydro’s nuclear generating stations. The result is that in over 61 reactor years of operation, no member of the public has been injured as a result of the operation of any one of Ontario Hydro’s nuclear generating stations. Also nuclear generating station employees are safer at work than they are in their own homes.

I believe that as members, and the public generally review Ontario Hydro’s records and familiarize themselves with all of the information which is and will become available concerning past and future imperfections, they cannot help but be impressed with the efforts Ontario Hydro has made in designing and operating its nuclear generating stations. The sole purpose of these efforts is to ensure the operations work well and as safely as humanly possible, and well within the safety limits prescribed by the responsible regulatory authorities. In Ontario, safety has always been the foremost consideration in the design and operation of nuclear generating stations and it will continue to be so.

I would now like to turn my attention to the motion before this Legislature, namely that the Legislature adopt the interim report of the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs.

As I understand it, the select committee’s interim report is based solely on the concerns expressed in the application of the Renfrew county concerned citizens’ group to the control board. The select committee did not conduct any independent investigation to determine whether these concerns were or were not justified.

Mr. S. Smith: Your members wouldn’t permit it.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Even if it had, the select committee does not have the capability or legal responsibility to review or set standards with respect to nuclear safety or the operation of nuclear generating stations.

Mr. Warner: Great attitude.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Nor does it have the capability to judge the merits of an application such as that put forward by the concerned citizens’ group. As honourable members know, the control board is the agency in Canada which has the technical capability, and perhaps more important the legal responsibility, for setting safety standards and for licensing the operation of nuclear generating stations. It is also the agency that has the technical capability for judging the merits of such an application.

As I mentioned earlier, the control board has reviewed the application of the Renfrew county concerned citizens’ group and has concluded that it does not contain any factual information which has not already been considered in the course of its licensing and review activities. In the board’s opinion, there is no reason to restrict the operation of Rolphton. For this reason, I see no compelling reason for this Legislature to approve the motion before us and thereby presume to supplant the role which the Parliament of Canada has given to the Atomic Energy Control Board. However, as the honourable members know, this government has made a commitment to a review of nuclear energy, as witness the terms of reference of the select committee. That review is broad-ranging and perhaps only limited by the legal and technical responsibilities of the Atomic Energy Control Board, to which I have already alluded. In the government’s view, a review by the select committee, a process by which the concerns and interests of the public are taken into account and fully protected, is most appropriate.

Mr. Auld moved that the words “its adoption” in the motion before the Legislature be struck out and the following words be substituted therefor: “that the interim report be referred back to the select committee on Ontario Hydro Affairs and that the select committee be reconvened as soon as possible to begin its examination of Ontario’s nuclear commitment, including nuclear safety matters, and the concerns expressed with respect to Rolphton NPD be considered in that examination.”

Mr. J. Reed: I began with what I thought was a clear head and I have become more and more confused. Before I begin the body of some of the things I want to say, some things have been brought up in the remarks of the preceding two speakers that I think are worth enlarging on a little bit.

First of all, my friend the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), who is the chairman of the Hydro select committee, brought up the fact that the minister suggested in the House a little while ago that AECB was the body which would rule on the restart of Rolphton. I really don’t know the answer to this, and I don’t think my friend for York South does either, but it is rather important and worthy of clarification. If Hydro shuts down the nuclear plant, for supposed routine maintenance or whatever, who does authorize the restart? Does AECB have to authorize every restart by Ontario Hydro? I question whether they do; and in so doing, I question the indication the minister gave to the House that AECB would he the arbiter of this restart. I know the member for York South is as confused as I am about where that ultimate responsibility lies. If, in fact, AECB were ruling on the restart, it might help to cast a different light on the thing. But I believe that since Hydro shut it down Hydro will start it up. That point should be made absolutely clear so the responsibility for these concerns is not loaded onto AECB.

There is another kind of anomaly I would like to bring up. The minister mentioned the two emergency core cooling systems. I hope if he has a few remarks to make at the end of this debate he will explain to us just what those two emergency core cooling systems are.

[8:45]

I may be wrong, but isn’t there one emergency core cooling system and one sprinkler system? I would ask the minister if that is not correct; there are not two emergency core cooling systems. So in fact when there was this problem with a valve that was partly shut off, it was partly shut off on the emergency core cooling system, the only one; the other one was a sprinkler system. Is that not right?

Hon. Mr. Auld: There are two emergency.

Mr. J. Reed: There are two? If there are, I stand corrected and I apologize to the minister. These anomalies alone establish the confusion.

Hon. Mr. Auld: There are three systems; two of them are emergency, the other is the regular system.

Mr. J. Reed: Two emergency and one regular. That being the case, I certainly stand corrected.

One of the statements the minister read to this House was that one of the reasons for discounting the citizens’ concerns about Rolphton was that they did not do a study. Am I right? Did I listen to the minister’s statement clearly? One of the reasons was the citizens did not study this thing?

I want to suggest to the minister in all frankness that this is, in fact, why we are here, this is why the select committee exists. Unless I misunderstood the minister’s speech, he said the citizens did not do a study and therefore the statements they made did not have any strong import.

There is another little anomaly I should bring up. I think the minister stated that Rolphton was owned by Hydro.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I said it was partly owned by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and partly by Hydro.

Mr. J. Reed: Oh, he did not say Rolphton was owned by Hydro.

Mr. S. Smith: He said, the nuclear part was AECL and the rest by Hydro.

Mr. J. Reed: All right. The Premier (Mr. Davis) has said that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited happens to own the plant at Rolphton. I apologize, there was some confusion on my part.

This matter of Rolphton was first brought before the public early in May by my leader. I must say tonight, in speaking to this motion before the House, that I feel as if I am arguing for half a loaf, because on May 23 the select committee met and during the course of that meeting it was our desire that the committee meet to discuss the Rolphton matter immediately at that time. Our reasoning was that the plant was not operating -- it was shut down, as the minister had said at that time for routine maintenance -- and we felt it would be to the advantage of all if we dealt with the matter. We were disappointed in the views expressed by representatives of the other two parties who felt, for their own reasons, that it was not appropriate that the Rolphton matter should be debated during that period.

A short time later more information was brought before the public concerning Rolphton; once again, on behalf of my own caucus, I approached the select committee. We met as a steering committee at that time to consider my request that we even discuss the Rolphton matter as immediately as we possibly could. The vote at that time was to proceed as had been previously planned, and that was that the select committee would meet on July 4.

Once again, the plant had been delayed in its restart. It would have been most appropriate to debate the matter and to have questions answered in the select committee at that time. I put it to the members of the House that we certainly could have had an answer on Rolphton by now had we been able to proceed.

Ms. Gigantes: On the basis of what?

Mr. J. Reed: There were some fundamental questions --

Ms. Gigantes: We’re just getting the documents now.

Mr. J. Reed: -- that were asked by the citizens and those fundamental questions could have been answered. We could at least have had an interim report on the matter of Rolphton, pending perhaps a more detailed investigation later on in the summer. I must say we were disappointed.

Ms. Gigantes: We could have had a whitewash by now; that’s what you are saying.

Mr. J. Reed: I have just two other items I feel might be of interest in this debate. One is that I am going to suggest publicly here that when we do consider Rolphton in July -- and I know the select committee has already agreed to look at it early in the game -- we consider making an interim recommendation before we proceed with the other matters that pertain to nuclear safety. I think it would be appropriate to do it with dispatch so that if Rolphton gets the clean bill of health that the minister obviously feels it will, then it can proceed to operate and won’t have to sit idle until some time later when the select committee decides it is going to make its report.

Ms. Gigantes: Why don’t you just give them a clean bill of health right now?

Mr. S. Smith: What is bothering the member for Carleton East?

Ms. Gigantes: You’re bothering me.

Mr. S. Smith: We’ll be looking into the matter.

Mr. J. Reed: On the other hand, if through the examination the plant does not get a clean bill of health, then we could make a recommendation in that direction, that it remain closed.

In fairness to all parties, that would probably be reasonably appropriate. We did want to proceed with it quickly; we would still like to get some kind of conclusion as quickly as we possibly can.

Mr. Mancini: Smarten up, NDP, and we can proceed.

