Journal des débats 1998-juin-17 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I'm delighted to pay tribute today to our first nations and to encourage all Ontarians to join with them as Canadians celebrate National Aboriginal Day this Sunday, June 21. On this day, all Canadians will celebrate with our first nations and pay tribute to the contributions they have made and continue to make to our country.

As you are aware, my riding of Kenora is the home of many vibrant and diverse first nations communities. I'm very proud to have worked with and represent them here in the Legislature for the past 11 years.

Throughout the years, our first nations people have made outstanding contributions to our country, be it in the area of helping newcomers to Canada survive by passing on their ways of life and knowledge of agricultural techniques, medicines, hunting and fishing, or through their contributions to clothing such as parkas, mitts and fur coats, all of which help keep us warm throughout our cold Canadian winters. These many accomplishments, along with their contributions to Canada's economic development, have enriched the lives of every Canadian.

For generations first nations people in Canada, and indeed my own constituents, have celebrated their culture and heritage on or near June 21. This Sunday will provide the entire nation the opportunity to celebrate with them.

I'm pleased to join with my leader, Dalton McGuinty, and my colleagues in the Ontario Liberal caucus in recognizing the contribution of our first nations. I ask all in Ontario, and indeed Canada, to recognize the rich cultural diversity and the achievements of first nations this Sunday and again throughout the year.

Meegwetch.

SAULT STE MARIE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Sault Ste Marie today finds itself in some very difficult circumstances. Unemployment is at 20%, twice the provincial average, and I'm told the real estate market is the worst it has ever been. These are just two of the many indicators saying my community is in trouble and with no real end in sight.

These difficulties have been created by the very aggressive and massive cuts made by the provincial government to the many ministry offices located in Sault Ste Marie and to other provincial crown corporation offices, the most obvious being the dismantling of the Ontario Lottery Corp.

Now we are faced with the closing down of the Northern Treatment Centre. This will be a loss of 147 direct jobs and a three-to-one spinoff in the service sector which computes out all told to possibly 500 more work opportunities gone.

There are three things we, as a community, can do in the face of such daunting challenges: (1) stop the bleeding, (2) stabilize what we now have, and (3) grow what we have and develop or attract new opportunities.

This government can help with the first one and the most compelling one. They have to stop the cutting so that we can stop the bleeding. Will they do that? Will they commit in this House today to doing that with the people of Sault Ste Marie so that we can create a better economy and a better place for all who call Sault Ste Marie home, given the very terrible attack that they've made on our community in the last two years?

ENERGY COMPETITION

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This government is setting a new course in history with the introduction of the Energy Competition Act. Bill 35 is enabling legislation that allows for the dismantling of Ontario Hydro's 92-year monopoly in favour of a competitive structure to be regulated by the Independent Electricity Market Operator and the Ontario Energy Board.

Sir Adam Beck, MPP and industrialist, saw the need and provided the leadership to build the world's best electricity system here in Ontario. The objective was to produce and deliver power as cheaply as possible for as many people as possible and at the lowest possible cost. The power-at-cost system was the catalyst for rapid economic development and rural electrification.

With new technologies, competition and political excess in the mid to late 1980s, Hydro strayed towards a reputation for power at great cost. Bill 35 will enable the closing of the curtain on Sir Adam Beck's legacy and reopening it to a plan that will recapture Ontario's competitive advantage in the world's marketplace by once again making electricity the job creator for Ontario.

NATIONAL UNITY

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Those of us who held meetings on the Calgary accord came away listening to one strong message, and that was, "Ensure that you keep Canada strong and united."

Out of this request came the establishment of the Canada Unity Day Federation which consists of major ethnocultural organizations in Metro and the greater Toronto area. They've put together a unity walk from Queen's Park down to City Hall on July 1, beginning at 2 o'clock on the west side of Queen's Park. All the MPPs are invited.

Do you know something? We were listening to those people talking to us. They are saying: "We do not wish to be surprised again, as we were in 1996 when we almost lost this country by about 40,000 votes. We want to be prepared and we wish to do something about it." Today, I'm delighted to say we can.

All of us are invited. In fact, all constituents are invited to join us on that day as we walk proud as Canadians, united in knowing that we have participated in a strong, united Canada. To that end, we can all say: "Vive le Canada."

FORESTRY AUDITS

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Under the terms of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, the Minister of Natural Resources is required to undertake and to table forestry management audits on an annual basis. But under this Conservative government the minister failed to undertake any audits in 1996 despite his responsibility to do so. The audits for 1997 were only tabled at the beginning of June 1998 despite the fact that draft copies were available in October 1997.

Perhaps the reason for the delay is that the minister is embarrassed by the audit's findings. For example, the audit done on the Mississagi crown management unit notes serious problems with data collection, training of staff and, most important, the ability of MNR staff to do their jobs in light of massive layoffs.

The audit team noted that "data collection and recording methods themselves had little quality control" and the team seriously questioned "MNR staff capabilities to engage in adaptive forest management under the present circumstances." The audit team said, "Employees expressed concern about their ability to achieve all of their duties due to time constraints and/or inadequate training."

With respect to government downsizing and its impact, the audit team noted, "Many staff question whether sufficient qualified and motivated staff will remain to effectively implement MNR's new role under sustainable forest management."

The minister must make clear what he plans to do to respond to the audit's recommendations. These are serious issues and people who are concerned about the public resource, especially forestry resources, must know what he plans to do.

1340

EDUCATION

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): It's a pleasure to share with the Legislature today a couple of very positive experiences at two ends of the educational spectrum, elementary and post-secondary, in my riding.

The first project involves the students at Watt Public School. Students at this school are using mathematical and scientific lessons they learn in the classroom to design and build a number of community structures, including an octagonal gazebo, an arbour entranceway to the school's vegetable garden and a bridge over a local ravine.

The bridge project was especially challenging and the skills involved included the stress testing of load ratios by using models and weights. Under the direction of school staff and community volunteers, these elementary students are learning new skills that they can apply in summer jobs and in their future adult lives.

At the post-secondary level a local initiative is preparing students to work in the auto industry, which is badly in need of skilled graduates. The Centre for Automotive Parts Expertise provides high-tech training through a partnership between Georgian College of Simcoe county and the Industrial Research and Development Institute in Midland.

In May's budget speech, the finance minister announced a $3.8-million provincial investment in this partnership. Auto parts companies in my riding which will likely participate in this new program and provide positions for graduates include Meritor Automotive in Bracebridge and Algonquin Automotive with plants in Huntsville and Gravenhurst. This partnership is expected to increase enrolment in the advanced training program from 75 to 300.

I applaud these initiatives, which show how our educators are preparing today's students for the workplace of today and the future.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Today marks a sad day in Ontario. It marks the proclamation of the tenant rejection act, the act introduced by this government to get rid of protection for tenants in this province, particularly important in our large urban areas such as Toronto, Windsor, Ottawa and others where there are high needs for affordable rental housing. This government has decided, not only to declare war but not even to allow for meaningful hearings. Hundreds of amendments are put forward to the bill; most are rejected out of hand.

Is the government content simply to take away protection from tenants? Not at all. Let's review some of their other initiatives.

They've cancelled all funding for new non-profit housing. That represents half a billion dollars over four years.

They've downloaded social housing to municipalities without any guarantee. The only guarantee municipalities and ratepayers have is increased property taxes. That's what this government's about.

Who else have they hit? They hit welfare recipients, the very people in need of affordable rental accommodation, with a 22% cut. That's what this government's about.

What else have they done? They've ended all rent-geared-to-income support. This government doesn't care about tenants; it doesn't care about the people of our city; all it cares about are profits. That's not good enough. Let's get rid of them.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): We're going to see a housing crisis in Ontario the likes of which we've never seen before. Today is the day the so-called Tenant Protection Act comes into force. What doublespeak. This is a protection act for big developers and big landlords. On top of that, the Harris government has completely removed itself from providing non-profit housing and there is no new affordable housing being built by developers out there.

