Journal des débats 1982-avril-19 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Elston: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Four months ago yesterday, on his last day in this House, my former leader rose and pointed out that there are approximately 3,500 litres of polychlorinated biphenyls in the transformers located in the Legislative Building. He expressed the concern felt by all in this party for the health of those who work here, the members and visitors.

I think our concerns are well founded in the light of the problems experienced with PCBs in a New York state government building located in Binghamton. This building was rendered virtually useless by a fire in a transformer which released PCBs and other contaminants including dioxins. The fire occurred in February 1981 and the building is still closed.

When the state of New York moved its employees from the building more than a year ago, it was thought that it would cost $500,000 to clean it up and that it would take two weeks. Subsequently, they revised these estimates to $1 million and four weeks. Now, however, they do not know whether this building will ever be used again, since they expect it would cost a minimum of $10 million to clean it up.

We are into a situation where they have cleaned up some of the furniture in that building and that has been disposed of in a landfill site. The rest of the furniture is about to be cleaned and dumped in a similar manner. My concern is that, since we have these PCB-filled transformers in this building, something like this could happen here and render this building absolutely useless forever to the people of this province.

Mr. McClellan: That's the way it is now. Nobody's able to tell.

Mr. Elston: Maybe I should say that it would be rendered unoccupiable as far as the people of this province are concerned. We were told more than four months ago that if there were any danger at all some steps would be taken to deal with the problem of PCBs in those things. I am concerned that the PCBs are still in the transformers and that no visible action has been taken. I think it is time we had further reports on this to find out exactly what is going to be done and to have it dealt with in a hurry.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: Before starting on the routine proceedings, it is that time of year again when we have a new group of pages. I ask all members of the Legislature to join with me in welcoming this new group.

Andrea Baxter, Muskoka; Tim Brown, Wellington-Dufferin-Peel; Stephen Cassivi, Windsor-Riverside; Giles Cruickshanks, Sarnia; Paula Flood, Essex North; Ingrid Garcia, Lakeshore; Eric Gilson, Rainy River; Martha Héder, Lanark; Jodi Herold, Humber; Rosemarie Janosi, Durham-York; Paul Levesque, Nipissing; Elena Masarin, Oakwood; Lorne Potash, Wilson Heights; Brooks Rapley, Fort William; Heidi Robinson, Leeds; Kenneth Ryan, Riverdale; Kirk Sheppard, Northumberland; Paul Smeaton, St. David; Erinn Somerville, Cambridge: Lisa Taylor, Windsor-Sandwich; Roman Temniuk, Mississauga East; Jennifer Voll, Kitchener-Wilmot.

I ask all honourable members to join with me in welcoming these new pages to their positions. I am sure as we get to know them better, I will be able to pronounce their names a little bit better.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CHEMICAL SPILL

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring the honourable members up to date on the matter of the recent discharge of chemicals to the city of Toronto sewers in the Wallace Avenue area earlier this month.

Through the work of my ministry's special investigative unit and industrial abatement staff, a likely source of the discharge has been determined. Staff worked with fire and police officials from the early hours of April 6 to ensure the health and safety of residents in what is commonly called the Junction Triangle area. Once their safety was ensured, officials began the painstaking work of uncovering the culprit in this incident.

My ministry's legal services branch is now reviewing what are some very complex legal issues for contraventions of our environmental legislation with a view to prosecution. I expect a recommendation on this matter within a few days but, rather than prejudice any possible legal action, I prefer to reserve further comment on specifics for the time being.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENROLMENT CUTBACKS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. The minister is aware that the university presidents in the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations are contemplating enrolment cutbacks to the universities next year and in years subsequent to that as a result of chronic underfunding at the university level. Can the minister tell us what assurances she can give us and them that she will not allow any cutbacks in enrolment levels because of her government's funding programs?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this is being contemplated in a specific group of courses at one university in four. It is also my understanding that this matter has been discussed by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada on a nationwide basis, but to my knowledge there has been no definitive discussion of this kind of activity for the universities as a whole in Ontario.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister prepared to make a strong and unequivocal statement that she will allow no cutbacks in enrolment at Ontario universities, to make sure we can at least attempt to guarantee decent access in this province? Will the minister make that clear statement?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I think there was a very clear statement made this year when funding at the university level was increased for operational purposes by 12.2 per cent, considerably above the projected level of inflation. I anticipate the universities will continue to function effectively with the kind of support that has been given to them.

Mr. Peterson: The reality is that the minister's funding increased 12.2 per cent when her own advisory committee recommended that 14.4 plus, including the money for capital improvements, was necessary just to make ends meet next year. That points out in graphic terms the chronic underfunding the universities have experienced and are experiencing. The minister will recall that Dr. Ham said, "Because of this underfunding, we are preparing Ontario to be a second-rate province in the future."

Does the minister not think she has to make a clear statement to the university community that she will tolerate no cutbacks in enrolment?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not at all sure that I or anyone else could make that statement unequivocally. The value of a university education to those who can benefit from it is of course inestimable. It is also important for the community as a whole.

There are various kinds of post-secondary educational experiences that are equally important, and it seems to me that the young person who is contemplating post-secondary education must look at all the choices available to him or her and make the appropriate choice on the basis of his talent and his proposed life choice. I anticipate young people will continue to do that. As long as they do, there is no doubt in my mind that the universities of this province will continue to provide an educational program second to none in this country over the next decade and beyond.

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Health has arrived, I would like to direct a question to him.

In view of the fact that there has been no apparent headway in negotiations over the weekend and now, at least through the press, there are threats of wholesale withdrawal of services across the province, I would like to ask the minister how he intends to avert the potential withdrawal of these services, with the exception of medical emergency services. What is the minister going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I believe the board of the Ontario Medical Association is meeting at this time. I trust that board will do what its negotiators said it would do today; that is, discuss the latest negotiating positions put on the table last Friday. I also trust the OMA will return to the bargaining table tomorrow afternoon, as it has been invited to do by our negotiators. At present, therefore, any further comment I might have will await decisions made by the OMA.

Mr. Peterson: Does the government have a plan if there is a wholesale withdrawal of services? What is the minister going to do to protect those patients who are already being inconvenienced and who I expect will be substantially more inconvenienced in the future than they are already?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) wants me to begin to exchange threats with the OMA. I am not going to do that. The statements I made last week and the week before stand equally today; that is, whatever needs to be done by the government of this province to ensure patient care is not threatened as a result of job actions will be done.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, the minister has said he does not want to exchange threats with the OMA. Surely the question is not one of exchanging threats but one of taking the threats from the OMA at their face value. Does the minister not agree that since it has carried out every single threat it has made so far, from administrative obstruction to rotating walkouts, it is foolish for the minister to sit there and say he does not believe it will carry out the next threat, which is for a back-to-back rotating walkout, which is indistinguishable from a general walkout?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: First, I must remind the honourable member that I find the position he and his party continue to take rather strange in view of the fact that his party advocates that doctors be given the right to strike. I cannot understand his concern about a situation where the services of doctors are withdrawn when he continues to advocate that they expressly should be given the right by this government to withdraw services.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I advocate that a strike be regarded as professional misconduct. What can be clearer than that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With respect, I do not know what can be clearer than the member's former leader when he was speaking for his party and saying that he advocated doctors being given the right to strike. Either the right to strike, as the member's party has said very many times, means something or it does not. I happen to disagree totally and thoroughly with the position that the member's party has taken, but he has to live with his party's advocacy of the doctors' right to strike and to totally withdraw services.

The member asked why I do not take their threats at face value. I still have a great deal of respect for each and every physician in this province. When I take their threats at face value, I also take at face value their undertaking not to cause any harm to their patients. If they do not meet that undertaking, if they begin to cause harm to their patients and affect their health, then obviously action will be taken firmly and quickly by this government.

In those cases brought to our attention last week, of which there were about 30 or 35, immediate action was taken by this government to make sure that what appeared to be a threat to patient health was removed. All the doctors involved co-operated at that stage and patient care last week was not threatened. To the extent that any of the new threats that are being made are carried out, if they fail to honour the other part of their obligation, to protect the health of their patients, then firm and decisive action will be taken by us in accordance with all our legislative power.

Mr. Peterson: The threats are obvious from reading the press reports of Dr. Reese's commentaries, and I will point them out to the minister in case he has not seen them. Dr. Reese said: "The escalation is necessary, because rotating walkouts proved to be just an annoyance to the public." In another interview he said that there had not been very much inconvenience; it was just Mickey Mouse pressure they had brought to bear on the government so far.

If the minister takes them at their face value, he is headed into a major confrontation. What is he going to do about it to protect the patients in this province? That is the government's responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Leader of the Opposition and I begin from different premises. He has as the premise for his question his obvious belief that the doctors in this province will threaten the health of their patients. I do not share that belief.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Health a very simple question. Is he going to allow the OMA to engage in a general strike or walkout?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to exchange threats with the OMA. I cannot say it any more clearly than to say we will take whatever steps are appropriate to ensure that patient health is not threatened in this province.

Mr. Foulds: In noting that the minister has failed to answer the question, is he prepared to shoulder his own policy and political responsibility instead of engaging in the sham that somehow that responsibility is that of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario? Specifically, will he prepare and issue two orders in council: (1) to classify the current irresponsible and frivolous walkouts as unprofessional conduct and therefore subject to disciplinary action; and (2) to prevent extra-billing, not only during the current dispute but also forever afterwards?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Clearly, if this government wanted more unrest in the health care community at this time, then it would do exactly what the honourable member is suggesting we do in terms of stopping extra-billing. If the member suggests that what we want is more disruption in the system and more unhappy doctors taking more strike action --

Mr. Foulds: You're going to give away the store, the way the Liberals suggested.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Relax. Just listen to the answer. I am sure that, deep down, the member wants this thing to be resolved and to be resolved peacefully.

Mr. Martel: How? What is that word, "peacefully"?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: To do that, this would be the inappropriate time to do anything about extra-billing, given the current situation as of today's date.

On the member's first question with regard to whether I ought to pass an order in council classifying some of the job action as unprofessional, I say two things. First, I really cannot reconcile how the member's party can advocate that position when it advocates that doctors be given the right to strike. Does the member think they should be given the right to strike by legislation and then, at the same time, amend other legislation, saying, "But if you exercise that right to strike, you will lose your licence to practice"? What is the New Democratic Party position on that question?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You are on record; that's right. That is what the record says. In fact, that exemplifies the difficulty in dealing with this area.

I want to make our position absolutely clear. At present, patient care has not been threatened. I have a number of powers under the legislation and I am still hopeful that I will not have to exercise those powers, because I believe, given all the options, most doctors in this province will not threaten the health of their patients.

At present, if the health of any patient in this province is threatened I can, without any amendment to the legislation, take all appropriate steps necessary, with or without the College of Physicians and Surgeons, to ensure that patient care is protected. Patient care, in fact, will be protected.

Mr. Nixon: Backing off the college a little today?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I am not. If you want to ask a supplementary, you will find out.

Mr. Peterson: Does the minister believe that a general walkout will threaten the health of patients in this province?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Quite clearly, there are all sorts of ways the OMA can handle a general walkout. I would have to wait and see how they intend to stage it, what kind of procedures they are going to put in place, how many days they might intend to carry it out, and just how they are going to meet their clear obligation to protect patient care, before I could answer a general question such as the one the Leader of the Opposition put.

Fundamentally, if the Leader of the Opposition wants to put the proposition that this government should do a number of things to make sure a general walkout does not happen, then it is incumbent upon him, in all sincerity, to tell us how much he thinks we should pay to avert that; or, in the alternative, what pieces of legislation he thinks we should bring in -- perhaps compulsory arbitration, as his Health critic advocated the other day. Just what is his recommendation?

At present, in exercising my responsibility to run the system, we are negotiating in good faith and continuing to negotiate in good faith, putting all sorts of options to the OMA in good faith and protecting patient care by taking all appropriate steps when patient care seems to be threatened. That is the proper way to handle this matter; it is the way I will continue to handle the matter.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have had trouble understanding the minister's confusion with respect to our position, which is that a doctors' strike is intolerable and should be regarded as professional misconduct. I do not understand what is unclear about that.

Let me ask the minister whether he intends to permit what was stated by him to be intolerable before he permitted it to happen last week; that is, a walkout at the Hospital for Sick Children. Does he intend to sit there as the OMA threatens and then carries out a larger walkout which will affect, among other hospitals and services, the Sick Children's Hospital?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, let me answer that in two distinct parts. First, I will read the honourable member the answer to his opening remarks. "'Doctors should not be allowed to bill their patients more than medicare pays, but they should be allowed to strike for higher fees. You would have to face the possibility that doctors would withdraw their services.' But he" -- the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) -- "said that aside from the police, 'there is nobody so essential that they should be denied complete bargaining rights, including the right to withdraw services.'"

That is the position of the member's party. That was said on February 7, 1981. Perhaps his new leader, or his acting leader, wants to disavow the position of his party which says that doctors --

Mr. McClellan: Twice today I have stated what our position was.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know the member is sweating today. To use the member for Ottawa Centre's words, the position is that doctors should be allowed to withdraw services.

Mr. Martel: You are the one who imposes settlement.

Mr. McClellan: It is your strike.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Tough day, isn't it? I understand the member's discomfort with his party's position that doctors should be given the right to withdraw services.

Mr. McClellan: I stated it today.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They are not my words. They are the member for Ottawa Centre's words, and they look good on the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan). Those are his words, and the member will have to live with them.

The member asked how it is that we could allow the situation last week. The member should think through the proposition he is putting. The member is putting the proposition that, if we had only changed the law last week, then the doctors, rather than break the law, would have performed the operations at the Hospital for Sick Children. That is as opposed to doctors being unwilling to threaten the health of their patients and therefore going ahead with operations.

In other words, the member is telling me he believes doctors will respond only to the threat of being put in jail for breaking the law; that is the only thing they will listen to and they will not respond to the health care needs of their patients.

It is my belief that doctors are far more concerned about the health of their patients than they are about a piece of government legislation which will perhaps cause them to be fined or imprisoned. If we are in a situation in which the medical community in this province does not care about the health of patients, then we have large problems. I do not believe we are at that point.