Mr. J. Reed: I would like to suggest one final thing to the government. I have noticed in recent weeks that the Premier and the new chairman of Ontario Hydro have adopted, or have begun to adopt at least, in their inimitable fashion, the position that my leader has taken for a number of months now, that is that the only way nuclear energy can be properly scrutinized and examined in Ontario is through full public disclosure.

Mr. Mancini: After they got into trouble.

Mr. J. Reed: This is a point of view that has been expressed by the chairman of the royal commission on hydro-electric power planning. It has been expressed by a lot of very responsible people. I want to say that I am very pleased to see that the Premier in his speech to the Canadian Nuclear Association stated that people have the right to know. I think that is a very significant change.

Mr. Haggerty: That’s a great conversion.

Mr. S. Smith: What a conversion!

Mr. Peterson: You should start with the minister knowing first.

Mr. J. Reed: I would also, if the report in the Toronto Star is correct, put on the record that the incoming chairman of Ontario Hydro said: “I like things explained in simple, uncomplicated ways, and there are few limits to what should be withheld.” I agree with that.

Mr. S. Smith: The member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) doesn’t.

Mr. Ashe: It’s all a matter of perception.

Mr. J. Reed: I would appeal to the government and to the Minister of Energy, in the spirit of what the Premier has said here, in the spirit of the position he obviously agrees with now and in the spirit of the position that the incoming chairman of Ontario Hydro agrees with now, that he find it in his heart to accept this motion.

Mr. Peterson: Even the Premier can change with the polls.

Mr. J. Reed: We feel there is enough public concern -- some of it was voiced yesterday in the Globe and Mail -- that if the Premier wants to put his action where his words are he would take it upon himself to say, “Yes, I agree. We’re going to hold Rolphton closed until we have a chance to debate it in select committee and allow the select committee to make an immediate interim report. After that it can proceed on its work.”

Ms. Gigantes: We now have before us an amendment to the committee’s report. If I understand that amendment correctly, what the minister is suggesting to us is that we forget all about the original motion, which was a request to the government to tell Hydro not to restart the Rolphton plant until there had been a safety examination at the select committee level. The minister is telling us, “Forget that now. Send the whole matter back to the select committee and let’s have the work begin right away.”

I find that position at this stage to be rather distressing. I can put no other word on it. It’s distressing to me. Either this government is toying with the seriousness of this issue and the seriousness of the recommendation that was made by the select committee, or else it is truly seeking a confrontation on the principle involved in that recommendation.

I find it difficult to figure out which it is -- or whether it’s partly both. There’s a kind of schizoid attitude from the government. There’s a will to power -- the will to start up that reactor come hell or high water and not give a few days after the scheduled startup time for the committee to be able to assemble the documents it needs and commence a thorough review of the safety situation. There seems to be that will to power in principle, as if the public credibility of the nuclear program were at stake here on this 22.5 megawatt reactor -- as if the whole credibility of the government were at stake somehow if this reactor were delayed in its startup time for a matter of weeks, until we can do a proper job in the select committee.

All we asked for was a delay in the startup -- and I would like to underline to the minister that was a serious request. We now sit here in the situation where that plant has started up and by the time the government allowed this debate, the plant is moving up to full power.

Mr. Mancini: That’s your fault.

Ms. Gigantes: This is total hypocrisy. Total hypocrisy.

We had a motion from a majority of that committee a full two weeks ago and more, calling upon the government to delay the startup. The government refused debate for two full weeks and now it permits debate -- of what? Even the amendment is now totally useless. Amendment to what? To a motion that asks the government to tell Hydro not to start up the plant? The plant has started.

The way the minister describes the kinds of questions that have been raised about this plant, the way he answers the concerns that have been raised, the way he answers the documented evidence we now have --

Mr. Ashe: What? What?

Mr. Turner: Tell us about it.

Ms. Gigantes: -- of the difficulties this plant has experienced in operation ever since 1973 --

Mr. Mancini: You should go back to being a mayor, George. You’re all through.

Mr. Haggerty: What documentation?

[9:00]

Ms. Gigantes: -- the way he does that is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. It’s absolute nonsense.

He sits there and he tells us that it is the Atomic Energy Control Board’s job to review safety and that only the AECB has the legal mandate and the technical power to be able to review the safety of that plant. At the same time, he tells us to go back and review the safety of the plant in the select committee. Is he laughing?

Mr. Stong: Yes, look at him.

Ms. Gigantes: I think he is partly laughing and partly very determined that there will not be any suggestion that there are safety matters in Ontario related to nuclear power that would cause this government to blink an eyelash -- not even for a 22.5-megawatt plant which has consistently lost money.

We now have before us the annual reports of the NPD reactor at Rolphton from 1978. Those reports contain a listing of serious incidents in the five years from 1973 to 1978. These incidents are occurring in a plant that has a faulty, inadequate, emergency core cooling system. That is documented. We have the documents before the select committee; they were leaked documents from the AECB. But this minister is telling us to go cool our heels, to go chase our tails.

Mr. Ashe: Hear, hear.

Ms. Gigantes: The government is going to be lucky if nothing happens at nuclear plants in Ontario. But if anything does happen that causes a serious problem, the government is going to look pretty sick. It is better to be forewarned and forearmed than to say afterwards, “Oh, well, we didn’t think it was serious.” It is serious.

This minister has not even taken the trouble to read the documentation, I swear. He could not have read the documentation that exists about the nature of the difficulties with the emergency core cooling system design at that plant. Those documents are publicly available and have been tabled with the committee, and he has not bothered looking at them. He has presided over a procedure in this Legislature where we are now debating an irrelevant motion.

The minister is simply wrong when he suggests that the select committee has no authority to question the Atomic Energy Control Board. The select committee has a mandate to examine nuclear safety in Ontario. If that means we have to question whether the AECB has done a good job, then we will. He is not being very helpful, though, and neither is his government.

While we are on the subject of helpfulness, I would like to straighten out the record once and for all for my colleagues in the official opposition who insist on saying in this House -- they have said it many times, and we have had an incident where the House leader of my party left this House --

Mr. Mancini: That’s right. You were wrong then, and you’re going to be wrong again now.

Ms. Gigantes: -- because he had placed on the record a description of their behaviour which was judged to be unparliamentary, although it may have been accurate.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s a different issue.

Ms. Gigantes: We have just heard the member for Halton-Burlington explain, once again, that the select committee had considered a motion to begin discussions of the NPD station.

Mr. S. Smith: He didn’t say a motion; he said a suggestion.

Mr. J. Reed: I didn’t say a motion.

Ms. Gigantes: He said we took a vote that we would only discuss Rolphton, starting on July 4. There was no such vote taken.

Mr. Haggerty: No. He said immediately.

Ms. Gigantes: We had one motion before that committee. It was a motion I put forward after there had been a fair amount of discussion in the committee.

Mr. S. Smith: It was in the steering committee. Why don’t you listen?

Mr. J. Reed: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Halton-Burlington on a matter of personal privilege.

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, if the member can find in Hansard tomorrow where I suggested in any way that we took a vote --

Ms. Gigantes: You did. You said a vote.

Mr. J. Reed: I beg the member’s pardon. What I said was that I appealed to the committee to hear the case immediately. I did not suggest a vote. There was no vote taken on that matter because we were so obviously steamrollered out of that position --

Mr. Bolan: By the member and her colleagues.

Mr. J. Reed: -- that there wasn’t any point in making the motion. I want to make that clear.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Halton-Burlington has made his point.

Ms. Gigantes: The record will show tomorrow when my friend from Halton-Burlington reads it --

Mr. Mancini: Just apologize.

Ms. Gigantes: -- that he said the committee voted to begin consideration of Rolphton only on July 4, and that is simply not accurate.

Mr. J. Reed: Point of order.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Once more, the member for Halton-Burlington.

Mr. J. Reed: Would the member please clarify the situation for the House, that the vote was taken in the steering committee and there was no vote taken in the select committee on the immediate hearing of Rolphton?

Mr. S. Smith: Get it clear.

Ms. Gigantes: I will leave my remarks on this question for the member for Halton-Burlington to look at tomorrow in conjunction with the remarks he has himself made, which repeat the insinuations and innuendoes --

Mr. Mancini: You look at it. He knows what he’s talking about.

Mr. S. Smith: He knows what he said, you look at it.