I just attended a funeral for the demise of rent control and tenant protection here in Ontario and I witnessed the speech by the member for Windsor-Walkerville who stood up in front of people today and said: "If you want a real alternative to the Tories, you've got to vote Liberal because we're the only real alternative out there. Mark my words, we will bring in rent control."

Well, I remember what they did in the last election when we brought in the toughest rent control in Ontario.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. The member for Riverdale.

Ms Churley: I have lost 20 seconds of my time because of this. That is outrageous. The Liberal Party voted against the toughest rent control bill in Ontario. Now they're out there spreading this kind of nonsense. It is outrageous. Furthermore, they just took 15 or 20 seconds of my time away and that is unacceptable.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Ms Churley: It was my time and I can say what I want -

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. We've heard comments before on each side. Nobody is perfect. I've made my ruling and that's it.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to ask for unanimous consent to give the member more time to complete her statement.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Make sure that you get to the point.

Ms Churley: My point is that the Liberal Party in the last election voted against the toughest rent control in Ontario. Today, in what I consider to be a non-partisan event overall because the tenants organized this event to talk about what we would do if elected - I mean non-partisan on this side of the House - and then we have a Liberal stand up and give this very partisan speech about how great they are and that they're the only alternative.

What I'm saying to the House and members of the public today is that this Liberal Party voted against the toughest rent -

Interjections.

Ms Churley: Well, so did the Tories, but at least they're not out there saying now that they would reverse that. We have this Liberal Party over here trying to speak out of both sides of their mouths and that's -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Please give her a chance. The member for Riverdale has 31 seconds left.

Ms Churley: Thank you, Speaker. I take this opportunity to talk about tenants and the effect that this bill is going to have on them. Because of decontrol, as soon as people move out of their apartment, that apartment no longer comes under rent control. There are no limits on how much a landlord can then charge and we know what that means. The sky's the limit now for landlords to make money off poor tenants in this province.

INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): Last Saturday, the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. I'll make the ruling. Will you start the clock again, and give a chance to the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, like anybody else, to make his statement.

Mr Leadston: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last Saturday, the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada celebrated the 10th anniversary of the Charity Barbecue Day, which is an initiative of Mr Mac Voisin, president of M&M Meat Shops, across Ontario and the rest of Canada.

In an effort to help find a cure for inflammatory bowel disease, which affects over 250,000 Canadians, all the M&M Meat Shops fired up their barbecues and sold hamburgers and hot dogs for a donation. If the target is met, M&M Meat Shops will have raised $3 million for research over that 10-year period.

I would also like to invite the members. Tomorrow, Thursday, June 18, on the front steps of the Legislature there will be a barbecue to help kick off the campaign for next year. On behalf of the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada and M&M Meat Shops, I want to thank all Ontarians who have been generous contributors to the Charity Barbecue Day, and I hope they will prove it again next year.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr17, An Act respecting Redeemer Reformed Christian College.

Your committee recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing at all stages be remitted on Bill Pr17, An Act respecting Redeemer Reformed Christian College.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I beg leave to inform the House that today the Clerk received the fourth report of the standing committee on government agencies.

Pursuant to standing order 105(g)(9), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CANADIAN INFORMATION PROCESSING SOCIETY OF ONTARIO ACT, 1998

Mr Saunderson moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr21, An Act respecting Canadian Information Processing Society of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Agreed.

GIOVANNI CABOTO DAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE JOUR DE GIOVANNI CABOTO

Mr Jim Brown moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 43, An Act respecting Giovanni Caboto Day / Projet de loi 43, Loi sur le jour de Giovanni Caboto.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): This bill proposes that June 24 be proclaimed Giovanni Caboto Day in honour of the Italian explorer who was first to arrive on Canada's shores on June 24, 1497.

1350

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding standing order 95(d), Ms Mushinksi and Mr Bert Johnson exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business, and that, notwithstanding standing order 95(g), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item number 20.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Today I want to raise the case of a very special little girl named Chantalle who is up in the Speaker's gallery today. She is a very special child with very special needs. She is eight years of age and like any other child she works very hard at school, but she has some special challenges in life. She can't walk, she can't talk, she can't dress herself and she can't go to the washroom by herself.

There has been a program on the books of government in Ontario for over 10 years now which says that we will help special needs children like Chantalle with their summer camp experience by providing payment for an assistant to accompany her to camp. She has been to summer camp for the last three summers but this summer her parents were informed for the very first time that that funding was no longer available. I'm just trying to confirm whether that is in fact the case. Please tell me that this is an oversight and that Chantalle will be able to go to summer camp.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I am not aware of the details. I want to take the initial question, and I will probably refer it to the minister if you're after any specifics that are there.

I can assure you, to the best of my knowledge, we certainly have not reduced any funding or changed any program in this area. I can tell you also, if there is a specific child - the one you've mentioned or others - who has been eligible in the past and is not today, if you will see me with that child, we'll make sure they go to camp.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, Carol Goldman from the Zareinu Educational Centre is also here with Chantalle today. She tells me that her phone has been ringing off the hook with calls from desperate parents. In fact, her conclusion is that in the North York area we're talking about 400 children who this year will not receive the necessary funding for them to go on to summer camp, and that's in that area alone.

What I'm asking from you now, Premier, given that you seem to show some sensitivity to this issue, is your assurance that every special needs child in Ontario will have the necessary funding to enable them to go to camp this summer in the same way they have had that funding in years past.

Hon Mr Harris: I'll ask the minister.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): As the Premier mentioned, we assess the individual family's needs, and in this particular case or if there are other families that we need to take a look at, if there has been a decision that was not appropriate, we're very pleased to look at that. But I would like to say to the honourable member across the way that the special services at home funding, for example, that assists many of these families has in fact been increased by a substantial amount during the last three years. Under the changes we have made, that has meant that for many families, the majority of families in the Toronto area, for example, 85% of them have seen the same amount of funding or more funding than what they had received.

Mr McGuinty: I'm talking about at least 400 special needs children in our province who went to summer camp before but are not going this summer as a result of your changes to your policies. I don't know what kind of a screwed-up sense of priorities you have over there, but it seems to me that the people of this province would support funding to enable special needs children to attend summer camp. These kids can't go out and play in the street in summer and they can't go and play in the backyard. They need help.

This province has always provided that kind of funding in the past. Don't tell me that we can't afford it. You send a pamphlet around telling us that revenues today are greater than they have ever been in the history of this province. Don't tell me we can't afford funding for summer camp for special needs kids. Stand up and tell me right now that every special needs child in Ontario will have the funding necessary to ensure that they can go to summer camp this year in the same way they have in years past.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I appreciate that the honourable member brings forward these issues. I give him the respect because he does it because he cares about this individual child. We did not say we weren't doing this because we couldn't afford it. We have increased the funding for special services at home.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. The question has been asked. Please listen to the response.

Interjections.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Does the minister mean she can't afford it but she will -

The Acting Speaker: Order, member for Algoma.

Minister.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I would also like to reiterate to the honourable member, as the Premier said, that I have made no decision to change the policy for the specialservices at home funding.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Who's in charge over there?

The Acting Speaker: Member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Hon Mrs Ecker: We have in fact increased the overall budget for this. Of families here in Toronto, 85% have seen the same or a larger amount of money. If there are individual circumstances, families that through some circumstance are not receiving the support they should be getting, or this particular child is not receiving the support she should be getting, my office would be very pleased to look into it. I invite the honourable member to provide us with the details so we can do that rather than having these wonderful press release try-and-get-you situations. They're not helping the families.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The question has been answered.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. You're wasting your time. Order, the member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Further questions?

Mr McGuinty: I will say in passing to the previous minister that I will never, ever apologize for bringing forward important questions relating to children in this province.

1400

RENT REGULATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. As of today, you are going to effectively destroy rent control in Ontario. You have an act in place that you call the Tenant Protection Act. It might as well have been more appropriately named the tenant rejection act.