I believe that what keeps doctors at work in this province is not a piece of government legislation but the fact they will not do anything that will risk the health of their patients. I rely upon their dedication to their patients although they want more money and although they are prepared to take job action. I think their devotion to the health of their patients is far more powerful than any threat that they will be imprisoned or fined.

RESIDENTIAL GAS PRICE INCREASES

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis), I will ask a question of the Chairman of Management Board. Almost a month ago, I believe, the cabinet received a petition on behalf of the gas consumers of Ontario under section 30 of the Ontario Energy Board Act from members of this caucus. Why has there been no reply to that petition?

Can the minister explain any steps the government has taken to reduce or postpone the unprecedented increase of 32 per cent awarded to Consumers' Gas and similar increases awarded to Northern and Central Gas which have raised the average residential bill, according to Consumers' Gas spokesmen themselves, from $657.02 in February 1981 to $870.64 in February 1982?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member will know that when those petitions come to cabinet they are circulated for comment to any ministries that may be interested. Actually, the legal work on them is done by a chap in the Ministry of the Attorney General. It would be normal that it would take at least a couple of months for the facts to be put before cabinet and for it to be in a position to consider it.

Mr. Foulds: The preliminary facts at least are readily available, not only from the companies involved but also from the Ontario Energy Board itself. When the federal government has given the three major gas distribution companies in this province some $19 million in outright grants to broaden the distribution system, will the minister not admit that the award of a 65 per cent markup on top of wholesale gas costs and taxes is unwarranted and unjustified?

When the people and the businesses of this province, aside from the gas distribution companies and the banks, are being asked to engage in restraint, does the minister not think that it is about time his government took some action to protect the consumers of the province instead of protecting Consumers' Gas?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to note the comments the honourable member has made, but he will know full well that I am not in any position to comment on this until it has been dealt with by cabinet.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize the urgency in this matter with the tremendous increase in home heating gas bills? Does he not think he would expedite this whole process when people have had these kinds of increases, when we find that the Kitchener Waterloo area, which supplies the gas municipally, has rates 15 per cent lower than Consumers' Gas and Kingston four per cent lower?

In view of the fact that this year we had a much colder winter than we have had in previous years and that the figures on gas consumption show that these gas companies are going to get a tremendous increase in revenue without any increase in rates, does the minister not think it is worth investigating and worth investigating immediately?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Again, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments included in that, and we will deal with it as quickly as possible.

PCBS IN LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I stood in my place earlier on a point of privilege concerning polychlorinated biphenyls. Given the real danger that exists here at Queen's Park with respect to approximately 3,500 litres of PCBs, which are in three electrical transformers here in the building, and given the fact that there was a minor fire involving PCBs on Adelaide Street in December 1977 and putting this into perspective with respect to what happened in Binghamton, New York, in 1981, could the Minister of the Environment advise this House what he has done to ensure the safety of all those who work in the building as either members or staff and of those who visit the building in case there is some problem with the PCB-filled transformers?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member will recall that when his former leader raised the matter in the House in the previous Parliament he received at that time, I thought, a rather full report from the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Wiseman) as to the conditions under which the PCBs exist in this building. As I recall, the original concern was raised about an apparent leak, or what had been perceived by one of the member's research staff as a leak. I think he explained how it appeared to be there because of the regular testing procedures that are undertaken with respect to the quality of the PCBs in the transformer.

The minister also pointed out, as I recall, that the transformer was in a secure area in a room which has a completely separate air circulation system from the rest of the building. Therefore, if something were to occur in that secure area, it would not become part of the regular air circulation system of this building, and this is itself, I am sure, a major form of protection. He pointed out as well that the transformers are diked and that if there should ever be an unexpected leak there is far more than enough capacity within the dike to contain all of the PCBs in the transformers.

Given all that information, I wonder why the member should raise the matter again at this time. I do not know whether any additional information is available through the Minister of Government Services at this time or not, but the advice we received at that time from those people on our staff and, I believe, from the Ministry of Labour staff -- the medical group from that ministry was involved as well -- advised that it was really quite a safe and secure situation.

Mr. Elston: I suppose I really raised the question with respect to these particular PCBs because the record of the involvement of the Minister of the Environment with those PCBs and dealing with the problem there is basically the same as it has been in dealing with PCBs in the province.

It is four years since the Adelaide Street PCB fire and over three years since PCBs were banned in Canada for use in new transformers. Could the minister explain why, over the past four years, his ministry has still not approved a PCB destruction technology for over six million litres of PCBs which are in use in over 5,700 PCB transformers in Ontario? When is he going to go beyond the funding of two researchers for prototype units which, to this date, have not destroyed more than a few grams of PCBs? When is he going to get serious about dealing with this technology?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am glad at least that the honourable member is prepared to acknowledge that we have been funding, with very substantial sums of money, the research of the two pieces of technology to which he refers, one being a plasma arc and the other a plasma torch, which are progressing. In fact, one is at a stage now where they are developing from the prototype a larger model which would be necessary.

Mr. Kerrio: That was two or three ministers ago.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I do not know how much research the member for Niagara Falls has done. Sometimes it is not possible to do it overnight.

There is another Ontario-developed technology, I suppose one might say, that the member might be referring to, with which the Ontario government and the federal government have now agreed to do a test burn. We had staff present at the experimental testing of that unit when it was in England and we are now preparing to follow up jointly with the federal government for a test here.

If one understands the technology involved, there was a very significant concern about the question of the temperature which would be reached by that method of combustion. If one also understands some of the chemistry involved, the temperature at which the combustion takes place plus the retention time is critically important in terms of efficiency of burns. If we had hastily gone forward with a particular technology without knowing fully what the answers are to those questions, I am sure the member would have been the first one on his feet in this Legislature, criticizing us for not fully investigating all of the possible ramifications of a new technology before putting it in place.

We have consistently taken a responsible approach. We are exploring all possible avenues. In fact, I recently had meetings with some other people who have a technology developed which appears to maybe be even more advanced than any of the three others we are talking about. We are looking at that one as well.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, to come back to the original portion of the question about the transformers themselves, it is clear that the old transformers are the problem and the new transformers are capable of correcting the problem of the potential danger of the PCBs in electric transformers. Does the minister have or is he prepared to take on any program of stepping up the replacement of those old and very dangerous transformers?

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is not really a question of the age of any given transformer; it is a question of the insulating material which is used in the transformer. We are looking at the possibility of a safe means of replacing PCBs as the insulating fluid with others, but that is not yet complete.

USE OF STRIKEBREAKERS

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Solicitor General. The minister is aware that we have asked for a full public inquiry into the activities of Securicor Investigation and Security Ltd. Inasmuch as he has not yet agreed to the need for such a public inquiry, can the minister assure the House that the scope of the Ontario Provincial Police investigation is broad enough to cover strikes where this company or a satellite company appear to have been involved?

Will the investigation include the following companies: Elk Lake Planing Mills, Bata Industries Ltd., Canada Cement Lafarge Ltd., Texport Division of Oxford Warehousing Ltd., Arrowhead Metals Ltd., Rolph-Clark-Stone Ltd., Lawson Packaging Division, Reid Dominion Packaging Ltd., Wardair, Cara food services, Irwin Toy, Dominion Citrus and Drugs Ltd., Automotive Hardware, Boise Cascade, International Waxes Ltd., Maple Lodge Farms, K Mart, Dominion Dairies, Drug Trading, Canadian Canners Ltd. in Simcoe, the Ontario College of Art, LanciaBravo Foods, Kwikasair Express Ltd. and General Aviation Services Ltd.

2:40 p.m.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I will get the names mentioned by the member for Hamilton East from Hansard and will ask the Ontario Provincial Police to ascertain whether the activities of those companies warrant investigation. I will report back to the member following the inquiries by the OPP.

I understand from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) that the main company mentioned will appear before the Ontario Labour Relations Board tomorrow. There may be something coming out of that to report as well.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister will realize, of course, that that company represents just one name on a long list. Perhaps he will also be aware that considerable sums of money are involved in this dirty business.

In one of the strike situations I have mentioned, that between the United Cement, Lime and Gypsum Workers, Local 368, and Canada Cement Lafarge Ltd., the payout to Securicor was as follows: For October 16 to 26, a little better than a week, $87,668.98; October 22 to November 7, $87,635.87; November 3 to November 9, $88,651.44; November 10 to 16, $100,523.95; November 17 to 23, $113,117.49; November 27 to termination, $90,216, plus five back invoices for one of the small auxiliary units for five weeks at $25,956 a week.

The total in that one strike alone amounted to $697,593.73. Will the minister's request to the OPP include an investigation of the costs and the bidding practices that are involved in these matters?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: In answer to the first question, I have no knowledge of the costs apart from some figures which the honourable member showed me last week as having been paid to Securicor in a particular transfer. I am not aware of any other transfers of funds to Securicor in payment of their services.

As to the OPP investigation, it would not, and at this point does not, include the amounts of sums and fees paid for the services such companies are offering.

Mr. Speaker: Before we move on to a new question, the Solicitor General has the answer to a question previously asked.

SAFETY OF PUBLIC BUILDING

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on April 15 the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) asked me about recommendations which resulted from the inquest of December 8, 1981, into the death of 18-month-old Randy Winter, who fell from a staircase in London's Centennial Hall.

Under section 4 of the Coroners Act, it is the responsibility of the chief coroner to bring the findings and recommendations of coroners' juries to the attention of appropriate persons, agencies and ministries of government. The three recommendations made by the jury in the Winter inquest were directed by the chief coroner to those agencies with the authority to implement them, namely, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the city of London and the manager of London's Centennial Hall. The recommendations were also sent to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

While the chief coroner does not have the power to ensure that recommendations are acted on, he has since been advised that modifications were made to the railings of the stairways of Centennial Hall to improve their safety, one of the recommendations of the coroner's inquest at that particular time.

SALES TAX ON TOURISM AND INDUSTRY

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. This is my first question to him and I want to congratulate him on his appointment and to associate myself with the creation of the new ministry, which as you know, Mr. Speaker, was one of the recommendations of the Liberal task force on tourism even though it was not supported by the former minister, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman).

Has the minister been made aware of some of the unfortunate effects that have surfaced as a result of the reimposition of the provincial sales tax on accommodation? Surely the minister must know by now that the hotel people are not the sole beneficiaries of a healthy tourism industry and that any threat to this industry's wellbeing will result in lost business, lost revenue and lost jobs at a time when the economy of our province needs them most. Has the minister realized the impact of the reinstatement of the accommodation tax and has he made representation to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) to deal with this matter in his upcoming budget?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do appreciate the kind comments made by my Liberal critic and I do hope we can work together in a very constructive manner. On the question of the imposition of room tax, I am fully aware of some of the concern that has been expressed by the tourism industry on this, by the resort operators and so forth. I have conveyed that to my colleague the Treasurer.

I would remind the member opposite that this tax, which has now been reimposed, is not something that came out of the blue. It was quite expected. For some two years we have been told it would be reintroduced. On behalf of the tourism industry I have certainly made these concerns known to the Treasurer, as I said, and I am sure he, in his great wisdom, is going to take whatever is the wisest and most equitable step possible on the whole question of taxation of tourism facilities.

Mr. Eakins: Does the minister not agree that the absence of this tax has been a powerful attraction to large United States conventions deciding to meet here and that the loss of this incentive will severely limit our ability to compete with other jurisdictions and will be a further barrier to new business at a time when the new Metro Convention Centre is being constructed?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly by no means the only jurisdiction that has imposed a somewhat similar tax on these kinds of tourism facilities. While I can recognize that nobody at any time at any place ever wants to pay additional taxes, I do think it must be said that as far as the end result is concerned it has not dampened tourism here in Ontario. Over the last few years and in terms of future bookings the tourism industry is one industry that continues to be very vibrant. But, as I said, I have already and I will once again, as a result of this question today, make sure my colleague the Treasurer is fully aware of the feelings among the tourist operators about this room tax.

PUBLIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLE LICENCES

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is the minister aware that Canadian Priority Transfer has been carrying on a major commercial transportation operation for several years without a public commercial vehicle licence and still carries on, although the minister was informed of this at least as long ago as last autumn?

This company uses various and devious means such as rented commercial vehicles even though these vehicles themselves do not have PCV licences. The motor vehicle licensing section of the ministry knows these rentals are taking place and has it on record. Why has the ministry not prosecuted and when will it get around to enforcing its own act?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no, so obviously I cannot answer the rest.

Mr. Swart: When the minister is looking into this, will he recognize that section 3 of the PCV act prohibits anyone from entering into an agreement with an unlicensed operator for the transportation of goods? Will he then investigate a contract awarded by the Ontario Ministry of Health to this illegally operating company? The tender number was SCS-536. It runs for the period from June 1, 1981, to May 31, 1982. Will the minister prosecute the Ministry of Health if he finds the law has been broken by it?

Hon. Mr. Snow: By all means.

DISPOSAL OF PCBS

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, following the exchange between my colleague and the Minister of the Environment about polychlorinated biphenyls, I wonder if he can explain why he, his predecessor and the rest of the government were so anxious to impose a special PCB repository on an emergency basis in my constituency without any sort of a hearing involved when now he is prepared to say we must go slowly and examine our alternatives?

The minister may recall that his predecessor decided not to foist several hundred thousand gallons of PCBs on the unwilling citizens of Onondaga township because he had come to what he calls the final solution of industrial waste disposal in South Cayuga. That has drifted off too. In both of those instances no public hearings were permitted and the environmental review was to be set aside. Why does the minister now say, in the light of all those actions which were going to be imposed on the people of Ontario, he must go more slowly and not jump into any decisions to dispose of these PCBs?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member has clearly misunderstood or perhaps misconstrued what I said. I did not say I was slowing down.

Mr. Nixon: You never got going.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Oh, yes. We are making tremendous progress. The critic from the member's caucus was raising questions, and without naming the specific technology I think I know what he was talking about. He raised some concern about the fact that this particular technology was at one point tested in Great Britain.

I was simply pointing out to him that it is important before we proceed with any particular technology for us to be able to assure the people it is an efficient and safe technology. That is all I said. I am not suggesting we are slowing anything down. In fact, we are speeding it up.

Mr. Nixon: Surely the minister could understand I would have some feelings of frustration when his predecessor was prepared to foist all this business -- $5.5 million of temporary storage -- on the people of my constituency and then abandoned it for South Cayuga.