Ms. Gigantes: -- that have been bandied around this House concerning this matter for the last couple of weeks.

I think it important to recognize that the position the NDP took in the select committee was one where we wished to have documentation concerning the nuclear power demonstration station before us before we began hearings on Rolphton. That documentation is only now becoming available. Yesterday, or the day before, we received the 1978 annual report on Rolphton. Today we received annual reports from the years 1973 forward and we are beginning to get what Hydro so generously calls a sampling of the significant-event reports concerning Rolphton and the operation of Rolphton. We must have that documentation before we look into the safety question at Rolphton, because otherwise we are subject to a whitewash by Hydro and by the AECL. In this case -- if we ever get to the bottom of it -- perhaps we’ll discover there’s been a whitewash by the AECB. I rather suspect that to be the truth.

I don’t like this reactor, Mr. Speaker. I’ll tell you why I don’t like it. It’s expensive in terms of power production. It’s old. It’s got a whole bunch of problems that have become evident over the years, and particularly in the last couple of years, which have led it to have a much lower capacity than the designers expected, than AECB expected, than AECL expected and than Ontario Hydro expected. It shows all the evidence of being a plant which is like an old car; there comes a point where you shouldn’t invest any more in frying to patch it up, and there also comes a point when you should put it through a new safety check. I suggest to you very strongly this is the case with Rolphton.

The facility is being used for training operators. I don’t think it’s a good idea to be training new drivers on old cars or new operators on old plants, especially when they seem to have the chronic kinds of problems this plant has.

The other reason Hydro wishes to continue operating the plant come hell or high water -- the other reason for that will to power, by the government and by Hydro, is that this reactor is being used to test out new fuel designs.

Since 1973 fuel bundles containing plutonium have been fired at that plant. Mr. Speaker, those fuel bundles are what Hydro calls highly energized. In layman’s terms that means they’re loaded with radioactive contamination. Any serious incident where there was an escape of radioactive contamination from containment at Rolphton has the potential to release all the contamination associated with these highly energized uranium fuel bundles.

We know from the documents that have been tabled with the select committee so far that there is concern about the level of power at which these fuel bundles are operated. We also know that this reactor has a basic flaw, in the sense that the emergency cooling system is inadequate. It’s been patched up, we don’t know how successfully, and it’s not completely patched up yet. We don’t know if the recommendations of the Atomic Energy Control Board for the patchup of the emergency core cooling system were adequate to ensure safety. We sure know they hope they are adequate, and we sure know that the AECB wants to see that plant operate, as does Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Ontario Hydro; but that is about all we know for sure.

We have an old plant, with a flaw in the emergency core cooling system, with a regular pattern of breakdowns, some of them causing fairly serious incidents -- type one faults, the most serious kind of faults -- being operated with new operators who are in training, and using plutonium fuel bundles, among other fuels.

I consider there is every reason in the world why this government should have taken our recommendation seriously. That it has not is a matter of grave concern to the public of Ontario.

I would like the minister to know that back in the city of Ottawa, the Ottawa Citizen --

Mr. Bradley: A fine paper.

Ms. Gigantes: -- has conducted one of the best investigative reporting feats I have ever seen in Canadian journalism in terms of getting information about the operations and history of the Rolphton nuclear plant.

Mr. Bradley: That ought to get you some good coverage.

Ms. Gigantes: The Ottawa Citizen has provided the citizens of Ottawa with information which can leave no doubt that we need a safety review of that plant before its operation is allowed to continue. There is absolutely no doubt, once you read the articles that have been done in the Ottawa Citizen, that this is the case. The Citizen has stood up for the information it has produced. It has called upon this government to get the truth out of Hydro. It has editorially said that the plant should remain shut until there is a safety review. That’s the kind of journalism we see all too rarely in Ontario.

Mr. Bradley: Did you hear that in the press gallery?

Ms. Gigantes: I know that when I go back to Ottawa people expect a government to respond to the questions that have been raised. There is now an application before the federal court of Canada from the concerned citizens of Renfrew county, requesting that there be a public hearing at the AECB concerning Rolphton and saying that the AECB is being delinquent in its duty in the control, monitoring and regulation of the operation of the Rolphton plant.

I think it’s about time this government realized it would be the better part of wisdom concerning safety at nuclear plants to proceed with caution, to give serious responses to serious questions and to show the public of Ontario there is a commitment by government in Ontario that the safety of Ontario citizens will be protected. I believe the government’s attitude shown tonight, shown over the last two weeks, gives a mocking face to government concern.

[9:15]

The minister is laughing at us and the minister is wrong. The minister is going to learn over the next few months that the public of Ontario cares very deeply about the issue of safety at our nuclear stations. He is going to learn that the people of Ontario will demand to have government take these matters seriously and provide every conceivable piece of information and every conceivable opportunity for public discussion and review. He will learn the people of Ontario will not be satisfied with a government which says let the AECB do it, that the people of Ontario will not be satisfied with a government that washes its hands of the question of safety at nuclear plants in Ontario.

We brought a serious motion to this Legislature. The government has treated it with contempt, both procedurally and in its amendment tonight. I am disgusted, and I think the other members of my party and the Liberal Party feel the same kind of disgust.

I have nothing more to add. This whole debate has been irrelevant. Thank you.

Mr. Ashe: I have listened with great interest and great intent to the speaker and I am now really concerned as to what we are debating tonight. I don’t know whether we are actually debating the motion and the recommendation before us from the select committee or the whole safety issue relating to nuclear power in Ontario; but I am going to try to keep my remarks more relevant to the motion before us.

I suppose I am the only person, to any relative degree, in this Legislature who lives close to a nuclear power station.

Mr. J. Reed: We knew there was something.

Mr. S. Smith: Lethal radiation affects the brain.

Mr. Ashe: I live less than one mile from a station, I have for a great number of years, and both myself and my neighbours have great confidence regarding the safety record of the stations operated by Ontario Hydro.

I would like to set the record straight on a great number of issues before us lately. First of all, as a neighbour of the Pickering nuclear plant, being very specific, I firmly believe these plants, both in their design and the way they are operated, are fundamentally safe.

Mr. Nixon: This is right on the report, is it, George?

Mr. Ashe: That is exactly what I am talking about. Otherwise, why would I raise my family literally in the shadow of the nuclear generating station unless I had some confidence in the technology of that operation?

Some of the members opposite don’t know what it is like to live in the shadow of that great industry and don’t really know what they are talking about. They can get up and grandstand and politic, but they really don’t know what it is all about.

Mr. Bradley: The Tories never do that.

Mr. Ashe: Never. Mr. Speaker, I will get back to my prepared text and try not to incite a riot on the other side.

As a member of the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs, I am of course very concerned about the resolution that was passed by the opposition members on that committee which calls for the shutdown of the Rolphton nuclear plant. The government members, in my view quite rightly, voted against that resolution for many reasons. I will just try to name a few. First, because the select committee did not conduct, and in fact did not have time to conduct, any independent investigation into the concerns expressed about the plant.

Mr. S. Smith: You voted against doing it.

Mr. Ashe: Rather, they preferred to rely on their political instincts although I would more properly identify it as a politically expedient posture at the time.

Mr. Renwick: Oh, come off it.

Mr. Ashe: Second, because the AECB, the agency which is qualified and hopefully responsible for making decisions such as this --

Mr. J. Reed: It isn’t though; we established that a few minutes ago.

Mr. Ashe: -- found after a full and complete review of all the facts that the station was safe to operate.

Third, because this type of decision is completely beyond the capability and responsibilities of the select committee at this time.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Of a certain member.

Mr. Ashe: I hardly need recall for members the powers of the Atomic Energy Control Board. In short, it is the federal agency responsible for nuclear safety under the Atomic Energy Control Act. Suffice to say that on matters of operating safety the control board is the supreme authority.

Mr. Haggerty: Joe Clark will take a look at it.

Mr. Ashe: It has the power to inspect, license and supervise the safe operation of all nuclear plants in Canada, not just Ontario, a role it has performed rather satisfactorily for the almost 20 years that nuclear power has been a fixture of electrical power generation in Ontario.