It's going to be possible now, when a tenant vacates an apartment, for the landlord to raise the rent sky high without limits. This, on top of the other policies that you have with respect to housing in Ontario, is going to create effectively a housing crisis.

My question to you is very simple. You've had all kinds of time now to think about this. You have at the outset rejected the pleas and the intelligence offered by tenants. Now I want you to take this opportunity, Minister, to stand up in this Legislature, tell us that you've seen the light, that you will not proceed with this bill and that we won't foist it upon the tenants of this province.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): The first thing I would say to the Leader of the Opposition is that he may not apologize for his previous performance but he probably should.

With respect to the Tenant Protection Act, the new act that's been proclaimed today continues to provide protection to tenants. It keeps the same formula for rent control that was in the previous legislation introduced by the NDP government.

The members of the Liberal Party are the last ones who should be talking about rent control. The system they put in place in the 1980s was complex and so skewed that we still have 10 cases before the courts that are still trying to be resolved. That's how complicated your system was. It didn't work at all.

What have we done? We've kept rent controls in place for anybody who stays in their apartment. When a tenant moves out, the landlord can negotiate a new rent with a new tenant and then rent control comes back on. What does that do? That gives the landlord an opportunity to go in, renovate the apartment -

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Next question, thank you.

Mr McGuinty: What you are effectively doing is making prisoners of tenants in this province. Think of those people who move on a regular basis - students, seniors, low-income earners. Now they can't move for fear that if they do so, not only will the apartment they're leaving have a sky-high rent, so will the one they're moving into. You're making it tougher.

Look at what you've already done to students. You've hiked up their tuition, you're hiking up their debt; now you're hiking up the rent.

What about seniors? You hiked up their drug costs; you're making health care less and less accessible; now you're hiking up their rent.

You're making it more difficult now for people to leave older apartments which require repair, because they're afraid that if they move they'll be facing higher rents. Once again, take the opportunity here, Minister. Show some leadership. Tell us that you're not proceeding with this bill.

Hon Mr Leach: Again I'm surprised that the Liberal Party would take this approach. As the member for Riverdale pointed out just a few minutes earlier, your party voted against rent control. They voted against the NDP bill. So don't get on a high horse and say that you're in favour of rent control, because you voted against it.

They're also obviously against free enterprise. They know that 80% of apartment owners own units of six units or less. They're usually small business people who live in one apartment and try and eke out a living from renting the rest.

This bill gives protections to them that have never been there before. If they're against protection of small business people, they can come out and say that as well.

Mr McGuinty: Finally the minister has been unmasked. The man who has special responsibility, the man with special responsibility for protecting the rights and interests of tenents in Ontario, tells us that his greatest concern is free enterprise. It's not tenants; it never has been tenants.

Look at what you've done to date. You've created a crisis in affordable housing. You've scrapped funding for new non-profit housing, you've scrapped the rent-geared-to-income support program and you've downloaded social housing on to our municipalities. Today you've decided you're scrapping rent controls, and the people most hurt are the usual on your hit list. We're talking about low-income earners, seniors and students, some of your favourite targets.

Minister, once more with feeling, stand up and tell me that you've seen the error of your ways, you've seen the light, you understand you've made a terrible mistake and for that reason you're going to scrap this bill because you understand that your responsibility first and foremost lies with Ontario's tenants.

Hon Mr Leach: As I said right at the very beginning, the main purpose behind this bill was to provide protection to tenants and that's why we retained the rent control formula that was in the previous legislation, so tenants are protected. The formula that puts a cap on rents -

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Ottawa West, I don't want to tell you again.

Hon Mr Leach: - for every existing tenant remains in place.

Interjection: There's no cap on rents.

Hon Mr Leach: I don't see why you would want a cap, a control on an empty building or on an empty unit. That gives the landlord and the new tenant an opportunity to negotiate a rent that both parties feel is fair. If the tenant doesn't feel the rent is appropriate, the tenant looks for another location. I don't know many landlords that make a lot of return on having empty units or empty buildings.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Premier. Today a coalition of environmental groups released yet another report condemning your government's deadly environmental record. This is the report. It's called Our Future, Our Health: The Consequences of Inaction. They wrote to you and said:

"In view of this overwhelming evidence, you can no longer ignore the importance of a safe and healthy environment. Therefore, we call upon you to take concrete action to demonstrate that the protection of the province's environment and the health of its residents is a priority for your government."

This report incorporates 17 other independent reports that criticize your record on the environment. The document goes through, step by step, everything you've done to weaken environmental protection in Ontario. Premier, how many kids have to gasp for air with asthma attacks before your government takes environmental protection seriously? Can you tell us that?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Minister of the Environment can.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I'm pleased that our government has done more in the past three years than the previous two governments did in the 10 years they occupied this office.

Recently, the Minister of Energy -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. A question has been asked, please. Member for Hamilton East, you're not in your seat. Minister?

Hon Mr Sterling: We expect to get evaluated on what we in fact have done. What we have done is we revamped our air quality standards which had been left untouched for 20 years by previous governments. We have lowered the gasoline volatility regulation in order to restrict the amount of gasoline vapours that go into the air during the summer. We are implementing a vehicle emissions testing program which is the most comprehensive in all of North America. I ask the leader opposite, what did his government do when they were in power?

Mr Hampton: I would like to take the minister's response seriously, but this is what all those independent organizations are saying. They're saying your record is progressive compared to the poorest Third World nations. That's what they're saying.

You are backsliding. You have weakened regulations. You have cut the budget of the Ministry of the Environment by half; 750 scientists and technical experts are gone. You've slashed enforcement. You've done all of those things and you can't even get your so-called clean air program off the ground next year, and when you do get it off the ground it's going to take 17 years to implement.

What are you doing to help protect the environment of Ontario and the health of Ontario people other than giving your corporate friends free rein to do whatever they want?

Hon Mr Sterling: Lake Ontario is getting cleaner. Fish habitat is returning to its normal reproduction levels in Lake Ontario. The St Clair River has been cleaned up; 75% of the solids loading into that particular river have been eliminated. The town of Collingwood has been delisted as one of the hot spots on the Great Lakes. Many of the other Great Lakes RAPs have been improving in terms of their particular situation. We've done a great deal in our period of time here.

1410

The Acting Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Riverdale.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Minister, you're grasping for answers over there. You ask what our government had done when we were in government. The two measures you mentioned were measures our government took. In fact, you have now weakened the clean water regulations brought in by the NDP. You've weakened those very regulations. That river has been getting cleaner because of the regulations we brought in.

This is yet another call for action. You have to take this seriously. Enough is enough. Your environmental record stinks. Everybody knows that. That's why we initiated our Dialogue for Change process. We have detailed specific environmental measures to undo the damage that you and your corporate pals have done to the environment. We proposed measures that can be taken to create jobs while protecting our environment. Our air and our water are not a dumping ground for the province's polluters. When are you going to get that? There's no time to waste. Get on with it. You can do something about it. You were given specific recommendations today. Will you pay attention and start doing things to actually protect the environment in Ontario?

Hon Mr Sterling: You know, coming from a party that, when they were in government, weakened MISA regulations, declared refillable -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Minister take your seat.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Member for Ottawa West, I don't want to need to tell you again. A question has been asked. Please listen to the response.

Minister

Hon Mr Sterling: From a government that, in 1990 or 1991, did away with refillable glass containers in this province by declaring that companies would no longer have to live up to the regulation that was on the books; a government that considered a vehicle emissions testing program, but decided not to take that step two, three or five years ago, as indicated in the ministry - we have taken action. We are very much different from the party opposite. We are less interested in having dialogue and talking forever. We're taking action.

HOME CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): The minister is indeed taking steps to weaken environmental protection.

My next question, though, is for the Premier. Premier, you have your Minister of Health crossing the province making announcement after announcement about health care, trying to persuade people that your government actually has a health care agenda.

I was in London yesterday where people are upset about your health-care agenda, because in London we find, in every community, in every part of the city, someone has their story to tell about what's going wrong with health care. People can't get into hospitals, they can't get into surgery. They can't get home care.

