The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

ELECTORAL DISTRICT OF BRANT-HALDIMAND

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the membership of the House by reason of the resignation of Robert F. Nixon, Esq, member for the electoral district of Brant-Haldimand. Accordingly, my warrant has been issued to the chief election officer for the issue of a writ for a by-election.

FIRST DEPUTY CHAIR

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the office of First Deputy Chair of the committee of the whole House by reason of the resignation of Karen Haslam, member for the electoral district of Perth.

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House that Mr Elston, member for the electoral district of Bruce, is recognized as leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table a copy of an order in council numbered OC-1980/91 and dated 16 August 1991 appointing the Speaker, who shall be the Chair, Mr Cooke, Mrs Coppen, Mr Pouliot, Mr Drainville, Mr Bradley and Mr Eves as commissioners to the Board of Internal Economy.

I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table a copy of an order in council numbered OC-2176/91 and dated 13 September 1991 appointing Mr Christopherson as a commissioner to the Board of Internal Economy in the place of Mr Drainville.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker: I would ask at this time for all members to join me in welcoming the fifth group of pages to serve in the first session of the 35th Parliament: Natalie Blachette, Nickel Belt; Jennifer Cho, Sault Ste Marie; Timothy Christie, Elgin; Jeffrey Copenace, Kenora; Nicholas Cryer, Simcoe West; Melissa Cyr, Prescott and Russell; Carolyn Goossen, Fort York; Mark Grassie, Victoria-Haliburton; Benjamin Holmes, Windsor-Riverside; Sarah Jenkins, Simcoe Centre; Christopher Jull, Durham-York; Benjamin Lo, Mississauga West; Amber Locker, Lanark-Renfrew; Scott Maenpaa, Lake Nipigon; Aoife Maguire, S-D-G & East Grenville; Catherine Marlow, Northumberland; Mark Matsos, Burlington South; Tasha Mayer, Bruce; Sarah Mobach, Algoma; Julian Ovens, Ottawa Centre; Henry Rogers, Ottawa-Rideau; Robert Schmidt, Brant-Haldimand; Leah Spicer, Essex-Kent; and Amanda Ward, Rainy River.

Would you please welcome these pages to our midst.

VISITORS

The Speaker: I would also like to inform the members of the assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today Mr Philip Wright, who is the Sergeant at Arms from the House of Commons, London, England. Would you please welcome him to our midst.

Also seated in the Speaker's gallery today is a group of parliamentarians and legislative staff representing various Asian countries: Bangladesh, Nepal, Fiji, Western Samoa, Pakistan, the Philippines, Taiwan and Thailand. Would you please join me in welcoming these guests to our gallery this afternoon.

We have an additional guest, also seated in the gallery, the Rev William Roberts, MLA for Edmonton Centre.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr Chiarelli: Last September, the NDP surprised itself and the people of Ontario by gaining a majority government with 37% of the votes, and the ministers and caucus of this government actually believed they had the moral and democratic authority to legislate an ideology. Let us hope that by now ministers have learned that simplistic ideology and service to the people of Ontario are doomed to conflict. Why else would the government have retreated on rent control, retreated on the wage protection plan, retreated on automobile insurance, retreated on Sunday shopping and now a full retreat on its budget policy?

This government needs to start all over. Workers are worried and business is in bunkers. For example, having wasted a year and $5 million on auto insurance studies, the Ministry of Financial Institutions has shown no direction on pension reforms, on Ontario Securities Commission reforms, on protection for financial consumers, on harmonizing trust company legislation.

This government is gulping salt water as it floats aimlessly in a sea of confusion. The NDP agenda has floated out with the tide and there is nothing but clouds rolling in. There is no Rae of sunshine being seen in Ontario.

NATIONAL WOMEN'S CENTRES DAY

Mrs Witmer: I would like to draw the members' attention to National Women's Centres Day.

The theme for this year's campaign is Keep the Doors Open for Women, a theme which reflects the very serious financial problems faced by many women's centres. As a result of a lack of adequate and stable financial support from the provincial government, some have closed their doors and others are experiencing extreme difficulty in keeping their doors open for women.

Women's centres provide information and resource and support services for women. In addition, many services such as transition houses and rape crisis centres are started and organized by women through women's centres. These centres play an extremely important role in helping women in their communities identify problems and develop their own solutions. I would like to thank the dedicated staff and volunteers for their service to women.

The 19 women's centres in Ontario may be forced to close their doors if the government does not take action to support them. I would like to take this opportunity to urge the new Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues to take a serious look at the way in which these centres are funded and to take appropriate action to indeed keep the doors open for women.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

Mr Drainville: I want to inform the members of this chamber of an initiative being taken by the select committee on Ontario in Confederation which we hope will help in our quest to strengthen and revitalize this nation.

In just over four weeks' time, on October 17, 18 and 19, the select committee is sponsoring a constitutional conference to be held in Hart House at the University of Toronto. Delegates from across Ontario have been selected and invited to participate in the committee's development of its report to the Legislature.

We expect to have 130 delegates who have been chosen to be as representative as possible of the 10 million people of Ontario. This difficult task has been accomplished through a great deal of non-partisan work on the part of all three parties represented here in this Legislature.

Although this is to be a dialogue with and among the people of Ontario, we have invited 20 observers from the other provinces and territories, from native and aboriginal groups and from the three national parties in the House of Commons and the government of Canada. Through this conference we hope to achieve some refinement of the diverse opinions and concerns that have been expressed by Ontarians across the province in order to reach our goal of reporting on what our province's role should be in Canada's future. We look forward with eager anticipation to this historical and momentous event.

1340

LONG POINT REGION

Mr Mancini: I stand in the House today to draw attention to a blueprint for the preservation and enhancement of the Long Point region. Long Point is an outstanding wildlife habitat. Its ecological significance is documented by every level of government, including being named a biosphere reserve by UNESCO.

The area has come under intense developmental pressure. In response to this, the following groups -- the Canadian Environmental Defence Fund; the Canadian Nature Federation; the Canadian Wildlife Federation; the Coalition Advocating Responsible Development, Haldimand-Norfolk; the Federation of Ontario Naturalists; Norfolk Field Naturalists, and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters -- which represent over 500,000 Canadians, prepared the blueprint under the title Long Point: Our Common Interest.

The groups want the provincial government (1) to declare Long Point a provincial resource in which it has a provincial interest, (2) to initiate immediately a study of the carrying capacity of the entire Long Point region and (3) to develop criteria for approving future development in the Long Point watershed.

VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE

Mr Jackson: This summer was a summer of painful tragedy and sad loss for the people of Burlington. On June 29, the dismembered body of 14-year-old Burlington student Leslie Mahaffy was found. Five weeks later, 19-year-old Nina De Villiers was abducted in Burlington and was later found murdered in Kingston. In the words of Nina's father, Dr Rocco De Villiers, "Our families, friends and the wider community have suffered an incurable loss."

These tragedies have shaken all members of the Burlington community, who, to their great credit, spared no effort to demonstrate their support for the families of the victims, whose grief they helped shoulder, especially during the long, anxious searches in the summer heat in which thousands participated. These tragedies have likewise for ever shattered the false sense of security of those who think "It can't happen here," and more people took part in this year's Take Back the Night walk in Halton than in all previous marches combined.

Leslie Mahaffy and Nina De Villiers are not only victims but martyrs who serve as cruel reminders of the continuing vulnerability and victimization of women in our society. It is now up to us who honour their memory, and especially the members of this Legislature, to press forward with needed initiatives to protect women and children against violence and to assist the victims.

It is now up to us to move swiftly and decisively to make a safer and more secure future for all women in all communities across Ontario a reality. Only such an achievement can become a meaningful and lasting tribute to the memory of Leslie Mahaffy and Nina De Villiers. May their all too brief time with us serve now as a beacon for these reforms in the weeks ahead.

RECYCLING

Mr Fletcher: Guelph has been a leader in recycling and I have always been proud of that fact. Recently officials from the company Consumers Glass wrote to me to say Guelph and Wellington county's recycling success story has never been more clear.

Consumers Glass is the major purchaser of blue box glass. In the first six months of 1991, Guelph and Wellington county residents recycled 20% more glass than in the last six months of 1990. That is up to 904 tons of glass from 755 tons. Based on these figures, an increase of 43% is expected for all of 1991 compared to last year. The more glass we recycle means more revenue for recycling programs in Guelph and area.

Consumers Glass says that from its familiarity with recycling practices in Canada and the United States, there is no doubt Ontario is currently the leader in glass recycling. So it seems that Guelph and Wellington county are on the cutting edge of glass recycling in the province.

This is merely the latest in a long line of environmental achievements in my riding, where participation in Ontario's blue box program is over 95%. Guelph's blue box program just recently expanded to include aluminum foil and pie plates. For the month of October a pilot project with Alcan will enable residents to recycle products such as aluminum ladders, pots, lawn chairs and screen doors.

Guelph's wet-dry recycling pilot project has been running for two years. Residents divide their waste into organic matter for municipal composting and dry recyclable wastes for the blue box or city recycling depot. I am proud that the citizens of Guelph, environmental groups and city hall are pitching in with our province's aggressive program of reduce, reuse and recycle.

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

Mrs McLeod: Last night in Thunder Bay and St Catharines, members of the United Steelworkers of America locals held rallies to support a bid that could bring stability to their jobs. Members of this union work at Portship in Thunder Bay and Port Weller in St Catharines, the two remaining shipyards in Ontario. The parent company of these shipyards has bid on a federal contract to build 12 minesweepers.

I do not need to tell you, Mr Speaker, that the economic benefits for Thunder Bay and St Catharines would be extensive if this contract were to be won. At a time when industry in our province is being hard hit, it is imperative that we do everything possible to protect the jobs we now have. The shipyards at Portship and Port Weller have the experience and the capability to undertake these contracts.

We need to be assured that the Ontario bid is being fairly considered by the federal government. I have therefore written to the Minister of National Defence asking him to provide that assurance. I have also written to the Ontario Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology asking him to seek the same assurances. As Ontario's industry minister is aware, this contract could help to save Ontario's two remaining shipyards. I call upon him to do whatever he can to ensure that this contract comes to Ontario.

ELECTORAL DISTRICT OF BRANT-HALDIMAND

Mr Villeneuve: I rise today to call on the government to name the date for a by-election in the riding of Brant-Haldimand. At this time of very real crisis and extreme financial hardship in Ontario's rural and agricultural communities, the electors of Brant-Haldimand need and deserve a voice in this House. Today those people are without representation as the result of the retirement from the Legislature, of the honourable member, our friend Bob Nixon.

Over the course of the summer, since that retirement was announced, the situation in our farming community has grown steadily worse. The farmers of Brant-Haldimand have joined those of Essex and Kent counties and many others that were present in Lucknow recently demanding emergency aid from their government -- emergency aid now.

My leader and fellow caucus members met with many Brant-Haldimand residents recently. In that area, and indeed across Ontario, serious concerns about the future of farms and agriculture in general have been expressed. We all have serious concerns about the legislation this government is planning to introduce, yet there appears to be very little concern on the part of the government in addressing this inequity.

Legislative representation is an essential cornerstone of our democratic process. On behalf of the unrepresented residents of Brant-Haldimand and agriculture in general, I call on the government to ensure that all Ontarians have representation. It should call that election today.

NIAGARA GRAPE AND WINE FESTIVAL

Ms Haeck: I rise once again to extol the virtues of my riding, St Catharines-Brock, and the wine country surrounding it. Niagara is part of Festival Country Ontario, and its citizens have much to celebrate: folk arts in St Catharines in May, peaches in Niagara-on-the-Lake during August, and at this time of year the grape harvest.

Since 1952 the city of St Catharines has been the focal point of this celebration, but the grape growers all the way from Grimsby to Niagara-on-the-Lake, the 25 wineries located there and the Ontario Wine Council all have made huge contributions to the success of the Niagara Grape and Wine Festival. Recognizing that there actually is another wine region in Ontario, those who visit the festival will have the opportunity to sample Colio wines from Essex.

I am happy to say that the festivities this year will be presided over not by a grape king, as in previous years, but by a grape queen, Ms Donna Lailey, a prominent woman grape grower who is being honoured this year for her contributions to the wine industry in Niagara.

Wines, juices, great food and entertainment all this week, and next Saturday one of the largest parades in Ontario -- everything is there for the members' enjoyment. I know I speak for the festival organizers and for St Catharines' exuberant mayor, Joe McCaffrey, when I say there is no better place to be in this coming week than at the Niagara Grape and Wine Festival in St Catharines.

1350

VISITOR

The Speaker: Before continuing with the business, I would like to invite members to welcome to our midst this afternoon, seated in the members' gallery, Mr Jack Harris, MHA from Newfoundland.

LEGISLATIVE INTERNS

The Speaker: I also want to welcome a very special group of young people, who are seated in the Speaker's gallery, this year's group of legislative interns, whom I know you will see from time to time around the building. Would you please welcome them to our midst.

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Hon Mr Rae: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if I might have the unanimous consent of the House to welcome the new Leader of the Opposition in his new role.

Just very briefly, I know honourable members would want to say at least a couple of words, and I would like to do it before the question period rather than after the question period in case I change my mind. I do want to say to the member that his contribution to this House in opposition and in government has been tremendous and that he has the personal respect and affection of all of us, and certainly of all of us in the government. I personally look forward to working with him very much in the days ahead.

Mr Harris: I rushed in here so I would have this opportunity to say something nice about my colleague for -- what is his riding, Mr Speaker? You could tell my thoughts were elsewhere.

I too join with the Premier and I think with all members of the House in extending our condolences to the member for Bruce. It is condolences. He has accepted on behalf of his party -- something that the former member for Sarnia, Mr Brandt, accepted on behalf of our party -- one of the most difficult challenges there is for a legislator in parliamentary democracy, particularly here in Ontario. To carry forward that challenge and provide unity and focus as best one can while leadership candidates are running around the province, as I was doing a few years ago, is not an easy task.

I have known the member for Bruce for a considerable period of time on both sides of the House, at House leaders' meetings and when we worked together on the environment away back in the early 1980s, he then as critic and I as a strong progressive in favour of implementing many new environment policies in this province.

It is not an easy challenge; it is difficult. I believe the member for Bruce is very capable of handling it. I know it is a sacrifice that he has made on behalf of the people of this province, and specifically on behalf of his party, which for some reason or other he believes so strongly in.

I join the Premier in welcoming and looking forward to working with the leader of the official opposition of the Liberal Party for whatever period of time his party decides it will take to get its act together. If they are smart, they will do it quicker than our party did.

Mr Elston: Just very briefly, Mr Speaker, thank you for the introduction earlier, and to the Premier and the leader of the third party. It is a pleasure to be here in this role because it is a very important one.

I am here today supported ably by my wife, Trudy, and her parents, Laura and Ed McLeish, who are sitting just up here. It seems like a worthwhile way to kick off our endeavours here in this new session to have full family support in getting down to work to try to get Ontario back to business.

I am proud to say that I followed with some degree of envy the greening of the third party's leader over the summer. I understand he was on the golf course a fair bit. He is tanned and ready to go. Since he could not remember my riding, I just want to tell him there are several good golf courses up around Southampton and Port Elgin and some around Walkerton and Wingham. I can tell the honourable gentleman, the member for Nipissing, that we are ready and willing as a group of legislators to get on with work to see if we can get some folks back to work in Ontario.

I look forward to a very productive time period and I can tell the honourable member for Nipissing that the party is not looking to extend my stay as interim leader too awfully long. I think there should be in due course an announcement about a permanent successor to our last permanent leader.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO ECONOMY / L'ÉCONOMIE DE L'ONTARIO

Hon Mr Rae: It is with pleasure that I welcome members back to the Legislature for this fall sitting of the House. I am looking forward to a productive and a hardworking session. There is much to accomplish.

It is now clear that Ontario faces its most serious economic challenge since the Great Depression. Unemployment is far too high. We have lost thousands of permanent jobs. Rural Ontario is in difficulty due to the collapse in farm incomes. Nearly a million Ontarians are relying on some kind of social assistance. Unemployment insurance is less effective than it needs to be. There is less trust and goodwill than there needs to be to build the basis for recovery.

Renewing our economy must be the central focus of our work as a province. We must find within ourselves and within our society the basis for a stronger consensus on Ontario's and Canada's economic, political and social future than exists right now.

Au cours des prochaines semaines, les ministres annonceront des initiatives de collaboration avec le monde des affaires, les syndicats et les localités afin de favoriser le renouveau de l'économie ontarienne. Nous travaillerons de concert avec les agriculteurs en vue de relancer l'économie rurale. Nos objectifs sont bien simples : creation d'emplois, formation de la main-d'oeuvre et stimulation des investissements. Nous nous apprêtons à prendre des mesures qui apporteront de l'aide immédiate tout en plaçant l'Ontario en meilleure position pour profiter de la reprise.

The gap between government, business and labour is far too great. Business has taken the view that Ontario's government is too pro-labour. Labour feels that the Mulroney government is too pro-business. Our two governments have been at odds on most important economic questions. It may be politically convenient for both governments to take shots at each other, but the public interest demands more co-operation. Finger-pointing is a luxury our economy cannot afford. We must improve the climate for jobs and investment and increase the level of trust between the economic partners. I would suggest that the Mulroney government needs to do the same. We can start with some practical examples.

Canada's economy dramatically underinvests in trading, research and development. Government cannot do it all. We must all do more. Workers can buy into change when they see the opportunities in retraining and lifelong access to education. The labour market partners need to take more responsibility in this area.

Deputy Minister Naomi Alboim has been given the responsibility of leading a consultation this fall based on much work and discussion that has already taken place. The province and the federal government have to stop falling all over each other. We are proposing a partnership for training with Ottawa, business and labour, and we want to see progress start right now.

1400

Ontario's manufacturing continues to go through deep changes. So are all sectors of the economy: services, retail, the financial sector. I have to tell the House that while there are some signs of a modest recovery in parts of our economy, major changes in our core manufacturing base are still happening. The layoffs are not over.

This government needs to and will work more intensively with each sector. Government ministries need to focus on the changes taking place in those sectors that are crucial to the economic future of Ontario and to develop policies and programs that will keep these industries productive and competitive.