As the Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld) has already indicated in his earlier remarks, the AECB is the agency which has the technical capability and the legal responsibility for licensing the operation of nuclear reactors and for establishing nuclear safety standards in Canada. The board, after a full examination of all the facts, is satisfied with the safety of Rolphton station and that satisfaction is evidenced by the fact that it has continued to allow the station to operate at 100 per cent.

This is not to say I oppose the select committee’s thorough examination of safety issues. In fact, I completely support the intent of what they are trying to do. I sincerely believe the hearings scheduled for that committee this summer will be most beneficial, enabling members and the general public to see the many protections built into our nuclear facilities, and in the historical perspective of the Three Mile Island incident to judge if they are still satisfactory.

I do think, however, that it is important that these questions be examined in perspective and in proper context. I don’t think we could even pretend in the less than three hours we have before us this evening even to scratch the surface of nuclear safety let alone as it relates to Rolphton.

Mr. J. Reed: That’s why we wanted to hear it weeks ago.

Mr. Ashe: Nor do I think the public gets a proper perspective of nuclear power in Ontario through the little isolated incidents or unusual occurrences on which the media have focused recently, both the printed media and the electronic media. Certainly the Premier (Mr. Davis) caught this important point in his speech this week to the Canadian Nuclear Association.

Mr. Haggerty: For the first time.

Mr. Ashe: There were references made to that speech earlier this evening.

Mr. S. Smith: Saul on the road to Damascus.

Mr. Ashe: I quote from his speech: “You now face the challenge and opportunity,” he told the nuclear industry, “of putting all the facts on the record at a time when nearly everybody is watching and listening.”

Mr. J. Reed: Something my leader said months ago.

Mr. Ashe: Is that right? It’s amazing.

Mr. J. Reed: Your leader is the last one.

Mr. Ashe: It’s amazing. It just goes to show that when it’s appropriate we all listen, no matter the source.

These opportunities will arise at the select committee this summer where Ontario Hydro will have the opportunity to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the committee’s members that safety is its first and foremost concern. I believe, as does the Premier and this government, that the public will also be reassured by a full, frank and open discussion of the nuclear safety issue.

I do not think it is reassuring, nor in the best interests of public safety or education on nuclear matters, to be exposed to these issues in isolation or in an incomplete way, as for example the recent headline-grabbing remarks on tritium leaks at Pickering, which until one examined them closely were presented as alarming distortions of the facts. Under close scrutiny, however, it became clear that the radiation leak was so small that one would have to drink the town’s water supply for something like 450 years -- and not even the most optimistic member would suggest that he will be around for that time -- to receive a dose of radiation similar to the small amount that would be received by a normal chest X-ray.

Mr. S. Smith: Given the state of X-ray equipment in Ontario, I wouldn’t make that statement too glibly.

Mr. Ashe: Let’s put these things into their proper perspective. Whether they be said by a doctor or otherwise, let’s put them into perspective.

I would like to turn now to the question of public concern in the communities involved. I can tell the House that in Pickering, where I have been both a member of council -- serving as the deputy reeve and then as the mayor of that municipality -- and a member of this Legislature, the public has a great deal of faith in Ontario Hydro and in the way the nuclear plant has been operated there.

In the case of Deep River -- a particular situation with which I am not as closely familiar, of course -- near which the Rolphton nuclear demonstration plant is located, I would like to read into the record the following letter, which was sent on May 16, 1979, to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. S. Smith: It has already been read into the record by the minister; you weren’t here that day.

Mr. Ashe: I quote:

“Dear Dr. Smith:

“At a special meeting held on Friday, May 11, the following resolution was endorsed unanimously by the heads of the local municipalities: ‘That the area municipalities of Deep River, Chalk River and Petawawa, and the townships of Head, Clara and Maria, and Rolph, Buchanan, Wylie and McKay emphatically reiterate their past support for the nuclear power industry and, in particular express their complete confidence in the nuclear installation operations and personnel at AECL’s Chalk River laboratories, and at Ontario Hydro NPD-NTC, Rolphton,’ Which, of course, is the nuclear power demonstration and nuclear training centre.

“This action was precipitated by recent media reports which imply a fear for our safety with respect to the continued operation of the nuclear power station at Rolphton. Quite frankly, it is of more concern to us that distortions of fact and alarmist reports by the media are creating a misleading impression of the nuclear industry.

“As the leader of the Liberal Party, you must surely recognize the outstanding technological achievement and opportunity for electrical energy independence that nuclear power represents, not only for Ontario, but for all of Canada. In order to protect fully the public interest we, the Deep River council, firmly believe it is incumbent on all political parties, not only to seek answers to the perceived problems, but also to stress with equal fervour the associated benefits. Therefore, while sharing your desire for the best public safety precautions within the nuclear industry, we feel your statements, as recently reported, were lacking in overall perspective.

“In the post-Harrisburg climate of heightened public awareness, it is essential to present a balanced and objective viewpoint. To do otherwise, however inadvertently, can only do a great disservice to the general public.”

That is the end of the letter, which is signed by W. A. Seddon, the mayor of Deep River.

Mr. Bradley: Old news; it has been read twice.

Mr. Ashe: Old news, when it is relevant, I think deserves to be once again read into the record. It is just too bad that people did not take guidance and heedance.

Mr. S. Smith: You should read it again, actually. It’s so much better than the rest of your speech.

Mr. Ashe: It is amazing how the members opposite can constantly refer to listening to and wanting to have a little input from the local elected representatives -- only, mind you, when that happens to suit their purpose.

[9:30]

I think that letter expresses in nonpartisan terms the very concern --

Mr. S. Smith: Don’t choke on that.

Mr. Ashe: To put that more precisely, nonpolitical-partisan terms --

Mr. J. Reed: That is even worse.

Mr. Ashe: -- the very concern that I have been expressing.

Mr. Stong: Only one thing could be worse.

Mr. Ashe: I think no one can express it better than persons who live and work daily with nuclear power the way those persons in the communities mentioned have been a part of it.

It surely behooves us, as hopefully responsible politicians, although sometimes I question that, to deal with these public concerns in a responsible manner so the public does not become unduly alarmed by some irresponsible, sensational, headline-grabbing statements which do a great disservice to what has grown into a vital, and I might add thriving industry in this province and in this country.

In fact it is more than that. It is an industry that has enabled us in Ontario, with very few native energy sources, to have lower electricity rates than most jurisdictions in the industrialized world. Many people are unaware that nuclear power in Ontario last year provided more than 28 per cent of the province’s electric power needs. In comparison, water-powered electricity accounted for something like 37 per cent; coal provided another 28 per cent, most of which was imported from the jurisdiction to the south, the United States; the balance was created by burning oil or gas shipped from the western provinces.

The important thing to note, however, is that electricity produced from uranium is one tenth -- and I repeat, one tenth -- the cost of that produced from coal, oil or natural gas.

Mr. Haggerty: You haven’t included the cost of waste disposal.

Mr. Ashe: When one considers this relative economic cost, it is hard to imagine what we might be paying today in Ontario for our electricity if it were not for nuclear power.

Mr. Bradley: What is the capital cost and what is the disposal cost?

Mr. S. Smith: What is the cost of disposing of the waste, George?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ashe: I would add that the Ontario government realizes electricity produced from uranium represents the only solid bridge from a society mainly dependent on oil and gas to one that can meet its needs from renewable energy forms.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s what I’ve been saying for three years. You’re quoting me now.

Mr. J. Reed: Why don’t you talk about the real cost?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ashe: I am glad we are recognizing the Leader of the Opposition does say something relevant from time to time.

Mr. S. Smith: Thank you.

Mr. Ashe: We know we must narrow the gap from a society dependent on nonrenewable energy forms to one dependent on renewable energy.

Mr. J. Reed: You have been three years in adopting that view.

Mr. Ashe: We now have more than 100 projects involving energy conservation and renewable energy co-ordinated by the Ontario government and we have just concluded, as the honourable member knows, a major agreement with the government of Canada in this area to further develop and demonstrate energy conservation and renewable technology.

Mr. J. Reed: That is the third time that has been announced to the House,

Mr. Ashe: Next week I will be participating --

Mr. Haggerty: Next week the honourable member will reinvent the wheel.

Mr. Ashe: I will be participating in reinventing the wheel, if the member likes, but making progress, because sometimes the wheel can be made rounder and hence more efficient.