In all of that time, the technology best suited to solving the minister's continuing problem exists at the Royal Military College in his own constituency, where the plasma arc has been proved and developed with money from his own government, from the taxpayers of Ontario; yet he still seems unwilling to move it into a situation where he could give it any sort of a valid test using quantities of PCBs.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Again I think the honour- able member has a misconception with respect to the state of the development of both the plasma arc and the plasma torch. Both are progressing, but to state that the plasma arc is developed to the point where it could be employed tomorrow for the destruction of quantities of PCBs is not correct.

In fact, those two developments are still under way. The one the member refers to at the Royal Military College is moving into sort of a second phase where they are attempting to develop a larger model for burning larger quantities. That then has to be tested to ensure that the efficiency of the burn with those volumes is sufficiently efficient to be used on an ongoing basis. We have recently put very substantial additional sums of money into furthering the research on both of those.

FAMILY BENEFITS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services and it has to do with the potential transfer proposed by his ministry of family benefits recipients to general welfare. Is the minister aware that at the present time there are approximately 3,000 applications for family benefits in Metropolitan Toronto, some as old as eight months? They are sitting at 2195 Yonge Street waiting for file numbers to be assigned. They are being held up instead of being transferred to family benefits at this time and, therefore, those people are receiving less money than they should at this point.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, Mr. Speaker. If there are any undue delays on family benefit applications, it is not because of that. As a matter of fact, I discussed a number of cases like that with the Metro chairman and his finance commissioner some time ago to get all of them speeded up.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What is the reason then for the delay? Why are there 3,000 people unnecessarily on general welfare receipts at this point? Is it because the ministry is not replacing workers in terms of case loads for family benefits? Is it not the case that in the Toronto office there are four case loads or approximately 1,200 to 1,400 recipients who are not being covered at this point?

Hon. Mr. Drea: There have been no cutdowns. There has been nothing at all in the way of any change in dealing with family benefits recipients in Metropolitan Toronto since my time. I have to tell the member Metro Toronto is not even being considered for one of the pilot projects.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in the general area of delays for family benefit recipients, can the minister tell us if there is going to be any attempt to expedite the Social Assistance Review Board procedures in order to unload a certain number of general welfare cases? There are cases right now that take a long time to be heard. Ultimately, of course, it takes a long time for them to be switched over from general welfare assistance to the Family Benefits Act.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, obviously I do not have any control over the hearing schedules of the Social Assistance Review Board since it is an independent agency. However, the new chairman, who was appointed some six or seven weeks ago, has requested additional members on the Social Assistance Review Board so the case loads can be speeded up, and these are in the process of being appointed.

I would draw to the attention of the honourable member that quite frequently one of the causes for delay is a medical definition. If the medical definition is not forthcoming immediately, it lends itself to that type of thing. With the elimination of the two categories in the disabled field, the permanently unemployable and the disabled, even the medical definitions should be speeded up quite a bit.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. So far I have received 67 letters from parents of children enlisted in the Children's Listening Centre of North York, all imploring my intervention to save the listening centre. I could read some of them to the minister, but in trying to save time I will not do that.

I would like to point out to the minister that on February 9, 1982, the mayor of North York advised board of control that the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) stated there was no doubt of the excellent service provided by the Children's Listening Centre. It is the only centre of its kind in Ontario and, according to an evaluation done last year by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, it provides first-class service. Can the minister tell us if there have been any recent developments in trying to save the centre since my leader asked this question about a month ago?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member recalls that his leader asked me about this at some length a couple of weeks ago. I thought I made the position plain then, but just in case I did not, I will do it again.

3 p.m.

First of all, in conjunction with that children's mental health centre, it was never funded by the province of Ontario.

Second, last year both my predecessor and I, in an effort to have them maintain their services, did provide some standby funds. The reason was that we thought the federal minister was going to agree this year that children's mental health centres could be funded partially by the Canada assistance program. In February, I was told by the federal minister that this was impossible.

The Children's Listening Centre of North York at the same time had said they would continue their relationship in funding with the doctors who served there, as they always had, and that because of the additional time my predecessor and I had provided they were considering a fund-raising drive. When they were told that the possibility of additional funding for children's mental health centres under the Canada assistance program was not in the cards, they made their decision.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us why the report by Dr. Naomi Rae-Grant on how useful this centre would be has not yet been made public? I understand the directors of the centre have asked for this report and it has not yet been made available to them. Will it be made available, and if not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, in the first place the only reason my predecessor and I ever even gave them standby money was on the basis of that report. It was my understanding that the directors of that centre did have access to that report.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Drea: They certainly talk about it enough for people who have never seen it, my friend.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Exactly, because your people say it is good.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I will take a look and see where it is, but they keep quoting from it. If they have never seen it, why do they quote from it?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, will the minister table that report in the House at his earliest convenience? Will he give us some good reason why he will not reopen negotiations now and try to find some means of maintaining the listening centre through provincial funds instead of taking the same line all the government members are taking and putting it on to the federal scene as their responsibility for not handling it under CAP?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made it very clear that this centre was never funded by the province.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I never said it was; I know it is not. I said it should be.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The reason is the same one I gave the member when he said, "Fund it with your 19 per cent" some time ago. He sometimes forgets what he says in here.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I said make it 20 per cent if necessary, but fund it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The very fundamental reason is that we told the Children's Listening Centre last year and throughout this year that we would be stretching our resources to the utmost for the existing children's mental health centres in and around Toronto and the ones I had to open somewhere else. They knew that.

I will table the report. I have never had any problems with it. The member quotes from it, has he not seen it?

ROYAL CONNAUGHT HOTEL DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is he aware of the legal strike by some 90 employees, mostly women, members of Local 756 of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees' and Bartenders' International Union at the Royal Connaught Hotel in Hamilton? Is he aware that in an organized city like Hamilton these employees -- at wages of $2.90 for waiters and waitresses, $3.38 for bartenders, $3.50 for maids, $3.50 for bell captains and $5.07 for maintenance workers -- are among the lowest paid if not the lowest paid of any organized workers in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the circumstances of that particular labour dispute.

Mr. Mackenzie: Will the minister take the necessary steps to see that meaningful bargaining starts to take place in this situation and the exploitation of these workers is stopped?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The conciliation services of my ministry are quite anxious to be involved in this particular dispute and bring it to a satisfactory conclusion as soon as possible.

DISPOSAL OF PCBS

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment on the destruction of polychlorinated byphenyls. Apart from the techniques discussed earlier in question period, is the minister still pursuing the possibility of a site to destruct PCBs along the lines of that which was to be set up in South Cayuga with the $60-million installation of that equipment?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, as members will recall, the legislation which was passed almost a year ago in the Legislature mandated the Ontario Waste Management Corp. to pursue the location of a site for the establishment of a safe treatment facility in Ontario. They are continuing to do that.

I do not have at my fingertips information on the number of sites they may be looking at. I do have plans to meet in the very near future with Dr. Chant to discuss the progress that the corporation is making. I might be in a better position to respond more fully following that briefing from Dr. Chant.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, how far did the minister put back the program when that very member who asked the question put up such a fight not to have the tests run in the kilns in Mississauga? How far did that put the ministry's tests back in order to deal with this very serious problem?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, actually those tests were very productive and very helpful.

Mr. Kerrio: He would not let you run them in Mississauga.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I learned last summer when I was in Scandinavia the technology that was developed in Mississauga is now being extensively used over there.

The principal method of destroying PCBs in Scandinavia is by burning them in cement kilns. In the course of one of my meetings with some scientists in Sweden, they raised that very point and paid great tribute to Ontario for pioneering the technology which they are now using so extensively. In fact, they asked how we were making out in Mississauga and I said we were not allowed to use it here.

AUTOMOBILE ADVERTISING

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Could the minister share information with the House and many interested citizens about the mileage figures that are given in new car ads? Whether it is miles per gallon or litres per hundred kilometres, whichever the Tories are going to support, would the minister tell me how accurate those figures are because I think they are very confusing to the general public? Is the automobile industry not using them to get the average citizen to buy automobiles that do not produce the mileages that they advertise?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I had not heard that criticism of those advertisements before. It may be because that it is a matter that is the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in the federal government. If the member has in his possession valid reason to suggest there is misleading advertising going on in those ads, he should give it to me today.

Mr. Kerrio: I am giving it to him right now, because we cannot believe what the ads tell us and we are very liable to get less mileage than is advertised. They say it right in the ads.

This is a question I ask of the minister: When is he going to take the initiative to save energy and set up a test track or have these people verify what they tell the general public they can expect for the automobiles they want to sell here? Why does the minister not take the initiative in this jurisdiction? It is not done anywhere else.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am pleased to hear the member suggest that we duplicate the federal efforts in this area. I am sure he would like to speak to his leader about that area with respect to duplicative costs. Is it his party's policy now to duplicate costs wherever necessary in order to waste money? Is that the new policy?

CONSTITUTIONAL CELEBRATIONS

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I regret very much that during the statements the Premier did not see fit to give us a report on his activities over the weekend. Since he is now a Privy Councillor, I for one feel I would like to convey to him my congratulations and to ask the Speaker why there was not at least one staff member from the Office of the Assembly, if no one else, who could have held an umbrella over the poor fellow when he was sitting out there in the rain.

I feel we have not been supporting him suitably in some of these activities. All we really learn about these important things is from the gossip columns in the Toronto Sun, which is not entirely adequate, but interesting.

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank the very distinguished member for his observations and I really accept in a very constructive way his suggestion there should have been some officer of the assembly with an umbrella. I would only say that I have never carried an umbrella. It was a mild day. The rain was pleasant. I could think of the farmers in Peel and how they were delighted it would assist them with their agricultural activity, so I was really just saying a blessing.

I also went equipped in case it was a torrential downpour, but like the member who asked the question -- who always acts in deference to his spouse; I have seen that over the years here -- when my wife said to me, "It is either me wearing your hat and getting to the luncheon afterwards or not wearing it and going alone," what choice did I have? I can only say this, if members want to convey to their wives that my wife is prepared to tell them how she is setting a new style in women's hats, she would be delighted to share it with their spouses.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Harry Worton wants to know whether it was a Biltmore or not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, I think it was a Biltmore.

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order related to standing order 8 1(d), the tabling and answering of written questions. You will note that I tabled on March 31 a series of questions, numbers 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, which, according to the rules, should have been answered at least with an interim answer by April 15 at the latest. We have yet to receive any interim answers. I would like you to look into this and determine whether or not the cabinet is living by the rules of this House.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Just before proceeding, I notice sitting in the shadows a former minister and a farmer who cannot get on the land as yet. William Stewart is in the Speaker's gallery. Perhaps somebody should turn the lights on there and we could see more readily who sits there. Nice to see you again.

COUNCIL FOR FRANCO-ONTARIAN AFFAIRS

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Last Friday the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) questioned the appointment of one of my constituents as a member of the Council for Franco-Ontarian Affairs, suggesting that influence was exerted on the cabinet to ensure that one of my friends was selected for that position. While I am flattered that the member feels I have some influence at the cabinet level, there are undoubtedly a number of ministers who could straighten him out on that point.

In actual fact, I did support the suggestion for the appointment made in this case, but it was made on the basis of the qualifications of the individual involved and certainly not because of any particular relationship or political affiliation. It is important that this matter be cleared up since the new member of the council, Mr. Maurice Deschamps of Kapuskasing, is ideally suited to represent the interests of French-speaking residents in northern Ontario and across this province.

Mr. Deschamps not only has an extensive background in municipal government in various administrative positions but he has also been deeply involved for many years as a volunteer in community activities. If the person who wrote the newspaper article referred to by the member for Prescott-Russell had taken the trouble to do some research in the riding of Cochrane North, she would have learned immediately that Mr. Deschamps is a very well-known and well-respected citizen who has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to work effectively for the betterment of his town and the north in general.

Frankly, I am honoured to be able to recommend an individual of that calibre --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would you resume your seat please? I did not hear a point of privilege, with all respect. You rose on a point of privilege. I would have to hear it.

Mr. Piché: I am getting to the point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: I would ask you to get to your point of privilege immediately.

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be able to recommend an individual of that calibre for appointment to a body with province-wide influence. I am convinced that Mr. Deschamps will be an excellent representative of French-speaking residents, and I hope there will be a further opportunity to recommend other qualified people from Cochrane North to sit on provincially sponsored organizations. It should also be noted that since Mr. Deschamps is replacing another resident of the Kapuskasing area on the Council for Franco-Ontarian Affairs, the member for Prescott-Russell is incorrect in suggesting there is a shifting of regional representation on this particular appointment.

Finally, I would respectfully suggest that all members of the Legislature are well qualified to recommend citizens from their respective ridings for provincial appointments. It is all part of knowing what is happening in our own areas, and even the member for Prescott-Russell must admit that such knowledge is an important aspect of earning a seat in this House.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure we are all very pleased to have that point straightened out. Thank you very much.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, may I respond to that point of privilege very briefly?

Mr. Speaker: Do you have to?

Mr. Boudria: Yes, sir. I will be very brief, but I believe I do have a point of privilege. Obviously the member for Cochrane North used my name, and he also said I was wrong, that I had given information to this House that was not accurate. I never said any such thing as the member has insinuated. I merely quoted in this House -- you, sir, may want to verify this in Hansard -- a copy of the Ottawa newspaper Le Droit, asked the minister if he was aware of it and asked him to comment on what was in that particular newspaper article.

I did not in any way discuss the qualifications or Mr. Deschamps's validity as a candidate for this particular office, since I do not know Mr. Deschamps nor any other person from the riding of Cochrane North. I merely reported what was in that newspaper article and asked the minister to reply to that comment.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. That was a point of privilege.

The member for Sudbury East with what?

Mr. Martel: A point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to know if there is now a new rule in the rule book that ascribes this time of the day as the commentary period?

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a point of order, but it is an interesting point. I called the member to order, as you may remember, and I distinctly heard a voice on the opposition side say, "Let him continue." I took it we had the consensus of the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TRIBUNALS CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT

Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Mr. Grande, first reading of Bill 65, An Act to prevent Conflicts of Interest in the Proceedings of Administrative Tribunals.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Piché: Vous avez mis en question la réputation de M. Deschamps.

Mr. Martel: Get up on a point of order. Get up on something with some substance.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury East is violating the very order he drew to my attention.

Mr. Martel: That is called an interjection.