In aerospace, for example, our decision to seek a partnership with the European consortium of Aérospatiale SA and Alenia SpA in the ownership of de Havilland is based on our view of the strategic importance of this industry for Ontario and Canada, the fact that government participation is essential for its future here, as it is in the rest of the world, and that we cannot afford to simply watch what happens from the sidelines.

Ce gouvernement a eu à répondre à un bon nombre de crises économiques qui ont frappé les entreprises et les collectivités. Cela se produira encore. Nous avons démontré que nous pouvons travailler avec tous les partenaires économiques en vue d'aider à résoudre des problèmes pratiques. Il est important et même critique de commencer à sauver des emplois.

These crises which have happened over the summer and with which I have been personally involved as Premier point out several truths: Our industries have to be able to buy and sell in Canadian and world markets at competitive prices or they will not be able to survive; Canadian workers are willing to make sacrifices when they know they are being treated fairly; investment capital must be innovative and timely and look to the long term; and the organization of government must be mobilized more creatively to deal with the challenge of economic renewal in many different sectors of the economy.

These problems have convinced the government that we have to change our tax laws to make it more attractive for workers to invest in their own futures. Worker ownership and worker participation in ownership are going to be a necessary part of Ontario's recovery and renewal. We need the co-operation of the federal government to make this program work.

We are also going to need the co-operation of business and the federal government as we work to help people get off welfare and back into the workforce. The federal cuts in unemployment insurance have put thousands more Ontarians on the welfare rolls of the province and the municipalities. With nearly a million people in this province now depending on social assistance, we need a sustained effort to get people off welfare and back to work.

We need to be more aggressive in searching for new industries, in promoting them and their connection with our current strengths. We are going to be doing more, for example, to identify those areas, like environmental and green industries, for example, where we can make breakthroughs because of our own policies on recycling and cleaner air and water, because of our universities and our knowledge base, and because of our priorities as a province.

There will always be those who will say that the answer is simply for the government and labour to get out of the way. The difficulty for this approach is that it ignores the public's demand for a cleaner environment and better services, and that it ignores the reality in an economy such as ours that public investment is a necessary partner.

That is even more true of the labour movement. I have heard criticisms from the business community of proposals for labour law reform. I want to stress that what we do as a government will follow real consultation with business, labour and the general public. But this government believes that worker participation and the right to organize are important and valuable and in a modern firm can contribute to greater productivity. Power and responsibility go together. Increase trust, create mutual self-confidence, stop the sense that every dispute is about survival itself: These are all ways to promote stability and better industrial relations, and that is exactly what this government wants to do.

We also recognize that an improvement in the quality of our industrial relations is crucial for Ontario's future. Suspicion between labour and management, between both parties and government, has to be broken down. If this does not happen, our ability to attract and hold investment will be seriously affected and any proposals from this government will reflect that fact.

We shall continue to work intensively with the private sector and other provinces to effect a change in federal exchange rate policy. We have to recognize that the high dollar is severely limiting our capacity to maintain market share in our most important and valued export market, the United States. I intend to raise this issue in a constructive way with the federal government and with the governor of the Bank of Canada, John Crow.

Concerns have been raised by them about wage settlements and about levels of public debt and about the connection between these factors and high interest rates and a higher dollar. I say to them and I say to the House that we need a national strategy, in which Ontario would very much like to be involved, that will allow us to get the dollar down and to keep interest rates at an affordable level.

It is in no one's interest to see inflation take off again, nor does it make sense to have our interest rates and dollars at levels that make it more difficult than necessary to keep us competitive in foreign markets. This government supports the decision by the federal government, and I hope the House would support it as well, to end the 15% softwood lumber export tax.

We are also concerned that Canada's steel exports get treated fairly in the United States. We are determined to work with the federal government to ensure fair access for our products in the US marketplace. I discussed these issues with Canada's ambassador to the United States, Derek Burney, last week and I shall be raising them with the governors of many midwestern states who are meeting in Milwaukee next week.

I shall be meeting with the Premier's Council on Economic Renewal later this week to discuss these issues and to ask its advice on this agenda. I also need and look forward to receiving the advice of the House. We can and we will succeed.

RESPONSES

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Elston: It is interesting to note that we have had here what amounts to a new throne speech. Perhaps our waiting for a new Lieutenant Governor has been all that has been in the way of this government completely removing itself from its first statement to the people about what it intended to do.

It is about as full of concrete activities as we could ever expect from the government, and perhaps it is about the same as you would expect from a throne speech. It is also, if I were to do the critical analysis, an interesting juxtaposition of a request to end finger-pointing when all through the entire debate there were fingers pointing at everybody but themselves. I find that highly unconstructive and I find it highly indicative of the problems in which this organization finds itself.

Yes, we are prepared to work hand in hand with these people to try and get Ontarians back to work, if these people will share openly and without hesitation the information that the opposition needs to actually work along with them in a timely and, more important, in a sensitive fashion so that we can create new jobs.

But we have to have the information. We cannot be faced with secretive droppings of information here or there to somebody in the right media location; we cannot be faced with documents being written which talk about putting down one group in society's concern about the way this government is going; we cannot be faced with an NDP organization that is writing fund-raising letters on the basis that it is creating suspicion and undermining the role of business in creating jobs in this province. We cannot be faced with all of these contradictions, which are not evident in this new statement by the first minister of the province.

How he can expect that we can accept at face value these words written today, after we have been moving for months and months to try to get Ontarians back to work to try and construct a very good way of developing new jobs for Ontario, is beyond belief. This gentleman will have our co-operation if he provides us with the means by which we can be constructive. I will pledge to bring forward the types of ideas that the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale would only wish he had time to remember when he gets back to his office.

We have lots of things to do, and there has been a request by this Premier that we do them in a new fashion in this Legislative Assembly, with some sense of restraint as it comes to being disillusioned with the types of activities this government has so far undertaken, with some removal of the angst that has affected some of the past discussions in this place. I pledge myself to that, if he only shares with us in a way which will allow us to do the work the information we need to also be credible partners in what has got to be a renewal of the province of Ontario.

1410

Mr Phillips: I might just add a couple of thoughts to the Premier. One is that he very much is looking forward, I know, to goodwill on both sides. We are very much looking forward to the Treasurer's statement on the budget soon. I might say, in the interest of goodwill, that we went through five weeks of hearings on the budget. I frankly was a bit disappointed, because the NDP orchestrated so many people to come and speak in favour of the budget that it was not an exercise in goodwill. Members cannot deny that; that is a fact.

The second thing in the document mentioned by the Premier is that the Labour Relations Act was only in its tentative stages. I might say that anyone who has read that cabinet document realizes it was in its very final stages. The Premier in his remarks today said that they are open to consultation, but the problem we run into is that we have "open to consultation" and then we see a cabinet document where the Labour Relations Act was in its very final stages. This is what causes mistrust and lack of goodwill.

The third thing I would say is that the Premier is looking for the economy to get rolling at the very same time as we see Hydro rates going up this year by 12%. I gather the plan is that they will go up for the next two years at the same rate, so just at the time when we are trying to get the economy rolling we see contradictory statements.

So certainly we look forward to a sense of goodwill, but we need some tangible examples of goodwill on behalf of the government so that we can work co-operatively to get this economy rolling again.

Mr Harris: I first of all want to congratulate the Premier for making an absolutely correct decision on automobile insurance for this province. It is not in his statement, but I think it is implied.

Second, I really do appreciate the opportunity to respond to this statement, which I accept in the spirit that it was given as an astounding admission that the government of Ontario for the past year has been heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

I read through the statement and looked at the rhetoric and it was much like a letter I wrote to the Premier back on August 8 suggesting the types of responses, other than finger-pointing, that should be coming forward from the Premier, and our desire and willingness to work with the Premier on this new direction I have heard from him today, in his embracing the private sector on automobile insurance and in many other areas where they can deliver services Ontarians need cheaper, better and more efficiently than government can.

I want to mention a couple of things. The rhetoric is right when he talks about greater co-operation with the federal government. The leader of the Liberal Party has pointed out that the NDP obviously has not caught up to the Premier on this, but he is head of that party as well. I hope it is reflected as well that that type of rhetoric does not come from his party.

I might suggest to the Premier as well that he talk to his Minister of Agriculture and Food. The Minister of Agriculture and Food just a week ago in a statement to the farmers at the plowing match went to great pains to point out where he felt the federal government was favouring other provinces over Ontario. It was not a view shared by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. In fact, they were offended. When asked by the media, the minister said, "Well, they came out with a program and only Saskatchewan was smart enough and quick enough to get in on it and we weren't ready," and that was his example of bias. That type of nonsense must stop. I accept the Premier's statement today as a message to the people, to the federal government and to us, and I hope his cabinet ministers are listening as well.

The Premier says on page 4, "These crises point out several truths: Our industries have to be able to buy and sell in Canadian and world markets at competitive prices, or they will not be able to survive." That is the right rhetoric; there is no question about it.

We are happy to hear him now using the same rhetoric I have been using for the past period of time. Our caucus has been imploring him to get on that agenda for the last year. We will be diligent and co-operative in seeing that this rhetoric is translated into action because we believe the biggest impediment to a competitive economy is government itself.

The Premier goes on to say, "We have to change our tax laws to make it more attractive for workers to invest in their own futures." We must change our tax laws, we must change our whole modus operandi to make it attractive for anybody anywhere in the world, including our own workers, to be able to say, "Ontario is a good place to invest."

On page 5 he talks about government proactive intervention to lead the way in environmental technology and to capitalize on our environmental initiatives in this province. I applaud the Premier if he will look at the best program, the $1-billion announcement I made in the last campaign, where I outlined how we should move in this direction, how we should quit wasting money on jobs producing uranium at five times the world market price, $417,000 per job, and how we should move to those things we are good at, where we have a reputation, and take those dollars and invest in that.

I laid out quite a comprehensive plan to take the billion dollars Peterson was wasting and the Premier has carried on wasting on old technologies, on aircraft plants that cannot compete and on old mines that cannot compete. Let's get on with what we are good at. I will send that proposal to the Premier and work co-operatively with him on it.

The Speaker: It is time for oral questions.

Mr Elston: Just before we start that, Mr Speaker, I have somewhat of a complaint to make before we begin our questioning. My immediate predecessor and the first minister of the province, when he was in opposition, had the able assistance of Mr Gerry McAuliffe giving daily radio broadcasts upon which to base questions. I think the Premier has helped to make sure Mr McAuliffe is no longer with us but is working down at the east end of the second floor.

I just wish to tell members that we are operating at a slight disadvantage without Mr McAuliffe's able help to the opposition, and perhaps at some point we could interview Mr McAuliffe in his new position. I thought that would be an interesting way to begin.

The Speaker: If you are able to survive without Mr McAuliffe, could we start?

1420

ORAL QUESTIONS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Elston: On a more serious note, we have had the statement of the first minister about economic renewal and I would like to visit the mind of our friend the member for Hastings-Peterborough, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, because we recognize agriculture as one of the key components in an economic renewal in this province.

There are over 500,000 people involved in working in agriculture in the province and I should like to know from the member for Hastings-Peterborough --

Interjections.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, could you feed the turkeys over here just for a minute? They are all gobbling away.

There is a crisis in agriculture. There is a 35% decline in prices for grains and oil seeds. The livestock industry is hard hit. Fruit farmers down in the Niagara Peninsula are also facing devastating problems with the resultant lack of options for them.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food announced he was going to be putting his hands on extra money in the Treasurer's vault and delivering it to the farmers of this province. When is he going to start to address the $124-million problem which was brought to his attention last week at Lambton county's international plowing match version?

Hon Mr Buchanan: The problem is serious. The government has recognized that. As the interim Leader of the Opposition knows, I have been travelling the province to get a grasp on the seriousness of the situation. The problem is complex. The problem is very serious in terms of grain and oil seeds and the export prices we get. There are other problems in the Niagara area. There are problems down in the Essex --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister take his seat? In order to proceed with a proper question and answer period, it is necessary for people to listen when responses are given. I ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food to continue with his response.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I was trying to point out that the problem is multifaceted. There are many parts to the problem.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the member for St George-St David come to order.

Hon Mr Buchanan: We have been doing an analysis and I have been working on a package which would recognize the different difficulties across the farm community as it appears in the Niagara region, as it appears in Essex-Kent and as it appears in the grains and oil seeds sector. As the Premier noted in his statement, we are working towards a package in terms of economic renewal. Agriculture is important and we intend to address the concerns and the serious situation we have in the farm community.

Mr Elston: Not that long ago I was at a meeting of over 1,000 people who are angry and frustrated about the lack of activity of this government with respect to agricultural problems in Ontario. It has been a year now and so far the agriculture minister has been unable to tour the crop-damaged areas in Essex and Kent. He has been unable to meet with major farm groups to talk specifically about the problems in agriculture except as they happen to come together in various locations. His government has been unable to arrange an emergency debate in the standing committee on resources development which, all the members agreed, should be held before we got back to this House, and only now are we getting down to business.

Having said that he is going to provide the assistance, and since the minister has acknowledged that this money for the farm community is needed now, can he tell us precisely when he will be making the announcements of the increased funding for agriculture in Ontario?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I cannot announce today any date of future announcements, but I would like to correct the member's statements that I have not visited the drought area. I have toured farms in the Kent county area. I have also visited farms in the Essex area and many other counties including Elgin and Middlesex, and have a good idea of what the problems are.

The $125 million the member alluded to earlier does not necessarily have to be all made up by the provincial government. The farmers and the farm organizations are aware of that. We are willing to co-operate with the federal government in order to that. We are willing to do our share. I would like the leader of the Liberal Party and his friend the leader of the third party to work with me. We will go down to Ottawa to see whether the federal government is willing to put up its money as well.

Mr Elston: We have already had Mr Mazankowski saying at the federal level that there will be no new money for agriculture in Ontario, and perhaps in Canada as far as that goes, but can the Minister of Agriculture and Food tell us that his government is prepared to move without new federal government money to assist the farmers of this province, not in 6, 7, 8 or 10 months which is what it seems to take to get the government to turn around, but right away in the next couple of weeks so that they can survive this year's devastation in prices and in drought problems?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I just said we recognize the seriousness of the problem. We intend to address it as quickly as possible. In terms of touring the province, I believe the analysis has now been done as to where the problems are and the best way to address them. We are willing to act quickly. The member will not have to wait until next year. With former governments, I might add, many times a program was announced. The farmers have been telling me across the province, "We don't want you to be like other governments, to announce a big program with a price tag on it and we never see the money for a year or two down the road." We intend to do better than that.

Mr Elston: I am happy to hear he will do better and we will make sure we measure his performance against what he delivers not too long from now.

BUDGET

Mr Elston: I have a further question today to the Treasurer, who unfortunately was unable to make the economic renewal statement the first minister stole from his desk, or something along those lines. Having got what amounts to a new throne speech, and since they were so wrong in the throne speech, I want the Treasurer to tell us when he will come forward with a new budget and admit that the government has abandoned the budget he dropped on the people of the province this past May.

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the interim leader of the official opposition would not be surprised to learn that I do not intend to bring in either a budget or a statement that denies the thrust of the budget we brought down in the spring. I believe now, as I did then, that Ontario has been in a recession that is worse than any this province has seen since the Second World War, that the recovery from this recession, which is barely starting now, is going to be sluggish and that we are going to have unreasonably or unacceptably high unemployment for the next two or three years at least, so it is going to be a tough time. On the other hand, and I am sure I will hear further, I do not see why the interim leader of the official opposition would imply that something has changed in terms of how we intend to manage the Ontario economy. I do not think anything has changed in terms of how we intend to manage the Ontario economy.

Mr Elston: Unlike the Treasurer, obviously, I have been listening to his leader. He has been talking about cutting back and taking away funding that has been previously put in the budgetary process of this province. I wonder why the Treasurer, having released his first-quarter results just last month which showed them to be right on track, now has discovered he is going to be cutting hundreds of millions of dollars out of that budgetary plan if the budget was on track then and continues to be on track. If it is not on track, when will he give us the real state of affairs in the province so we can get down to work getting Ontarians back to work?

Hon Mr Laughren: Perhaps I could correct an erroneous impression some people have that we have somehow changed directions. The fact of the matter is that in the budget that was brought down in the spring, there was an intention that we would spend about $52 billion this year. That is still on track. That is still our intention. Some things have changed. There have been some very remarkable pressures on our expenditures, but we are determined that we are going to keep our expenditures under control. We are not going to allow the deficit to go beyond what is already a high figure of $9.7 billion. For the interim leader of the official opposition to imply that somehow we have changed direction is simply not true. We are simply determined to keep control of the expenditures so that our deficit does not exceed what already has been outlined in the budget. Finally, the interim leader asked when I was going to make a statement detailing the state of the Ontario economy. It is my intention in the next week to bring forth a statement which will indicate specifically the way in which we intend to manage our expenditures based on revenues we anticipate for the rest of this year.

1430

Mr Elston: I do not understand why he did not tell me that the first time I asked the question. He has just said that he is bringing in a new economic statement for the fall next month, which is basically telling us, first of all, why he is changing the expenditure plan he had before and, second, how he is going to be managing the problems that he foresees at the moment.

Having admitted that he is already in the process of preparing this statement for the province, can the Treasurer tell us why he has been so reluctant to answer my questions head-on and say he is prepared to tell us, but later in the year, how he is going to change the direction of his expenditures to keep them at the $52-billion level that he said they are going to be meeting this fall?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I will repeat that we are not changing our position on our expenditures for 1991-92. What I tried to tell the leader was that there are unusual pressures building in the Ontario economy because of the recession that mean it is going to be tougher than we thought to keep at that level of $52 billion.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: Finally, may I remind the interim leader of the official opposition that this government needs no lessons from him in predicting numbers when it comes to the Ontario economy. He has already proven that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Bruce, on a point of something.

Mr Elston: I just wanted to tell the Treasurer that the interim leader has changed on the Liberal benches. I am not quite as sensitive to his barbs about planning.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Harris: I find it not surprising, but disappointing: Only the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party could think $9.75 billion is a worthwhile goal as a deficit for this province.

I have a question for the Premier. I am asking the Premier this question because we have heard from the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who says he is committed and going to do all these marvellous things, but obviously he has not got the Premier's approval or cabinet approval or the Treasurer's approval to really do anything.