Mr. Bradley: And there will be five press releases that it has been reinvented.

Mr. Ashe: I will be participating with the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) and others in the official opening of Canada’s first solar-heated apartment building in Aylmer, Ontario --

Mr. Bradley: Tokenism.

Mr. Ashe: -- just one of the projects this government has been involved in to help bring closer the day when solar, wind or biomass energy will play a greater role in meeting our energy needs.

Today, not everyone can afford the minimum cost of some $3,000 involved in installing a prototype experimental-stage solar system in his home or office. We know we must work towards commercial development of these systems so that in the final analysis, the private sector will move ahead with the development of systems that will be more affordable, more reliable and far less experimental.

Mr. J. Reed: This is right on the motion, Mr. Speaker, right on the motion.

Mr. Ashe: In the interim, nuclear power will continue, and in fact must continue, to be an indispensable bridge, a bridge which must serve for perhaps the next half-century or so. I appreciate there are some members opposite, particularly some of those to my right, your left, Mr. Speaker, who would have us back into the candle age, if they had their way.

Mr. Samis: Don’t be so silly.

Mr. Ashe: It is my belief that the nuclear bridge is a safe one, and the extent of its safety will be revealed to the public through the open, honest and complete public discussions of the select committee this summer. I believe it is only through such complete examinations that the safety issue can be properly probed and can be properly understood.

The amendment to the motion before us gives me one little bit of concern. As a member of the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs, the words as they appear, “as soon as possible,” to me I suppose are a little bit up in the air, are probably not quite tied down enough to specifics. So on those grounds, and to be a little more specific to the members of the House when they are voting later on this evening, I would like to propose an amendment to the amendment, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Ashe moves an amendment to the amendment that the words in the fourth line “as soon as possible” be struck out and the following substituted therefor: “as scheduled and agreed to by the Hydro steering committee.”

Ms. Gigantes: What does that mean?

Mr. J. Reed: Nothing.

Mr. Ashe: The reason for the amendment I think is obvious. To be very specific, all parties are represented on that committee through the steering committee and have already agreed, with the guidance of the staff, as to a reasonable and responsible way to deal with this issue this summer. I think it is recognized with this amendment that the actual specifics of that schedule have already been adhered to. I think it is reasonable and responsible, and hopefully it will make the motion and the amendment to the motion that is before this House acceptable to all sides.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the minister’s amendment is unacceptable for an obvious reason. He did not include the commitment that the power plant would remain shut down during the course of the hearings that his amendment envisages. As a matter of fact, we are told on good authority that Rolphton has been operating at one thousandth of its capacity up until this evening, that they are moving the levers, adjusting the rods and turning the dials which begin the power movement upward, and that perhaps by midnight tonight it will be advancing in its move towards full power.

It is ironic and, in fact, somewhat disconcerting that this upgrading of the power level is taking place even as we debate a motion which was supported by the representatives of a majority of the members in the House calling for it to remain shut down. I bring that to the attention of the honourable member who just spoke. It doesn’t call for the shutdown of the plant, Mr. Speaker, it calls f or it to remain shut down until the select committee has had an opportunity to review the situation.

Actually, I feel very much concerned indeed that the minister has taken a course of action that has so dislocated this debate. The chairman of the committee has indicated that the minister announced even before the report came before the House that he was ignoring the report and going to order the resumption of the production of power at Rolphton. It’s almost as if --

Mr. Stong: Tantamount to contempt.

Mr. Nixon: Well, one wonders who he does consult. I have a feeling he goes out fishing with the Premier (Mr. Davis) and they decide, by God, nobody is going to push them around. That could happen; that sort of thing has happened in the past If it was his deputy who advised that, then I am even more convinced that the minister needs better advice in matters of this importance, both for the provision of power and for the safety of the people of the province, and just as important, for the proper exercise of the democratic method of government.

It is true that if there is a criticism of the members of the committee in the brief hearings leading to the motion and to the report, it is that it is not possible for the members of the committee to be expert in the matters at Rolphton so they could say: “We have examined the scientific background, the engineering matters and the history of the production of power at Rolphton; therefore, there is no doubt but that it should be shut down because it is an apparent and continuing hazard.”

There was, however, enough information given to the members of the committee that they felt, in their good judgement, the advice they had to give to the government was that Hydro be ordered to leave it shut down until such time as a proper review had taken place.

The argument that this should be left to the Atomic Energy Control Board is irrelevant. Certainly they have the final responsibility. The parliamentary assistant to the minister has indicated that is where the responsibility must continue to lie, and yet he thinks that the work of the committee is worthwhile. It is almost as if we are some sort of a show group that sits there, winnowing through the material which we think is important, but the government of the day simply ignores it.

I am very much concerned, as I hope the minister is, that the vote tonight will simply accept the report -- and I have every reason to expect that it will -- calling on the government to order Hydro to continue the shutdown. Surely it is incumbent on the members of the committee to begin the review of Rolphton without delay. We have heard the arguments about the delay that has taken place already. We do not know how long this review would be but, as my colleague the member for Halton-Burlington has indicated, the committee should be ready to give an interim report. If the House is in session, we can give it to the minister, or through some proper channel, indicating whether in our view the power plant can be restarted three weeks from now, four weeks from now, or perhaps never, depending on what we find out.

This is an old plant. It has been operating for 17 years. Like everything else, whether or not it is the tin Lizzie the member for Carleton East who is doing the usual honour in these debates -- was referring to, still it is bound to have continuing problems.

The 22.5 megawatts are not necessary for the Hydro grid, although my colleague who will be speaking in a few minutes is well aware that the power from Rolphton is utilized in eastern Ontario for keeping the street lights on in half of Pembroke, which we would all agree is an extremely important use indeed.

The points have been made very clearly. Whether or not it is dangerous if it starts up, we can leave it shut down for a few weeks until the select committee has an opportunity to examine it.

The government thinks the select committee is competent and is responsible for important things that the government wants to refer to it, for what I would consider political reasons. They have us go over their contracts for uranium and so on, and then ignore the recommendations at that time. But here is an instance where, if the minister were at all receptive to the realities of the democratic situation in this House and in this province, he would have the largeness of the spirit to recommend to his colleagues that Rolphton remain shut down. If he wanted to put in an amendment that the committee should give an interim report and not go over all of the safety aspects of the other power plants, surely that would he completely acceptable.

I regret very much that the government is taking this stand. As a matter of fact, I feel that they are doing it only to protect the minister, who launched himself on this particular position without sufficient advice and consideration. He has been around for a long time, and they say: “Well, we’d better support good old Jim. After all, he’s got a double portfolio; nobody wants either part of it, and he’s got to continue to carry it.”

We know how difficult it is for anybody to take this heavy responsibility, but I regret very much that the minister has taken this stand. I would ask that he give consideration to this: Why can we not make a deal to leave it shut down, and I am sure the committee will undertake to start the review without delay? We would even accept a sub-amendment from the honourable member who is simply stating the obvious.

Mr. MacDonald: He’s just tidying it up.

[9:45]

Ms. Nixon: All right. Tidying it up, in his own inimitable fashion. If the minister wants to set a time limit, we can make an interim report. If he is so anxious to crank up Rolphton by the end of July, he probably can. But it’s an affront to everything that we’re trying to do around here for the minister to allow Hydro to poll out the control rods in that atomic reactor even as we debate a report as significant and important as this.

Mr. S. Smith: Very well put.

Mr. Cassidy: I’ve just been trying to calculate what the actual impact on Ontario Hydro would be if the government were to listen to the Legislature and keep the Rolphton nuclear power station shut until there was a chance for the select committee to look into the questions of safety, which were raised initially by concerned citizens in the Renfrew area and which have been underlined by the repeated new evidence of further problems with that plant --

Mr. Mancini: Never mind the citizens of Renfrew. We have someone to speak for them.

Mr. Cassidy: -- which, clearly after 17 years of operation is beginning to get rather shaky around the edges and beginning to show some signs of its age. That plant has got a capacity, I believe, of 22.5 megawatts which is slightly less than one thousandth of the total installed capacity of Ontario Hydro at this time, which is about 23,000 megawatts. One one-thousandth is all that would be lost over the course of the next six weeks were the government to agree to this motion and keep the Rolphton plant shot until the end of July, at which time the committee could have decided whether the plant was safe or whether it was unsafe.