Mr. Speaker: They are also out of order.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, this bill prohibits former members and officers of tribunals, subject to Part I of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, from acting as advocates before those bodies for a two-year period after ceasing to hold their positions, the same restriction is imposed on former ministers and deputy ministers in connection with tribunals under the administration of their former ministries. The maximum penalty is $10,000.

I introduced this in the last session; unfortunately, the government still has not adopted it, so I must reintroduce it.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 66, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to repeal a provision of the act that prohibits the inclusion of security guards in a bargaining unit. The repeal of this provision would permit security guards to join or establish an association or union for collective bargaining purposes.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 67, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to delete the exclusion of persons who exercise managerial functions from the definition of "employee." The effect of the amendment is to permit those persons to join or establish an association or union for collective bargaining purposes.

CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 68, An Act to amend the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to repeal certain provisions of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act that restrict the composition of collective agreements negotiated under the act.

DISABLED PERSONS EMPLOYMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 69, An Act to provide for the Employment of Disabled Persons.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide employment opportunities for disabled persons. The bill requires that employers hire disabled persons and that disabled persons constitute at least three per cent of the employer's work force.

The bill permits the minister to vary this percentage requirement in cases where the minister considers another quota to be more suitable. In addition, the minister may exempt an employer or class of employers from the operation of the statute. The bill establishes a registrar of employable disabled persons to be maintained by the ministry for the purpose of facilitating efforts by employers to meet the quotas established by the bill.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 70, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that no employee engaged in the preparation or service of food in a tavern, restaurant, hotel, motel or tourist resort, may be required as a term or condition of employment to work while nude or partially nude.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 71, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to require an employer to provide a leave of absence to any employee who has been elected to provincial or municipal office so that the employee may be able to carry out duties as an elected official.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 72, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to clarify that the Labour Relations Act applies to employees who are engaged in agricultural employment in an industrial or factory setting.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 73, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to reduce the percentage of employees in a bargaining unit required to be members of a trade union in order for the board to direct the representation vote.

3:30 p.m.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 74, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to extend the application of part XII of the Employment Standards Act to employees who are employed for a definite term or task and to persons who are laid off or terminated during or as a result of a strike or lockout at his place of employment, in effect, to deal with contract employees.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 75, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, this is an important one. The purpose of the bill is to preserve the collective bargaining rights of employees of a business that is relocated. In addition to continuing pre-relocation bargaining rights in collective agreements in force after the relocation, the proposed amendment provides for a 60-day period from the date of notice of relocation during which an employee can choose to continue his employment at the new location. Once the relocation has taken place, the Ontario Labour Relation Board has authority to determine whether or not a bargaining unit exists.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 76, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, this is the first bill I moved as a member back in 1975 and we still do not have it. The purpose of the bill is to reduce the standard work week in Ontario from 48 hours to 40 hours and to require employers to pay overtime rates for work done in excess of 40 hours per week rather than the 44 hours that now exists.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 77, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to protect the employment of an employee who attempts to enforce the provisions of this or any other act or who testifies or otherwise participates in a proceeding or hearing under this or any other act before a court of law.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 78, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to establish a standard relating to the installation and operation of electronic surveillance systems in places of employment. The bill permits the installation of these systems only where it is reasonably necessary for the protection of the health or safety of employees. The onus of establishing that the installation and operation of a surveillance system are reasonably necessary for this purpose is placed on the employer.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 79, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to clarify the status of an employer before the Ontario Labour Relations Board on an application for certification by a trade union. The employer is permitted to present evidence and make submissions concerning several matters listed in the bill; the employer is not permitted to present evidence or make submissions related to any other matter before the hearing.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 80, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, this is another important and needed piece of legislation. The purpose of the bill is to provide the Ontario Labour Relations Board with authority to settle the terms and conditions of a first collective agreement between a trade union and an employer where the dispute settlement procedures in the act have not been effective. Effective collective agreements settled by the board shall have a duration of between one and two years ...

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 81, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to prevent the hiring of strikebreakers and to control access to work premises that are affected by a strike or lockout. The bill prohibits an employer from hiring or using the services of a person to do the work of an employee who is on strike or locked out unless that person is specifically authorized to do so. Similarly, when a picket line is established at a place of access to work premises, access is limited to persons specifically authorized by the bill.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 82, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, this is another bill that exists in many countries and is still lacking in Ontario. The purpose of this new section 29 increases the vacation period to which an employee is entitled under the act. Currently the act provides only a two-week vacation period for each employee which does not vary with the amount of employment service. It would provide two weeks in each year upon completion of 12 months of employment, three weeks in each year upon the completion of 60 months of employment and four weeks in each year upon the completion of 120 months of employment.

3:40 p.m.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, seconded by Mr. Breaugh, first reading of Bill 83, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to extend the application of the whole of the Employment Standards Act to crown employees. Currently only parts IX, X, XI and XII of the act apply to crown employees.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, in the closing minutes of last Friday's session I began to express my views on some of the major considerations contained in the speech of the Lieutenant Governor. I indicated at that time that there were two issues in particular to which I wished to address myself.

The first of these had to do with the energy program of the Ontario government, and I quoted the following statement contained in the throne speech: "Ontario's electrical power system continues to be a cornerstone of the provincial economy and the envy of other jurisdictions. Its continued vitality and development to meet our needs is essential to sustaining economic growth."

I made a few general comments with regard to that statement and, at the conclusion of the time available to me last Friday, I indicated there were three specific areas upon which I wanted to elaborate as to how this government, in conjunction with Ontario Hydro, was protecting the interests of the people of Ontario by ensuring that we continue to have a reliable, cost-efficient and secure supply of electricity, which represents a large component of our energy needs in this province.

I suggest that Ontario Hydro and the government have come a long way since 1977, when the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs was first set up. From 1977 to 1980, that committee investigated, long and diligently, the obligations and responsibilities of Ontario Hydro to provide necessary electrical energy to the people and the industries of this province.

I remind honourable members that back in the early days when those hearings were first established there was a certain public atmosphere that seemed to prevail. There were a certain number of doubts and mistrust towards the traditional agencies of the crown and the government itself with regard to the nuclear power program, which had been put in place back in 1964; at least, that is when the policy was established by this government to make nuclear energy a very significant component of our energy program in this province.

Up to the time that the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs was put into being and discussions got under way, there had been a certain erosion of public confidence in the nuclear program based on statements that were being made by people in certain quarters. In retrospect, I think it was most appropriate that the committee should have been and was formed at that time.

As you can well recall, Mr. Speaker, no committee set up by any government in any province in this country, by the federal authorities or by anyone anywhere else on the continent, has done such a thorough, in-depth public assessment of the nuclear program as was done by our own select committee.

Part of the mistrust that appeared to exist in the public's mind was that there appeared to be an undue amount of secrecy that prevailed with regard to the agencies and the government that were responsible for bringing the program on stream and keeping it operating. A lot of statements were being made at that time about just how safe, secure and reliable the system was.

The work of the select committee achieved what was necessary; that is, to remove the doubts and concerns that existed in the public's mind with regard to the viability of our nuclear program. It was established with those reports being made after hours and hours of hearings and after hearing both from many witnesses within the system -- that is, from people within Ontario Hydro -- and from many experts on the outside, not only within Ontario but also from other parts of this country and beyond, who testified before the committee.

From those hearings three major reports were brought forward. The one that came forward in June 1980 confirmed that Ontario's nuclear reactors were safe. That was the first and, I suggest, the most important consideration and determination that had to be made. Only after an exhaustive review of that situation was that determination arrived at.

Following that major report, there were two other reports which dealt with other aspects of the nuclear program.

One report was based on an exhaustive investigative study by the committee on the disposal of nuclear fuel wastes. At the conclusion of those hearings it was determined that great progress was being made in developing the necessary nuclear waste disposal sites.

There is clear evidence available to us, not only from those hearings but also from subsequent developments, that indicates we are a long way on the road to finding the ways and means of long-term disposal of nuclear waste.

It would appear there is every likelihood that this country and others will be resorting to the safe disposal of spent nuclear fuels by means of deep burial in the ground under the most secure and careful preparation and continuing surveillance.

The other report that followed shortly after that report was the one dealing with safety in the mining, milling and refining of the uranium. There too it was clear that there was satisfactory safety in this field but that there was some room for improvement to be made.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Haggerty: Unsatisfactory. That's the word.

Mr. Williams: The committee came up with some very positive recommendations that suggested ways and means by which further improvement could be made in this field, as the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) will well recall, having been a member of the committee along with me at the time.

At the conclusion of all those hearings, the committee achieved what I think had to be achieved. It cemented the public's confidence in and support of our nuclear commitment.

The critics of the program had been confident that at those hearings they would be able to show that the system was not safe and that there was too much at risk to be proceeded with or expanded upon. When those myths were exploded, it appears that some of those groups were not prepared to accept the facts that were placed before the committee and resulted in the recommendations that were made.

A case in point is that, well after our hearings, when the Canadian Nuclear Association and the Canadian Nuclear Society were in conference last year, two of the major anti-nuclear groups, the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility -- which I suggest is a misnomer, given that it appears to be an organization totally opposed to a nuclear program under any given circumstances -- and Energy Probe, apparently picketed that particular conference. They carried around placards reading "Nuclear killing machines" and "One, two, three, four -- we don't want a nuclear war," signs that completely misrepresented the industry as it related to what was suggested by this type of tactic.

By doing that, they are discrediting themselves as being responsible critics of the system, because there is a need to have a continuing, responsible group or organization that can make fair and critical comment. But when they resort to these types of tactics, it does not help their cause. There is a need to have ongoing assessment of the system by the public at large. That is healthy and good.

Having given a bit of that historical background, it appears that the green light having been given as a result of the positive findings in those reports, our system of energy development in this province has gone forward at an even faster pace.

It is interesting to note that at this time under Ontario Hydro the total generating capacity today in Ontario is 22,300 megawatts, which are provided equally by our hydroelectric system, by our fossil-fuel units and, of course, by nuclear power. These three components not only meet the domestic needs of the people of Ontario but also help other provinces in times of energy need. Also, where surplus energy is available we have been able to export some of our surplus power to our neighbours to the south.

Given the fact that the government has a very specific policy that has been established since the oil crisis evolved back in the mid-1970s, the government's off-oil policy has moved this province, and Ontario Hydro in particular, to even greater reliance on energy that is available from indigenous sources. Of course, that means greater reliance on both our hydroelectric productive capacity and our nuclear capacity. We are becoming less and less dependent on the use of fossil fuels to meet our needs now and in the foreseeable future.

The government's off-oil policy dictates that the province reduce its use of oil in residential, commercial and industrial sectors to 10 per cent of the total energy currently used and its use of oil for transportation purposes by 10 per cent. To achieve these goals, we must depend more and more on those sources of electrical power that can be obtained from indigenous sources; that is, uranium fuel and an abundant supply of water.

The strength of our system has always been the fact that we could rely on our nuclear and hydroelectric facilities, the fact that we have security of supply. We know the uranium is here in the province; we know the water resources are here and will remain. It is a question, then, of relating the cost factor to those available resources.

Let me just touch on a few facts that I think will put the matter into clearer perspective.

First of all, I would like to speak about the matter of reliability. Here I am referring to our nuclear component which, although it accounts for approximately 35 per cent of Ontario Hydro's output at this time, is likely, given the circumstances I have outlined, to increase to as much as 60 per cent of our total supply in the next decade.

With regard to the reliability of the nuclear machinery that we had in place last year, our commercial reactors had a combined capacity of 90 per cent as compared to about 60 per cent in the light water units operating in the United States.

While it cost $92 million to operate our nuclear program last year, at the same time Ontario Hydro saved $710 million in coal costs. I think this graphically illustrates the point that, although the capital cost of putting a nuclear power plant in place is substantial, the operating cost of a nuclear power plant is substantially less than that of a fossil fuel plant.

4 p.m.

There is also the all-important safety factor which was so much at the heart of the deliberations and discussions of the select committee referred to. I think it should therefore be stated at this time for the record that during 10 years of operation Pickering generating station A has helped to set an enviable safety record which it shares with other nuclear stations in Ontario. I want to highlight what those safety successes have been.

First, during 19 years of operations in Canada there has never been a fatality, nor has there been an injury of any kind to a member of the public. Second, there has never been a release of radioactivity from any nuclear generating station which resulted in a measurable dose to any member of the public. Third, the radioactivity risk criteria, based on Ontario Hydro standards and guidelines set by the Atomic Energy Control Board as the federal regulatory agency, have been fully met at every station for every year the program has been in existence.

Before moving to another aspect of our energy program, I think I should provide a few more interesting pieces of information relative to the nuclear program, information I think will be of particular interest to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, given the location of your riding and the activity taking place in that vicinity with regard to the expansion of the Ontario Hydro nuclear program.

I refer in particular to the status of the Darlington nuclear generating station which has advanced its original timetable whereby the first two units will be advanced six months and the last two units by 12 months. Given this new timetable, the in-service date for the first unit, unit 2, is now scheduled for May 1988, unit 1 for February 1989, unit 3 for November 1989 and unit 4 for August 1990.

It is interesting to note the new Darlington schedule will reduce Hydro's coal requirements in the late 1980s and early 1990s by about two million tons. Allowing for the fact that Hydro pays $50 a ton for coal, at least at this time, this advance of the schedule will achieve net savings of about $60 million mainly in coal costs. An additional benefit is that by burning less coal there will be a corresponding drop in acidic emissions from the coal-fired stations.

On the human side of the equation, in the short term this $6.6-billion project at Darlington is mobilizing a construction force which is at present more than 600 workers, which before the end of this year should achieve around 1,000 workers and before the conclusion of the project will have maximized itself at a figure of around 2,600 workers.

The increase in the work force is reflected in two major contracts that were granted by Ontario Hydro at the end of last year. One was the granting of the contract for the structural steel for the station's powerhouse at a cost of about $48 million, and the other for the station's cooling water intake tunnel at a cost of $11.5 million.

Progress is also being made at the Pickering and Bruce facilities and both projects are on schedule. Pickering unit 5 goes critical in November next and will be in service in April 1983. In 1984, units 6 and 7 should be in service in April and September respectively and unit 8 is scheduled to go in service in February 1985. At Bruce, unit 6 is scheduled to be in service in April 1984, unit 5 in July 1984, unit 7 in April 1986 and unit 8 in January 1987. So we can see that by the end of 1987 there will be available significant additional power to meet the expansion of the need for energy in this province, not only in this decade but to the end of the century.