Premier, you announced that you're going to put another $500 million, I believe, into home care. Can you tell me then why the home care services in London are going to face a $4-million cut, even while the demand for services is going up by over 20% this year?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm not aware of the specifics of the envelope for home care in London. I would expect that, like all across the province, it will be going up. In fact, I can stand here in this place with a great deal of certainty and say it's going up. If there is an individual specific program that maybe is being transferred to another agency or if some agencies are getting doubled and tripled and others less, I can't give you the individual specifics. In spite of the fact that the Liberals in Ottawa are slashing our health care funding, I can assure you that we are increasing health care funding, and we are increasing health care funding particularly in the area of home care.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Member for Ottawa West, this is the last time.

Supplementary?

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): It's time for a little reality check, Premier. You missed your chance to transfer it to your minister for CCACs. Last year your government cut $56 million from London's hospitals and London's hospitals and the people of London objected. You had to give a little bit back - not all of it, but some of it. On top of that, there has been a 20% increase in home care needs last year and another 18% to 20% this year.

Mr Jackson rode into town and gave a little extra cash - not on the base - to tide them over, which brought their budget to $38 million last year. They estimate that they need $41 million to meet the need next year, and they've just had word that they're going to get the same budget they had before that cash infusion last year, $34 million. They can't provide the services. People are being released from hospital because of your hospital cuts, and now you're not giving extra money; in fact, they're getting cut back from what they had last year.

Premier, what are you going to do about this? When are you going to stop this false announcement of funds that aren't real, that aren't flowed, like the $360 million that was announced last year, not one cent of which has been paid out?

Hon Mr Harris: I'm going to refer the question to the first minister for seniors this province has ever had.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): First of all I want to respond to the member opposite. She should be more aware of the actual circumstances in her own community. Her own CCAC has received increased funding, and you were invited to the event when we announced the additional money. There was a deficit in that board. We paid for that deficit and we are flowing cash at the higher level. Any suggestion that the London CCAC is receiving less money is actually false. The truth is that in the London area restructuring dollars of over $133 million have gone in; the CCAC has received a 27% increase. New facility beds have been released in your community to relieve pressures. My colleague the Minister of Health has announced the expansion of community-based supports and reclassification of hospitals.

The Acting Speaker: Supplementary?

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): The minister should know that both of my colleagues met with the chair of the London CCAC yesterday and her version of the story is quite different from yours.

Let me give you a second example, this time in Sudbury. You cut, under your government, $8.6 million to the local hospitals, so people are being discharged earlier than ever before. Last year the increased needs in nursing visits was up by 25%. There has been a 67% increase in complex care nursing and a 14% increase in homemaking services.

Your Minister of Health, on CBC on June 10, said that the northern CCACs, as elsewhere, would be receiving additional money to the base. But the chair of the CCAC and the executive director have been told three times now by the local long-term-care office that they will not be receiving additional funds - not this year, not next year, not until the year 2000. So who are we supposed to believe: your Minister of Health, or her staff, who have told the local CCACs three times, "No additional funding to meet the long-term-care needs"?

Hon Mr Jackson: I want to assure the member opposite that I have been in discussions with the Sudbury CCAC. In fact, I had a meeting Monday morning this week with the executive director of the CCAC, Mr Knight. At no point did he stylize any of the things you're suggesting about a funding cut. I can assure the member opposite, as I have assured her in the past, that northern citizens in this province are receiving higher levels of care and support financially from the province of Ontario - the first point.

The second point is, this government has expanded the community care access funding envelope in this province despite the fact that we do not get one red penny from the federal government, because home care is not included in the -

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

1420

MEMBER'S CONDUCT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier and it has to do with the actions by a member of your government, the member for Scarborough East, Mr Steve Gilchrist, and about what you plan to do as a result of that.

On June 3 a secondary school principal in the Scarborough area sent a communication to his school community outlining the changes that will take place in his school in the fall. Mr Gilchrist responded in an unacceptable, threatening and intimidating public letter. In my view, the letter is frightening and it essentially -

Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): Frightening? Oh, what are you smoking?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Member for York Mills, order, please.

Mr Phillips: It is a frightening and threatening letter designed to silence an individual who has dared to express an opinion that Mr Gilchrist may not agree with. My question is this: Have you now reviewed that correspondence and is it your intention to ask Mr Gilchrist to apologize?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I have not seen the correspondence. Perhaps you have. I have been made generally aware that the correspondence had absolutely nothing to do with any government money or government policy or government scholarship but a personal family matter. I'd be happy to review the correspondence and see if there is any indication of anything to do with government programs or government money. To the best of my knowledge, there is not.

Mr Phillips: I appreciate your being prepared to review the correspondence and I will right now ask if the page will send this over to the Premier. My hope would be that you can review it very quickly and that we would have an opportunity for you to make a judgement on whether you find this type of communication acceptable as a standard for a member of your government.

I just want to quote a few things that Mr Gilchrist said to this principal: "This cannot be allowed to go on." You are frightening "students and parents with lies." I would say, Premier, that when you review it, I don't think there are any lies in the correspondence. He went on to say, "I cannot sit idly by while you go out of your way to undermine all of the improvements to the education system." He also says, "If I do carry this out - and much will depend on your actions between now and commencement later this year...." In other words, he threatened him, he said it is his plan to carry this out, but he may not if the principal agrees to toe the line.

I say it is frightening because it essentially is bully tactics of the worst order, attempting to silence an individual who is attempting to spell out to his community the impact on his school this fall.

I say to you again, Premier, will you this afternoon undertake to review this correspondence and apply your judgement on whether you are going to ask for an apology from Mr Gilchrist?

Hon Mr Harris: Yes, of course. I'd be glad to. I'm sorry, I just went to the end where it said, "I am prepared to work with you, the staff, the students, the parent council, and the West Hill Collegiate Institute community, to ensure that everyone benefits from the education and funding reforms." That part certainly doesn't sound threatening, but I'd be glad to take a look at the letter and respond to him.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Premier. Over three weeks have passed since we began raising questions about your government's casino coverup, and for three weeks you weren't in this Legislature. You tried to pass it off to your minister for Management Board and he tried to pass it off to the legal counsel for the casino corporation. He tried to give the impression that he was doing something about the mess, but in fact that all fell apart last week, so the stench keeps getting worse.

You have to take some action here. You have some responsibility on behalf of the people of Ontario. You need to open up this whole casino affair. You need to give the public a chance to see what is in fact happening, why friends of the Conservative Party seem to be getting all of the opportunities for lucrative casinos in Ontario.

Premier, will you do the right thing? Will you direct your minister to scrap the whole tainted casino affair and start again with a process that is open to the public -

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The question has been asked.

Mr Hampton: - so that everyone can see what is happening?

The Acting Speaker: The question has been asked. Premier.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the minister can respond if there's anything new or specific, but since it's the same old mud that you sling with not a shred of evidence to back it up, there's really nothing new I could say.

Mr Hampton: Premier, the reality is, a lot has been happening. Your minister tried over a week ago to sanitize this by getting the law firm that acts for the Ontario Casino Corp to investigate and report on the casino corporation. Anyone can see through that. If you write to Al Capone's lawyer and ask him to give you a report on Al Capone, of course it's going to be a good report. The report wasn't worth what it was printed on.

The Acting Speaker: Question.

Mr Hampton: The new president of the casino corporation recognizes that. He knows that someone neutral has to be brought in to look at it. He's bringing in Stanley Beck.

I am saying to you, Premier, instead of trying to sanitize it once, twice, three times, why don't you open the process up to the public so people can really see what is happening in your casino scheme?

Hon Mr Harris: Since it's virtually the same process your government had in place, since the allegations that you've made in here are not allegations you're prepared to make outside and, concerning the issue of any potential conflict, that had nothing to do with our government or with any friends of our government - it had to do with a Michael French, who is an American consultant I think first brought in when you were there - and since there has not been one word printed or brought forward or any allegation inside or out that anything was done other than totally aboveboard, totally proper, totally the way you had done it, the same way, I think the evidence rather speaks for itself.