I’m sure the government would agree that if the plant is found to be unsafe it should not he kept open. It’s a perfectly simple kind of a conclusion, on which I presume even the member for Durham West, the parliamentary assistant, who lives in the shadow of the Pickering power station, would be prepared to agree. The fact is that we’re talking about an infinitesimal loss of power to Hydro and Hydro has been running with 30 or 40 per cent excess capacity.

The request by the committee could have been heeded. The government could have told Hydro to have held off resuming operations of that plant until this debate was through tonight. Instead, the plant has been allowed to get back into operation. I understand, contrary to what the minister has said, it is not working at one hundredth or one thousandth of its capacity but it is very rapidly moving up to full capacity. That’s effrontery, but it’s typical of the operations of this government when it comes to listening to what the opposition parties say under the condition of a minority government.

I’d say that it’s effrontery as well for the Minister of Energy to come up with the recommendation that he has come up with suggesting that the report be referred back. It’s a contrary motion and if there were time, Mr. Speaker, I’d ask you to rule that the motion itself was out of order.

When the parliamentary assistant has to get up and subsequently correct the efforts of his minister, because the minister blew it, and suggest something else, that suggests a certain state of confusion, a state of confusion which, in our minds, too often governs the way this government is handling questions of nuclear power.

This week the Premier goes down to the Canadian Nuclear Association and delivers a speech in which he tells the association that they’re going to have to be more open and more free with information about nuclear power and in which he suggested to them that there is a danger that they are just engaged in a public relations exercise when the public wants to know an awful lot more. If the Premier really believed that, we would have given the word to the Minister of Energy not just to have gone along with tonight’s motion but also to have kept the Rolphton station shut. It is not meaningful to Hydro whether or not that plant is shut or open.

When questions about nuclear power are raised, it seems to me that the government has a responsibility to be seen to be taking every effort possible to satisfy the public’s concerns. It seems to me that the government should be aware of the concerns many of us have that AECB, to which the Minister of Energy has referred all of his concerns, is not the only appropriate body to look at matters of nuclear safety.

I have great regard for the expertise and the knowledge that has been acquired over the course of the last year and a half by the select committee on Hydro -- not just its chairman, my friend and colleague, the member for York South, but also all of the members of the New Democratic Party and, for that matter, I dare say that the members of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party have maybe acquired some expertise as well.

There is not a single legislative body on this continent which is more qualified as laymen to look into the question of nuclear plant safety, Mr. Speaker, than the select committee on Hydro affairs of the Ontario Legislature, and yet the government is saying, “Leave it to the Atomic Energy Control Board.”

This isn’t recent information, but back in 1975 the eminent political scientist Bruce Doern did a study of the AECB and he said the AECB is in a relation of “historic coziness” with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited who are the sponsoring agency for the Rolphton plant and actually built it initially. Only five directors, never anybody from the public interest groups or from the labour movement; too many of the directors of the AECB coming themselves out of the nuclear power industry or out of AECL.

These things evolve. The AECB is probably more independent than it once was, but surely it doesn’t contain all wisdom on the question of nuclear safety.

I want to suggest a number of conclusions that we have to draw from the government’s behaviour on this particular question.

Mr. Nixon: Point of order, Mr. Speaker: Before the honourable member suggests a number of conclusions, I realize there is nothing you can do as Speaker, but I should bring to your attention, sir, and the other members of the House, that by agreement each party is to have 45 minutes in this debate; the NDP has now used 45 minutes.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m aware of the fact that my colleagues have spoken with great wisdom, with great force, and also maybe with not quite as much length as I had hoped.

Mr. Sterling: Then sit down.

Mr. Stong: Sit down before you ruin it.

Mr. Cassidy: If I could be permitted about a minute, I will conclude very quickly, with the consent of the Liberal member.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, the nuclear establishment is very reluctant to be challenged, otherwise why would it and the government quibble over the shutdown of a 21-megawatt plant during the course of this inquiry? Their fear and the government’s fear is that the course of the nuclear power program will be threatened. I want to suggest that raises questions about their confidence in the nuclear power program and the questions of safety which are clearly involved, when three separate serious events happen in one power station which is 17 years old.

Second, the government itself seems prepared to go to extraordinary lengths in order to put off a searching inquiry into this particular power station. For the government to argue for openness on the one hand and to act for a closed approach on the other raises questions.

Third, what is happening at Rolphton does raise serious concerns about the nuclear program. If a valve that is important to the cooling system can be out for 47 1/2 or 58 days and nobody notices, then all of the estimates about the safety are really in doubt. If a plant like Rolphton can start to come to the end of its useful design after 17 years, when it was meant to last for at least 30 or even 40, then all of the economics of nuclear power and of the more modern stations built subsequently could also be in doubt.

The point is not that we know that Rolphton is unsafe and should be shut down indefinitely; the point is that the public, the concerned citizens in Renfrew, people across the province and members of this Legislature, have the right to seek reassurance, if reassurance can be found, or to know what the true facts are on the other hand.

That’s why we think it was arrogant and presumptuous of the government to reject this motion, we think it was wrong of both the government and the Liberal Party to resist debate of the committee’s report at an earlier date, and we think even now that this committee’s report should be adopted and the government should agree to turn the valves back off, to shut down this plant, to let the select committee look into the safety questions at Rolphton --

Mr. Mancini: Your time was up three minutes ago.

Mr. Cassidy: -- and not to aggravate unnecessarily the public concern over nuclear plant safety, be it at Rolphton or anyplace else in the province.

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, I might say that I welcome this opportunity to address the Legislature tonight, because I believe a nuclear debate is both timely and important.

Mr. Mancini: Is this your own speech?

Mr. Cureatz: I think in the context of this debate on the Rolphton nuclear plant, it is important that the opinions and views of the members of this Legislature appear on the record so that all the public may see.

We have already heard from my honourable colleague the Minister of Energy, details of the many safety systems at the Rolphton plant. We have heard a great deal of opinions and facts about nuclear power expressed by other members. I think the record will show that we in the Legislature are all of one voice when we express our concern that Ontario Hydro’s nuclear generation facilities must provide maximum protection from nuclear accidents of any kind for our population. I would like the record to show that I am one who firmly believes Hydro has given us that kind of protection. In Ontario, safety has always been regarded as foremost in the operation of nuclear plants.

Mr. Bradley: How much do they pay the speechwriters over there?

Mr. Cureatz: Backup safety systems have long been a fundamental feature of the Candu reactors used in Canada. Members opposite would like to paint a picture of disaster when they speak on the subject of nuclear power.

Mr. Bradley: Never.

Mr. S. Smith: No one has done that. Be responsible.

Mr. Bradley: When he wrote the speech, he anticipated that and then he didn’t have it.

Mr. Cureatz: Members on this side of the House will argue in favour of this efficient, safe and, I might add, very necessary manner of generating electric power needed to meet our requirements in Ontario. By that I mean Hydro’s nuclear generating system has proved its reliability and safety. The physical factors that became the problem at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania have been anticipated in the design of the Candu generation system which, to avoid similar problems, has been designed quite differently. The backup mechanisms incorporated into the Candu reactor, as well as the design changes, would prevent the kind of failure that occurred in Pennsylvania as well as many other problems.

Mr. Bradley: Such an intricate knowledge of nuclear energy.

Mr. Cureatz: This is not to say there cannot ever be a problem of any kind with the Candu system. We must accept, however, the fact that the Atomic Energy Control Board and Ontario Hydro have minimized the possibility of any accident to the highest possible degree.

Mr. Bradley: I thought you couldn’t read in the House.

Mr. Cureatz: We must place credibility in findings such as those of Dr. Porter in his interim report on nuclear power in Ontario. He stated that while the absolute safety of any industrial or human activity, including the generation of electricity, cannot be assured, nuclear power as generated by Hydro’s Candu reactors is reasonably safe. The record of the Candu reactor reveals it to be the safest form of energy-related technology known to man. In fact, nuclear technology has been so closely monitored and controlled since its inception in Canada that I would suggest it would be very difficult to find another industry work place that is as safe.

I would like to add the comment that I think there has been an incredible lack of perspective involved in the reporting of the recent nuclear issues in the news media.