This brings me to my second point with regard to the electrical power program of Ontario Hydro and of this government, which is the project that is bound up in a contract which exists between the Ontario Hydro and General Public Utilities Lake Erie cable project. There has been a great deal in the news media about this in recent weeks revolving around the decision now awaited from the National Energy Board for approval or rejection of this project.

Essentially, it involves the building of a high- voltage, direct-current underwater cable connection between Nanticoke, Ontario and a place called Coho, which is near Erie, Pennsylvania, for the purpose of supplying power and energy to General Public Utilities, an American utility company. Considering the magnitude of the undertaking, the cost involved and the benefits that will be derived therefrom I think it approaches the category of megaproject.

Ontario Hydro entered into this program because it expects to have surplus generating capacity available from now into the future. The select committee found that the gross surplus energy available in Ontario was as much as 45 per cent. However, as it is clearly imperative that Ontario Hydro always maintain a 25 per cent reserve margin for emergency purposes, there is in fact only a 20 per cent net surplus available, but this is sufficient to meet our contractual commitments with GPU without in any way prejudicing the domestic energy program.

4:10 p.m.

A lot of public interest and concern in this project resulted from an interest that was taken in this matter by elected officials at the federal level. At the conclusion of the National Energy Board hearings on this project in Ottawa, elected members of the federal government saw fit to object publicly to this undertaking, suggesting it would contribute to our environmental problems and that it would add to the acid rain problem, not only in this province but in the United States. Some of the information on the basis of which they were critical of Ontario Hydro appeared to be incomplete or was misinformation that caused Ontario Hydro to respond publicly to the suggestions that this project would significantly contribute to that environmental problem.

The chairman of Ontario Hydro set the record straight, as I think it had to be set straight, and it is important it be set straight for the record here, that should this project be given the green light by the National Energy Board, it will contribute to a lessening of the acid rain problem for the reason that it will put into operation a facility that is much cleaner and much more sensitive to the problem than would exist if we had to rely on the operation of comparable, fossil-fuel-operated facilities in the United States.

The chairman of Ontario Hydro has made it clear that close to half a billion dollars is being set aside to retrofit some of the major fossil-fuel-fired plants, the coal-fired plants, with scrubbers in such a fashion that the estimated emissions will be reduced by approximately 50 per cent halfway through this contract in 1990. It is a 10-year contract that would start up in 1985 if approval were given after installation of the underwater cables and would conclude in 1995.

The scrubbers would ensure that the facilities to be used, in particular the Nanticoke operation, would reduce the emissions over a period of time up to 1990 so that the estimated 600,000 tons of effluent from that facility would be reduced to fewer than 300,000 tons. This could not be achieved if we allowed that type of delivery of energy to be provided from the less efficient and more antiquated facilities south of the border.

The additional side benefit to be derived from the sales of this surplus energy is that it will reduce the cost of domestic energy to the consumers of Ontario. Specifically, in 1979, through the export of energy to the United States, Ontario Hydro saved $153 million. In 1980, a saving in excess of $162 million was realized and in 1981 revenues were up again to $192 million. In each of those three years there has been an approximate saving of seven per cent on the rate increases that would have had to be imposed. So through that same three-year period, while the rate increases were kept at 9.8 per cent in 1979, 8.6 per cent in 1980 and 9.3 per cent in 1981, an average figure of nine per cent, if that seven per cent had not been made available through those additional revenues, the people of Ontario would have been burdened with an approximate increase of 16 per cent in cost to them for delivery of the service -- a very significant saving indeed.

The third point I would like to move on to with regard to energy, before I move to the remaining point I want to discuss today, is the real sleeping energy giant this province has come to recognize and which it is doing something about. I am referring to the sleeping energy giant of hydrogen. In his remarks in the Legislature last week my colleague the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) made comment on the progress being made in this area. I would like to elaborate a bit further on what is happening in that sphere for the record.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, back in 1980 the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) announced that a program was going to be set up to determine whether this province should be moving in a big way into research and development of the potential of hydrogen as an energy fuel. In the fall of 1981, after having made the decision to proceed on an exploratory basis, the Minister of Energy released a synopsis of a report from the hydrogen energy task force he had set up in 1980 under the capable chairmanship of Dr. Arthur Johnson of York University, along with 10 other colleagues, to determine the potential role of hydrogen in Ontario's energy future. It was determined at that time that we were moving in the right direction.

It has been made clear there are two ways in which to make hydrogen. One is to extract it from hydrocarbons such as natural gas, the other is through electrolysis, using electricity to separate water into its component parts, hydrogen and oxygen. As my colleague the member for Lincoln cited, the most effective way to use hydrogen would be in transportation, which accounts for approximately half of Ontario's consumption of crude oil. With our hydroelectric and nuclear power facilities, we have the ability and the capacity to develop this new source of energy. It would appear that such facilities would likely be built in the vicinity of the Bruce nuclear reactor to make use of the great available energy storage there.

4:20 p.m.

The Minister of Energy indicated that this decade must be devoted to strong research and development. The first tangible evidence of this commitment was made with the awarding of a contract between the Ministry of Energy and the Urban Transportation Development Corp., which my friend touched on the other day, a $6.2-million contract to develop a hydrogen storage and fuel system on transit vehicles. This $6.2-million project is part of Ontario's $75-million Board of Industrial Leadership and Development alternative transportation fuel program. The synopsis of the hydrogen energy task force report that was released last fall proposed that a hydrogen institute be created for research, development and demonstration programming.

The research and development would address itself to four things in particular: first, vehicular power systems, for example, internal combustion engines, gas turbine engines, fuel-cell power sourcing. Second, storage and transfer; for example, metal hybrid technology, cryogenics and metal embrittlement studies would be undertaken. Third, there would be development in the area of electrochemistry dealing with electrolysers and batteries. Fourth, and of equal importance, would be its relationship to environmental matters such as safety and the setting of necessary environmental standards.

The minister announced not more than a month after that particular report was tabled that his ministry had contracted with the University of Toronto for planning and development that will lead to the establishment of an institute for hydrogen and the development of a system and its usage.

It is clear that a great deal of progress has been made in this area. Undoubtedly, with the institute that the minister referred to, the institute for hydrogen and electrochemical systems, after this six-month study project is completed, we will be that much closer to reality that the decade of research and development will be able to proceed accordingly from upon which we would hope to see before the end of the century very significant developments and achievements in the field of hydrogen and its use on economic terms.

Those were the three areas I wanted to touch on briefly. Just for the record, I wanted to indicate the progress this government has made in living up to its commitment to meet the energy needs of the people of Ontario.

What I would like to do now in the few minutes remaining to me is to come to the second matter I felt was of considerable priority. It is a matter of local concern, yet it relates to a program that is universal in nature and is one that deals with assessment of real property.

The matter that I think has to be addressed is the situation that exists within Metropolitan Toronto. Before I touch on how it is of particular significance and importance in this area and in order that I can clarify some situations that have developed in recent weeks, I want to point out that as recently as March 18 there has been a certain amount of political chicanery going on in these chambers. I want to outline some basic information so members can understand what I am leading to.

First of all, as we well know, in 1969 the decision was made by this government to move responsibility for assessment of real property away from the local municipalities, to be taken over and run by the government of Ontario so that for once an even-handed method of application of real property assessment could be applied. Prior to that time, when each individual municipality was responsible for assessment, there were no fewer than 168 methods of application of the assessment process. This caused an imbalance and a lack of equity in the system on a province-wide basis.

At the present time, since the system was taken over and set up by the province, we have 31 full assessment offices in operation around the province along with nine suboffices. These offices and the operations of the ministry at large have achieved what could not have been achieved otherwise; that is, to provide equity and fair play in the field of assessment by providing a uniform system of assessment.

In 1978, section 86 of the act was brought in, providing a mechanism by which municipalities could on their initiative ask to move into the area of market value assessment. At the present time, 349 of Ontario's 837 municipalities have requested and successfully implemented market value assessment under the section 86 program. It appears that another 100 to 200 municipalities will be requesting that this process be applied to them this year, resulting in over half of the municipalities throughout the province moving to market value assessment on their initiative and with the support and backup of the resources of the provincial assessment department through the Ministry of Revenue.

One of the major areas left with regard to moving towards market value assessment is Metropolitan Toronto. However -- and this is important -- I want to make it quite clear that in June 1981 Metro council asked the provincial assessors, the assessment department, to undertake a section 86 study. This was reaffirmed as recently as last month by the Metropolitan Toronto council.

They requested a tax impact study be undertaken that would measure the consequences of a possible reassessment of all properties in all six area municipalities within the 240 square miles of Metropolitan Toronto. The proposal is that there would be a 1980 market valuation on the 487,000 residential properties in Metro Toronto, less than one quarter or 108,000 of which are in the city of Toronto proper. This will allow Metro's elected people to be informed on the evaluation and the practicality or otherwise of introducing new assessment and apportionment systems.

Of equal importance, it should be noted that on March 31, 1981, the city of Toronto tax reform committee also formally requested that more recent market value assessment data -- that is, the 1980 market value based assessments -- be provided to them by our assessment people.

4:30 p.m.

The boroughs of Scarborough and East York have also made formal requests under section 86, requesting tax impact studies based on the 1980 market value.

I think it is important to note what the main features of the section 86 process are. It makes available to municipalities on a voluntary basis the right to have a reassessment study done. The process corrects inequities among ratepayers within property classes and it prevents tax shifts from one property class to another by ensuring that each property class will bear approximately the same proportion of the total municipal tax burden after section 86 reassessment as it did before.

Fourth, it revises all property assessments on the basis of their market value and, fifth, it makes property assessments on the tax base more defensible.

Those are the main features. I might add it also ensures that neither the amount of the provincial grants payable to the municipalities nor the apportionment of shared costs within a region is affected by the implementation of section 86. With these main features any council can ask the Minister of Revenue to study classes of property to determine the degree of the inequities in the assessment base within each class. I come back to the point that the Metropolitan Toronto council has asked the minister to do a tax impact study.

There is another procedure under the Assessment Act that is quite separate from section 86. It is the process available under section 63 which has to do with the renovation of existing properties. I would remind members that the Minister of Revenue is clearly mandated under section 63 of the Assessment Act to do certain things. Specifically, this section provides that "where the erection, alteration, enlargement or improvement of any building. . . increases the value of any real property in a municipality or locality by at least $2,500. . . such increase in value shall be assessed and included in the assessment roll to be returned in the municipality or locality next after such increase comes to the attention of, and the amount thereof has been determined by, the assessment commissioner."

Last year 135,500 properties province-wide were reassessed; about five per cent of those properties, or 6,826 of them, were in the city of Toronto. It has been brought to the attention of the minister and the ministry that of the 6,826 reassessments which were done last year, within the appeal time available only 1,834 people had actually appealed on their reassessments in the city of Toronto, leaving 4,992 properties on which no appeals were launched.

It has been suggested in some quarters that adequate time was not made available or that there would have been many more appeals if there had been a lengthier appeal period made available.

Under those circumstances the minister decided he would give the benefit of the doubt to those who suggested they had not had adequate notice of the reassessments or adequate time to appeal by introducing into the Legislature last week Bill 60, An Act to provide for the Institution of Complaints for Certain Assessments made in the Year 1981 in the City of Toronto. I believe this bill will be debated next week in this Legislature. Certainly the legislation will remedy the problem that has been perceived to exist within Metropolitan Toronto.

I suggested earlier that there had been some political chicanery that had been carried on in this Legislature last month. I would like to come to the point as to why I think this has transpired, given the general overview I have portrayed this afternoon.

It was on that date that the member for Parkdale (Mr. Ruprecht) engaged in a diatribe in this Legislature that suggested either he was confused and did not understand the process and the distinction between section 86 and market value and section 63 dealing with renovated properties; or else he was intentionally, I suggest, confusing the issue so people would not clearly understand the distinction and the issues before us.

What I would like to do is refer specifically to that particular debate and point out very graphically and clearly to illustrate the distortion and dramatization that took place at that time. The member proceeded to suggest that the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) and an army of 110 property tax assessors were organizing an unprecedented campaign against Toronto home owners.

The suggestion that 110 assessors were being seconded and brought into Metro Toronto to deal with property reassessments is not factually correct. The assessors in question were brought in to deal specifically with the market value assessment impact tax study that has been requested by the Metropolitan Toronto council and have nothing whatsoever to do with the renovation of the properties in the city of Toronto and the 6,826 city of Toronto homes that were involved.

He suggested that to bring in assessors from others parts of the province was unprecedented. Let me point out clearly for the record that in 1978-79, 80 assessors were brought in to the Cambridge and Kitchener area to assist the local assessors to do a market value impact study. In the same year, 30 assessors were seconded to the Timmins area to do the same thing.

That is, a total of 110 assessors were seconded from other assessment offices around the province to those two areas in 1978-79 to do an impact study no different from the one being done here in Metropolitan Toronto today. In 1980, 100 assessors were seconded to go into a much less populated area of the province, the district of Muskoka, again to assist the local assessors to do a section 86 tax impact study. So we have lots of precedent, and for the member to suggest it was an unprecedented campaign does not hold water when one considers the facts.

4:40 p.m.

It has been suggested that these assessors who were brought in were here to do the assessments on renovations under section 63. The fact is that the assessors have been brought in since Metro council reaffirmed its request in March for the tax impact study to be done under section 86. Up until this morning, those assessors who have been in Metro Toronto from other areas have been concentrating on doing the impact tax study on commercial, industrial and high-density residential properties. Only this week will they begin to do single-family home residential properties as part of the Metropolitan Toronto request for the impact study. Clearly that has nothing whatsoever to do with the reassessments that were done last year by the local assessment staff on those properties in the city of Toronto proper.

It is interesting to note that the member suggested these assessors were here in Toronto to conduct a campaign to terrorize the citizens of this city and to throw many of those residents who have received extra increases on to the street. Again, I point out that this clearly is a misrepresentation of fact, because those assessors who came in from the outside area had nothing whatsoever to do with the assessment that was carried on by the local assessors in 1981.