Over the past year, the Premier has shamefully ignored more than 60,000 farm families who grow food for our province. I wonder if the Premier can explain to me -- and he has told me he is going to have to reassess priorities; I agree with him and l applaud that, as I said in my statement earlier -- why his government was able to find 14.5% new money for the civil service in one year, but not one cent of new money for 60,000 farm families of this province?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the answer that was given by the Minister of Agriculture and Food is a good basis upon which to respond to the leader of the third party. First of all, the minister has worked tirelessly throughout the summer in meeting with people and assessing the problem, its seriousness, and in discussing with them what needs to be done. He is now coming back to cabinet with a report on what he and our other members have found. We look forward to hearing from you, Mr Speaker, and others with respect to what needs to be done. We will then make an assessment with respect to that recommendation.

We found substantial moneys in the last budget with respect to establishing new programs on income support for farmers. We now find a very serious situation which has taken place through the summer, and I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that we are going to do the very best we can to respond to those who are in greatest need.

Mr Harris: I do not think it is a mystery that has just come forward this summer that farm income in this province will decrease by a minimum of 15% this year. We knew that last spring when the budget was brought in, and nothing has changed. In fact, the situation is worse.

Mr Speaker, through you to the Premier, his government okayed increases for some civil servants of as much as $11,000 per year per person over and above the salaries and the benefits and job security they already enjoyed, while the private sector was in a recession and while farm families were experiencing a reduction in their meagre incomes. I, as well, spent a good part of this summer meeting with farmers. Some $11,000 new money for people who are pretty well paid is just about 50% of the total income of these farm families I am meeting with.

I am going to be meeting with two other groups of farmers this week in different parts of this province. Can I tell them that the Premier is seriously going to re-examine the priorities that saw some $10 billion of new spending, this huge deficit, and not one new cent to farmers since the budget was brought in?

Hon Mr Rae: The leader of the third party can tell them what I have told them and what the Minister of Agriculture and Food has told them, which is that we are going to respond as effectively as we can, given our means and given the economic situation that we face. We are going to respond as effectively as we can, and I can assure him, with the Minister of Agriculture and Food being here, that we are going to respond in order to meet the needs that are really there.

We know the farm economy is hurting. I can assure the honourable member that it is a subject to which we are very sensitive. The cabinet has already spent some time discussing it and we are going to be spending more time discussing it, but I can assure him it is a subject we take enormously seriously and we are going to respond as effectively as we can.

I would say to the honourable member that I do not think anything is helped by setting one group in our society off against the other in trying to find a solution to this.

Mr Harris: By way of final supplementary to the Premier, if he is serious about setting priorities, then some things will get funded and some will not. Hopefully, whether it is welfare or health care or wherever he is going to put his subsidy dollars, they will go to those whose needs are the most, where we can have an impact.

I think it is then fair that I look at where the Premier is putting his money. I point out to him a group in society, some 60,000 farm families -- and our rural community perhaps affects the income and life of in excess of a million people -- who have received nothing. At the same time, it was no problem to instantaneously find over $150 million for de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd. At the same time, it was no difficulty to say we will have even more money for de Havilland; we want to become a shareholder for 4,500 jobs. It appeared to be no difficulty to find $250 million to save 600 jobs in Elliot Lake.

Some $150 million for de Havilland or $250 million for 600 jobs in Elliot Lake -- that is more than farmers say is necessary. Can the Premier imagine what that kind of money would do for 60,000 farm families at the low end of the totem pole, and about a million people in agricultural and rural Ontario who would dream of having half the income of the workers at de Havilland or the miners in Elliot Lake?

Hon Mr Rae: If we were to have walked away from the people of Kapuskasing, if we were to have walked away from the people of Elliot Lake, or if we were to have walked away from the aerospace industry in this province, I suspect that the leader of the third party would be the first person to stand on his feet and quite rightly criticize this government for having done so -- if we were ever to have done that.

All I can say to the leader of the third party is that I see no benefit in saying that the people of northern Ontario or the people of Elliot Lake or the people of Kapuskasing are any less worthy or more worthy of the attention of this government than the people living in rural Ontario. We know the farm economy is hurting. We know our obligations to them, and we are going to respond in as timely and effective a way as we possibly can. That is exactly what we intend to do.

1440

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Harris: My second question is to the Minister of Labour: If ever there was a segment of our society facing substantial intervention by governments around the world, it is the agricultural sector. However, there are substantial areas of our economy that are moving towards the marketplace in this world of ours, and that is where the minister is putting all his dollars: where the big unions are, where the big vested interests are, where the money for the NDP is.

In the past year, Ontario has lost 250,000 jobs. Businesses are leaving the province in droves, yet this government is proposing labour legislation which will further cripple the ability to compete by increasing the cost of doing business in Ontario.

Could the minister tell this House what impact studies the government has done to determine how many further jobs will be lost as a result of the minister's labour proposals, and would he table those impact studies for this Legislature so, as the leader of the Liberal Party said earlier, we can all have the information in trying to work co-operatively to solve our problems?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am sure the leader of the third party knows that what we are trying to do, given the difficult times in Ontario, is to reach a level of co-operation rather than confrontation that can lead us in to some of the changes that are needed. I would hope that the leader of the third party has as much respect for all sides of this equation, including workers, as I do.

Mr Harris: This government talks incessantly about consultation, yet who does the minister consult with these proposals? The only people I can find to date representing employers, the business community, large and small, have been the lawyers who stand to gain the most from more confusing and conflicting legislation. The minister did not consult with people who have to make the tough decisions, he did not consult with the small business owner, he did not consult with the corner store owner, he did not consult with the associations of small business in this country and this province, and he did not consult with those people who may have to lay off staff or with the workers who may lose their jobs.

Why has the minister thus far chosen to isolate himself from the people who will directly suffer harm from his government's poor judgement and to consult only with the union organizers and big labour leaders? That is the only consultation we have seen in any of the minister's proposals so far. Why is that? Why will he not consult with the people?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: If the leader of the third party would give us a little time and would understand the process, he would know that we are not dealing with legislation as yet. We are dealing with a series of suggestions and proposals that have not gone through the consultation process and that will be going through the consultation process.

Mr Harris: This government is spending all its time and effort to try to find out who is bringing information to the public light of day instead of worrying about sharing that information itself and being consultative. We might be getting somewhere. While that is going on, this province is being run into the ground by the Bob Brothers. Brother Bob White wrote the labour legislation, Brother Bob Mackenzie is going to legislate it and Big Brother Bob Rae will give it his okay.

To the minister and the Brothers Bob, the government has no impact studies on businesses, large or small, no impact studies on job losses, no impact studies on productivity, or if it has, it will not table them or refuses to table them. How does the minister answer the very widespread sense and fear that many segments of Ontario are expressing publicly, and to me privately, but also in the newspapers, that this proposal and the proposed labour legislation is nothing more than, one, payback time for the big union bosses who support his party, or two, a move to have more unionized workers in this province who contribute substantially to the coffers of the NDP?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I would be interested in knowing whether the leader of the third party believes that working people in this province should be involved in any way, shape or form whatsoever in decisions that are going to affect their future.

BUDGET

Mr Elston: I wish to --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The rest certainly energized, did it not? I think now we are relaxed and ready for another question. The Leader of the Opposition has been waiting patiently to place another question.

Mr Elston: Back to the Treasurer for a moment, because he did tell us that he was not going to increase the deficit, that he was not going to increase expenditures beyond $52 billion or thereabouts, plus he indicated that there was a bit of a slowdown in recovery from the recession. Can the Treasurer tell us if his expenditure targets are on line and in fact will not deviate from his budget plan?

Hon Mr Laughren: If we did not take actions to contain the growth in expenditures this year, we would not achieve the expenditure number of $52 billion, nor would we subsequently achieve the deficit figure of $9.7 billion. I think what the leader is asking is to what extent we are going to achieve that number. It is my belief that if we are very careful and manage those expenditures expeditiously and do some reallocation of projected expenditures, we will indeed come in with the numbers that were projected in the budget. That is our intention.

Mr Elston: Can the Treasurer now tell us that his revenue projections in the budget of last year are completely on target and that no tax increases or tax modifications are in line for the fall?

Hon Mr Laughren: As a matter of fact, when I was reviewing all of the expenditures and the pressures therein and then looked at the revenues line by line for the province, the revenue projections were almost spot on, our own revenue sources. The last report we had from the federal government was in August, which told us that its projections for revenues that it passes on to us were also in keeping with what it had predicted. To answer the member's question directly, yes, there were enormous pressures on our expenditures, but our revenues were almost spot on what we had projected in the budget.

1450

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Harris: I have another question for the Minister of Labour. The city of Toronto has just suffered eight days of chaos and inconvenience as a result of the Toronto Transit Commission strike. Businesses lost money. Some were forced to shut down during the strike. One self-employed woman, who lives in the Premier's riding, by the way, called to say that she could not get to her clients, that she was in increasing danger of facing bankruptcy every day the strike continued. The reality is that public transit in Toronto has obviously become an essential service. Would the minister tell us when we can expect legislative changes that will prevent this from ever happening again in Toronto?

Mr Bradley: There was only one bus running.

Mr Hope: Whose bus was that, Jim?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the leader of the third party knows that we got the people and the drivers back to work as quickly as you could get them back to work in the city of Toronto, and we got it without destroying the collective bargaining system as well.

Mr Harris: Quite frankly the government's lack of action, in my view, was shameful. The city of Toronto came to a grinding halt for eight days. Three quarters of a million commuters were stranded. The stats from the TTC are that 20 million riders will be lost annually, never to return to the TTC, as a result of the government's inaction over that eight-day period.

Mr Hope: The Harris bus line.

Mr Harris: I also speak, as one interjectionist said, with some knowledge because I personally was out there giving people rides the better way. We were getting people to their jobs. We were getting students to school. We were getting people to doctors' appointments. We were getting people to hospitals who otherwise were not able to get there.

This afternoon I will be tabling a private member's bill that will acknowledge once and for all something that everybody knows, that all three parties know, that even this party which was prepared to legislate them back to work knows, that obviously transit today -- and maybe it was 10 years ago and the government did not have the guts to acknowledge it, and maybe it was two or three years ago and the government did not have the guts to acknowledge it -- is an essential service.

Can the people of Toronto count on his support for my private member's legislation, or for his own legislation, to make sure there are better ways to solve disputes in an essential service like public transit?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want the leader of the third party to know that if I were going to consider any such move, I would at least want to go through the consultation process he was just giving us hell about not going through.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Waters: I wish to address my question to the Minister of Health. A number of seniors in my riding have approached me recently, concerned about her ministry's shift in policy with regard to out-of-country medical coverage. They are seniors who regularly move to the United States during the winter months to take advantage of the warmer weather. They are concerned that now they will not receive sufficient medical coverage. Would the honourable minister please explain to the House what her ministry has done to deal with this serious problem?

Hon Ms Lankin: I have seen a lot in the news coverage of the last few weeks about this issue of the change in policy with respect to out-of-country OHIP payments, particularly as it has an impact on our seniors who vacation and live up to six months of the year in Florida. Some of the coverage has been very full in terms of putting it in an overall context, and some of it I think has been unfortunate and has led seniors to believe they are being singled out in some way, so I welcome the member's question to take this opportunity to clarify.

We have found over the past few years that the costs of our out-of-country OHIP payments have more than doubled. We are paying about $200 million a year. The members in this Legislature will know we made a statement about changes to the policy to try and curtail that cost.

With respect to seniors in Florida, I think it is very important that people realize what we have been doing is subsidizing the US health care system, which is a private-sector-based, for-profit system.

What we will be doing is making sure that seniors have medical coverage to the same rate they would be covered here in Ontario. They still have that coverage. We will pay out a fixed per diem rate, the same as it is in Canadian dollars. The changes we have made here in Ontario will bring us in line with what all other provinces in this country are doing currently.

Mr Waters: I wish to thank the minister for this information. I am glad to see this issue is being addressed. There is a great need to communicate a change in policy which affects a wide number of people. Would the honourable minister explain to the House what is being done to effectively communicate this change in policy?

Hon Ms Lankin: Members here will know that we made the original announcement at the time of the budget. There was a further statement in the Legislature. We gave details in a press statement back in the spring.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Lankin: Yes, it is difficult, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for calling the members opposite to order.

In addition to the statements that were made in the spring, we did further news releases in August. We have advertised in all sorts of dailies and weeklies in up to 36 languages. We have taken out public service announcement ads. We have advertised in Florida papers that are directed to seniors so that seniors will be aware. We have done an article in Especially For Seniors to try and explain to seniors and make sure they have the coverage.

I would really also encourage all members of the Legislature to assist us to ensure that seniors who are travelling have the appropriate extra coverage before they leave.

ONTARIO HYDRO RATES

Mr Phillips: My question is to the Minister of Energy. The Premier earlier today gave a statement around economic recovery and job creation, and amazingly enough, almost at the same time, certainly last week, we had Ontario Hydro announcing a rate increase of about 12% for the upcoming year, with indications that there will be similar increases in the next two following years, which will mean an increase of about 40% in Hydro rates here in Ontario.

What sort of analysis has the ministry done in terms of the impact this will have on economic recovery and job creation, and does the government support a 40% increase in Hydro rates over the next three years?

The Speaker: The Minister of Energy.

[Applause]

Mr Harnick: That is the high point of your career, Will; it's downhill from here.

Interjections.

The Speaker: That was a nice welcome. Now maybe you will let him answer the question.

Hon Mr Ferguson: I certainly want to acknowledge the warm welcome from the third party. I want to advise the honourable member who put the question that the reason we are in the situation we are in today is because of the actions of the third party back in 1977. Unfortunately, the $13.5-billion bill became due and it must be paid. That is the long and the short of it. It is their fault we are in the mess we are in today.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: That warm welcome lasted a long time. Perhaps the member could be allowed to place his supplementary.

Mr Phillips: It is ironic in the extreme. The Premier, less than an hour ago, got up and said, "We don't want any more finger-pointing; we're looking for co-operation; we want some answers," and then the minister gets up and finger-points, his very first response in the House. You wonder, Mr Speaker, why we are so cynical of the government's response to questions for that very reason.

I repeat my question, and the minister should not point his finger, should not yell at somebody, should just answer the question: Is he in favour of a 40% increase in Hydro rates over the next three years?

Mr Cousens: Suck your finger.

Mr Wildman: Such high-level repartee.

Mr Cousens: It will give him something to do, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Order. To all members, including the member for Etobicoke West, we do not need the tone of this to be lowered any more than it already is. Could the minister provide a quick response, please.

Hon Mr Ferguson: Very quickly, Mr Speaker, I do not think any government would be in favour of the speculative 40% rate increase the honourable member suggested. I think, given the historical context in which we find ourselves today, it really underscores the importance of the new energy directions this government has put forward and is committed to completing.

Just for the honourable member's information, today in Ontario it costs approximately $3,000 to produce a kilowatt-hour of electricity yet it only costs $300 to save a kilowatt-hour of electricity. Clearly, continuing to produce at will with no regard for the end result or the bottom line cannot continue. That is why we are following what I believe and what this government believes is a progressive model and teaching people to conserve rather than continuing to produce.

1500

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Jordan: My question also is for the Minister of Energy. May I first pay tribute to the previous minister, of whom I also had the pleasure to be the Energy critic for the Progressive Conservative Party. It was always a pleasure to communicate with her, even though her policies were different. I might at the same time congratulate the member for Kitchener on receiving the appointment as Minister of Energy. He has already demonstrated a great source of energy, but I am sure it is not electric. I suggest it is perhaps one of the fossil fuels.

As the new minister, does he feel it is appropriate to fund social programs through Ontario Hydro?

Hon Mr Ferguson: I think the answer is very clear. No, we have a ministry that does that.

Mr Jordan: The minister has very definitely stated that he is not in favour of funding social programs through the hydro bills to the people of Ontario, yet there is an amendment to the Power Corporation Act which gives the Minister of Energy the power to issue directives to do just that. What assurance does the minister give that major policy directives issued will be presented to the people of Ontario through this Legislature, not directly to the board, before demanding Ontario Hydro implement them?

Hon Mr Ferguson: Amendments dealing with Ontario Hydro's and the government's relationship, including the government's power to issue policy directives, will be dealt with very clearly by the House this afternoon. Then I suspect they will be referred to committee.

What we are trying to do here is ensure that Ontario Hydro deals with this government by the front door and not by the back door, as was past practice with successive Conservative and Liberal governments. That is the first thing we are going to ensure.

The second thing we are going to ensure is that Ontario Hydro carries out the wishes of this elected assembly rather than running a show based on its own particular agenda. We as a government feel it is important to provide Ontario Hydro with policy direction that is in the best interest of this government and ultimately in the best interest of the residents of Ontario.

TAXATION

Mr Mills: It is wonderful to be back here again. My question is for the Treasurer. During the summer, I spent as much time as I possibly could in my riding of Durham East talking to my constituents. Over and over again, the question that kept coming up was the issue of taxes. People were pleased to hear we have the Fair Tax Commission. Can the minister give me an update in the House as to the work of the Fair Tax Commission so that I can keep my constituents informed?

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the question because I too get the odd missile, if not question, on taxes in the province. The Fair Tax Commission got up and running in March and has been organizing itself and putting together what we call working groups on eight specific areas of taxation in the province. As a matter of fact, last week we had the kickoff of all the working groups together with the commissioners themselves. I am very impressed with the enthusiasm with which they are undertaking their work.

As members might know, the next year is going to be spent in fairly in-depth study of the various tax policies that have been referred to them. That will include research. It will include consultation with the public at large. Then the year after that, they will be required to report back to me. They will be presenting a report. All during this time they will be providing me with advice. The working groups will also be making recommendations. We are not waiting until the end of the commission's report. They will be giving me interim reports during that period of time as well.

Mr Mills: I understand that two of these groups have been fast-tracked. Can you tell me where they are and what the position is with that?