MINE RESCUE COMPETITION

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Recently, on June 6, I understand that you were in our great part of the province, northern Ontario, Timmins, and you attended the provincial mine rescue competition and also the awards.

Minister, can you tell us a little bit about that event? I think it's something that everybody in this province would like to hear about.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I thank the honourable member for Brampton North for the question.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): He doesn't know gold from gravel.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Member from Nipigon. Minister.

Hon Mr Flaherty: The event, which is an important event in northern Ontario and in our mining industry in Ontario, was the 48th annual provincial mine rescue competition. These brave miners volunteer their time and effort to mine rescue training because they know that their work saves lives.

For example, last year, a fire reported to the Ministry of Labour lasted three full days. Full emergency response to that fire involved six teams rotating 24 hours a day. They isolated the fire, allowing normal mining operations to continue, and there wasn't one lost-time injury as a result of that fire. That's what these brave draegermen do. They're not only the best in Canada; they're the best in the world at mine rescue.

1430

Mr Spina: Minister, I'm happy that it was a successful event. Having been to the 500-metre level of the Holloway Mine near Matheson, I feel a whole lot reassured when I see the safety teams that were working around with us.

Minister, this is really a keen competition. Who won?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I will be pleased to answer the honourable member's question. The competition was incredibly close this year. Less than 50 points separated the first and final teams.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. A question has been asked. You have to listen to the response. That's his right.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Shut him up. This is crap. People are talking about Bill 31, not this crap.

The Acting Speaker: Order, the member for Welland-Thorold.

Hon Mr Flaherty: I must say I'm surprised that the member for Welland-Thorold and other members don't show respect for these hardworking, brave mine rescue teams in the north.

There were competitors from seven districts, each of which had won their own district championship: from the southern Ontario district, the Canadian Salt Co Ltd, Ojibway Mine in Windsor; from the Onaping district, Falconbridge Ltd, Onaping/Craig Mine; from Thunder Bay-Algoma district, Battle Mountain Gold, Golden Giant Mine; from the Timmins district, the Kinross Gold Corp, Timmins operations; from the Red Lake district, Placer Dome, the Campbell Mine; from the Kirkland Lake district, Barrick Gold, the Holt-McDermott Mine; and from the Sudbury district, Inco, Creighton Mine.

There were two winners. There was a tie. The winners were Falconbridge, Onaping/Craig Mine, and the Barrick Gold Corp, Holt-McDermott Mine. These men and all their competitors deserve our respect. They are heroes in mining in Ontario.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): My question is to the Premier. There was a news conference today held in the Legislature. Pat Dillon, the business manager of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, called Bill 31, the labour bill, "legislation by ambush." He went on to say that as a result of the lack of consultation with the industry, Bill 31 is an ill-conceived piece of legislation that will have far-reaching negative impacts on the whole industry.

John Cartwright, who is the business manager of the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council, at the same news conference stated that a member of your staff, but formerly in his previous incarnation Guy Giorno, when representing the TD Bank, offered $900,000 to the Carpenters union at the TD Bank to back off. The union refused, and of course TD Bank had to honour their particular agreement. I'd like to know, Premier, what has been the role of Guy Giorno in the drafting of Bill 31?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I never heard of a Guy Giorno; I do know a name pronounced Guy Giorno, though. I think the Minister of Labour can answer.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Bill 31 has been the product of extensive consultation, including consultations with the building trades council. Those consultations have gone on for over a year with respect to several important issues, in particular the issue of project agreements.

After the bill was introduced in this House on June 4, 1998, the following day the director of government relations for the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario said that the trade unions had had talks with the government about the project agreements. Indeed, that is absolutely so. He said, "In principle, we've agreed with helping to attract investment to Ontario through project agreements."

Those project agreements are incredibly important, as I'm sure members of the opposition understand, particularly in the petrochemical sector in Sarnia and Lambton. Some unions want to send jobs south; we want to keep these good jobs, these good union jobs, in Ontario.

Mr Patten: I want to recognize many members from the Carpenters union, Local 27 who are here today and other representatives of the trade unions. Thanks for coming.

Minister, you didn't answer the question. I asked you what role this man played. You obviously don't want to answer that question. The other thing is that in the consultations you had, you did not once introduce some of the factors you've put in this legislation. Now you don't want to have hearings. Why is that? If this is such a great bill and you're proud of it and you think it's the greatest, then why don't you put it out to public hearings and give them an opportunity to respond? It's not just the trade unions, it's the contractors as well who have some concerns about this, because they know the fragility of the construction industry.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The question has been asked.

Mr Patten: You have to be very sensitive. You're just trying to ram this through. Will you have public hearings?

Hon Mr Flaherty: The honourable member is correct that contractors do have genuine concerns, both contractors who employ union personnel and contractors who employ non-union people.

In fact, the Ontario General Contractors Association wrote to say: "This association represents both unionized and open-shop companies in approximately a 50-50 ratio. Our board of directors voted 100% that we should take action on this issue. We urge you to voice your opinion in caucus that the province act to ensure that publicly funded construction projects are open to all taxpayers, not just those with union agreements."

This is an effort to restore balance.

The Acting Speaker: New question; the member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is also to the Premier. It's not a question that you can easily slough off to your minister. This is your top policy adviser; this is an individual, Mr Giorno, who works out of your office. He's answerable to you. The fact is that he indeed was the lawyer for the TD Bank when, through all those recent years, they have tried to weasel out of their responsibilities to a legal collective agreement in front of the labour board and in front of the courts. Now, Premier, you expect us to believe that it's just a coincidence that under your Bill 31 the TD Bank can now just rip up those collective agreements and not have to worry about anything because you've protected them under Bill 31.

Why won't you accept that this is not allowable, not acceptable practice in terms of people in your office achieving their clients' and friends' goals through the legislative process just because they can't win it in the courts?

Interruption.

The Acting Speaker: I want to advise the people in the gallery that you're prevented from any demonstration. If you don't want to abide by these rules, I'll have to ask you to leave. I know you will respect the orders of the House.

Hon Mr Harris: I too welcome the members of the Carpenters union, who have many more jobs today than they did for the last 10 years as the result of this government's policies.

I might also point out to the Legislature that the law firm you're referring to, while Mr Giorno was there - during the NDP's term of office they used that law firm an average of 230,000 per year. Perhaps it was because Mr Giorno's expertise was there; I am not sure.

But let me assure you and the Carpenters union and the members who are here and all Ontarians that our goal with this legislation is to not stop the massive job creation and rebuilding of Toronto that's taking place under our government, because as long as there is one worker, union or otherwise, who wants to work and is unemployed in this province, we're going to do everything we can to have more jobs and more work and more money for those members who are the heart and soul of the construction industry here in Toronto and all across this province. Every piece of legislation, including Bill 31 -

The Acting Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

1440

Mr Christopherson: Premier, what a load of garbage. The fact of the matter is that Bill 31 is an anti-union bill that's meant to go after workers and go after their unions. It doesn't matter what part of this we look at, whether it's what's called the Wal-Mart provision where you're not allowing automatic certification, whether it's project agreements or whether it comes after non-construction employers, as in the case I just raised.

The Acting Speaker: Question.

Mr Christopherson: These people aren't here today -

The Acting Speaker: Order. A question period is not for making a speech. It's for asking a question. Please ask your question, otherwise I won't recognize you.

Mr Christopherson: Premier, as I was saying, these people are not here to thank you for anything. They're here in protest over the fact that you're intending to ram this anti-union bill through this Legislature without any hearings.

Premier, are you either going to accept the responsibility for the chaos that's going to happen in the construction industry or are you going to hold public hearings, one or the other?