The member chose to try to cite chapter and verse to suggest how some of the citizens of Toronto are supposedly being terrorized by so-called discriminatory tax hikes. At that time he said: "Here are the facts. There are an estimated 9,000 Toronto home owners who have been reassessed based on renovations in excess of $2,500." Of course, we know there were 6,800-odd reassessments done last year, not the 9,000 he said was factually correct.

He said properties with renovation improvements in excess of $2,500 were given assessment increases ranging up to 591 per cent, but he neglected to indicate 591 per cent of what. The case he was referring to was one that was publicized in the local newspaper on December 13 when the property in question had its assessment changed from $1,020 to $6,030, and that was a property that was sold in February 1981 for $91,000.

It is interesting to note what the taxes were on that property. I would be almost ashamed to admit it if I were the one appealing the assessment, given the fact that the tax bill in 1981 on that property, valued at $91,000, was $181.77.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order. I know this is very controversial, but the member has the floor.

Mr. Williams: The way in which this matter was addressed by the member was surely not to be taken seriously. It was almost laughable, except that he was not purporting to speak on his own behalf with his own distorted view of the facts but rather was stating that this was the formal policy of the Ontario Liberal Party. The policy he was enunciating was a one-two punch. Listen to this: "The Ontario Liberal Party has called on the Ontario government to declare a one-year ban on discriminatory reassessments in Toronto and to revoke all such reassessments made in 1981."

Let us just look at the implications here. First, if we grant a tax holiday, as the Ontario Liberal Party is suggesting, only to the 6,826 properties that were reassessed in 1981 it would mean a loss of some $14 million in assessments, representing $3 million in lost taxes; or if we roll them all back, as can be implied clearly from the statement made by the member for Parkdale, it would mean a loss of $79 million in assessments, representing a loss in taxes of some $16 million.

It is regrettable that this would adversely and prejudicially affect the other 102,000 residential property owners in Toronto by causing them to pick up the slack that would be created by implementing this type of policy and granting a further tax holiday. Not only would it have an effect there, but it would also have an effect on the people in the other boroughs, because 75 per cent of that lost revenue is found to lie in the local and Metropolitan Separate School Board portion of the Metropolitan Toronto tax levy. So it is clear that implementing this type of Ontario Liberal Party policy would clearly prejudice the people in my riding, the people in the city of North York and the people living in the other boroughs within the Metropolitan Toronto area.

That is clearly unacceptable, and if the member for Parkdale suggests irresponsibly that there is a campaign of terror going on in the city which justifies rolling back reassessments and granting a tax holiday, I can only say to him that I do not want the Ontario Liberal Party to victimize the people in the other areas of Metropolitan Toronto by having them pick up the slack while they are giving a tax holiday under the policy enunciated by the member as being the policy of the Ontario Liberal Party.

The other point is this. The second plank in the Ontario Liberal Party platform is they are asking that the renovation figure be raised, the exemption under section 63 be raised from $2,500 to $7,500 to keep alive the incentive to make home repairs.

4:50 p.m.

I am wondering out loud whether the member has ever consulted the municipal authorities of the city of Toronto because it is not provincial revenue he is eliminating, it is municipal revenue. It is interesting that he gratuitously suggests the exemption figure be upped. The city of Toronto and the Metro area would lose millions of dollars in revenue. Their only source of revenue at the municipal level is realty property tax. To suggest gratuitously, "Let us up it; it looks good," without even getting the blessing or consent of the local municipalities is intolerable.

Mr. Elston: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I have had an opportunity to speak in reply to the throne speech and we have all been trying to maintain a reasonable length. Since this is the last day and several more members wish to speak, I think something should be done to allow as many more people to speak today as is possible since we are winding up tomorrow. I think it is an abuse of the privilege of members to find they are going to have the clock run out here.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: That was a point of privilege. Do you have a point of order?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: A point of privilege, then.

The Deputy Speaker: Are your personal privileges being abused?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to inform the Deputy Speaker this has been tough to listen to but my caucus found the answer -- it did not allow me to speak in the throne speech debate.

The Deputy Speaker: I appreciate all the members' concerns. As all members can appreciate, under the standing orders in regard to this particular debate there are no time limitations. However, we will call upon the member for Oriole to take the request under serious consideration.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I respect and honour the comment made by the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston). I recognize we are trying to stay within time limitations. I had committed myself to an hour and I concede I am running 10 minutes over. I started at 20 minutes to the hour and it is now 10 minutes to the hour, so I have run 10 minutes over. I will be through within five minutes. I will try to honour that commitment. In fact, it will be less than five minutes. I was coming to a conclusion --

[Applause]

An hon. member: Put it on the record.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Some honourable members applaud.

Mr. Kerrio: Most honourable members applauded.

Mr. Ruston: On all sides.

Mr. Williams: I did feel it was absolutely necessary to put this issue of assessment and reassessment in Metropolitan Toronto in perspective, because it not only affects people in the city of Toronto, it clearly encompasses and affects people in all of Metropolitan Toronto.

For the Ontario Liberal Party to try to impose in a high-handed fashion these types of proposals on the people of Metropolitan Toronto as its policy to give a preferential tax holiday to one segment of the community is outrageous and it will cause a palace revolution if it tries to put that policy into effect. Certainly the people in my area and the people in the other boroughs are not going to stand idly by and see that they, who are equally hard pressed in meeting the ever-increasing realty tax demands made by our respective municipalities, are going to find themselves with an extra burden so that other, selected people can have a tax holiday. It is totally unacceptable.

It is on that basis that I say any suggestion, through distortion or dramatization, that people are supposedly being terrorized in the city of Toronto is not acceptable. It had to be addressed. I conclude by saying it will not be done at the expense of the Ontario Liberal Party victimizing the rest of the taxpayers in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

These have been the two main issues I wanted to touch on today in the time limited to me, to set some records straight and to make it clear that Ontario continues to provide leadership in the field of energy and will continue to provide equity and fairness in property taxation, notwithstanding the efforts of the Ontario Liberal Party to disrupt the system and undermine that philosophy and principle of equity and fairness in property taxation. Given these facts and the current status in these two areas, it is quite clear that the government of Ontario is keeping the promise to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, first, I thank the members across the way for their applause. I have come to the conclusion that the word of the member for Oriole and the promises of the Tory government are synonymous and inseparable. The reason I say that is that before the member for Oriole spoke I asked him how long he would be and he said half an hour, and even made the motion half way around the clock. He has been close to an hour and a half.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I made it quite clear to the member at the outset during his interruption in the House earlier today when he said, "How long are you going to be?" I said an hour, and after that I said it might be a half hour but anywhere from half an hour to an hour. So the member should not say I committed myself to half an hour.

Mr. Riddell: I beg to differ with him. He not only indicated half an hour but he applied half a circle. I have also come to understand the Tories are always travelling in circles and they do not know when they have gone 180 degrees or when they have gone 360 degrees.

One kind thing I do want to say in my speech is to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment to your high office. I trust you will convey my congratulations and best wishes to the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner) and the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens).

Since the Premier (Mr. Davis) formed a majority government a little over a year ago, based on promises which have never been kept, nor did the Premier ever intend to keep those promises, since he formed his majority government based on those hollow promises, I have become very concerned about the Tory attitude and what it is doing to the democratic process. Based on the government's --

Mr. Treleaven: He has to read that.

Mr. Riddell: I have never heard the member for Oxford make much of a contribution to this House. I am still waiting. When I do sit to listen, I will listen, sir. I will not interject.

Based on the government's mode of operation since the days of minority government, my present view of the politics of democracy was well expressed by Winston Churchill when he implied that democracy is not perfect but it is the best that has ever been devised. Once again, Churchill recognized there were a lot of fallacies in the democratic system but at that time and even now there is not a better system, but it is fast breaking down with the attitude of this Tory government.

I want to talk about the qualities which characterize the present government of Ontario. To do so, I shall cite a few specific examples. No doubt other members of the opposition could record similar episodes.

5 p.m.

For some time now my colleague the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston) and I have been working hard, together with the Town and Country Homemakers, in an effort to have Huron county included in the pilot program announced by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea). In his announcement of the program, the minister stated that six areas in Ontario would be selected for the new homemaking services which are to be administered by the Ministry of Health.

During the debates on supplementary estimates both the member for Huron-Bruce and I spoke on this matter. Shortly after the completion of the debates the member for Huron-Bruce walked across the floor and spoke to the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) in an attempt to arrange a meeting with him on behalf of the Town and Country Homemakers.

One would expect that the minister's response to this request for a meeting with a community group would be treated with the consideration and courtesy it deserved and that the minister would say, at the least, that he would consult his appointment book and find a convenient time.

The response, however, was a shock even to my colleague, who has become accustomed to the arrogance of this government. He was told point blank by the Minister of Health that as far as he, the minister, was concerned, the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton) represented Huron county and any meetings such as the one requested would be arranged under the auspices of that member. I doubt if members have encountered arrogance to equal this.

Perhaps the minister would be kind enough to name for the members of the Legislature, other members of the government party who have been designated as representatives for specific areas of Ontario -- for southwestern Ontario, eastern Ontario, northern Ontario; for Toronto, Hamilton, London and other urban centres. Is there a list of such representatives and can one get a copy of it?

In a somewhat related case, the nursing home dispute in Ridgetown, the Minister of Health tried to involve the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson). But in the event, I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, the member failed to justify the trust put in him by the people of Chatham-Kent. I wonder what that man is going to do for the people of Kent-Elgin.

Last week my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) rose in this House on a point of privilege to ask the Speaker to make a ruling as to whether members' privileges are breached when they are told by regional ministry offices that no information can be given out until the matter in question has been brought to the attention of the minister.

Elected members of this House will find it hard to believe that they cannot now receive information from ministry regional offices unless that information first crosses the desk of the minister. They will see that as another indication of the arrogance of this government.

Not so long ago, former Liberal leader Stuart Smith raised in a point of privilege the fact that Wintario grants were announced by Tory members in their own ridings, while any such grants approved for ridings held by opposition members were announced by the minister. The Liberal member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil) raised the same point of privilege in connection with housing grants.

Another example of this government's arrogance which disturbs me greatly is the absence of Tory members when the leaders of the opposition parties participate in the throne or budget debate. Surely the Premier and the cabinet ministers have a responsibility to remain in the House and listen to the contributions made by the leaders of the two opposition parties, but when they get up to speak members on the opposite side simply leave and just two or three seats are occupied. I say that is highly irresponsible.

Look at what the government is doing to the private members' hour. Practically every bill or resolution that is introduced or debated in this House during private members' hour is blocked by the government. We all know it is a free vote; members can get up and vote on a private member's bill in whatever fashion they want. So why are they denigrating the private members' hour to the extent they are? It is just one more indication to me of the irresponsibility and arrogance of this government.

We ask questions on this side of the House during the question period and the ministers stand in their places and give evasive and irresponsible answers to our questions.

Mr. Havrot: Oh, shame! That's not true.

Mr. Riddell: It is. That is as true as I say it. Their answers in many cases amount to nothing more than political rhetoric, and the Minister of Health is one of those chiefly responsible for those kind of answers.

The list goes on and on. There are stories of months of delay in receiving a response to letters to a minister, of letters supposedly lost in a minister's office. On one occasion, when I called the then Minister of Labour's office for an appointment, I was told, and I quote, "Make the request for an audience with the minister in writing."

Mr. R. F. Johnston: How many people did you have to bring with you?

Mr. Riddell: Can members imagine the arrogance that exists on the Tory side of the House? What kind of government are the Conservatives running here? What kind of services are they giving to the people of Ontario when elected representatives are treated in this cavalier and cynical fashion?

I want to make it abundantly clear that we will not be intimidated by such assaults on the democratic system, imperfect as it may be. We will not allow the Conservatives to further distort and force the democratic process. They cannot fool all of the people all of the time and I firmly believe the electorate will soon come to realize the Tories are making a mockery, an empty sham, of democratic government in Ontario.

The Tory arrogance is almost beyond belief, except that almost daily we are subjected to more and more evidence of the fact that arrogance and the Ontario Tories are synonymous and inseparable. In fact, arrogance and autocratic rule are among the hallmarks of this government, hallmarks that are indelibly imprinted on its every policy and action.

You will no doubt recall, Mr. Speaker, that Lippman maintained: "The denial that man may be arbitrary in human transactions is the higher law. If the Sovereign himself may not act arbitrarily, ministers may not. The Legislature may not. Majorities may not." The sad truth is that the Ontario Progressive Conservatives have never learned this cardinal rule or they have conveniently long since forgotten it.

5:10 p.m.

May I remind the members of this House of the January 28 announcement of provincial transfers to municipalities. On that day, without consultation, without regard for municipal budgeting timetables, without even the courtesy of informing the municipalities before the press were advised, the government announced its 1982 grants. The decision, like so many others by this government, was arbitrarily made and arbitrarily imposed.

What avenue of appeal is available to municipalities? Absolutely none. The minister's word is the last word. He has already made it clear that there is little money for supplementary budgets.

Yet another hallmark of the Conservative government is its lack of courage -- not gall, for the Premier and his colleagues have gall aplenty, but courage. Possibly this lack of courage is due, at least in part, to the inherent Conservative instinct to delay, to procrastinate and to defer. Instead of anticipating problems and dealing with them, the Premier and his ministers wait until systems break down, industries fold up and public services are jeopardized.

Typical Conservative procrastination is at least partly to blame for the ailing condition of Ontario's auto industry. In the last year, 9,000 workers have been laid off permanently, their jobs lost beyond recall. A further 18,000 have been laid off temporarily or indefinitely, a decline of 38 per cent in the work force. According to the United Auto Workers, 22 per cent of all workers in the auto industry are jobless at present.

In January 1982, the then Minister of Industry and Tourism, now the Minister of Health, belatedly decided it was time for everyone to pull together, as he told a special meeting of the Canadian automotive industry. Where have the minister and his predecessors been all these years? Why wait until the declining process is virtually at the point of no return?

The auto industry is the linchpin of Ontario's manufacturing sector. One in every five jobs in Ontario is dependent on the auto sector. Its decline parallels the decline of housing, appliances, aviation, furniture and other major industries hard hit by today's recession.

A total of 398,000 workers are idle in Ontario, 20.5 per cent more than a year ago. Of all Canadian provinces, Ontario has an economic slump second to none and the government is obviously totally at a loss. Years of mismanagement and extravagance have left Ontario little financial room to manoeuvre.