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the supplementary, because there was an erroneous report, or at least headline, in one of the Toronto tabloids, the Toronto Star, last week which indicated that the corporate minimum tax had been put on hold. That is certainly not the case. What I did was ask the Fair Tax Commission to fast-track two tax areas; namely, land speculation and corporate minimum tax. They are in the process of doing that now and I am hoping they will report back to me this year on both of those areas. I know neither one of them is simple. They are both complex, so there is a lot of work to do in a very short period of time, but I am hoping they will be able to do it in that very constricted time frame in which I have asked them to do it.

RETAIL STORES LEGISLATION

Mr Sorbara: I have a question for the province's new Solicitor General. The new Solicitor General was formerly Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, so he should know as well as anyone the extent to which the province is in the depths of a recession. No sector of the economy has been more hard hit than the province's shopkeepers. Retailers in every corner of the province, not just border communities, are really reeling from the effects of the recession.

Last Monday, the standing committee on administration of justice of this House was to begin the final, detailed consideration of the minister's Sunday shopping bill. It could be doing that this afternoon, but instead the Vice-Chair of the committee was forced, in an embarrassed way, to ask for an indefinite adjournment of clause-by-clause consideration. We were met by stark silence when we asked the reasons why the minister and the government were unwilling to proceed.

Mr Speaker, during public hearing of those bills, several hundred -- and I know you are anxious to get to the question -- groups opposed the government's bill. My question to the minister is really a two-part question. First of all, has he abandoned the bill indefinitely? Has he abandoned the bill permanently? Has he abandoned the bill till after Christmas? Has he abandoned the bill until next month? Second, why did he not have the courtesy to come to the committee and simply explain to the committee and to the general public why the government was unwilling or undesirous of proceeding?

1510

Hon Mr Pilkey: I can assure the member that the bill has not been put off indefinitely. As a matter of fact, as promptly as the government can, it will proceed to committee for the clause-by-clause consideration and subsequently directly back to this House. There were, as the member stated, hundreds of representations to the committee, which toured all across this province gathering views of Ontario's citizens -- some for, some against. All of those considerations needed to be taken into very careful view. That in fact is being done. It is unfortunate we were not able to proceed on the 30th, but it is my expectation we will be able to proceed very shortly indeed.

In terms of the question of the courtesy, when the item does in fact come before the committee for clause-by-clause, I can assure the member of my attendance at the particular committee to introduce the item and, with his concurrence and the concurrence of members opposite, make a statement initially. I hope to be able to join members perhaps for all of the proceedings as we go through the clause-by-clause.

Mr Sorbara: I just want to tell my friend the Solicitor General that is thoroughly unacceptable. He cannot allow storekeepers in this province, all over the province, to work with such uncertainty. He had a bill on the Orders and Notices paper. It went for a month of public hearings. For every witness who supported his bill, there were 40 or 50 who opposed his approach. If he wants to abandon the legislation, that is perfectly fine. We will accept that. Or if he wants to proceed with the bill in the face of the opposition we heard in virtually every community of this province, we will accept that. But he must not allow this uncertainty to proceed.

The Speaker: Your supplementary.

Mr Sorbara: The Christmas season is the most crucial season of all for storekeepers in this province. Some municipalities want to open their doors and have the stores open their doors during the Christmas season. That is possible under the current legislation. I ask my friend the Solicitor General to simply make it clear whether he expects to have this bill passed before the Christmas season begins so that storekeepers will know whether or not they are going to actually be allowed to open their doors on Sunday if they wish.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I understand from my colleagues on the committee that the honourable member for York Centre perhaps himself totally holds the key to the answer to that particular question. As a matter of fact, when we do proceed to the clause-by-clause I would be very anxious to have the members opposite deal with the item expeditiously, so we can proceed through the clause-by-clause, get it into this House and get the matter decided with.

It does deserve care and consideration. We intend to give it that and proceed back to this House almost as promptly as we can. I elicit his support to allow that to happen.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development. He is very much aware of the Competing in the New Global Economy report. I am sure he almost has it memorized after a year in his portfolio. It states. "Ontario's apprenticeship system is antiquated and ineffective. Because of outmoded legislation, outdated curricula, poor pay, archaic entry and completion requirements and ineffective modes of delivery, the system actively" -- key word -- "discourages young people from pursuing careers in the industrial trades." The minister has had the report for a long period of time. There are specific recommendations for reform. Where does he stand on the reforms?

Hon Mr Allen: I am very happy to receive the member's question because, as she will know, we have spent the better part of the past year in very active consultations with business, labour and community groups around the very agenda of people and skills in the global economy report that came from the Premier's Council. In that context, we have made great progress towards an Ontario training and adjustment board, which will be the subject of very substantial consultations this fall.

We have also in the meantime, however, not ignored the apprenticeship question per se. The member may know there has been a lot of work done over the last few years in updating the information system in the ministry branch, but at the same time it is critically important for us to get on with some very substantial reforms on the apprenticeship front. The member may look forward to some important initiatives on a number of heads that I will be announcing reasonably soon on that subject.

Mrs Cunningham: I am happy to hear that in the very short future we will be hearing from the minister, because I am certain that he in his portfolio and many of us who have been involved for numbers of years in education, colleges and universities and training across this province are totally impatient when it comes to action, and I say that in a respectful way.

We are now having companies holding press conferences, and I am sure the minister knows all about Siemens which held its press conference last Thursday. I already know his people have been talking to them, but the rhetoric is just inexcusable, so I am encouraging the minister and his cabinet to do something.

Here is a company, Siemens Electric Ltd, which wants to manufacture more products in Canada -- $600 million a year in revenue, and they want to quadruple their sales over the next four years. Guess what they say? They say they have not got anybody to do the work and nobody is being trained.

What suggestions is the minister going to have for companies like Siemens in the very near future in order that they can find these apprenticeships, given the sorry state of affairs? Another commission will not do. We have to get on with it right away. What is the minister going to tell them about the availability of apprenticeships this year and tomorrow?

Hon Mr Allen: Like the member, I share a great deal of impatience over this particular agenda which has marched so slowly in recent years. As she will know, it takes anywhere from three to four or five years to put apprenticeships through trades, and therefore the numbers that are coming through, which the Siemens business is looking for, are simply not there because of past performance.

The critical question for us is to get on with the task of reforming the curriculum contents of apprenticeships, the ratio issues, the numbers of trades that one can designate as apprenticeable trades, and so on. I assure the member we have been working on that. We will be bringing forward initiatives on many of those points in a package very shortly in order to address those needs.

But the member must realize, as must companies which come here and instantly request those people to be in place, that we are in a recession. The member must know that to have an apprenticeship in place, you have to have an employer that will employ that person. If you have a company that is going down, you cannot have an increase in apprenticeships automatically.

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

Hon Mr Allen: So we are in a major problem. We are turning that around and we have been addressing that over the course of the last year as well.

ALGONQUIN PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Waters: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources with responsibility for native affairs. What I would ask is if he could possibly give us an update on the situation in Algonquin Park, as it is of grave concern to the members and the people of my riding in this ongoing debate.

Mr Bradley: Is that the logging road that you guys --

Hon Mr Wildman: I thank the member for his question. I suspect the member is referring to the negotiations with the Algonquins of Golden Lake and not, as the member for St Catharines is suggesting, something to do with the logging industry in Alonquin Park.

The member, I know, is very interested in this issue, as he attended a meeting with me last Sunday, a week ago, in Huntsville with a large number of interested sportsmen who were very concerned about the negotiations.

I am happy to report that both sides in the negotiations, the Algonquins and the Ministry of Natural Resources officials and our negotiator, have been working very hard to come up with rules that are acceptable to both sides which will take into account conservation of the resources and public safety, to ensure that an interim agreement can be signed for the period in which we are carrying out the land claims negotiations.

These negotiations have been long and complex and difficult. They have been carried out in a spirit of goodwill and sincere effort on both sides. We are currently reviewing the latest draft. We hope to have another meeting on Wednesday, and as we make further progress I will be happy to report to the House.

I am also happy to say that to our knowledge there is no hunting now taking place in the park and the chief has advised the members of the first nation that they should not proceed to hunt within the park boundaries until we have reached an agreement.

1520

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr Cooke moved that, notwithstanding any standing order or previous order of the House, the following changes be made to the order of precedence for private members' public business: Mr Turnbull and Mr Arnott and Mr Murdoch, Grey, and Mr Wilson, Simcoe West, to exchange places respectively in the order of precedence for private members' public business; and Mr Ferguson, Ms Haslam, Mr Silipo and Mr Wilson, Frontenac-Addington, to be deleted from the order of precedence for private members' public business and all members of the New Democratic Party caucus listed thereafter to be advanced one place in their turn.

Motion agreed to.

FIRST DEPUTY CHAIR

Mr Cooke moved that Mr Farnan, member for the electoral district of Cambridge, be appointed First Deputy Chair of the committee of the whole House.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Carr: I am pleased to table a petition signed by about 150 residents in my riding, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to fulfil the promise outlined in the throne speech which promised that the government would deal resolutely with violence against women and children in our communities."

I will be affixing my signature to that as well.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr J. Wilson: I am pleased to rise today on behalf of a number of concerned citizens in the village of Creemore to present a petition to the Legislature of Ontario. The petition reads as follows:

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

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

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

RESIDENTS' ALLOWANCE

Mr Cooper: I have a petition signed by 114 residents and friends of Nithview Home and Seniors' Village and it states:

"Residents of homes for the aged and nursing homes who rely only on pension income receive a rebate of $112 per month for personal expenses. This is referred to as comfort allowance. The allowance has not been raised since 1985. It must be used to cover a broad range of expenses such as personal toiletries, cable, telephone, hair care, hearing aids, batteries and repairs, recreational outings and activities, clothing, vitamins, eye glasses and dental work.

"We, the residents and friends of Nithview Home and Seniors' Village, along with the Ontario Association of Residents Councils, strongly urge you to raise the comfort allowance to $150 a month. As well, we hope that regular increases can be made that are indexed to the cost of living. We trust that you will give this your serious consideration."

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

Mr J. Wilson: I am pleased to rise to present a petition to the House on behalf of the Association of Hearing Instrument Practitioners of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the health professions legislation, Bill 179, is an omnibus piece of legislation that is insensitive to the realities of the hearing aid services delivery system in this province;

"Whereas over 30% of hearing aid clinics in Ontario have closed in the past two years in anticipation of the severe restrictions this bill places on the care delivery system;

"Whereas there are insufficient numbers of audiologists to provide services in the rural communities and Bill 179 will remove this local service to the elderly and handicapped, forcing them to travel to larger centres;

"Whereas the bill will result in significantly diminished accessibility of hearing aid services as they have existed for the hearing-disabled in this province for 40 years,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to review the appropriateness of the omnibus bill as it pertains to the delivery of hearing aid services in this province and to ensure rural Ontarians continue to receive fair and equitable access to hearing-aid-related health care."

This petition is presented by me on behalf of some 1,500 signatories.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr Callahan from the standing committee on public accounts presented the committee's Report No 1, 1991, and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr Callahan: First of all, I want to thank everybody involved, the members of the committee most specifically. This is, as you know, Mr Speaker, as best we can, a non-partisan committee. We reviewed the auditor's comments about two school boards and also three universities. Basically the report which has been tabled is self-explanatory. It revolves around the question of accountability on a whole host of avenues.

We found the accountability to be relatively good, but we also re-endorsed a position that has been taken by public accounts in the past, that the provisions of the auditor's act be amended to allow the auditor a far larger scope in terms of doing accounting on the basis of value for money. We once again subscribe to that in our report.

Our second report, to follow shortly, I think is one that will be well received as well. I certainly hope to speak to that, perhaps a little more than briefly, with the unanimous consent of the House.

On motion by Mr Callahan, the debate was adjourned.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT / COMITÉ PERMANENT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DES RESSOURCES

Mr Kormos from the standing committee on resources development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

M. Kormos du comité permanent du développement des ressources présente le rapport suivant et propose son adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 70, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act to provide for an Employee Wage Protection Program and to make certain other amendments.

Projet de loi 70, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur les normes d'emploi par création d'un Programme de protection des salaires des employés et par adoption de certaines autres modifications.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Bill ordered for third reading.

Le projet de loi devra passer à l'étape de troisième lecture.

1530

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr White from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the committee's Report on Conflict of Interest Guidelines and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr White: I simply wish to comment that we had a number of very learned witnesses coming before us. It was a very interesting debate. There were some divergent opinions, which are included in the report.

On motion by Mr White, the debate was adjourned.

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On the adoption of the report of the previous committee -- I believe it was resources development talking about Bill 70 -- it is my understanding that the House leaders have agreed that this is going to committee of the whole. I am sorry that I, and obviously some other people, were not paying attention either, but I would like to ask for unanimous consent of the House to revert to that order so we might send it to committee of the whole.

The Speaker: Agreed? All those in favour please say "aye." Those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion the ayes have it.

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think it has to be unanimous, Mr Speaker, because when --

Hon Mr Cooke: It was.

The Speaker: To the member for Carleton, he is right. I do not know if again or first, but none the less right. How about we try that one again. Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION LABOUR DISPUTES ARBITRATION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR L'ARBITRAGE DES CONFLITS DE TRAVAIL À LA TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

Mr Harris moved first reading of Bill 137, the Toronto Transit Commission Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

M. Harris propose la première lecture du projet de loi 137, Loi sur l'arbitrage des conflits de travail à la Toronto Transit Commission.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Mr Harris: Very briefly, this bill has the effect to require transit labour difficulties with the Toronto Transit Commission and its unions to settle their disputes by mediation and ultimately by arbitration.

I think it is a reflection of what all three political parties now recognize: that transit in Toronto is an essential service; second, that a reflection of what I heard from the actual men and women as well who work for the TTC is that indeed the majority of them really did not want to be on strike and that if there was an option available to their union leadership and to these working men and women in this service other than striking it would be preferable to them.

The bill is quite detailed. To be very honest with the members -- my non-legal background -- some of it gets into definitions and it is fairly technical, but the gist of it is that it would recognize the TTC as an essential service and would settle disputes and be a mechanism for dispute resolution by ultimately arbitration as opposed to striking.

Mr Wiseman: Sieg heil.

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask the member to withdraw his offensive reference and comment and I invite you to invite him to withdraw the comment.

He said, "Sieg heil," and I would ask that he remove that. That is an offence to every member of this House, perhaps except the member who uttered it.

The Speaker: To the member for Burlington South, I did not hear any untoward remark.

Mr Jackson: It was the member for Durham West, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: If a member in the House did utter something which is offensive to another member, I would ask that the member withdraw the remark.

Mr Wiseman: I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

Mr Ferguson moved second reading of Bill 118, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

M. Ferguson propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 118, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société de l'électricité.

Hon Mr Ferguson: In June 1991 the government introduced a set of amendments to the Power Corporation Act. Today I am pleased to take this opportunity to very briefly remind the members of the intent and the importance of the legislation.

The amendments now before the members will establish an improved legislative framework which will enable Ontario Hydro and this government and future governments to work together more effectively for the continued economic, environmental and social wellbeing of the province of Ontario.

Under the amended Power Corporation Act, Ontario Hydro will remain a public utility controlling its day-to-day activities. The legislative changes will help to ensure that the provincial utility's operations are in the best interests of the people of Ontario by making the policy direction process more open and by making it easier for Hydro to work more effectively in conservation and efficiency. The amendments to the act are essential to the full implementation of the government's new energy directions outlined in the November 1990 throne speech.

The primary goal of our new energy policy is to protect the environment while ensuring that the province continues to have a reliable supply of energy at reasonable prices. In our new energy directions we have made a commitment to concentrate more of our resources and efforts on controlling the growth in our demand and ensuring that we use energy efficiently. We have put a moratorium on the development of new nuclear generating stations and we have told Ontario Hydro to redirect this spending to conservation activities.

When we introduced these amendments we recognized that equipping Ontario Hydro to be more responsive to public priorities and government policy would be a necessary condition for effectively carrying out this new energy policy.

We are now taking a number of initiatives designed to produce significant reductions in energy demand across the board: in transportation, in industry, in commercial and institutional buildings, and finally in housing.

The provincial utility is also taking initiatives to reduce the demand for electricity. You might recall that on August 20 Ontario Hydro announced ambitious new energy efficiency targets, an increase of 1,700 megawatts to a total of 5,100 megawatts by the year 2000. Hydro has made it clear that the new targets will be made possible by the amendments now before this House. These targets can be achieved in a manner which is more cost-effective and environmentally acceptable than meeting our needs by the development of new, expensive, inefficient, large generating stations.

As a society we need to meet our new energy efficiency targets and do more if possible. We recognize both the economic and environmental importance of controlling our ever-growing appetite for energy.

Previous governments, you may know, have amended the act to expand Hydro's business and purpose to include the production and sale of heat energy, the provision of energy conservation programs and the encouragement of parallel generation of electricity.

The amendments we are introducing today will enhance the utility's ability to meet the needs of the 1990s. They will enable Ontario Hydro to play an increased role in promoting conservation programs dealing with all forms of energy. Hydro will be able to provide incentives to promote the substitution of other forms of energy for electrical energy where it benefits both the corporation and the customer.

1540

This will lead to fuel-switching away from electricity in cases where the market would not make the switch occur but where it is cost-effective in the long run to do so. It is far more cost-effective to encourage fuel switching than to sink billions of dollars into a new nuclear plant which operates less than two thirds of the time; after spending $13.5 billion, it operates less than two thirds of the time. The amendments remove barriers to the corporation's ability to comply with the government's policy agenda and public priorities and help to ensure that Hydro's activities are always in the best interests of its customers and of all residents of Ontario. We will provide direction to Hydro in an open, public way, rather than on the quiet as previous governments have done.

The amendments facilitate greater participation by municipal corporations in conservation programs, making those programs available to a greater number of Ontario residents. They do this by allowing the utilities the option of either financing the costs of energy conservation by capitalizing them or continuing to treat them as current operating expenses. The amendments also make Ontario Hydro's board of directors more responsive to the attitudes and concerns of the people of Ontario. Increasing the size of the board by four members will ensure a wider representation of public interests. The appointment of the Deputy Minister of Energy as a non-voting member will facilitate liaison and provide for advice on government policy and public priorities.