Hon Mr Harris: There is a process for accountability that will come about next year or the year after and I want to assure you that I am prepared to accept full responsibility for the record of this government, for the massive increase in job creation of this government, for the massive increase in investment, for the increased numbers of the Carpenters union who are working in Toronto and working across this province today, for the increased number of union members, particularly in the construction industry, who are working. I am proud and happy to stack our five-year record against your five-year record of jobs and growth and investment any day, any time.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr William Saunderson (Eglinton): My question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for privatization, who is also the government lead on auto insurance.

In the past, I have been contacted by some of my Eglinton constituents who have been denied auto insurance coverage by their insurance companies and have been assigned to the high-risk auto insurance market, which is also known as the Facility Association, or FA. They complained that they weren't given any warning of the fact that they were at risk of dramatic increases in their premiums because of their driving history.

I seem to recall hearing recently that this aspect of the auto insurance system was going to be changed or has changed. Minister, can you tell me whether changes have indeed been made to the high-risk auto insurance market so that I may report back to my constituents?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): We certainly promised that we would reform the Facility Association and we have kept that promise. The previous four-point system that operated under Facility Association didn't reflect the public's expectation that it would be the bad drivers who would be paying the higher premiums. In fact, many people who were not classified as bad drivers were forced into that system because of its ill-conceived design under the previous administration.

The current system was of course designed under our instruction, in cooperation with not only industry players but consumer association representatives, brokers, people who actually have to pay and market this program through Ontario.

Mr Saunderson: I am pleased to hear the changes to the high-risk auto insurance marketplace have been made and that a new system is being put in place. I wonder if the minister would outline in greater detail the features of the new system, and could he also explain whether anything has been done to improve communication between insurance companies and drivers at risk of being placed in the high-risk market.

Hon Mr Sampson: The fundamental design of the current system, the new system, is that it has three different tiers. One tier would deal with, for instance, drivers who had an impaired driving conviction who, one would expect, would pay more than somebody who had some minor traffic conviction. That's part of the design of the new system.

Premiums, of course, will now properly reflect the various risk categories we see in auto insurance so that some drivers will pay more and some drivers will clearly pay less. But the good news is that we have set in place a communication system where companies will have to advise consumers, auto insurance premium buyers, of these various classifications and how they can get into that system and how they can get out.

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Premier. Recently, a company called United Aggregates Ltd had broken the law and was found by a justice of the peace to have broken the law in regard to quarrying along the Niagara Escarpment. Justice of the Peace Wendy Casey ruled that the charges against the company would be dropped because your former Minister of Environment and Energy, Brenda Elliott, in her capacity as minister advised the company to break the law and continue operating on the Niagara Escarpment without a permit. The judgement said that the minister advised the company to continue mining, and they continued.

Does this type of case not hit at the heart of the integrity of your government? Does it not speak of acceptable conduct for ministers in their capacity to advise companies that they should break the law?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Thank you. The question has been asked.

Mr Agostino: Do you find that acceptable, and what action would you take on it?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Here's the note from Guy Giorno. Guy Giorno says -

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The note says that the Minister of Natural Resources knows more about this than I do, so I'll refer it to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member opposite for the question. I know that this matter -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Go ahead.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know this matter has been put forward to the authorities in question. I understand that the aggregate company now is in compliance with the law and will continue to be in compliance with the law, and that has been filed with our ministry, and is in compliance with the Niagara Escarpment Commission. That's my understanding of the facts of the matter to date.

Mr Agostino: Members of the commission and former members have expressed horror at the ruling. Clearly the decision here said that this company could get away with breaking the law because they were advised by the minister that they can go ahead and ignore the law of the province because she was the minister of the day and she was responsible for this.

It's not a question of whether they are following the law today. It's a question that at the time they were charged, the Minister of Environment said to the company, "Break the law; it's okay." That is not acceptable behaviour of a cabinet minister. That abandons commitment to the Niagara Escarpment; that abandons any sense of the law being followed in this province.

Do you believe it was appropriate for that minister to give that judgement and that decision to the company? If not, will you today recommend an appeal in this case?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I want to assure the member opposite that United Aggregates has all the appropriate permits that are necessary under the Aggregate Resources Act for its quarry activities on the Niagara Escarpment. In fact, it's in compliance and has satisfied all the requirements of the Niagara Escarpment Commission for those quarrying operations. Those are the facts. That's the condition as it exists today.

MEMBER'S CONDUCT

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Premier. I would like to follow up on the issue of Mr Gilchrist and his brutish, bullying and threatening letter to Principal Tarver at West Hill Collegiate. I recognize that you've received a copy of his letter and you're going to review it to determine whether you think that behaviour meets appropriate standards for a parliamentary assistant of your government.

I would like you at the same time to review the transcript of the CBC Evening News at 6 o'clock last night and the political panel, during which Mr Gilchrist attacked -

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Isn't it a custom to refer to the member by his riding? I would appreciate that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Please refer to his riding.

Ms Lankin: The member for Scarborough East last night during the show attacked the character and the credibility of the principal of this school, and he was not there to be able to defend himself. In fact, he went so far as to call this gentleman a liar, on television that goes right across southwestern Ontario, when the individual wasn't there.

I think that is unacceptable behaviour on the part of a parliamentary assistant of the government of Ontario. Will you review those transcripts and determine whether that meets your standards or not, Premier?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I take requests from members seriously at all times, and I would be happy to do that. I would remind the member that now she is admonishing a member for saying something out in public, where it is challengeable in court, as opposed to the usual practice of her members, which is to say it here under parliamentary privilege when they're afraid to go outside and say it in public, when it is challengeable, when there are remedies, when they can be sued.

1450

Ms Lankin: I'll ignore the macho bravado of the Premier in his response and suggest to him that there's a very serious -

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Beaches-Woodbine has the floor. Order, the member for Kingston and The Islands.

Ms Lankin: Premier, the member for Scarborough East has threatened that school with the withdrawal of the Gilchrist sponsorship, which he claims to be a $200 sponsorship per year that is given. I have to tell you that the school has checked the records and in fact the last time that Canadian Tire, not the Gilchrists, donated any money was 1994, before the member was even elected. So perhaps you'll find his conduct wasn't threatening simply because it was an empty threat.

I've got to tell you I've just finished speaking to one of the secretaries in the administrative office of the school. They have been flooded with phone calls from the community in support of the principal, in support of the staff there, and appalled at the actions of the member for Scarborough East.

The member for Scarborough East also alleges the support of the parents council. I can tell you they met last night informally and they are supportive of their principal.

You must look into this and appropriate steps must be taken. We need to know if you accept that as a standard of behaviour for a parliamentary assistant of your government.

The Acting Speaker: Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you, and through you, Mr Speaker, I thank the honourable member too.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. In the first week of June the citizens of the city of Woodstock participated in the 1998 Road Safety Challenge for the first time. I personally had the opportunity to have my driving skills retested and I want to tell you that I did find that over the years I had acquired some bad habits in my driving practices. I want to ask the minister if he would tell the House some of the important factors of this important safety measure he's undertaking.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): Obviously, I want to thank the honourable member for Oxford for being so up front. I think in our quieter moments we all realize that all of us would do well to retest our skills.

I would like to inform the House that the Road Safety Challenge took place between May 31 and June 7. It was a week-long educational campaign focused on reducing collisions and heightening awareness in our local communities.

I can tell you that this government takes road safety very seriously. In fact, we have passed three road safety bills over the last three years. In spite of that, 600 reportable motor vehicle collisions occur every single day in Ontario. Obviously more has to be done.

I'd like to share with this House the results of the 1998 Road Safety Challenge. In first place, with zero collisions, is Petawawa; in second place, with 0.922 collisions per 10,000 residents, is Kanata; and in third place, with 1.805 collisions per 10,000 residents, is Halton Hills. My congratulations to them all.