How can we afford new initiatives with a deficit approaching $1.4 billion this year? The Premier himself has contributed substantially to the creation of Ontario's financial predicament by taking on commitments such as the $650-million investment in 25 per cent of Suncor, a move that effectively pre-empted borrowing capacity for more productive purposes. Clearly, the Conservatives have a deep-seated inability to anticipate and to plan. Moreover, they have a fundamental fear of action, a fear that paralyses.

The last hallmark of this government which I wish to cite is ineptitude. A good example of this is the government's Urban Transportation Development Corp., which last year launched into building its unproven intermediate capacity rapid transit vehicle. Rather than tender the contract competitively, permitting Ontario's well-developed and experienced train-building industry to bid, the UTDC invited two companies with no experience whatsoever in building trains to set up a new plant in Kingston. This is at a time when Hawker Siddeley of Thunder Bay has laid off more than 800 workers for lack of contracts. That is a typical example of this government's ineptitude. Our transportation industry certainly does not need that kind of stimulation.

We are just emerging from a cold, hard winter. The snow is fast disappearing and we are all looking forward to the sunny days of spring. Unfortunately, the cold shadow of the Davis regime will continue to chill the lives of Ontarians.

The words of T. S. Eliot are remarkedly apt in describing this Tory government, which constantly and consistently shows itself to be lacking in humanity, lacking in wisdom and lacking in almost all the qualities that should be fundamental to a democratic government. What we have here in Ontario is a government of "hollow men," of "stuffed men leaning together, headpiece filled with straw."

The time has come for the Premier and his colleagues to be called to account. Almost every one of their actions condemns them as being arbitrary, lacking in courage and inept. Daily we see further evidence that this tired Tory regime has lost its ability to cope with the problems that urgently need solution.

The throne speech, which we are in the process of debating, shows pitifully little evidence of the fundamental principles that should guide a democratic government: accountability, courage, sensitivity, efficiency and social justice.

Time does not permit me to elaborate further on the failure of this government to lead the province at a time when leadership was never more important. But I do want to take a little time to talk about a crown corporation we all know about that at times we all love to hate. It is a Goliath of a corporation, apparently out of control, and commonly referred to as Ontario Hydro.

It may be fitting that I should be talking about Ontario Hydro at this time, following the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams), who got up and sang the praises of Ontario Hydro and the great things it was doing.

It is time the truth was told about Ontario Hydro. I intend to bring before this Legislature some facts that are well documented. I challenge the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) and the chairman of Ontario Hydro to refute anything I am going to say about Ontario Hydro. I challenge them to do it, because the facts I am presenting are well documented and it is time this kind of information got out to the people of Ontario.

When I watched the Loeb Report the other day and saw the Minister of Energy floundering around trying to justify the purchase of 25 per cent of Suncor, it reminded me of a man drowning in his own verbal diarrhoea. That is pretty strong, but I must say it was just pitiful.

It was pitiful to see the Minister of Energy trying to answer the questions put to him by the reporter. As a result of that interview, the reporter said at the end: "We did not get the questions answered. All it did was raise more questions." That is the kind of job the Minister of Energy did in trying to justify the purchase of Suncor.

However, let me get back to Ontario Hydro. When the whip feels my time has expired, he can let me know and I will stop and complete my dissertation on Hydro when we have a chance to speak in the budget debate.

First, I will cite some reasons why Ontario Hydro has been accused of mismanaging public funds. Second, my topic will be acid rain and nuclear waste. Finally, I will speak of the whole issue of the proposed 500-kilovolt power corridor from Bruce to London that has been discussed so much recently. I heard the member for Oriole talking about the exportation of hydro to the United States, General Public Utilities, and all the rest of it. By the time I am finished, I am sure the member for Oriole will change his tune.

5:20 p.m.

On the question of Ontario Hydro mismanagement, members will be aware that the corporation's forecasts have for years assumed an increase in the demand for electricity of seven per cent per year, similar to the general trends in the 1950s and 1960s; on the basis of a seven per cent growth rate, generation capacity had to double every 10 years.

Hydro did a good job of forecasting and constructing new plants until about 1973. At that time it assumed the demand for electricity would continue to grow at seven per cent per year, failing to register signals from consumers, who began conserving electrical energy and reducing overall growth in demand. While Hydro planned for seven per cent growth, actual demand increased from 1973 to 1981 at only between two and three per cent.

Let us look at Hydro's wasteful overexpansion plans. In December 1981 Ontario consumers' peak demand for electricity was 16,600 megawatts. Hydro likes to have a reserve margin of 25 per cent, which means it should have capacity to generate about 20,750 megawatts. Instead, it has the capacity to generate about 24,743 megawatts, some 49.05 per cent more than actual peak demand. The excess capacity above and beyond the 25 per cent reserve margin is some 3,993 megawatts. This excess approximates a capacity greater than that of all four units at Bruce A plus one of the four units at Pickering A.

We have calculated the cost of Hydro's overexpansion at about $3.3 billion. This is for power we do not need now. By 1985, excess capacity will cost us $10.8 billion for power we will not need then. The annual cost to Ontario Hydro's customers for this overexpansion is $523 million, or 15.3 cents per day to the typical residential consumer. Small wonder that Hydro rates have increased some 250 per cent since 1971.

Hydro overexpansion continues. Our present generating system has enough capability, even with the 25 per cent reserve margin, to satisfy our projected electricity demands through 1987; yet Hydro continues to build, and not only to build but to build big. Between now and August 1990 the following plants will be operational: 298 megawatts of coal-fired power at Thunder Bay; 206 megawatts of coal-fired power at Atikokan; 2,064 megawatts of nuclear power at Pickering B; 3,024 megawatts of nuclear power at Bruce B; and 3,524 megawatts of nuclear power at Darlington. That is a total of 9,116 megawatts of electrical generating capacity.

In a recent document, Ontario Hydro stated that it will be possible to generate 51 per cent more electricity than is expected at the peak demand in 1990. A 31 per cent excess capacity is indicated for the year 2000. I believe it is outrageous for a crown corporation to spend the taxpayers' money in such a fashion. Not only is it outrageous; it has to be fought against.

Let me tell you of some other examples of Hydro's mismanagement, and believe me, Mr. Speaker, there are many more.

Members may be aware of a uranium contract signed in 1978 between Hydro and Denison Mines Ltd. and Preston Mines Ltd. covering a period of 40 years and the delivery of 198 million pounds of uranium, with a guaranteed profit to the companies of $2.2 billion. Both the Liberal Party and the NDP strongly opposed the contract, which they considered not to be in the public interest. However, the Premier authorized the signing of the contract on February 28, 1978.

Mr. MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: To keep the record straight, the Liberals did not oppose the contract. They supported it because they said it was too long ago and too much time had passed. They started out opposing and ended up supporting the contract.

Mr. Riddell: That is a point of view.

Mr. MacDonald: That is a point of fact.

Mr. Riddell: The truth is that with respect to those contracts --

Mr. McClellan: Just stick to the facts.

Mr. Riddell: If we had to rely on the facts that come from that side of the House, we would be in serious trouble. The truth is that with respect to those contracts, Ontario consumers of electricity are being taken to the cleaners. I told the House this was well documented. Until the paid barnyard farmer from York South can provide us with the actual facts about that matter, I will stay with the documented facts I am presenting here today.

Mr. MacDonald: Who did this for you, you or your researcher? You are not a farmer, you are an auctioneer.

Mr. Riddell: The world price of uranium is currently about US$23.50 per pound. However, the uranium being delivered under the Denison Mines contract is estimated to be costing Ontario Hydro about $55 a pound. In addition, under the contracts Ontario Hydro is required to provide interest-free loans to the companies for expansion of their operations. Those loans will amount to $650 million by 1985 in spite of the fact the original estimate by Ontario Hydro was $340 million.

In periods of high interest rates, this government will apparently help out its friends in the uranium business rather than the farmers, the home owners and small businessmen who are being forced into bankruptcy. Under the terms of the agreements, the earliest date by which Hydro could terminate the contracts would be 1989 for Preston Mines and 1993 for Denison Mines.

If Hydro did decide to terminate, it would lose its $650-million, interest-free expansion loan. In addition, over the long term, owing to Hydro's improper forecasting of electricity demands, the contracts will deliver 55 million pounds of uranium in excess of the needs of Ontario Hydro's committed nuclear stations. The extra expenditure is approximately $1.5 billion.

There is a final ironic twist to the story. In June 1981, both Rio Algom and Denison Mines were charged by the federal Attorney General with uranium price-fixing and the matter has yet to come before the courts.

Hydro has taken other outrageous actions at the expense of Ontario taxpayers. After spending $260 million on the new oil-fired station at Wesleyville during a period when oil prices were skyrocketing, Hydro cancelled the project at a cost of $180.5 million, mothballing it at a cost of a further $20 million. Hydro hopes to recover $60 million of this money if it can find buyers for some of the equipment.

A total of $396 million was spent on construction of the Bruce heavy water plant D; then construction of half of that unit was stopped and the materials were stored. The other half of that unit was completed but was mothballed at a further cost of $15 million. I hope the members are adding these up in their own minds so they will understand how many millions and millions of dollars Ontario Hydro has wasted.

After contracts were awarded for the construction of Bruce heavy water plant C, this was cancelled at a cost of $69 million because it was not required. A total of $489 million was spent on the Lennox generating station near Kingston, then Ontario Hydro mothballed two units at a cost of $230,000. The other two units are only operational about four per cent of the time and these will be mothballed in 1983. Also, $166 million was spent on the Hearn generating plant in Toronto. Five of its eight units have been mothballed at a cost of $31,000 and the other three units are running at close to zero capacity.

5:30 p.m.

In 1976, Hydro signed a $900-million, 15-year contract with Petrosar Ltd. of Sarnia for the delivery of fuel oil. So far, $33 million has been paid in order not to take delivery of the oil because the plants which were to use the oil had been mothballed. Another $27 million has been set aside in order not to take delivery in 1982.

Ontario Hydro did not require its suppliers to provide a performance bond for the installation of the steam generators at the Pickering D generating station near Kincardine. Therefore, Hydro will be forced to pay at least $10 million for defective boilers. Hydro's mistakes will add at least $2.2 billion to our electrical bills in the province over the next 10 years.

There are other problems arising from Hydro's mistakes in its overexpansion program. The Legislature's select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs, which the member for York South will be well acquainted with -- and I hope he will have his facts put together a little better on this matter -- and which was disbanded by the Premier after the last election, announced that electricity from the Darlington nuclear generating station would not be required until between 1996 and 2004. Yet during the 1981 election the Premier called for the speedup of construction so that the four units of the plant would be in service between May 1988 and August 1990 -- anything to win an election.

As I mentioned earlier, Hydro's forecasting of increases in electrical energy demand has been off base. In February 1979 Hydro estimated that electrical demand would increase at a rate of 4.7 per cent from 1979 to 1989. Its testimony before the select committee showed that Hydro had chosen this figure in an arbitrary manner. In fact, Hydro's sophisticated forecasting models predicted a rate of 2.6, but this rate was rejected.

In January 1981 Hydro had reduced its forecast to a new rate of 3.1 per cent and in January 1982 the rate was down to three per cent. During this whole period of time the select committee had forecast that the growth in electricity demand in Ontario would only be two to three per cent per year. It appears now, after years of mistakes, Hydro is finally realizing the reality of the select committee's demand rate rather than living in a world of illusions.

We must ensure that these mistakes are never repeated. To this end, the strange and unacceptable relationship that the government has allowed to develop between Hydro, the government and the Legislature must be changed. While Hydro has been empire building, no one has been minding the store. Hydro is out of control. Not only has the government been blind to the dangers of the situation, it has actually promoted the empire building. What is good for Hydro is not necessarily good for Ontario. The economic waste of having a state within a state is unacceptable and cannot be allowed to continue.

I would like now to speak of Ontario Hydro, the corporate polluter. With respect to acid-rain- causing emissions, Inco is the worst offender in Ontario and Hydro is the second. From the standpoint of pollution Inco is the worst offender, Hydro is the second. Acid rain is currently occurring in the greater part of eastern North America. Over half of our continent there are large areas in which surface soil and bedrock have little buffering capacity for acid inputs. They are potentially sensitive to the effects of acid rain. The vulnerable areas include unique, unspoiled and biologically productive environments.

Without being too technical, let me explain acid rain formation. When a fossil fuel such as coal is burned, sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides are formed, as well as other gases and heavy metals. Sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides are transported by large-scale air mass movements. In the process the gases are converted to their acid components.

Measurements of the current level of chemical components in precipitation show that extensive areas of North America receive about 40 times more acid than normal. This excess is deposited as wet fallout -- rain, snow, fog, etc. -- as dry fallout, as dust particles and as gas or air. Some components of acid precipitation such as ozone are secondary pollutants. These are not emitted directly but are formed as a result of chemical transformations of nitrogen dioxide and reactive hydrocarbons.

On a list of Canada's 10 largest sources of sulphur dioxide Inco is number one. However, Hydro's coal plants at Lambton, Nanticoke and Lakeview rank fifth, sixth and 10th respectively. In 1980 Inco polluted the skies with 866,000 metric tons of sulphur dioxide, while Hydro was responsible for 410,000 metric tons.

Mr. Haggerty: That is a long ton.

Mr. Riddell: That's right. That same year Hydro contributed fully 22 per cent of all the SO₂ produced in the province.

Mr. Havrot: SOBs too.

Mr. Riddell: I agree with you there. Truer words were never spoken, my friend.

Hydro is now under a provincial control order to reduce acid gas emissions to a level of 300,000 metric tons of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide by 1990. This is a step in the right direction if we are to control acid rain. However, Hydro and the government have kept very quiet about the fact that Hydro's emissions are actually going to increase substantially before they start to decrease under the control order.

Let me give members a few statistics. As I mentioned, in 1980 Hydro spewed 410,000 metric tons of SO₂ into our skies. The control order on Hydro was announced in January 1981, but nothing will really begin to change until 1986. The figures speak for themselves. In 1981 Hydro emitted 509,000 metric tons of SO₂, a 24 per cent increase over 1980. Hydro documents predict for 1985 an emission level of 560,000 metric tons of SO₂ over 1980 levels, a 36.6 per cent increase. Hydro's chairman has said that Hydro will cut emissions in half by 1990. This may be true on the basis of planned emissions for 1982, but it is only a 36 per cent reduction on the basis of emission levels for 1980 when the control order was written.