In addition, I believe the time has come to also appoint some of the employees of Ontario Hydro to the very board in which they are employed. Making the board's chairperson the chief executive officer of the corporation is a much more efficient structure for Hydro. This increases Hydro's accountability, as the government appoints the chair while Hydro's board of directors appoints the president. We have discussed the proposed amendments with various stakeholders, including environmental groups, labour, industry and the Municipal Electric Association. This public consultation, this public discussion will continue as the legislative process proceeds.

The government will be listening closely to what is said during the legislative process and is prepared to be responsive where appropriate. Mr Speaker, I want to tell you that the letters continue to arrive daily in support of amendments to the Power Corporation Act. In fact, just this morning the Ontario Natural Gas Association joined a long list of supporters for this amendment by sending a letter to the Ministry of Energy. They, of course, are joined by a number of environmental groups that see this as a positive step in Ontario's future.

Finally the amendments that are before the House are a necessary response to the public's overwhelming desire to meet our energy needs and at the same time to protect the environment. They will enable Ontario Hydro to promote efficiency and conservation and allow the corporation to implement government policy designed to provide a cost-effective means of controlling our ever-growing demand for energy. Under the amended legislation Ontario Hydro can become a more dynamic, a more cost-effective and certainly a more efficient organization.

The amendments provide Hydro with a broader range of tools at its disposal and prepare it to be a utility for the 21st century, an organization capable of implementing the most comprehensive energy conservation and efficiency program ever undertaken by a utility in North America.

I am looking forward to the comments of the members of this House. I understand there is a feeling this bill should be referred to committee hearings, and I would be happy to see that done. I think we need as much input from as many stakeholders on this piece of legislation as possible.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): I thank the minister for his opening comments on second reading of Bill 118. Do we have questions and/or comments on the minister's opening remarks? Seeing none, the honourable member for Lanark-Renfrew.

Mr Jordan: On the day Bill 118 was introduced, I believe I referred to it being a very dark day for Ontario Hydro. At that time the amendment to the Power Corporation Act was only --

Mr McGuinty: On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker: I am just wondering whether I should not be beginning the rotation.

The Acting Speaker: Yes, I am sorry. I was under the impression the honourable member for Lanark-Renfrew was participating in the two-minute questions and/or comments. The honourable member was up as I was coming to a conclusion that there were none. Do we have unanimous consent that the critic for the official opposition should actually be taking the floor immediately following the minister's opening remarks?

Mr Jordan: Mine is in the form of a short question.

The Acting Speaker: I want the honourable member for Lanark-Renfrew to know we are not in the two-minute questions and answers, so therefore whatever you say now would disallow you to participate in any further debate.

Mr Jordan: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr McGuinty: I have been looking forward to participating in this debate for some time and cannot overestimate the importance or significance of this legislation and the impact it would have on the province if it were passed as is. To my understanding, the general theory of the legislation is that it is to constitute a solution to a problem. If passed, rather than being any kind of solution, this proposed legislation would, in and of itself, constitute a very real problem for the people of Ontario.

Before I get into the specifics of the legislation, I think it is important that we look to the circumstances which obtain today, the factors that are at play in the energy field. No legislation is ever introduced into any kind of abstract vacuum and that is why I think it is important we do that. Let's look at some of the relevant history.

In 1989 the previous Liberal government introduced amendments to the Power Corporation Act. Those amendments were designed to make Hydro more accountable while at the same time maintaining a partnership spirit between government and Hydro. The matters of the memorandum of understanding and policy statements were introduced into legislation at that time. Those amendments also provided for a broadening of Hydro's mandate to allow it to pursue energy conservation more effectively, but most important, Hydro's mandate to provide power at cost was not interfered with.

The second item we should remember is that there is at present an atmosphere of tense relations between Hydro's board and the government. There was that skirmish when Hydro appointed Alan Holt to the position of chief executive officer, which was subsequently followed by the Premier appointing Marc Eliesen to the chair. Subsequently the minister introduced Bill 118, which effectively publicly emasculated Mr Alan Holt, a man who had been working for Hydro for some 35 years? possessing tremendous expertise in the matter of Hydro.

With respect to the board itself, there is now lacking a spirit of co-operation between the previous appointees and this government's appointees, and I place the responsibility for the souring of relations clearly on the shoulders of this government. This government has given every impression that it does not just want to control Hydro, but rather that it wants to dominate it totally.

1550

It is important to keep in mind what we are dealing with here. We are dealing with a huge corporation that has over 36,000 employees. From my understanding, there are more people working for Hydro than there are residents of the Yukon. It has $39 billion in assets. Its ability to supply reliable power at cost, notwithstanding its occasional stumblings along the way, has enabled this province to develop so successfully.

I do not think it is overstating the matter to say that this development of Ontario has gone hand in hand with our access to a reliable supply of power at cost, and in that very light it is important to recognize that the rivalries on the board, the tensions between the board and the government, are not only unseemly; they are completely unacceptable and dangerous to the economic health of this province. Anything at all that interferes with Hydro's ability to fulfil its mandate is unacceptable, and it is up to this government to improve relations and bring a co-operative approach to the problems both the government and Hydro must face.

Leadership does not mean saying, "It's my way or the highway"; it means sitting down and making a genuine effort to work the problems out. It means harnessing the energy and the expertise of the existing board members. Unfortunately, in my estimation, this legislation will not foster a spirit of co-operation or partnership. It will do the exact opposite unless, that is, the government appoints only lackeys to the board who have no genuine concern for ratepayers, and I am not prepared to make that indictment of members who are yet to be appointed to the board.

I am not saying the government does not have a role and indeed a responsibility to keep Hydro in check and ensure it does not act against government policy, but there is a clear line beyond which the government should not cross. The government should not in any way impair Hydro's ability to look out for the interests of its ratepayers. Unfortunately Bill 118 will constitute such an impairment.

The third factor we have to keep in mind, before we address the substantive aspects of Bill 118, is that Hydro rates are skyrocketing. In 1991 we witnessed an average increase of 8.6% in the rates. In combination with the GST, on average that was an effective increase of 15.6% for that year. The rate for 1992 has just been announced by Hydro at 11.8% on average, notwithstanding the Ontario Energy Board's recommendation that it be held at 10.5%. The increase for 1992 was the highest annual increase in over 10 years, and that is at a time when our province has been battered by a recession.

Furthermore, as was indicated in question period today, the chairman has indicated that he expects Hydro rates will increase 44% over the next three years. It is interesting to note the Premier's comments I heard on the radio this morning, that he intends to place an additional emphasis on jobs, jobs, jobs. I submit I am not going out on much of a limb when I say there is a direct correlation between Hydro's rates and our rate of unemployment in Ontario. As the rates go up, so will the rate of unemployment.

Another point to keep in mind is that the demand for Hydro is increasing. Although it has slowed somewhat during recession, the demand is expected to double by the year 2016 and one quarter of the existing supply stations are to be retired by that date. We have yet to hear of any plans of substance this government has to meet that increasing demand.

The fifth factor at play now is that Hydro's energy conservation programs are not working, and that is disturbing news indeed. The Ontario Energy Board, an impartial regulatory body which possesses special expertise in the matter of energy and Ontario Hydro, made the following comments in its reference of August 26, 1991, HR 20, in the Report of the Board, in the matter of a reference for the Minister of Energy respecting Ontario Hydro's proposed electricity rates for 1992. I think it would be worth our while to refer to some of the comments made. I am referring specifically to page 29:

"The board is very concerned with the cost-effectiveness of Hydro's energy management expenditures. Since HR 19, Hydro has increased substantially its energy management expenditures, partly in response to the government directive to redirect nuclear pre-engineering expenditures." That is a reference, of course, to $240 million referred to in the throne speech which was redirected by the government.

"The board notes Hydro's testimony that the additional expenditures are not planned to result in additional long-term savings. Hydro has expressed some hope that they may do so, but the board questions the usefulness of spending the money based on hopes of future savings.

"The board has other concerns with the process by which the additional expenditures were allocated. The amount chosen was arbitrary, since it was equal to the amount previously budgeted for nuclear pre-engineering expenditures. Hydro testified that the result of the additional expenditures has been to bring forward programs from 1993 and 1994. This is of concern to the board in that programs may have been rushed into place."

Now I am getting to the point where I think this is very important. It says: "In short, the board finds that the additional expenditures will not likely result in cost-effective energy management savings, but only in additional costs and lost revenue in the short term. In the board's view, this is not short-term pain for long-term gain; rather, this is short-term pain for little or no gain."

It is quite an indictment. We have all this talk of conservation. The minister just referred to it when he introduced this bill for second reading and we now learn it is not working. This $240-million injection, about which this government made so much hay, which was referred to in the speech from the throne, is being wasted. Not only do we have a case of increasing demand, but we have an energy conservation program which is not working.

The sixth factor at play here is something which constitutes the beginning of the track record for this government in a matter of directing Ontario Hydro in terms of the kind of expenditures it wants it to make. I call it the Elliot Lake and Spruce Falls syndrome. These are examples where this government has set a dangerous precedent and gives us a good idea of the intentions for the future.

Elliot Lake and Kapuskasing were difficult cases of one-industry towns; there is no doubt about that. They were hurting terribly in the recession. It was quite clear their industries would fail if the usual market forces were allowed to play themselves out and there would be tremendous resulting job loss.

What was this government's response? It used Hydro as a tool to carry out the social policy initiatives. It forced Hydro to do what it itself should have done. It forced the ratepayers instead of the taxpayers to foot the bill for what properly should have been a government initiative.

Let's look at Elliot Lake. There, the government compelled Ontario Hydro to spend $160 million to extend the uranium purchase contracts to 1996. As a result of that, Hydro is now paying much, much more for uranium than it would have done on the open market. The government also directed Hydro to spend $25 million to promote local electrical generation.

Finally, and this is the unkindest cut of all for the ratepayers, the government ordered Hydro to spend $65 million of the northern Ontario heritage fund. We have to ask ourselves, what does money being paid into the northern Ontario heritage fund have to do with the supply of electricity? The answer, of course, is that it has nothing at all to do with that.

1600

Then there is the case of Kapuskasing. The government, again in response to a difficult situation, implicated Hydro. It committed Hydro to supplying $247 million worth of power over the next 10 years free to the Spruce Falls mill. It compelled Hydro to purchasing a dam for $140 million. That dam has been purchased notwithstanding that Hydro's plans for it are still subject to approval under the environmental assessment. And finally, it compelled Hydro to spend $34 million up front for power credits.

The question to be asked in both cases, Elliot Lake and Kapuskasing, is, were these actions in the interest of ratepayers? The answer has to be absolutely not. Clearly the government has a responsibility to assist these towns and we all as taxpayers have a responsibility to assist these people, but not as Hydro ratepayers. Ratepayers are owed power at the lowest possible cost. These initiatives effectively constitute a tax grab. They are hidden from view, and that is the most insidious aspect of this legislation.

Taxpayers, on the other hand, deserve to see what are properly government expenditures, and they deserve to see them written down on the government books, not hidden away on Hydro's books.

Finally, in terms of the context within which this bill was introduced, we should note that it was done without consultation. To my understanding, there was no consultation with the public, no consultation with the ratepayers, no consultation with the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario or with the Municipal Electric Association, which combined represent over 90% of the ratepayers in Ontario. No consultation with business, no consultation with labour, no consultation with the elected public utility commissioners.

I do not believe anyone outside of government was consulted, in fact, and this from a party which promised an open and accessible government and which promised to consult on all government initiatives before the fact and not afterwards.

To summarize the important features of the context within which this bill is being introduced, we have an atmosphere of tense relations between Hydro and the government, and there is absent from these a spirit of co-operation and partnership. We have hydro rates which are skyrocketing, and this in a time of economic recession. The demand for hydro is increasing and we have still to hear from this government as to how it intends to meet the demand. Hydro's energy conservation program, as we have learned from the impartial body, the Ontario Energy Board, is not working. And finally, through Elliot Lake and Spruce Falls, this government has established a track record which is frightening to ratepayers, employers, investors -- to everyone in the province -- because we are all paying, either directly or indirectly, for Hydro.

Let's look at some of the specifics of Bill 118 to see how it not only does not address those pressing problems I have just listed, but in fact generally exacerbates them.

In order to properly review Bill 118, we should compare it to the amendments made to the Power Corporation Act in 1989 by the previous government. Section 2 of Bill 118 repeals section 9a and replaces it with a new section 9a, and I think we should begin by comparing the language used. In legislative drafting, no words are chosen at random or without great care. They are all chosen for a particular purpose. Let's look at the existing wording.

It says -- these are pursuant to the Liberal amendments of 1989. It says the minister may issue policy statements. Under Bill 118, we are saying the minister "may issue policy directives." Under the existing legislation, it says Hydro shall respect policy statements. Under Bill 118, it says the directors "shall ensure that policy directives are implemented promptly and efficiently."

It should be clear that the Liberal amendments were based on the assumption that the government could and would maintain a good working relationship with Hydro. Bill 118 shows language that is much tougher. Clearly it is a case of command and control, of the government saying, "You will do as you are told." It is as simple as that. It is very confrontational.

Let's compare another aspect. Under the Liberal amendments, it indicated that the minister's policy statements must relate to Hydro's exercise of its powers and duties under the Power Corporation Act. Under Bill 118 this restriction is lifted. It is extremely important to understand the consequences of this. Without any restriction whatsoever on the kinds of policy directives it can make, the government can order Hydro to do virtually anything. Given this government's track record, specifically Elliot Lake and Kapuskasing and Spruce Falls -- and that track record was developed without the benefit of this legislation -- it is frightening to think of what this government might do with the benefit of Bill 118 if it becomes law.

Without any kind of restriction, this government could order Hydro to build an amusement park, fund cancer research, make a contribution to a government pension fund, give money to any body or group of people, all of which have nothing to do with supplying electrical power to ratepayers. In short, without restriction government can effectively change Hydro's mandate in a blink of an eye, and without the change being subject to debate in this House. What it really means is that Hydro's traditional and cherished mandate, that of providing power at cost, is being threatened. Through Bill 118 the government is saying to ratepayers, including employers and investors, "Your hydro rates are going up, folks, and for reasons that have nothing to do with the cost of providing power."

Just in case I am accused of being overly partisan, let's refer to that august body, the Ontario Energy Board, once more. At page 188 of the same reference, HR 20, the board makes some findings. It says: "There is a general principle for public utilities that social policy initiatives should be left in the domain of government rather than reflected in rates charged by such public utilities. Behind that principle is the generally accepted ratemaking principle that customers of a utility should be charged only for the public utility services rendered and that government ought to be responsible for alleviating societal problems."

It goes on to say, "Hydro is faced with the prospect of an increasing role in the implementation of government policy initiatives, with a potentially substantial effect on Hydro's operations in the 1990s."

Then it adds something which I find very interesting. It says: "The board concurs with board staff that it is essential that Hydro be vigilant in advising the government of the financial and rate impacts of provincial policy initiatives. Further, the board finds that Hydro should fully document any advice or financial and rate impact submissions it makes to government in this regard."

I find that interesting because it reminds me of what a lawyer is supposed to do when he is faced with instructions from a client which are contrary to the lawyer's better judgement. In those cases a lawyer is required to carefully document his advice to his client in order to ensure that there is an established record as to what the consequences may be and that the client is acting against the lawyer's better judgement. I note that the Ontario Energy Board is warning the directors that they ought to be careful in terms of the kinds of steps they are about to take in dealing with a government that is bent on putting through or carrying out social policy initiatives through Hydro.

Another aspect of Bill 118 is section 7, which, just to make it perfectly clear, says that the costs of carrying out policy directives are to be factored into the cost that we are going to pay for power. We have got to question the wisdom of the minister in introducing a bill in a recession which is saying to employers and investors, "Here comes an additional tax which we're going to tack on to your hydro bill, a tax which has nothing to do with hydro, a tax which you won't find in any other jurisdiction in North America."

This provision will enable this government, a government desperately trying to recover from the negative reception of its first budget, a government desperately trying to prevent a $9.7-billion deficit from mushrooming into something several billion dollars greater, to hide government expenditures on Hydro books and off the province's balance sheet. Surely the members can see that the temptation to do so will be great.

1610

Something else this legislation does which is very, very unnerving for ratepayers is found in the new subsections 9a(4) and 56ba(2), and I will read those.

With respect to the first one, the new 9a(4) reads as follows: "A director is not accountable for any consequences arising from the implementation of a policy directive under subsection (3) if he or she acted honestly and in good faith in relation to its implementation."

Subsection 56ba(2) reads: "Compliance with a policy directive shall be considered to be in the best interests of the corporation."

The effect of these two provisions is to say to the directors: "Look, as long as you do as the government tells you, even if it causes harm to Hydro and to Hydro's ratepayers, don't worry about it. You can't be sued for it, because we're relieving you of that obligation you had in the past."

I will tell members why these provisions were necessary. It is because there is an old principle of corporate law -- it is over 100 years old -- that says the directors owe a fiduciary duty to the shareholders. The fiduciary duty is very simple. It just says the directors must always act in the best interests of the shareholders.

In Hydro's case, the shareholders are the ratepayers, but through Bill 118, in one fell swoop, this government is proposing to override that century-old principle. The question remains, who will look out for the interest of the ratepayers?

The role of Hydro's board of directors has traditionally been to provide that sober second thought in the face of a government directive and to always consider its special duty to look out for the interest of its shareholders, the ratepayers. Now there will be no need to look out for the ratepayers' interest, because Bill 118 relieves the directors of this obligation. And it is logical to assume that if you are not prepared to follow government directives, you are not going to get appointed to the board of directors.

There is a provision in the bill which has some attraction for me. That is the provision which permits Hydro to promote switching to alternate fuels. But I can only support that if the costs of such promotion are offset by the costs saved by not having to construct new generation facilities. As a ratepayer, and especially as a ratepayer without access to cheaper forms of energy, ie, natural gas, I do not want to pay to help someone switch to gas unless in the long run that is going to save me money. The minister will have to consider and provide me with reassurance regarding all the long-term implications of moving people off electricity on to natural gas before I can without reservation support this particular provision.

For instance, we have to consider whether the natural gas pipeline is sufficient to accommodate the increased demand which would be brought about by this fuel-switching program. The increased costs for a pipeline may be incorporated in the costs of gas, and it may be that at some point in time costs of electricity become cheaper than natural gas. Where does that leave us at the end of the day?