Mr. Bradley: They’ve been reporting Jim Taylor’s speeches.

Mr. Cureatz: The public has been treated, by and large, to only one side of the case concerning nuclear energy.

We on the government side welcome the select committee’s scheduled thorough review of nuclear safety and all of Hydro’s operations in this summer to come. We welcome it not only because we have confidence Hydro will be able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of committee members that safety is an absolute priority with Hydro, but also because the public will be reassured by such a frank and open and full discussion of the issues.

Mr. Bradley: That will be something new.

Mr. Cureatz: I would like to remind the members, as has been already quoted tonight, about the Premier’s comments to the Canadian Nuclear Association, that the public must have a right to know. I would similarly remind members of this House that we too, as elected representatives of the public, have an obligation to be responsible on this issue. It is our duty and our responsibility to present the whole picture in this nuclear question. I say to the opponents of nuclear generation specifically that their solution, that is, shutting down the source of concern, is neither realistic nor practical. Nuclear generation forms a significant portion of our present energy supplies.

Ms. Gigantes: Not Rolphton.

Mr. Philip: Rolphton doesn’t.

Mr. Cureatz: No amounts of conservation or renewable technology could replace this contribution, and the cost on our Hydro bills of paying for more coal, oil and gas generation would be staggering.

I would like to add, finally, that the motion to close Rolphton is without rationale. The Atomic Energy Control Board, which licenses and inspects all nuclear plants in Canada, has found the plant safe to operate at 100 per cent power. In 61 accumulated reactor years of nuclear power operation in Canada, that board has an unblemished safety record, as does Ontario Hydro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity of saying a few words.

Mr. Bradley: Well read.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak as the local member. I do so, recognizing time is reasonably short, but I do want to offer some remarks which, I must say, I offer with a sense of anger and frustration at a lot of what has characterized the so-called Rolphton issue.

[10:00]

I do so as someone who lives, like four and five generations of my forebears, in the Ottawa Valley where this controversy and this plant are now located. I do so as the local member who understands more keenly, I would like to believe, the unique problems Rolphton has presented to both this House tonight and to the select committee over the recent past. I do so as the local member Who understands that in my otherwise economically depressed county, the atomic energy industry is clearly an important one, and I do so tonight, appreciating the particular vested interested that brings me to this debate. I do so perhaps as someone who remembers the impact of an earlier family of electrically oriented plants upon my local environment.

I can well remember, and I can take anyone who wishes to come with me to look at it, the environmental impact of what was always thought to be a much cleaner and a much less difficult generation means and that, of course, was hydro power. We butchered some of the most beautiful natural resources in my county, the Ottawa and Madawaska rivers most notably, so that we could export power down here to the industrial heartland of southern Ontario. The dammed areas of my county stand as a living testament to the problems of that earlier family of electrical generation means.

We have accepted the nuclear waste from Port Hope and Carleton East and paid a hell of a price, $2 million I am told, to have the privilege of taking the junk in my county. I didn’t hear the member for Carleton East make a great deal of noise about that. I consider it offensive to spend $2 million of the taxpayers’ money to export that low-contaminant waste those many miles when clearly it did not need to be so organized.

In the context of the Renfrew county environment, and I see my colleague the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) joining us, I understand the economics that have left us unhappily depressed, relative to the Pickerings and to the Carleton Easts where the residents have enjoyed a much higher standard of economic circumstances in the middle of the 20th century.

In that environment I understand the position in which the government has placed us where the 2,200 jobs at Chalk River and the 500 jobs at Rolphton mean a heck of a lot more to my county and those reeves who wrote the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier and others. I understand the corner into which we have been backed in that connection.

So that there is no misunderstanding, I stand here tonight and support in principle what I have always supported. I am a pro-nuclear person. I believe it to be a very valuable part of our energy component, now and in the future. I appreciate what those people working at Chalk River have done for me and have done for all of the honourable members in not only the terms of providing a new kind of power, but the tremendous local, provincial and national technology that has grown up around that. I will not let anyone there or elsewhere cast me as anything but a pro-nuclear person. That is the way I have felt, that is the way in which I have campaigned in two elections, in Deep River and elsewhere, and that is the way in which I approach this debate tonight.

But unlike some, I am not prepared to stand here tonight and say “nuclear energy, right or wrong.” I am not prepared, as someone sent here with a mandate, to leave the environment for another generation in a way in which I found it; to dismiss, out of hand, legitimate questions raised by legitimate citizens in my county and elsewhere in relation to this plant or any other. Surely it is a first principle in a democratic society that people, concerned people, whatever their point of view, have a right and I dare say a responsibility to bring before all of us their legitimate concerns about public policy as all of us in this room and elsewhere made it.

I look around the public galleries tonight and I see some familiar faces from both sides of the local debate and I am glad to see them here. I look around me and I see people from Ontario Hydro and to those people and to those from the Ministry of Energy I want to say something that is not very polite. Not in four years as a member and in many years before that have I seen such a terrible botchup in public relations. The people in the ministry, the people at Ontario Hydro have served very poorly those 200 or 300 people at NPD.

Ms. Gigantes: That wasn’t a botchup, that was lies.

Mr. Conway: They have not got their message out. They have failed to put any kind of a public image on what it is they were trying to say and the ones they have betrayed most tragically are the very people in their employ, 300 miles away from here and I want them to know it.

For the multimillion-dollar PR operation they have at 700 University Avenue and elsewhere they ought to be ashamed of themselves. I am not about to -- now, or in the immediate future -- forgive them for that betrayal of some very fine, hard-working Hydro employees who are not very pleased, privately at least, with what it is they have been left.

Neither am I very happy about the way in which my colleague from Carleton East has characterized the Rolphton plant. To use her phrase of the other day it was “a rattletrap.”

Ms. Gigantes: It is a rattletrap.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: She should be ashamed.

Mr. Ashe: She doesn’t even know where it is.

Mr. Conway: Well, sometimes her virtuous piety is acceptable, but I am not about to stand here tonight or at any other occasion and listen to her make such charges which are clearly untrue and absolutely irresponsible and she knows it.

Ms. Gigantes: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: As the member for Renfrew North has suggested I have made accusations which are lacking in truth and are irresponsible, I call upon you to rule that that is not the correct way to describe my statements at all. There may be a difference of opinion --

Interjections.

Ms. Gigantes: -- between the member for Carleton East and the member for Renfrew North on this matter, as there most undoubtedly is, but to describe my statements as untrue is something I cannot accept and I hope you will not accept.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I want to --

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: You have to rule on this. The member for Renfrew North said my colleague the member for Carleton East had made statements which were untrue and that she knew them to be untrue. I ask you to have the honourable member withdraw those statements.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I will, if it assists you in your consideration, withdraw the aspect of untrue and repeat, unequivocally, that those statements were irresponsible and absolutely unwarranted.

Interjections.

Mr. Conway: I want to say I was impressed by the Premier’s recent speech. I was very impressed by what he had to say about the people’s right to know.

We may be 250 or 300 miles away from here but my people, however many or however few, with whatever point of view, with whatever prejudice, real or otherwise, they too have a right to know. They too have a right to know what it is that has been occurring at the NPD at Rolphton. There is, surely, much local concern about the media attention which has been directed at a facility which has existed there for some time. I support entirely my colleagues in the select committee, who in my view acted with responsibility and with genuine concern --

Mr. Ashe: And with no information.

Mr. Conway: -- when they put forward their resolution some time ago.

I might conclude by saying that those who would cavalierly dismiss that local right to know and those who would cavalierly make irresponsible and unwarranted statements are in my public and private point of view the real enemies of the people at Rolphton and elsewhere.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to conclude the debate this evening just prior to the vote. I recall when the matter of Rolphton first came to my attention and I issued a statement on it -- I think it was May 10, if I am not mistaken, or around about then -- I had a real concern because a number of citizens had brought to my attention certain statements and certain documents indicating that there were some real problems with regard to the operation of the plant. They had some genuine questions and they wanted these questions dealt with in a public forum.