As a farmer, I am concerned about my crops and what acid rain is doing to them. The damaging effects of acid rain, and particularly ozone, on vegetation and the resulting yield reductions in many crop species have been well documented in the eastern United States and Ontario. These crops include tobacco, white beans, which are grown very extensively in my riding, soybeans, corn, potatoes, grapes, onions, cucumbers, celery, pumpkins, squash and radishes. Loss of plant tissue may approach 15 to 30 per cent and yield losses of five to 10 per cent may occur to the most susceptible crops.

I have told you, Mr. Speaker, that Hydro plans to reduce emissions to a level of 300,000 metric tons per year by 1990. Emissions could go much lower if scrubbers were installed, something we in the Liberal Party have advocated for years.

Even without additional scrubbers, emissions could be reduced to approximately 225,000 metric tons by 1990. How can this be done? By not proceeding with the General Public Utilities cable deal, which the member for Oriole talked so much about, to deliver firm power to the owners of the ill-fated Three Mile Island nuclear station. We have argued about this cable deal in the Legislature since last November. As a matter of fact, we raised the matter before the federal environment ministry, and Energy Probe, the Canadian Coalition on Acid Rain and Ralph Nader all took offence at the deal.

5:40 p.m.

Many members, particularly those who come from a rural environment, are aware of the effect of acid rain on the crops. The white bean industry has been almost wiped out in some areas of the province. The white bean industry used to be centred in the Essex and Kent parts of Ontario. There is hardly a field of white beans to be found growing in that area now, the reason being that the pollutant drove the bean industry out of that part of Ontario.

Many people say we should stop burning coal to make electricity and that we should use nuclear plants instead. The truth is that nuclear plants are as guilty as coal-fired plants of producing dirty power. We never hear the full story from Hydro. We are told that nuclear plants produce cheap, clean electricity.

An hon. member: The safest in the world.

Mr. Riddell: I would like to hear my friend say that if ever the present situation we are facing in the world today accelerates. I do not think I have to say any more about that. Let us not say it is the safest thing on the face of the earth.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What are you talking about?

Mr. Riddell: Before I actually insult somebody over there, I will not say what I was going to say. We never hear the full story from Hydro. Does the member ever read the papers or is she so entrenched in her work that she never gets to read the newspapers to see what is going on in the world?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Of course I read the papers.

Mr. Riddell: Doesn't it bother you?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The honourable member has the floor. Please do not pay heed to the interruptions. They will have their turn for a response to the speech.

Mr. Riddell: We are told that nuclear plants produce cheap, clean electricity. We are not told of the millions of tons of uranium mine tailings that litter northern Ontario, mine tailings with low levels of radiation affecting local, aquatic and terrestrial life in a slow and insidious fashion. We are not told of the swimming pools that nuclear plants fill with nuclear fuel bundles for which Hydro have not figured out a disposal method. These hazardous wastes will have to be entombed in glass, concrete and stainless steel over 1,000 metres below the surface and monitored for literally tens of thousands of years before the radiation level is reduced. This is the legacy we are passing on to future generations of people. Isn't that a fine how-do-you-do?

Hydro does not tell us about heavy water spilled at nuclear plants, the occasional venting of radioactive steam or the releases of radioactive water into the lakes and rivers near Ontario's nuclear generating stations. For a crown corporation owned by the people of Ontario, Hydro tells us very little about matters of serious concern. I have outlined the Goliath nature of Ontario Hydro, the immense crown corporation that seems to advise the government what will be done rather than being advised by the government as to what should be done, the corporation whose mismanagement of public funds has been allowed to run rampant for too long, the corporate polluter that often does not tell us the facts about its pollution.

I would like to tell members of a Hydro plan that will again rape our agricultural countryside. Members will be aware that Hydro is seeking approval from the province's Consolidated Hearings Board for a plan to construct a second 500-kilovolt corridor out of the Bruce nuclear power development by 1988. This is intended to provide another connection between the huge installation near Kincardine and the provincial power grid. Six routes have been proposed. The one preferred by Hydro would link the Bruce complex with the London area, with a second connection to be built between London and Hydro's Middleport transformer station near Brantford.

Let us put a few things into perspective on the Bruce development and Hydro transmission lines in general. During the 1960s the Bruce plant was planned in two stages, Bruce A and Bruce B. Both were to be composed of four 750-megawatt units. Bruce A's units were to begin production at different times between 1975 and 1979, Bruce B's between 1981 and 1984. In addition to problems arising from erroneous demand forecasting by Hydro, delays in construction occurred, as is so often the case with large projects. The four units of Bruce A began production between 1976 and 1980. The first unit of Bruce B will not come into service until April 1984, while the fourth unit is not scheduled for service until January 1987.

Hand in hand with Hydro's big-is-beautiful philosophy of constructing large generating stations is a commitment to a complex and integrated transmission system. It is not simply a question of each plant supplying one area by means of one transmission line. The large plants in the major load centres are all linked by a high voltage transmission grid. Advantage can therefore be taken of differences in pattern of use among various areas. This enables power to be diverted if parts of the system fail. Transmission lines in this grid are operated at high voltages because high voltages enable power to be transmitted much more efficiently and therefore much more cheaply. The Ontario Hydro grid was created by increments made over decades and is composed of 115, 230 and 500 kilovolt lines.

I am especially concerned that the construction and operation of these transmission lines may have large and harmful impacts on the social and physical environment, particularly on the landscape, wildlife, land ownership and use. These lines are visible from long distances, occasionally from several miles away. As we all know, they are far from being attractive. In urban areas they may blend into a tangle of concrete and steel, but in rural areas they are a visual blight on the otherwise attractive landscape.

Those farmers who already have transmission towers cluttering up their property are all too well aware of the problems and concerns arising from the installation. Yields are reduced as permanent land is lost under and around towers and weed infestation often results. Efficiency is reduced due to additional time being required to farm around towers, not to mention the need for weed control material.

Loss of arable land is possible, depending on rights of way and the irrigation system used. Aerial spraying operations are also impaired, which may lead to additional costs for the farmers. Vegetation at the base of towers and under wires must be cleared or controlled for servicing and safety. This may cause erosion and harm to wildlife habitat, especially if there are changes in temperatures or water levels in streams and swamps. The lines also restrict the use of land because they are incompatible with most other uses.

Some vital questions must be asked in connection with Hydro's preferred corridor route. Is too much prime agricultural farm land being lost? Is there an actual need for the project? What hearing procedures are being followed? Hydro has studied six different routes, but the route known as M-1 is favoured. This route happens to be the one which destroys the greatest amount of class 1, 2 and 3 agricultural land. Ninety per cent of the route traverses class 1,2 and 3 prime agricultural land and this would have the effect of putting out of production some 675 hectares of good farm land.

Frankly, I am appalled by this situation. Hydro obviously does not understand the importance of the farming community to the province. Equally obvious is the fact that the government has not informed Hydro of its apparent commitment to the farm community.

Mr. Boudria: What commitment?

Mr. Riddell: They have food land guidelines which they could enforce if they wanted but they do not want to. It is nothing but window dressing and has been ever since they introduced the guidelines.

The priorities of Ontario Hydro and the government must be questioned. Hydro likes to point out that this province is a net exporter of electricity, some $300 million to $400 million worth per year. However, no mention is made of the fact that we are a net importer of food, about $1 billion worth per year. In fact, in 1980 Ontario imported some $600-million worth of fruit and vegetables.

Surely our increasing dependence on food imports should be a concern to all of us, bearing in mind that in many of these foods we used to be self-sufficient. Surely our increasing dependence on their importation should be of concern to all of us. We have gone from being practically self-sufficient in food production in Ontario to being a net importer of food. How in the world can we afford to let any more prime agricultural land go out of production because Ontario Hydro chooses to put a power corridor through the best agricultural land in the province?

Interjections.

5:50 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is not because of lack of production. It is because of a change of taste. People now want lettuce all year round. They didn't used to.

The. Acting Speaker: The member for Huron-Middlesex has the floor.

Mr. Riddell: I might suggest it would be better if the minister ate more lettuce.

The government's own reports indicate that over the next two decades it will be necessary to provide the equivalent of one million hectares of new food production capacity if we are to maintain current levels of self-sufficiency while meeting future demands. It is also well known that with the same energy input class 1 land produces 100 per cent more food per hectare than class 4 land, while class 2 land produces 60 per cent more and class 3 land nearly 30 per cent more than class 4 land. Ontario is in the fortunate position of being able to grow many specialty crops which are difficult if not impossible to grow elsewhere in Canada, yet Hydro is allowed to continue carving up this prime food-producing area with its transmission corridors.

Through the BILD program -- I use that term rather loosely; some on this side refer to it as the "bilge" program -- the Tory government appears intent on the intensification and expansion of the agricultural industry. The program recognizes the fact that up to 50 per cent of the $4-billion worth of food imports in Canada in 1979 was replaceable by production primarily in Ontario. Yet the government, through Hydro, condones the disappearance of some of this production capability.

Further, it seems clear that Ontario will move towards intensification of farm systems with increased emphasis on production of specialty crops, including fruits, vegetables and oil seed crops. It is therefore imperative that high priority be given to conserving that land for agriculture which, by virtue of soil and climatic conditions, provides greatest flexibility in responding to future changes in technology and farming systems. For the Tory government and Ontario Hydro to impair or reduce this flexibility is nothing less than criminal.

Interestingly enough, these are some of the concerns presented to the Consolidated Hearings Board in a report for the Institute of Pedology prepared for our wonderful Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell). That report recommended another route, one which would minimize the impact on farm land.

Responding to the report a Hydro spokesman said: "The soil scientists who wrote the report would be on shaky ground if they were criticizing Hydro's preferred plan. Except for a few people in Huron county, the preferred route was accepted by all the farm groups." But it was accepted by all the farm groups who would not be affected.

The Tory government has often been careless with food land; in fact, it has mastered the art of carelessness. Did the Tories tell Hydro to press for the Huron county route because the route would impair good farm land or because the ridings of Huron-Bruce and Huron-Middlesex are represented by Liberals? I have to ask that question of myself and I have to wonder how committed the Tories and Hydro are to the farm community in the light of the decision they have made on the preferred route.

When considering a project of this magnitude, actual needs must be considered. We have found more often than not that when Hydro says we need something, we really do not. Hydro is a power-hungry bureaucracy out of control and for Hydro big is beautiful and powerful.

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment is supposed to protect our environment, but unfortunately the minister and his staff are not doing a very good job. Ministry officials have appeared at the Consolidated Hearings Board, but they have been entirely neutral on this project. In mid-December a report was released on the project which was part of a provincial review required under the Environmental Assessment Act, which in this case has come under an application to consolidate a number of hearings under the new Consolidated Hearings Act. That review report was critical of the Hydro proposal, noting the Hydro study failed to look at the alternative of voltages lower than 500 kilovolts.

The report stated, "Extensions to the existing 230-kilovolt network rather than new 500-kilovolt facilities might prove to have less environmental and financial impact." Furthermore, the report says Hydro clearly intends to export more electricity to the United States and the Bruce lines are part of such a plan. However, Hydro has not proved this to be in Ontario's best interest.

There is cause for serious concern. Hydro has so overexpanded generation capacity at our expense that markets must now be found for the electricity; otherwise the plants will become white elephants. That is the reason we are looking to some other countries to utilize our hydro.

The whole question of Ontario supplying electricity to the United States must be considered. Hydro seems big on this lately. However, it is supposed to be serving the people of Ontario, not our neighbours in the United States. There is no reason in the world why electricity customers in this province should be subsidizing electricity rates for American customers. Let us not forget that Ontario Hydro does not charge the American purchaser the capital cost invested in generation facilities, the interest cost in building the plant, or the cost of operation.

The whole Bruce transmission corridor which Hydro prefers is tied to getting electricity to the Buchanan transformer facility in London. This transformer must provide the bulk power for Sarnia, Chatham, Windsor and Hydro's three interconnection lines to Michigan. Based on anticipated export sales to the United States, the Buchanan transformer station is expected to be severely restricted by the late 1980s. A Hydro official told the hearing board that without additional transmission lines into London from the Bruce nuclear power development we would be forced to back off from our sales of electricity to the United States.

If that has to happen, so be it. Ontario Hydro was designed to serve Ontarians, not our United States neighbours. Hydro has stated that the transmission line would eventually be needed even without Hydro's power connection with United States utilities. However, Hydro spokesmen testified before the hearing panel that the power lines would not be needed until at least the next decade without the importance placed by Hydro on its interconnections with the United States.

Hydro's fervour for exporting power to the United States is clearly demonstrated in the controversial OPU cable deal currently being negotiated, a deal that will be detrimental to Ontario's environment. Does Hydro have a hidden agenda for exporting nuclear power to the United States, using nuclear plants paid for by Ontario consumers and utilizing power corridors that are raping our productive farm land?

It is no coincidence that in September of last year Ontario Hydro president Milan Nastich delivered a detailed outline to the American Public Power Association on the idea of exporting Canadian nuclear power, suggesting that Canada and the United States are "on the verge of a marriage" with Canada apparently selling cheap electricity to the United States. All that is lacking is the "political will" to make it happen, he said.

It is even less of a coincidence that two months after Mr. Nastich's speculation, the Minister of Energy, speaking at the Atomic Industrial Forum's annual convention in San Francisco, stated that the Canadian and United States governments should consider "the possibility of building nuclear generating plants in Canada to export to the United States."

I see my time is practically exhausted. I will wind up by saying I have painted a picture of Hydro that may be unfamiliar to many people in this House and certainly to many people in the province. I know the people at Ontario Hydro would not be too pleased with my comments. However, everything I have told you is true.

Mr. Stokes: Almost.

Mr. Riddell: The facts are documented.

Mr. Williams: Pretty distorted.

Mr. Riddell: If the member questions any, he can let me know.

All of these matters are of serious concern to members of the Liberal Party of Ontario. Hydro is supposed to be an agent of the people of this province, but from the picture I have painted members can see that Hydro is merely its own agent. It is a Goliath of a corporation with an astronomical debt. It is a crown corporation which is out of control.

The House recessed at 6:01 p.m.

19 avril 1982