All those ramifications and repercussions are going to have to be explored and dealt with and brought to bear in this House before I can lend my unreserved support to that particular provision.

Now let's review the problems I discussed earlier to see what effect Bill 118 will have on them if it becomes law.

Problem 1 is the tense relations between Hydro's board and this government. Will this bill foster a spirit of co-operation and working partnership? My answer is no, it would only make it worse. The legislation is of the command and control variety, simply saying to directors: "Do as you're told. Forget the shareholders. We're relieving you of that obligation to look to them."

Problem 2: Hydro's rates are skyrocketing. Will Bill 118 ensure that those rates will not continue to skyrocket? Will it dampen that inflation? No. In fact, as I think I have shown quite clearly, it is only going to exacerbate that problem.

Problem 3: The demand for hydro is increasing. Bill 118 does nothing to address this.

Problem 4: Hydro's energy conservation programs, according to the Ontario Energy Board, are not working. The impact of the fuel switching provision remains to be seen, so I cannot pronounce judgement on that one yet.

Problem 5 is the business of the Elliot Lake and the Spruce Falls syndrome. Will Bill 118 permit this government to continue to force Hydro to carry out social policy initiatives? The answer? You bet, and we should keep in mind that includes employers, workers, investors, landlords, tenants, consumers, that is, all of us, because we all pay for electricity one way or the other, directly or indirectly. Can Hydro's ratepayers take comfort in Bill 118? Absolutely not.

There have been complaints levelled against Ontario Hydro for a long, long time. Anybody who peruses the Hansard will see that those complaints have been made by all sides of the House, members from all parties. Historically, those complaints have centred on Hydro not looking out for the interests of the ratepayers, and now, through Bill 118, this government is proposing to tame this Hydro tiger. But as a ratepayer, whether I am mauled by the Hydro tiger when it is wild or when it is tame and it attacks me in response to its master's command, it makes no difference to me, because a mauling is a mauling is a mauling.

There is another aspect of Bill 118 that ought to be explored, and that is the aspect of the salaries for the chairman and chief executive officer and the president. At the present time, Mr Franklin's salary is $440,000 plus bonus, a considerable salary. He receives that salary in his capacity as chairman -- when he was there, I should say, previously -- chief executive officer and president. Mr Eliesen, under the proposed legislation, will receive $400,000 for acting as chairman and chief executive officer. In addition, Mr Holt, in his capacity as president, will receive $325,000.

The long and the short of it is this. Under the current legislation, three jobs are costing the ratepayers $440,000. Under the proposed legislation, three jobs will cost us $725,000. That is a $285,000 difference, and $285,000 is a lot of money at the best of times, but in the context of a recession, it is obscene.

It is also interesting to note that Bill 118 shifts the responsibility to set the chief executive officer's salary from cabinet to the board. But lo and behold, those appointments to the board are made by the Premier, and Bill 118, as I have tried to outline, clearly tells the board in other areas it must do as it is told. So it must logically be assumed that the board will do as the Premier wishes, and in this way, in the matter of the salary, the Premier will both have his cake and eat it, because if someone complains about the chief executive officer's salary, the Premier will say, "Don't talk to me, talk to the board," but in reality the Premier controls the board and hence the CEO's salary. It is a nifty piece of footwork, but it will not fool all the people all the time.

1620

I have received, as I am sure many other members have, numerous pieces of correspondence in connection with this Bill 118, all of which of course express considerable concern about the effect it would have on the province, particularly on the ratepayers, if it is made law. I want to refer only to a few of those.

First of all, I received a letter from Woodstock. Actually, I have a copy of a letter from the Woodstock Public Utility Commission, which was addressed to the minister. It is dated September 18, 1991, and was signed by the chairperson, Alex Sutherland. That letter reads as follows, and these are only parts of it:

"Dear Minister:

"I am writing to you to express my very serious concerns about the possible direction Bill 118 amendments to the Power Corporation Act may take.

"As chairperson of the Woodstock Public Utility Commission, where this commission is dedicated to power at cost and providing the Woodstock community with safe, reliable energy, I have a deep concern for any changes in the Power Corporation Act."

It goes on to say: "Permitting the cost of government policy directives to be included in the cost of power to municipal electrical utilities troubles the Woodstock commission greatly. This means electricity bills would become a new, albeit hidden, source of tax revenue for the government."

I have a letter from the Markham Hydro Electric Commission to me, dated September 20, 1991. It is signed by the chairman, F. Maguire. It says in part:

"Markham Hydro Electric Commission requests that the sections of Bill 118 that would force electricity customers to bear the cost of policy directives be withdrawn and further requests that the government not finance social assistance programs and other government initiatives through the cost of power."

Appended to this letter is a resolution which is to the same effect as the letter itself. That resolution passed September 9, 1991.

I have as well a letter dated September 19, 1991, to myself from Hydro Mississauga. It is signed by Karl Wahl, the general manager. It reads in part as follows:

"Bill 118 threatens to destroy Ontario's long-cherished principle of power at cost by making electricity rates a new source of tax revenue for the provincial government.

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

"Bill 118 is flawed legislation that sets dangerous precedents and allows a new, hidden 'tax grab' by the provincial government."

I have a copy of a letter dated September 11, 1991, from the public utilities commission of the town of Fort Frances. The letter is signed by the chairman, Doug McCaig. It is addressed to the Honourable Howard Hampton, MPP, Attorney General. It says:

"Dear Sir:

"The above-noted legislation in its proposed form will change the fundamental relationship between the provincial government and Ontario Hydro and will, in the opinion of the Fort Frances Public Utilities Commission, be to the detriment of electricity consumers in this province.

"It is not necessary to do a total retrospective on the role of Hydro in Ontario since 1906. Suffice it to say that the fundamental tenet of this industry was the provision of reliable 'power at cost.' Over the past 85 years, many hundreds of municipal utility commissioners have come and gone in the service of their utility, each and every one seeking public office for the sole purpose of maintaining and strengthening this principle.

"Should Bill 118 be passed into law in its present form, it will do more to discredit and undermine the efforts of these dedicated men and women than anything yet proposed."

It goes on to conclude with these words, "We, as municipal and utility commissioners and members of the Municipal Electric Association, deplore this action and urge the government to reconsider these amendments to the act and to honour the principle of 'power at cost.'"

I have a letter from the Clinton Public Utilities Commission, signed by Bruce Schoenhals, manager. It is dated September 16, 1991, and addressed to myself. It provides in part as follows:

"Bill 118 threatens to destroy Ontario's long-cherished principle of power at cost by making electricity rates the new source of tax revenue for the provincial government....

"Bill 118 is flawed legislation that sets dangerous precedents and allows a new, hidden 'tax grab' by the provincial government."

It also has appended to it a resolution to this effect, which was adopted on September 16, 1991.

I have a letter from the Bancroft Public Utilities Commission, dated September 16, 1991, addressed to myself and signed by Dean E. Laundry, manager and secretary-treasurer. It encloses a copy of a motion passed by the Bancroft Public Utilities Commission on September 10, 1991, and it provides in part:

"Be it resolved that: The Bancroft Public Utilities Commission requests the province of Ontario to withdraw the sections of Bill 118 dealing with policy directives that would change the mandate of Ontario Hydro and force electricity customers to bear the cost of these directives in their rates; and

"Be it further resolved that: The Bancroft Public Utilities Commission requests the government of Ontario and Ontario Hydro to not finance social assistance programs and other government initiatives unrelated to Ontario Hydro's mandate through the cost of power."

I have a letter from North York Hydro, addressed to the member for Oriole. It is dated September 12, 1991, and it is signed by Carl Anderson, the chairman, Robert Dyer, vice-chairman, and Mayor Mel Lastman. It says in part:

"Our primary concerns relate to those clauses that permit any government of Ontario to use electricity revenues as an instrument for subsidizing social policy initiatives or other government programs not related directly to the conservation of electricity. The electrical industry, which includes Ontario Hydro and the municipal utilities, has been proud to deliver power at cost to our customers and feels any change to this principle to be an unwarranted tax grab without being accountable to the public."

The last letter is from the Renfrew Hydro Electric Commission, addressed to myself. It provides as follows:

"Although it is realized that the present Power Corporation Act is not perfect, we feel that many of the proposed amendments outlined in Bill 118 will detract from the original intent of electrical power at the lowest possible cost.

"It is important that Ontario Hydro and the electrical utilities remain as autonomous as possible. Ontario Hydro's 25-year projection plans are already behind schedule, and in the not-too-distant future, electric consumers in Ontario will be in trouble both supply-wise and price-wise.

"Other electric utilities with whom we have talked share our concerns, and the Renfrew Hydro Electric Commission would appreciate having the government give the consideration to the presentations by the Municipal Electric Association.

"Yours truly, the Renfrew Hydro Electric Commission."

Of course, I am sure the minister has received briefings from the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario and their substantive briefs presented by them, as well as the Municipal Electric Association, and I am only going to read a brief part of the position paper presented to the minister by the MEA. The concluding paragraph says:

"If electricity rates are used as a new source of taxation revenue for the government to use to finance its programs, then it is most certain that rates will increase, and we can't afford that. Higher rates will have a negative impact on commercial and industrial growth.

"Bill 118 is dangerous legislation, which permits the government to unilaterally make sweeping changes without using the democratic process. It allows the government to order Ontario Hydro to undertake any activity -- related to the electricity business or not -- and then make electricity consumers pay for it.

"Bill 118 was introduced without any consultation with the MEA, labour, business or the public. The MEA has tried, in meetings with the Ministry of Energy, to make constructive suggestions to change Bill 118. These suggestions have not been accepted.

"The MEA's 312 municipal electric utilities, representing 75% of the province's electricity consumers, are united in their opposition to the portions of Bill 118 outlined above. Therefore, it is embarking on a public campaign to fight Bill 118."

I want to leave this House today with one final question. Whatever or whoever was it that prompted this government to craft and introduce this bill into this House? Which group or groups were crying out for this change? Who wants government to use Hydro as a tool for carrying out social policy initiatives and thereby drive up hydro rates? Surely not Hydro's ratepayers. Surely not labour, which has no wish to see employers and investors saddled with further operating costs that could result in business shutdowns and job losses. Surely not business, which is already itself besieged by the recession.

Energy Probe, the Municipal Electric Association, the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario and the Ontario Energy Board oppose this legislation in principle, so the question remains for the minister to answer: Who approached him or his predecessor and requested that this bill be introduced, or does the credit for the dangerous ideas found in this bill belong entirely to him and his predecessor?

I understand and I am pleased to hear that Bill 118 is going to be sent out to committee. I look forward to participating in that committee and to receiving submissions from the many concerned persons who have already contacted me. I am sure there are many more out there.

1630

Hon Mr Ferguson: Very briefly, I appreciated the comments of the member for Ottawa South, but let's be very clear. The honourable member has stated that it is my way or the highway. In fact, what the statement does not take into consideration is that prior to a directive being issued, the bill is going to require the minister to meet with the board of Hydro to discuss the implications of any policy directive.

I know we are going to hear this throughout the debate. We are going to hear about Kapuskasing and we are going to hear about Elliot Lake. Let's be very clear on the facts here, folks. The previous Liberal government enacted this legislation, an amendment to Hydro, and this is the operative clause. It enacted a clause, an amendment to the Power Corporation Act which allowed for economic development participation by Hydro where a regulation is passed. That power has already existed. That power is with us today.

This act does not prohibit or encourage that. Members opposite made that decision some time ago and now we hear the member for Ottawa South stand up and criticize it. Well, the members should have been talking to their friends a few years ago.

We are going to hear that Hydro is going to become a social agency and that there is a hidden tax. The fact of the matter is, Hydro produces an annual report. It is scrutinized by the Ontario Energy Board. I do not know a body that is more scrutinized than Hydro. If in fact there are any hidden costs, I am sure that will come out in its annual report and I am sure that will come out in the financial statements.

This is to tighten, make it a much closer working relationship with the province of Ontario, rather than conveniently say, "You go do your own thing so we don't have to take any responsibility."

Mr Callahan: I want to answer the question of my colleague the member for Ottawa South about who proposed this legislation and who is trying to use this legislation to create hidden taxes and reap hidden taxes from all of the public of this province for social purposes. The answer to that is very simple. It is the NDP government. That is their secret proposal as to how they will do two things. First, they will fund the massive deficit that was created by the budget of the Treasurer. Second, this is how they are going to answer some of the questions of all those people who supported them on their saying they were going to do all these good things for these disadvantaged people and now find they do not have the money to do it.

In addition to that, what the government is going to do is drive business out of this province. Every little trickle of extra money that it costs businesses to carry on business just drives them closer and closer to Buffalo. The government seems to have a dream. Jobs do not just simply spring up out of the ground if it sprinkles a little seed here and a little seed there. Jobs are created by people risking their capital, operating particularly in a time of great recession where a couple of dollars here and a couple of dollars there can mean the difference between carrying on a successful business and going under.

If the government cannot recognize that, then I suggest it should plug in, because it is looking through rose-coloured glasses. It has absolutely no idea what is going on, it has no managerial skills and it is going to destroy this province.

Mr Daigeler: My colleague the member for Ottawa South has made reference to various letters he has received from communities across the province. I as well have received communication from the hydro commission in my city of Nepean. I am reading from a letter I received from the chairman, dated September 18, that came to my office just last Friday. He is urging me to make very clear with this new government that the function of Ontario Hydro should be to generate and deliver electricity to consumers in the province. The utility must not become an instrument of government social policy. Any initiative to deliver social programming through Ontario Hydro will be counter to the interest of the citizens of this great province.

In fact, the hydro commission did move a formal resolution to that effect. They have asked me as well to present this resolution to the House and to the Minister of Energy in particular. The resolution that was passed by Nepean hydro requested "the government of Ontario and Ontario Hydro not to finance social assistance programs and other government initiatives unrelated to Ontario Hydro's mandate through the cost of power. "In addition to the communications that were presented to the member for Ottawa South, I would also like to put forward these concerns that have been expressed to me by the Nepean hydro.

Mr Sutherland: It is a pleasure to be back here. I want to comment on the member for Ottawa South, since he did read parts of a letter from the Woodstock Public Utility Commission, which is in my riding. I also received a copy of that letter. I want to deal with this argument about supporting social policies, because if I remember my history correctly in terms of the formation of Ontario Hydro and some of the reasons it was formed, Ontario Hydro was formed to help stimulate economic development throughout the province by ensuring there would be adequate supplies of electricity at reasonable prices.

It was also there to ensure that the people of Ontario would get electricity to help increase their quality of life and their standard of life. I guess no one at that time called it a social policy, but in a sense that was, if you look at it, a social policy. More important, it was an economic policy, so I think some of the things people are calling social policy are consistent with the mandate in terms of how Ontario Hydro was established in the first place.

I also want to comment just a bit in terms of the impact on business. I have toured many of the industries in my riding, and some of my most competitive ones, the reason they are competitive is because they have already carried out energy audits, they have already made steps to improve their energy efficiency, and as a result their electricity bills and their energy bills are very low. That is helping them to be competitive.

I think if some other businesses carry out these types of audits they will find that they will have savings in the long run, and that will also help them to be competitive.

1640

Mr McGuinty: First of all, with respect to the minister's comments that the Power Corporation Act, as it presently stands, allowed the government to take the steps it did with respect to Elliot Lake and Kapuskasing or Spruce Falls, I disagree with that. Even if that power did exist -- and there is reference in the Ontario Energy Board's report here to its contention that that power does not exist -- what concerns me is that this government took advantage of that to set Ontario Hydro on a track which is completely different and beyond its traditional scope.

If we are going to get into discussing something as fundamental as altering the mandate of Ontario Hydro and having Hydro do anything other than engage in the activity of ensuring that we have a reliable supply of electricity at the lowest possible cost, that is something we ought to be reviewing on a case-by-case basis in this House. It is the type of initiative that ought to be reviewed carefully in this House and be subject to true democratic debate. We have tremendous concerns, given the track record of this government to date in dealing with the matter of Elliot Lake and Kapuskasing, as to what it might do in the future.

I want to thank the member for Brampton South for answering that question I had posed. It was rhetorical, but nevertheless I appreciate that response.

Mr Jordan: I believe that Bill 118, as I stated before, is a very bad bill, not only for Ontario Hydro but for the democratic process. What we are effectively doing here with Bill 118 is removing from this Legislative Assembly the opportunity to debate the policies under which Ontario Hydro will function. The plan of this government, right back to its throne speech, is to try to serve the people of Ontario without having to use nuclear energy. They have attempted to display to the people of Ontario that using nuclear energy is dangerous, that it is not a safe method, and they do not want it as a source of base generation.

Really, the purpose of Bill 118 goes right to that philosophy of this government. As I said earlier, in removing the opportunity for changes in direction of Ontario Hydro to be debated in this Legislature, when this bill gets third reading they will be able to issue a directive directly to the chairman, chief executive officer and the board, and the action will have been taken. How then do we allow the people of the province to be informed? How do we allow them to participate in the regulations under which they are going to be asked to serve?

I have the feeling that some members of the government feel that they were the only ones elected, that the rest of us arrived here by some form of appointment, but I would like to remind each and every one of them that we, also, were elected by majority vote. We do represent the people of our riding, we do have the right to debate, and we do have the right to bring not only the feelings of the riding but the feelings and policies of our party to be considered by the people of this province. I cannot stress too much that this bill will basically remove that right in accordance with our relationships with Ontario Hydro.

Why would Ontario Hydro's board of directors, management, require this type of direction? Why would they require such direct policy straight from the Minister of Energy to the board of directors to be enacted without any knowledge to the people or the members of this Legislature? My feeling is that the reason they feel Bill 118 is required is that the policies they wish to initiate and put into effect are definitely not the wishes of the people of this province or the management of Ontario Hydro.

I would say that we are going to, through this bill, change Ontario Hydro from an electrical industry to an electrical service supplying minimum requirements. These policies have been used in other areas. The result was that the people found themselves with rationed amounts of power; they found themselves being directed by the government on the amount of power they could use; they found themselves with government intrusion into their private lives. Some utilities had representatives coming to the households, listing the appliances in the house, and through that, allotting X number of kilowatt-hours that that resident could use. If they overused they were penalized financially, and if they refused to come into line the service was discontinued.