PETITIONS

ABORTION

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

This has been signed by 526 residents of eastern Ontario.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Further petitions regarding workplace health and safety continue to pour in.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas approximately 300 workers are killed on the job each year and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario continues to allow a massive erosion of WCB prevention funding; and

"Whereas Ontario workers are fearful that the government of Ontario, through its recent initiatives, is threatening to dismantle workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have consistently provided a meaningful role for labour within the health and safety prevention system; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have proven to be the most cost-effective prevention organizations funded by the WCB;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately cease the assault on the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Further, we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre remain labour-driven organizations with full and equitable WCB funding and that the WCB provide adequate prevention funding to eliminate workplace illness, injury and death."

I continue to support these petitioners by adding my name.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 15 people which I present on behalf of the member for London North.

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards; and

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs; and

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences; and

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral; and

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment and advancement in their intended fields and suffered other forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences; and

"Whereas the health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): You might have noticed again that petitions are far too long. Many members are waiting to read their petitions, so when they last too long, not everyone has a chance to say them. Try to make them brief.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): My petition is short.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Holy Trinity Catholic high school in Kanata has 30 portables on site and no room for any more; and

"Whereas students' education and their health and safety are compromised by continued and excessive overcrowding; and

"Whereas the reduction of class size as mandated by the government will cause further stress of the school's facilities;

"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government provide immediate funding for a new Catholic high school in Stittsville to open in September 1999 to alleviate this crisis in accommodation at the Holy Trinity Catholic high school in Kanata."

I affix my signature to it.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr William Saunderson (Eglinton): Mr Speaker, this is in the new format. I rise today to present a petition signed by some of the constituents of my riding of Eglinton. They're petitioning the government of Ontario to enact legislation to protect health care workers against discrimination because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Thank you very much. That is the way it should be.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we are concerned about the quality of health care in Ontario;

"Whereas we do not believe health care should be for sale;

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is taking steps to allow profit-driven companies to provide health care services in Ontario;

"Whereas we won't stand for profits over people;

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

"Do not privatize our health care services."

I join the citizens of 2455 Rivard in signing this petition.

1500

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition with 431 signatures from my riding. It's addressed to the Ontario Legislature, Premier Mike Harris, Health Minister Elizabeth Witmer and members of the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has recently strengthened its reputation as the Ministry of Medicine through its $1.7-billion three-year agreement with the Ontario Medical Association; and

"Whereas Mike Harris's government is restricting access to alternative cost-saving treatments for patients of the province; and

"Whereas two recent reports commissioned by the Ministry of Health called for increased OHIP funding to improve patient access to chiropractic services on the grounds of safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; and

"Whereas over one million Ontario adults now use chiropractic services annually, increasingly those with higher incomes, because of the cost barrier caused by government underfunding; and

"Whereas Mike Harris's government has shown blatant disregard for the needs of the citizens of Ontario in restricting funding for chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to recognize the contribution made by chiropractors to the good health of the people of Ontario, to recognize the taxpayer dollars saved by the use of low-cost preventive care such as that provided by chiropractors and to recognize that to restrict funding for chiropractic health care only serves to limit access to a needed health care service."

I have signed that petition.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Some are too long.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition from some very concerned citizens in my constituency, and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas education is our future; and

"Whereas students and teachers will not allow their futures to be sacrificed for tax cuts; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers will not allow the government to bankrupt Ontario's education system; and

"Whereas you cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and

"Whereas students, parents, teachers want reinvestment in education rather than a reduction in funding; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers won't back down; and

"Whereas Ontario Liberal leader, Dalton McGuinty, has pledged to repeal Bill 160;

"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to withdraw Bill 160 immediately; and

"Further, be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to do his homework and be a cooperative learner rather than imposing his solution which won't work for the students, parents and teachers of Ontario."

I am in full agreement with this petition.

ABORTION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which asks that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions. It is signed by a significant number of my constituents.

RENT REGULATION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): "Whereas the Mike Harris government has brought forth Bill 96, legislation which will effectively kill rent control in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris campaign literature during the York South by-election stated that rent control will continue; and

"Whereas tenant groups, students and seniors have pointed out that this legislation will hurt those who can least afford it, as it will cause higher rents across most markets in Ontario; and

"Whereas this Mike Harris proposal will make it easier for residents to be evicted from retirement care homes; and

"Whereas the Liberal caucus continues to believe that all tenants, and particularly the vulnerable in our society who live on fixed incomes, deserve the assurance of a maximum rent cap;

"We, the undersigned, demand that the Mike Harris government scrap its proposal to abandon and eliminate rent control and introduce legislation which will protect tenants in the province of Ontario."

I affix my signature; I'm in full agreement.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and I realize it's a little long, but it has been signed by 150 residents from my riding, and they believe in this very strongly. It's a matter of principle to them.

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards;

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs;

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences;

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral;

"Whereas the health care workers experiencing such unjust discrimination have at present no practical and accessible legal means to protect themselves;

I am pleased to sign my name.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My petition is identical to the one of the member for Kitchener, so I will only read the "whereas" clause. It's signed by eight residents in my riding. It says:

I hereby file this petition.

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents. There are a number of people. It's to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Health and the members of the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has recently strengthened its reputation as the Ministry of Medicine through its $1.2-billion three-year agreement with the Ontario Medical Association" -

This petition goes on generally in support of the government's actions in health care. I'm very pleased to sign my name to it.

HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition here from residents of Rossport concerned about capital road improvements.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the residents of Rossport contribute to the tax base of the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation has not included highway repairs for the Rossport loop, which carries visitors and residents into and out of Rossport, in their highway maintenance plan; and

"Whereas this road is in need of immediate repairs to ensure the safe passage of drivers;

"Therefore we, the following undersigned citizens of Ontario, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to immediately bring capital improvements to the Rossport loop."

It's signed by hundreds of residents of Rossport, Terrace Bay, Schreiber and Marathon, and I'm pleased to add my name to this petition.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition with 21 signatures from the Hockley Valley Bible Chapel.

"We, the undersigned, oppose the establishment of casinos and video lottery terminals in the town of Orangeville and in the county of Dufferin. We also oppose all government attempts to increase revenue through the means of gambling."

I have signed this petition.

ADOPTION

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have a long petition. I will simply summarize the "therefore" clause.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact revision of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts to permit unrestricted access to full identifying birth information to adopted persons and adult children of adopted persons and unrestricted access to adopted persons' amended birth certificate to birth parents, birth grandparents, siblings and other birth relatives when the adopted persons reach 18."

In light of the times, it's simply to support reform to adoption information access.

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): On behalf of my constituents of Durham East, I'm very pleased to read into the record documents in support of the government's actions with respect to health care. It's to Premier Harris, to Elizabeth Witmer, Minister of Health, and to the members of the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has recently strengthened its reputation as the Ministry of Medicine through its $1.7-billion three-year agreement with the Ontario Medical Association" and further commitments to health care in Ontario, it's very clear that this province is on the right track.

I'm very pleased to sign my name to this petition.

1510

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENERGY COMPETITION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA CONCURRENCE DANS LE SECTEUR DE L'ÉNERGIE

Mr Wilson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 35, An Act to create jobs and protect consumers by promoting low-cost energy through competition, to protect the environment, to provide for pensions and to make related amendments to certain Acts / Projet de loi 35, Loi visant à créer des emplois et à protéger les consommateurs en favorisant le bas prix de l'énergie au moyen de la concurrence, protégeant l'environnement, traitant de pensions et apportant des modifications connexes à certaines lois.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I'd like to say in the beginning, Mr Speaker, that I'll be sharing my time with the member for Huron and the member for Northumberland this afternoon.

It's an historic time in the province of Ontario as this government moves to open up our electricity industry to competition. We are in many ways leading North America and the world with the Energy Competition Act, the bill that's the subject of our discussion here today for second reading. But we're also following many other jurisdictions in the world - Australia, New Zealand, Britain, California, with President Clinton's pronouncement just over two months ago that all of the United States will be embracing competition in their electricity sector. This has come about because of Sir Adam Beck's and the former Conservative Premier James Whitney's vision for Ontario Hydro. This vision has essentially been completed and it's time to open a new chapter in the history of our electricity industry, and indeed of our industrial policy, in Ontario because so much of what we do, obviously, in terms of attracting jobs depends on our competitiveness, and subsequently the backbone of competitiveness is affordable and fair energy prices for our businesses and residential consumers.