One recognizes that the Atomic Energy Control Board is not and never has been a public forum. It seemed to me, therefore, that the logical thing to do, since at the time we were assured the plant was shut down for routine maintenance, was to keep it in a shutdown state and hold hearings as soon as possible in the select committee into nuclear safety. The interesting thing was that our intention was that the committee would have the hearings immediately, but the committee acted in a rather strange way. They accepted the notion that the place should be continued in its shutdown condition, but they refused to hear the matter immediately and instead decided to delay for a month or two.

The interesting thing about that is that it is a bit like a doctor saying, “Hold your breath until I get back to you,” and then going on a world tour and leaving the person in this rather unfortunate state of affairs. It is perfectly evident that what should have happened is what I had assumed would happen when I made the statement in the first place, that is, keep it shut down since it was already shut down, and hear the matter immediately. It would have taken a few weeks. By now, we would be long past the point where a decision could rationally have been made by the select committee. But the two other parties had their members decide otherwise. Therefore, we now have this debate this evening in the shadow of the very plant starting up again this very evening. It is just a remarkable coincidence and a remarkable sign of the government’s arrogance.

The fact is that what we thought was a routine shutdown, interestingly enough, as time has passed we have found not merely that the plant was shut down on a routine maintenance matter, but that it was shut down because of a very serious leak of heavy water, something which was not known at the time that we made our suggestion that it merely be continued in its state of receiving its maintenance operation.

More than that, the main concern of the citizens’ group had to do with the possibility that the emergency core cooling system would not work properly if called upon to work and that there would be certain fuel failures with certain types of ruptures in that plant. What we have now found is that there was indeed a very serious problem in the emergency core cooling system, a problem which was discussed earlier by the Minister of Energy.

What we find, therefore, is that the need to have this matter reviewed is a very important need indeed. What the Atomic Energy Control Board has traditionally been in this province has been a technocracy.

Mr. Foulds: Is this the same man who said it would be irresponsible to keep them closed so long?

Mr. S. Smith: It has been a group of experts deciding for the rest of us what is and is not safe, what should and should not happen.

Almost every aspect of government is becoming more and more complex. If one takes environment or various matters to do with mining or various commercial matters, more and more matters are becoming highly technical and complex. If we leave all the decisions to the technocrats, to those few who are highly educated and trained in the precise technical problem that happens to be involved, then we will find shortly we do not have a democracy, but that we who are elected will merely walk around in the shadows of those experts who will tell us in their own paternalistic way what should and should not be done, what is and is not good for us.

[10:15]

We learned at Three Mile Island that the time is no longer here when it is acceptable to put our faith blindly in technocrats. We learned in the select committee here that we ordinary mortals, we legislators, with very little if any expertise in atomic power matters, were able with a little time and effort, to understand the matters at hand and to make intelligent and rational decisions thereupon. I say the same holds with environment and the same holds with all other technical matters. We must reclaim this authority from the Atomic Energy Control Board. We must bring it into some legislative forum or some new kind of control board with both experts and elected, ordinary persons not wedded to the nuclear industry. We must find a new way of regulating these highly technical matters which will determine for all of us and for our children the nature of our future, energy-wise, environment-wise and in many other ways.

I was very pleased at the conversion of the Premier to his new-found policy of openness. I well remember sitting in this House after we in the Liberal Party had had a very tough decision to make -- that is, what to do with the so-called Schultz, now known as Taves, documents. We got the documents and we did not have the option of going to the Canadian Nuclear Association and making a speech in favour of openness. We had to decide then and there: Are we going to make those documents public? Are we going to be truly open with highly technical, sensitive, possibly even inflammatory matters? We made the decision in favour of openness. We have never regretted it. But I remember the Premier standing and pointing at me and saying how irresponsible that was.

I am highly amused on reading a letter to the editor by the friend of the Premier, the newly appointed chairman of Hydro, saying it was Hydro’s idea that we have these matters discussed in select committee. Members will remember very clearly that we put the mailers down in select committee and asked that Hydro be given an immediate chance to respond. Strangely then, as in other circumstances, we were out-voted by the other two parties for very mysterious reasons. Historians will wonder about that but they will soon learn that the real problem is that whenever the Liberals present something in committee, the other two parties decide to say no, and then a few days later try to figure out why it is that is what they said. That seems to be a pattern.

It is nice to see the same Premier who told me on province-wide television how irresponsible I was for giving out the Schultz documents is now speaking of openness. Can it be that be is speaking of openness on such sensitive matters as nuclear energy, when he is keeping closed and secret from the public the public’s own opinion as registered in polls paid for with the public’s own money? There is an amazing schizophrenia in that particular government. It turns out the nuclear industry is to be open but the Premier and the cabinet are to be the most secretive government in all of North America. I can make that statement without challenge.

Now what have we? We have this Rolphton plant. We have a plant where the more we learn the name of Rolphton, the more we learn there have been serious problems. We are told the AECB is satisfied. But when one reads the AECB statement, it is not satisfied there could not be a melt, it is not satisfied there could not be a fuel failure, it is merely satisfied that the number of deaths that might so arise would be comparable to the number of death in the coal industry or in some other comparable industry. After all, Rolphton is located at some distance from large centres of population and is a relatively small plant.

I take very little comfort from that. The time has come for open hearings; the select committee is the only place where the open hearings will occur; it will cost us absolutely nothing to continue the plant shutdown for a few weeks more until these hearings are held.

Ms. Gigantes: You called that irresponsible two weeks ago.

Mr. S. Smith: We do not understand the arrogance of the government in insisting upon this type of amendment. I will just say in closing I am highly amused by the fact that the parliamentary assistant -- and I might mention when one calls the Ministry of Energy, as we have done, a secretary answers and says, “George Ashe’s office.” Very interesting.

Mr. Ashe: “Mr. Ashe’s office,” please.

Mr. S. Smith: We had a certain problem. The minister presented us with an amendment. Then his parliamentary secretary decided to go one better, to trump the amendment, by adding certain words in his own personal style. I wish the two of them would get their act together. The minister and his parliamentary assistant should be able to decide between them what their amendment is so we can vote against it and show that this House has some rights with regard to such matters as nuclear energy; that the government could wait with this minuscule matter, wait until the select committee has decided the matter and not rush ahead in the face of what is clearly the view of the majority of members of this House.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. MacDonald has moved adoption of the report of the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs.

Mr. Auld has moved that the words “be adopted” be struck out and the following substituted therefor --

Mr. Nixon: Dispense.

Mr. Speaker: Shall I dispense with the reading of the amendment?

Some hon. members: Read it all.

Mr. Cassidy: Read it all -- all six Tory amendments.

Mr. Speaker: “That the interim report he referred back to the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs, and that the select committee be reconvened as soon as possible to begin its examination of Ontario’s nuclear commitment, including nuclear safety matters, and that the concerns expressed with respect to Rolphton NPD be considered in that examination.”

Mr. Ashe has moved an amendment to the amendment that the words in the fourth line “as soon as possible” be struck out and the following substituted therefor: “as scheduled and agreed to by the Ontario Hydro steering committee.”

The House divided on Mr. Ashe’s amendment to Hon. Mr. Auld’s amendment to Mr. MacDonald’s motion to adopt the report of the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Auld, Ashe, Baetz, Belanger, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brunelle, Cureatz, Davis, Drea, Eaton, Elgie Gregory, Grossman, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson,

Johnson, J., Kennedy, Kerr, Lane, Leluk, Maeck, McCaffrey, McCague, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Newman, W., Parrott, Pope, Ramsay, Rollins,

Rotenberg, Rowe, Scrivener, Smith, G. E., Snow, Stephenson, Sterling, Taylor, G., Timbrell, Turner, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Nays

Blundy, Bolan, Bounsall, Bradley, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Campbell, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Cunningham, Davidson, M., Davison, M. N., Dukszta, Eakins, Epp,

Foulds, Gaunt, Germa, Gigantes, Grande, Haggerty, Hall, Isaacs, Johnston, R. F., Lupusella, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mancini, McClellan, Miller, G. I., Newman, B.,

Nixon, O’Neil, Peterson, Philip, Reed, J., Renwick, Riddell, Ruston, Samis, Smith, S., Stong, Swart, Van Horne, Warner, Wildman, Worton, Ziemba.

Pair: MacBeth and Edighoffer

Ayes 53; nays 51.

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Auld’s amendment, as amended, which was agreed to on the same vote.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:45 p.m.