I can say to you today, Mr Speaker, that if this bill is enacted in its present form we have given the power to the Minister of Energy to enact such policies as I have described, and you can see that the freedom of choice is being removed from Canadian life. I find it very disturbing that we as Canadians are going to be controlled in our private lives, in our private homes, as to the style of life we wish to live.

The blanket phrase is used that we, in Ontario and Canada, use more energy than other nations. Let's talk about Ontario. Ontario Hydro was commissioned originally for the purpose of generating and transmitting electrical energy. The distribution of the energy and sale of it was to be in the hands of the municipalities which, each three years, elect commissioners to implement the local policies they wish to see for their municipality, and all of the over 300 municipalities come together and exchange views on policy that they are using in their individual locations.

What we have under Bill 118 is the Minister of Energy directing an Ontario Hydro employee to my home to tell me how much energy I can use. They are going to try and convince me with financial incentives to change from my present form, if it should be electric, to some other form of fuel. At the present time it is natural gas. I do not think the elected officials of these utilities are ready to accept that form of dictatorship.

1650

My friend and colleague the member for Ottawa South has read several letters from utilities. I also have received several letters from them.

I have one from Smiths Falls Hydro: "On behalf of Smiths Falls Hydroelectric Commission, I am writing to express our opposition to Bill 118, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act. Bill 118 threatens to destroy Ontario's long-cherished principle of power at cost by making electricity rates a new source of tax revenue for the provincial government.

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

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

"The Smiths Falls Hydroelectric Commission supports the campaign of the Municipal Electric Association to change Bill 118 in the areas of policy directives and fuel substitution. The MEA position paper is enclosed for your information.

"Bill 118 is flawed legislation that sets dangerous precedents and allows a new hidden tax grab by the provincial government. We look forward to your support in our fight to change Bill 118."

I have other letters from my riding, from Renfrew Hydro, from Almonte Hydro and so on, and many letters from utilities, from Windsor through across Ontario. Many of these letters are basically saying what the member for Ottawa South expressed in reading them. I am not going to take the time of the House to read each individual letter, but really, if you stop and think about a democratic system, you have these elected commissioners right across the province representing the municipalities and they are strongly opposed to the bill. They are asking at least that it be amended in several areas or completely withdrawn.

I would say that if this government had a philosophy in favour of nuclear energy, Bill 118 would never have been introduced. This bill, in conjunction with the conservation program, which, as has been pointed out, is not working -- I have asked the present chairman for information on that. I have yet to receive an answer.

But there is something here that we tend to overlook. First of all, the bill was introduced by the former minister in June and this amendment to the Power Corporation Act combined the chairman's position with that of chief executive officer. They were in such a hurry that the bill got first reading and the chairman had already discussed and had already been accepted as chief executive officer. The committee had not reported on the qualifications presented to it. The bill has yet to be approved through the democratic process. It is going to be retroactive to the day it was introduced. So again, I see a dangerous way of using democracy by just going through the so-called steps that are required with the intention of no change anyhow. "This is what we are going to do. Yes, we may have to go through the steps, but this is what is going to happen and this is how we are going to operate this government and operate Ontario Hydro."

The Minister of Energy knows very well that his department is duplicating advertising on television. The Ontario Hydro marketing program is attempting to sell this conservation program. They are going to be attempting to sell this fuel switching, which the utilities resent very much. I wonder if the present minister has any understanding of what is actually taking place in spending the ratepayers' money to convince their neighbour to go from electric to gas or whatever. We firmly believe, as the association of electric utilities believes, that the marketplace will decide that.

But the danger of that is not only the cost being reflected on my hydro bill and your hydro bill; the danger is that you are going to be sending people into my municipality where I already have elected commissioners to look after my municipality. These people will be coming to tell my customers. We thought we were in charge of the retail, of the electricity in our municipality. We buy it wholesale from Ontario Hydro at the cost of production and transmission and then we retail it in the municipality. Now these programs are being implemented without any approval through our local commission, so in effect the cost is being transferred to the ratepayers of that municipality by direction of the Minister of Energy.

Why he wants to take that responsibility is beyond me when we have a democratic process in place to set retail rates. If Ontario Hydro was to stick to its original mandate of generation and transmission of power and leave the retail part of it to the municipalities that buy from Ontario Hydro and let them set the policies they want to set, whether it is for conservation or fuel switching or whatever -- let them set those policies and if the people in that community are not in favour of them they will know it come three years after the election, and your democratic process is working and the people in Ontario have a choice.

Bill 118 has given that much power to the Minister of Energy that I really believe -- I am aware that he has been recently appointed Minister of Energy, but I really wonder if the minister has sat back and looked at it himself to actually face the responsibility that he has taken on as minister for Ontario, because once he takes on the responsibility, he will become accountable. He will become accountable for the blackouts. He will become accountable to the people of Ontario.

He is not now just representing one municipality or one riding. He has accepted the appointment as Minister of Energy for the province. He cannot afford, with that responsibility, to allow these philosophies that he wants to promote to be promoted by introducing undemocratic processes, and that is what really is my concern about this whole bill. Why do we want to remove from the Legislature the right to debate policies to Ontario Hydro from this government? That is really all we are doing with this bill. The other parts of the bill are all relative to the government's having the power to implement the things it has been trying to have in effect in Ontario for some time.

1700

I can remember back when the first nuclear plant was built we had people who knew absolutely nothing about nuclear energy. They do not even know today that a nuclear generator is exactly the same as any other steam generator, except that the method of making steam is different. I can say to members that using nuclear to make steam is the cleanest, most efficient method we have, and through and in conjunction with the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada we now have in place a safe storage system for the unspent fuel bundles.

If this government would stop hiding behind the fact that it is saying nuclear plants are too expensive and just come out and say, "It's a philosophy of ours that we don't like it and we're not going to allow it," then fine. But it keeps hiding behind saying, "The cost of a nuclear generating station is not realistic," and the people in Ontario are not prepared to accept it.

As I pointed out earlier, the other point is that in all of this will come the shrinking of this great electrical industry in Ontario to nothing but an essential electric service for essential services like televisions and computers. Anything else will be out. We may even have blackouts, as far as lights go, because if the minister has any experience in the utility field or if he has read about the capital costs or the operating costs, he will know it costs the same money to service a resident; whether it is electric or oil or gas, the kilowatt-hours, the transformer and the service wires you need, everything is required, whether you are just going to have lights and essential services or whether you are going to have a completely environmentally controlled home.

With the introduction of the heat pump, one of the most efficient methods of heating and cooling any building is well in place. The research has been done. Because it is becoming more attractive in the residential field and people are used to comfort, living in an environmentally enclosed area, the new homes are being built and insulated in such a manner that efficiency is there from day one. All we are doing with a heat pump is to reverse what we do with our refrigerator. In the summertime we take the heat out of the house and dispense it outside through the coil; in the wintertime we take the heat out of the air and bring it into the house and heat the house.

It is certainly something that should be looked at. At least, I would like to see the conservation program that has been sold so much starting to be implemented around here. When I walk out the doors at either end, with winter coming on certainly it is going to take more than a visit from a conservation officer to change the heat loss there.

The other main point about this bill: I go back to the fact that all it does is to give the government the right to do whatever it wants with Ontario Hydro. Members have to think of the research, the engineering and the people who work for the utility. It was the people working for the utility who made it. If members look back over the history of Ontario Hydro, it put in many long hours to give continued service to the customer. When you start to shrink an industry, that morale starts to go down.

When you say, "Take the electric heat out of your house and put gas in," to me it is like General Motors. I go there to buy a car and they say: "No, I'm sorry, we can't produce any more cars because it's too expensive to put an addition on the plant. But.go over to Ford and you can get one over there." Let's forget this expense idea that we are trying to promote for the electric. The cost at Darlington is relative to the mechanical end of the unit: the cooling tubes, the shaft and the generator. It would not matter which energy you used to make steam. That is not going to change mechanical problems in the unit. I find it a bit frustrating to try to tell people that.

Industry, the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario, along with the Municipal Electric Association are so upset and confused that they cannot sit down at a board of directors' meeting and recommend an expansion to a plant. They cannot recommend a new plant because it was Ontario Hydro supplying electricity at cost to this province that made it the industrial province it was a couple of years ago. If we remove that from this province, we have lost the biggest attraction we ever had. Members should look at the province of Ontario and at the industry in it and think about it and they will begin to realize it was a dependable supply of electricity at cost that gave the industrial and manufacturing people the confidence to go ahead and build and expand in Ontario. We are losing that.

I met and talked with members of both associations several times, the major power users and the Municipal Electric Association, and I cannot think of any more democratic way to get the feelings of the people of this province. We want an electrical industry in this province. We need it because the spinoff from it is just wonderful. Many other industries flow from that source of energy. It is like the oil well of Ontario to have what we have available to us here. We have the engineering and the technology. We have solved the safety problems of our nuclear stations. We have a storage system which, I am sure, if the minister has not visited it, the previous Minister of Energy did. We had that engineered and done in conjunction with the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada.

We have a gift here on which we are turning off the tap. We are going to shut down an electrical industry in favour of conservation, environment and a philosophy of government that is not acceptable to the people of this province. I congratulate the minister that he has indicated he does have concerns with Bill 118 and that he is prepared for this bill to go to a legislative committee and listen to these groups and the average user of electricity in this province as to the effects this bill will have on the supply of electricity, not only to the individual customer but to industry, manufacturing and, in the end result, to employment in Ontario.

Suppose we go along with nuclear energy and it is expensive. Then people will accept the fact that their rates are reflecting the cost of providing the energy they wish to have in this province. It is the same if you buy an automobile. You are going to have to absorb the cost because wages and materials went up and everything else, but you still want the automobile. You should have the choice of wanting the use of the electrical energy if you wish, especially in Ontario, where the technology is available and where we have not only been using it, but where it has been proven every day as being not only the cleanest, but one of the safest forms of generation.

1710

I wonder if our new Minister of Energy, coming from Kitchener where Sir Adam Beck had a great influence on the history of this great utility, would not be prepared basically to just withdraw the bill. I think the new minister would stand tall in the province of Ontario if he had the intestinal fortitude to withdraw that bill.

We have to think ahead to future uses for electricity, not just coming up with generation for the supply of energy that is required at this time. Take for instance the electric car. What is it going to do for the environment? It is going to be a wonderful solution in the cities and in any congested area where you have people travelling back and forth to work. It is going to be an excellent market for Ontario Hydro because it will be known as an off-peak load. The vehicles will be recharged during the night hours when the curve for use of electricity is at its lowest point.

This brings out the point about our transmission of power across the province. Suppose we had our generation in Toronto and we needed power in Cornwall. Would it make sense to just build a line from the generating plant in Toronto straight through to Cornwall, or would it make sense to tap into the line on the way -- at Oshawa, Belleville, Kingston, Brockville, Prescott and so on -- and pick up customers on that line? The net effect would be a lower unit cost, because the capital cost of building the transmission line would be the same, basically, whether you went straight from A to D or you tapped off and picked up customers along the way: positive marketing, as compared to this negative marketing under the guise of conservation which is going to bring nothing but deeper recession into the province.

I hope the new minister has consulted with the Association of Municipal Electrical Utilities. I believe he indicated that he had. I hope he has also consulted with the Association of Major Power Users.

Today in the House I was pleased to hear the minister say, "I am not in favour of putting the cost of social programs on to the individual hydro bill." As much as that statement was made today, we are fairly sure, if this bill is put into effect, that at least those are the nature of items that can be easily included in cost of power to the home. It may, in one way, not affect each individual as strongly as he may think. But what is it going to do to industry, as the previous speaker pointed out, when the economy is in the slump that it is in and every little competitive edge collectively keeps us in business? One of the major ones, of course, is the supply of electricity.

In the riding of Lanark-Renfrew, we are fortunate that we have an abundance of hydraulic generation. We are also aware that, through the network of transmission, hydraulic generation is shared with the people across the province. The network is tied together and it feeds into a pool type of system.

But to think of some of the statements made by this government relative to other forms of generation to replace nuclear -- that is really what it is. It is not that they are going to do it through conservation. As the member for Ottawa South said, conservation is not working and it will not work. It is like a fringe benefit: It is there, but it is very difficult to measure. You certainly cannot sit down with a company and explain to them where you are going to get your supply of electricity and say, "Well, I'm going to ask my neighbour to use a little less, and so on, and collectively I will have enough to supply you." You just cannot do business that way.

The minister, having taken the responsibility -- and he is willing to be accountable, I would say -- will also be willing to consider the withdrawal of Bill 118; and certainly, if not its withdrawal, that we can have it through a legislative committee. Then the people I have mentioned, including the number of letters received from across the province -- and as I say, these are not just from my riding; they are a good cross-section of the province of Ontario. I know the minister is aware of it, and I hope the real discussion and the real presentation on this bill can take place in that manner. Perhaps at that time we can at least have those sections amended, particularly the one where a directive goes directly from the minister to the Hydro board and is enacted.

Really and truly, in the interest of protecting the democratic process and the history of Ontario Hydro, those types of major directives should come through this Legislature. In that way, everybody benefits. Because, let's face it, you may think, "I've covered all the bases and I have everything under control." But the government should stop and think. It might get a good idea once in a while from an opposition member. It should remember that he was also elected and he is willing to take part in the government and in the governing of the province in whatever way the government leaves open.

Hon Mr Ferguson: I want to thank the member for his comments. I did listen to what he had to say. I think he will also agree with me that, along with the responsibility of the portfolio, I have become the accountability of the portfolio. It has never made much sense to me that this Legislature ought to be making suggestions to Ontario Hydro rather than provide direction. That is exactly what this legislation is trying to do, to provide a framework of direction, of policy guidance. It will be fully discussed by the Hydro board prior to being implemented.

Had that been in place, we might not be faced today with a situation where we have a nuclear plant operating at less than 60% efficiency, for which the ratepayers -- not only the province, but the ratepayers in my community as well -- have to pay $13.5 billion worth. That just does not make any sense. We are all here to represent individual constituencies. Obviously I have to make the decision in the best interests of the people of the city of Kitchener, much the same as you have to make decisions in the best interests of the people of the city of Cambridge, which you do quite aptly, I might add, Mr Speaker.

There is no hidden agenda here. We believe that with responsibility there should be a good measure and degree of accountability. That is exactly what this bill is intended to do.

1720

Mr Callahan: I always find it is better to read the explanatory note to determine what is being done by the bill, and I would like to read that for the people who are watching on television: "The bill would also include among the purposes to which the corporation's income is to be applied purposes that are authorized or required by the regulations made under the act."

The members opposite and the people out there will think regulations are something that have to be tested in the Legislature, but one of the things I learned as chairman of the standing committee on regulations and private bills is the fact that the regulations are called the silent laws of Ontario. They are not tested in the Legislature at all. They are passed by cabinet. Cabinet can pass any regulation it likes. The committee on regulations and private bills has to look at them and determine whether they fit into certain criteria, but it cannot touch the policy of those regulations.

What the minister does not realize, and I think he should get a handle on it with all due respect, is the fact that the clear explanation in the bill is that the cabinet can tell Hydro that it wants Hydro to increase hydro rates and that it wants that money to be directed towards a specific type of thing. Once the government starts interfering in the market like that, once it starts putting those additional costs on business, bye-bye business and the lights will go out in Georgia.

Mrs Marland: I am finding this afternoon's debate very interesting. I am finding it very innovative, because I do not recall too often in this House where the minister gets up and uses the two-minute rebuttal time allocated to members in this kind of debate. Normally the minister makes notes, or if he or she is not in the House, the parliamentary assistant does, and their comments become incorporated in their final speech to the House.

I think what we are seeing this afternoon is particularly illustrative of this particular government. They know it is an absurd bill. The minister himself is so defensive of his poorly drafted, unnecessary legislation that he is up on his feet as soon as any of the speakers are finished, up on his feet for his two minutes' rebuttal.

I think this is particularly significant, because in his heart of hearts --

Hon Mr Ferguson: Responsible government, Margaret, responsible government.

Mrs Marland: He is even interjecting now. He cannot wait to get on his feet for another two minutes. I think that it would be interesting for someone who had the time or the inclination to look back in earlier Hansards, maybe for the last four or five years of two other parties, and take note of the number of times in this kind of debate where the two minutes for questions and comments on a previous speaker's presentation were in fact used by the promoter of the legislation on the floor at the time.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment as a Chairman of the House, and I wish you great success in that position. It is great to see you there.

I would also like to compliment the member for Lanark-Renfrew for the way in which he has very directly dealt with this very important bill. The fact of the matter is that he has pointed out how unnecessary this bill is and the opportunity it gives the government to intrude into the whole process of the way in which the system is going to be run by fiat. By his own direct involvement he can then make happen what he wants to happen without following due process.

I would like to compliment the member for Lanark-Renfrew for the way in which he has approached this. I think there is an opportunity here for the government to work with opposition members who have far more experience in this matter rather than just going off on its own without considering something of the history that has gone into the development of Ontario Hydro.

I think the Power Corporation Act is really a power grab by the government trying to do its own thing without allowing the rest of the people of Ontario to understand what is going on. I know for a fact, from the comments by the member for Mississauga South and also by the member for Lanark-Renfrew, that this is not going to be an easy battle for the minister. I think it is something we will make sure the people of Ontario understand fully before it becomes law.

The minister will be able to do whatever he wants to do. We know that is the prerogative of government. The fact of the matter is that responsible opposition should cause him to rethink his position and to not necessarily go down this path just because someone has told him to do it since he became minister. There is far more involved in the provision of a constant source of power in this province than maybe what he thinks is involved.

I thank the member for Lanark-Renfrew for what he has done and I appreciate it.

Mr Jordan: I too feel that the new minister, from his experience on municipal councils and regional and so on, must be in contact with the members of the utilities. He must realize that the rate for Ontario Hydro will become very high as he lowers the units. That is the same as in any business. Once you make the capital investment, then your next objective is to make the best use of that capital investment.

I am saying to the minister that by leaving the valley of power to get deeper and deeper -- I can tell him today that the peak will continue to grow regardless of these programs, that the peak required for 20 minutes during the day, morning and evening, will be required and it will grow. Even in a recession, it will grow because of new products and all the different things. As I mentioned earlier, the electric car is going to be, in my personal opinion, very prominent around the cities and it is going to mean more to the environment than we can decide by saying nuclear is too expensive.

The only place I have found anyone questioning nuclear are the people who did not understand the storage of the waste. I would suggest the minister go to the new storage site near Winnipeg and have a look at it. I am sure once he sees it and understands how it is placed in the clay, and the safety and the money that has been spent there by very well educated people, he will lose any fear he has of the waste disposal regarding nuclear energy.

1730

Mr Huget: It is indeed a privilege for me to rise today to comment on the introduction for second reading of Bill 118, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act. I would also like to thank the member for Ottawa South, the opposition Energy critic, and the member for Lanark-Renfrew, the third party Energy critic, for their comments. I think it is well known in this House that both members have a keen interest in energy matters in Ontario and I appreciate their comments.

As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy, I rise to express my support for the initiative being pursued by my colleague the Minister of Energy and indeed by the government of Ontario.

The amendments being introduced for second reading are very significant. The people who will benefit from these changes will be the people of Ontario. Ontario Hydro will now be much more accountable to the people of Ontario. The amendments will strengthen the relationship between the government and Hydro. It is very important that we ensure that Hydro is able to increase the energy efficiency of this province.

Hydro is a statutory corporation. The government is accountable to the Legislature and the people of this province for Hydro's activities. It stands to reason that a stronger relationship between Hydro and the government is necessary. It is necessary to ensure that Hydro is accountable to the people of this province. It is also necessary to ensure that the government of this province can provide the necessary policy direction to Ontario Hydro.

It is important to understand that Hydro's actions can also have a major impact on the environment. It is important not to underestimate this fact. Hydro can and should provide a leadership role in meeting the environmental priorities of the people of Ontario.

It is also important not to underestimate the key role that Hydro plays in the economy of this province. Hydro activities can and do have a significant impact on the province's economic development and on social policy priorities. It is very important to note that the proposed changes to the Power Corporation Act will allow Ontario Hydro and the government to work together effectively to meet these priorities.

The people of the province of Ontario have benefited significantly from a tradition of public power. The government recognizes that there are some groups in this province that have called for the privatization of Ontario Hydro. Let me point out that the general public has expressed no such desire. The people of Ontario have expressed again and again a need for increased accountability by Hydro and a greater level of responsiveness by Hydro to the concerns and needs of the public. The proposed changes to the Power Corporation Act will allow the government to meet these needs.

The government does recognize that numerous control mechanisms are in place. Ontario Hydro presently needs provincial government approval for all its major activities, such as power supply and purchase contracts, borrowing, electricity exports, land purchases and construction of facilities.

Our goal is not so much to increase this control; our goal very clearly is to make Hydro more responsive to public priorities and government policies. We have certainly accomplished this important goal with the proposed changes to the Power Corporation Act. The current act is being changed to remove the ambiguity about the roles of government and Hydro. The proposed amendments will clarify the government's responsibility for setting the province's policy direction and the expectation that Hydro will carry out that policy.

The act will also require the government to consult with the Hydro board on the content and effect of policy directives. The requirement reflects the board's important role and responsibilities in ensuring that the needs of the people of Ontario are met in the best possible way.

Providing the government with a directive power is certainly not new. The Financial Administration Act, for example, enables the federal government to direct its public corporations. It also provides for consultation on the contact and effect of directives.

Hydro has always been able to play a role in implementing government policy, provided that a complex set of procedures and approvals were met. The complexity of this process has often hindered the efficient implementation of policies designed to meet the energy needs of the province.

In the past, previous governments have circumvented the process by providing informal policy direction in closed sessions with Ontario Hydro. This government does not feel that is in the best interests of the people of Ontario. This government does not feel that the people of Ontario have been served by that closed-door process. That is why the government will simplify the process. The process will be open and in full view of the people whom Hydro is meant to serve.

The government has the ultimate authority to act in the public interest. This government will exercise that responsibility in its dealings with Ontario Hydro. We will ensure that Hydro's activities are always in the best interests of its customers, the people of Ontario. That is what people expect from the government of Ontario, and that is exactly what the government of Ontario will deliver.

Mrs Marland: The parliamentary assistant says that their government is going to do what the people of this province want. What the people of this province want and what they have grown to expect is to get their energy at cost. They do not expect to pay more than they absolutely have to, and even today, to get their energy at cost, for a lot of them, especially in the consumer residential use and also in the industrial use, because the cost of the provision of electricity in this province has increased, those people are finding it very difficult to pay for that energy that they need: the energy that they may need to stay in business, the energy that they may need to drive their equipment in their manufacturing plants, let alone the energy to heat and cool their places of work.

To say that they are going to do what the people of this province want is outrageous. It is so outrageous, because in fact it is not what is going to happen. They are not going to get what they want through the purchase of their energy, and this government knows as well as I do that this bill allows anything else that it wishes to be included in the cost of energy, and that is an outright scam. It is an absolutely disgusting policy direction for this government to be going in.

Mr Huget: I am somewhat distressed by the member of the third party who has taken it upon herself to decide what is and what is not a scam. I quite frankly find that attitude very offensive, but none the less I think it is in the best interests of the people of Ontario in particular that that type of derogatory statement is not made in this House.

The people of this province have said over and over again that they want Hydro to be accountable to the government, and it will be with the amendments to the Power Corporation Act. There is no question in my mind that my minister and my government are prepared to act in the best interests of the people of Ontario, as it should be. There is no question in my mind that previous governments have acted behind closed doors in informal policy sessions to set the directions of Ontario Hydro. I do not believe that this process serves the people of this province well, and it is a process that I will cheer on its departure in terms of the way decisions are made in Ontario Hydro. I look forward to the amendments to the Power Corporation Act to return Hydro to the people of this province.

1740

Mr McClelland: Mr Speaker, I too join my colleague the member for Markham, who has already expressed to you, sir, congratulations for occupying the chair today for the first time. I think it is a credit to this House to have you sitting there and I look forward to working with you and our colleagues in this House under your chairmanship. It is indeed a pleasure to be among the first speakers as you sit there.

I welcome the opportunity to make, hopefully, some relatively brief comments on Bill 118, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act. My colleague the critic for Energy from the Liberal Party, the member for Ottawa South, has very effectively, in his usual first-rate style, set forth in a very systematic way some of the issues that are of concern both to myself and to colleagues on this side of the House with respect to the substantive elements of Bill 118.

It is from time to time seen in this House as a process that we go through in looking at legislation and trying to critique it. Every person in Ontario ought to be fundamentally involved and interested in the debate that takes place here today and that under the undertaking given by the Minister of Energy, it will be taken to the people across the province in committee some time in the near future.

One of the key components to the success of the manufacturing sector and the job creation history we have enjoyed in Ontario has been energy availability for industries to facilitate manufacturing, construction, setting up plants in this province.

I am very concerned about the long-term effects of what is beginning to take place through the implementation of Bill 118. As I said, every individual ought to be concerned about what is taking place here. It affects them not only as consumers of energy within their own homes -- it is a very fundamental issue -- but also with respect to the business community. I believe that has been alluded to by a number of speakers.

Let me talk for a minute, if I could, about what will happen to the consumer in the home. One of the fundamental tenets of Ontario Hydro has always been, as has been stated again and again by colleagues on this side of the House, to provide power to the consumer at cost. We are potentially departing from that path today with the introduction of this bill for second reading. It has already in fact happened. I will allude to that in a few moments in my comments, how the government of the day has already fundamentally departed from the principle of providing power at cost for the people of this province.

It will have dramatic impact on the householders, on the consumers. Men and women in this province, when they start to receive their bills, will wake up and will respond to the government. I say to my friends in the back benches of the New Democratic Party they have not seen anything yet. They can rest assured they will be hearing from people in their communities. Ultimately, when they come to pass judgement on what has taken place in the tenure of this government, let the government opposite bear in mind that they will be looking to it to account for the tremendous cost increase I believe will be forthcoming as a result of this ill-conceived policy.

I believe they have only begun to see what will be an unprecedented escalation in the cost of energy being provided to them in their homes. We have forecasts of significant increases this year, well above 10% in some cases, above 20% in other municipalities. Those bills are starting to arrive in people's homes and people will become aware of it. They will be calling my friends opposite in the back benches and asking them to explain what is going to happen down the road.

I heard the minister today, in response to a question, say it was absurd to speculate that we would be looking at increases in the order of 40% or more. I suggest those words be marked very well and marked very carefully. I am not one to stand here and try and prophesy the future, because none of us knows what will happen, but I believe firmly that the minister is on very thin ice to suggest he will not see unprecedented rate increases over the next couple of years. They are beginning now as a result, in part, of what the government is doing and the direction the government is taking.

The minister indicated in his opening comments today that wide consultation had taken place prior to the introduction of Bill 118. Why is it, then, that if that broad consultation took place, the Municipal Electric Association, which represents virtually 75% of the consumers of electricity in this province, is absolutely opposed to this legislation? They are unanimously opposed to this legislation and have stated that very clearly to the minister. He has received documentation to that effect. If that is the case, of what effect was this consultation? People who are involved in the delivery at the local level, people who represent electrical associations across this province, have stated they are fundamentally opposed to this and object very strenuously to some of the provisions of this bill. It flies in the face of the concept of delivering energy to people at cost, which is at least something we can project and deal with on a rational basis.

We have had a similar discussion about other legislation that has been brought forward. There are any number of mixes that take place in business decisions that are made. One of those ingredients in the mix is the cost of energy. It is difficult, virtually impossible, to pinpoint it and say that as a result of increases in energy of 1%, 2%, 11%, 20%, indeed 44% over the next two or three years, X number of jobs will leave Ontario or not come here. We cannot say with certainty what impact it will be, but we can say with certainty that there will be a negative impact on the economy. There will be a negative impact on household economies. Men and women who are trying to make monthly payments, who are stretched to the limit, who have had it up to here with tax increases, are not well disposed to hearing about a hidden tax. It quite frankly is not going to be hidden very much longer.

They are not going to get away with it, I say to my friends opposite, with the tax that is coming through disguised in this method. Very shortly, they are going to be hearing from people all across the province who are going to be objecting to the increases they are putting on them as a result of this policy and they will stand accountable for the tax increase they are effectively imposing by the back door, to use their own words.

Over the next few weeks, this bill will be considered and will be debated.To this point in time, it has been indicated by speakers that Bill 118 fundamentally changes the way Ontario Hydro works. It begins to open up the door. In fact, it does not only begin to open up the door but it opens it up very clearly and widely, basically saying that the provincial government can issue policy directives that are binding on Ontario Hydro, give it a direction in which it must go and give it a direction that must be implemented.

In fairness, the bills says they will consult first with the board of directors, but having consulted -- and we know the record of the government opposite with respect to consultation: "This is the way we want it to be. We're going to lay it down and this is what you are going to do" -- the government has the opportunity and the power under this act to set out policy directives that it will impose upon Ontario Hydro. Having done that, they give them the backdoor escape and say: "It's okay, because if we tell you to do it, you're not going to be responsible. In fact, we're not going to hold you accountable for the decisions we make you make."

For the people who are watching, if they follow what is taking place here or understand that, the government goes to the board of directors of Ontario Hydro and says: "Here's what we want to do. What do you think about it? By the way, if you don't like it, it's okay because we'll tell you what to do and you don't have to be accountable for that. We're going to let you off the hook because we're going to take it."

The minister stands in his place and says, "That's because we want to be accountable," recognizing the fact that most of these decisions will be made in cabinet behind closed doors and they will be a fait accompli before they ever see the light of day. They will not be debated. They will not be given an opportunity to be vetted through the process of this House and through the elected democratic process we have.

The Conservative critic made very plain his concerns about that. We share those concerns. There is a fundamental principle involved here that goes much beyond a substantive portion of this bill as well. It is a matter of principle with respect to saying, on the one hand, "We want to be accountable" and, on the other hand, saying, "We're providing a vehicle by which we can do it without any public accountability until after the fact, until it is done and things are under way." I find it quite frankly distressful, and I might even say somewhat offensive, that a government that espouses openness, that espouses response to people in this province would do this at this time.

I also feel one of the things that is going to happen as a result of this bill is that we are going to see people just absolutely fed up with the increases they are seeing. I suggest that as we approach municipal elections this fall, we are going to hear like we have never heard before the sense of frustration people have with all levels of government, with respect to school boards and municipal councillors and regional governments. On top of that, at a point in time when people in elected office across this province are being challenged to respond to men's and women's concerns about the tax load they must bear, the government opposite is laying down a path that says we are going to add on a tax --

1750

Mr Callahan: Secretly.

Mr McClelland: -- secretly that the consumer will pay for, and by the way he is not even going to know about it until after it is done.

It was interesting that in debate today, and it has been raised both in questions and comments today, the question was, "Would you want to proceed with using Ontario Hydro as a vehicle to advance your social policy?" and the answer has been a resounding no. But what has happened today? What is consistent with what has happened under the current government? Where have the dollars and cents gone, and what has been the impact in terms of the increased costs that were announced about two weeks ago in the average hydro costs across this province, 11%, 12%, in some cases more, depending on the locale? What was the response? "Well, those are costs that are folded into the cost of providing the service."

But they are not only that, and I say to the minister that if he is going to stand in his place and say that he wants to be accountable, he should come clean and lay out exactly what it is he wants to do and what he has done. The minister has already taken advantage, in a way, of the expanded powers he is contemplating by directing Ontario Hydro to provide some $250 million in the form of an economic package for Elliot Lake.

I do not have an objection to the government's making that decision as a government, if it chooses to do that. That is its prerogative. I may disagree with the decision, but it is entitled to direct the funds of the province of Ontario as it sees fit. But surely the minister should have the courage of his convictions and stand in his place and say, "We are putting the money out of general revenues because we have an economic program and a policy that we want to bring to bear on that particular locale." But what does he do? He says: "We're going to spend $250 million in a given part of the province. We're already in trouble with our budget. We're well over $9.7 billion in debt. Goodness knows, it could be $12 billion or more. We don't know how we are going to handle that because we're going to have to cut back and that is tough for us to do. One way we can do it is to maybe slide some of those millions of dollars on to the Hydro rate."

That is what they have done. When people began to understand that after all the government's rhetoric about how it is going to deal with things forthrightly and honestly, it begins to slide off some of the cost of doing the business of government in a hidden form, I think my friends opposite in the New Democratic Party will hear their phones ringing off the hook. They will begin to get a response from their constituents like they have never heard before. The honeymoon is over and they are going to hear about it on this and other issues, but this will be one of the telling elements in terms of their first year. After they have had their first year, coming back for year two, the first thing they bring on back here is a tax grab, the first item of business coming back for their second year in power.

I know the minister has a job to do. The minister stands in his place to do his job and he will do it well, with all the bluster he had on the front benches, and it will be kind of fun. But it must kind of stick in his craw, knowing him as the type of person he is, I would think. It is going to be very difficult for him to know that what he is doing is sliding a tax grab on to the people of Ontario, the men and women who are having a tough time making a go right now, and putting it on here, on the first order of business. What a terrible thing to have as his first order of business as a new minister, to come in here saying, "I am going to hit the people of Ontario with 11%, 12% this year." Should he survive in cabinet in that portfolio for three years, the legacy that he will leave for his successor --

Mrs Marland: You look so gorgeous today.

Mr McClelland: Sometimes it is very difficult, with the member for Mississauga South, but I admire her charm and her encouragement as we participate in the debate today.

The minister will look back at a legacy of an increase that has been projected by the Premier's own appointee of some 44%. Will it be 44% or will it be more? That is the legacy they are beginning to sow the seeds of with this legislation. There will doubtless be comments from the members opposite about how that just is not going to happen, and I hope they are right, but I think the writing is on the wall.

We talked very briefly about Elliot Lake and what happened with that $250 million. It is not an issue of social policy, not at all, but $65 million of it goes to where? The Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. It does not sound very much to me to be about the cost of energy. I do not understand. Pardon me, maybe in the two-minute rebuttal, if we have it, the minister will help me understand how that $65 million in the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp has a direct impact and direct relationship on the cost of producing power and providing it to the people of Ontario.

We are approaching the time when we are going to be adjourning, but we are going to get into the Smiths Falls area and the amount of money that was put into that. Do the people of Ontario understand up to this point in time that they are subsidizing through their hydro rates $250 million into a community in the north? Most of us are happy to see that some initiatives are being taken to help out that community, but how are we going to respond? What is going to be the response of the government? Is this the thin edge of the wedge that will say, "When we have a problem to deal with in one-industry towns in certain locales that are economically depressed or having a difficult time, we can use Ontario Hydro as a vehicle to fund it and you men and women across the entire province are going to pay for it and you are going to pay for it without having the opportunity of it being debated in the format of a budget, represented as a tax forthrightly and directly to the people of the province so at least they know what they are getting and why they are paying for it"?

There are men and women out there who are paying taxes and they are conscious of the fact that we have a lot of hidden taxes. As they become aware of this, this is yet one more and it is not going to be hidden any longer. I pledge to all my colleagues here, as will my friends on this side of the House, that the government will not be allowed to put this through with its being hidden. This matter will go out for public debate and people are going to hear about it and they are going to know that the government is laying another layer of tax on them. I encourage people, as they understand that, to call the Minister of Energy's office, to write him, to write their local MPPs, to write their New Democratic members of provincial Parliament across this province and say they object to the fact that a tax layer is being laid down on them without being told forthrightly and honestly that this is exactly what is happening.

Earlier in the debate the minister indicated that the natural gas producers endorsed this and thought it was a great bill. I was shocked. Imagine that. Imagine the fact that people who are already producing energy at about one third of the rate are pleased that the cost of hydro is going to go up 44%. I am not an economic genius, but it certainly did not surprise me a whole lot to hear that the three main gas suppliers in this province are pleased that hydro rates are going up.

I would like to spend some time talking about the issues of cost and supply and security of supply and those related issues, but time does not permit that at this point. As we are approaching 6 of the clock this evening, I would now move adjournment of the debate and continue this happy occasion at some other time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Members will have a moment some time in the future to participate in the debate and have their moment in the sun. However, at this time this House will now stand adjourned until Tuesday, September 24, at 1:30 of the clock.

The house adjourned at 1759.