We should remember that at the turn of the century electricity was still one of the modern miracles of science. I just want to paraphrase for a few minutes from Mr Ron Daniels, the dean of medicine and chair of our Market Design Committee, who spoke to the Toronto board of trade just this morning. He reminded us that at a time when most people obtained their heat by burning wood and their light by burning candles, electricity was a novel technology, a miracle fuel that you could not see, hear, touch or smell. Yet at the flick of a switch it was suddenly there ready to turn motors, light streets, power railcars and do a thousand other useful jobs.

Today, after nearly a century, we all take electricity pretty much for granted and we've come to depend on it a lot more than we realize, at least until a major ice storm - as we saw, Mr Speaker, in your part of the province earlier this year - or a fallen tree knocks out the system for a few hours and reminds us just how vulnerable we are when the lights go off.

In 1906, public power won the day when the Conservatives under James Whitney created the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario and named Adam Beck as its first chairman. In the beginning, the corporation bought electricity from the private sector and transmitted it to communities throughout southern Ontario. It wasn't long before demand was such that the utility began building and operating its own generating facilities.

Over the past 92 years Ontario Hydro became one of the world's largest electricity monopolies; indeed one of the largest electricity generators in all of North America and the world. It was designed to provide power in the most cost-effective way possible and to accomplish public policy objectives such as industrial development and rural electrification. I think all members would agree that for most of that 92 years, Ontario Hydro served the people of Ontario very well. During much of that time, if we had simply left it up to market forces, perhaps rural Ontario would not have been electrified as quickly as it was. In the western industrialized world many parts of Ontario were the first to receive electricity in their rural areas, well ahead of other jurisdictions. For that we are grateful to Ontario Hydro and we're grateful to the vision of our forefathers, who set out a very good plan. There aren't too many plans that last about a century, and clearly the original plan for Ontario Hydro lasted almost that long.

As Ron Daniels reminded the board of trade this morning, that vision has been realized, and in the last 10 years the performance at Ontario Hydro has not been what a prudent shareholder would expect. The shareholder is the people of Ontario, as represented by the minister, and people are demanding greater choice and greater accountability. By Hydro's own admission, we've seen that mistakes have been made. We've seen a large debt piled up.

But I remind people that the people who were there during the dark days of Ontario Hydro decision-making are not the same people who are there today. This government has put in place a new senior management, a new board in particular which has put in place a senior management team. That board is quite ably chaired by Mr Bill Farlinger who, yes, is a friend of the government, but he is also very much a friend of the people of Ontario in that he brings to the job a lifetime of corporate advice, corporate experience, to ensure that the proper decisions are taken in these very difficult times for Ontario Hydro and that the company is brought through with a clear vision of what its future is. I want to talk at the end about what that vision is, because it's a very exciting vision, for not only the shareholders but of course the employees and management at Ontario Hydro.

Also, Mr Ron Osborne, who joined Ontario Hydro just a few months ago, coming from Bell Canada and Maclean Hunter before that, brings a lifetime of tremendous experience too. New board members whom we've put in place I think in the last couple of years have admitted the mistakes of the corporation and have been setting out various plans, like the nuclear asset optimization plan, to ensure that we move forward to bring our nuclear assets back up to world excellence and put behind us the days of minimally acceptable performance by parts of that corporation. Those days are behind us.

Hydro is extremely important; there's no doubt of that. Our hydro rates have gone up since 1986 about 52% to 56%, on average about 54%. In the last five years alone hydro rates have gone up 30%. When we attracted the industrial jobs in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s in this province, Ontario had the lowest electricity rates in Canada. We now have the third-highest, just behind Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. That is a shame.

The bill before us today, the Energy Competition Act, sets out a framework for us to introduce competition and to give the best guarantee we can to the ratepayers of the lowest possible prices.

We've seen in the jurisdictions I mentioned earlier - Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, California, other states, and Britain - that prices have gone down with the introduction of competition anywhere between 8% and 40%.

We've seen over the last decade, with the introduction of competition in the natural gas sector in Ontario, that not only did it bring greater consumer choice but prices have gone down at least 30% and for some large customers 40%, and that's net of inflation. We should have seen prices go up a bit each year, even though inflation's been fairly low, but indeed we've seen prices go the other way.

The benefits, as Mr Daniels points out in his remarks - I'll just say that I think he's done a good job of putting together the following statement: "The day of the monopoly is over, for the evidence is that electricity restructuring offers several specific gains, including fairer prices that are determined on a competitive basis in a market that's open to many different buyers and sellers."

It's a dramatic change for the province, because we're moving from providing electricity at cost, where the cost determines prices - and that means Hydro could make whatever decisions it wanted and had a free-for-all, nothing binding on it in terms of prices. It could have a review of its rates before the Ontario Energy Board, but in recent years more often than not Hydro ignored the outcome of those hearings and went ahead and set its own rates anyway, unlike gas, where the energy board does set the rates consumers pay.

We saw that costs were determined and rates went up according to the costs. We now move to a system where price will determine cost, which we know is how all our other commodities are bought and sold in this province. People are probably very unfamiliar with cost determining price, because in our daily lives when we go to the store or otherwise, most of the products we buy or services we purchase have as their fundamental formula that costs will be determined by the price the market will bear.

That will be a big plus as we remove the government's debt guarantee and Hydro has to act on a more businesslike basis and be more prudent in its judgements. It's already doing that under the new leadership of the last couple of years, under Mr Farlinger's leadership.

Mr Daniels also points out that there will be greater choice and greater clout for electricity consumers and the potential for system-wide improvements in safety, reliability and environmental protection.

Think of this dramatic change for the province too: We're going from a system where the company chose its customers to a system where customers choose their electrical supply company, something we take for granted in other goods and services. We choose the products, we choose what companies we want to have provide services to us, but for 92 years the people of Ontario have never had that choice. Even though the private sector and environmental groups and indeed the unions have been asking for a breakup of this monopoly for many years, no other government had the gumption to do it.

1520

As Ron Daniels reminded the board of trade, there have been 16 reports, royal commissions, select committees and legislative hearings that have all focused over the last three decades on Ontario Hydro; no fewer than 16 of these. The last one, upon whose advice we acted, was chaired by the Honourable Donald Macdonald in 1996 and it was the Advisory Committee on Competition in Ontario's Electricity System. It formed the basis of the government's white paper that I introduced on November 6 last year, and it forms the basis of the new competitive model that we have before the House today.

We will also see with the introduction of competition a more efficient distribution of electricity, a more businesslike approach to system planning and investment, a better overall balance between supply and demand and, finally, as Dean Daniels points out, improvements to the overall financial health of the system, since the risks and costs of the system will be spread out among new players, including private companies and their shareholders, rather than just ratepayers and taxpayers.

One of the reasons we know we'll have lower costs, particularly in Toronto, is that there are tremendous savings to be made immediately on the distribution side. I'm going to outline just briefly in the time I have where the savings could come from with the introduction of competition.

In the generation sector, and about 70% of the wholesale price of electricity today is the generation side, we know from the unions themselves and the new management at Hydro that there are tremendous efficiencies to be found there, but those efficiencies will only come if Hydro is forced to sharpen its pencil by having to compete with others for generation.

We know on the distribution side, which is the local wires, that there are tremendous savings to be had there. In Toronto, the new Toronto Hydro Commission is admitting that they may be able to pass off savings in the near future in the 20% range on the distribution portion of the bill. If you look at our distribution sectors, which are themselves local monopolies run by our municipal electrical utilities - we give credit to Hazel McCallion in Mississauga again. You have distribution costs there of 8%. In Toronto, in the old Toronto Hydro and now the amalgamated six MEUs that have come together to create the new Toronto Hydro, distribution costs are in the 25% range - totally unacceptable. Some of that is not management's fault, some of that is congestion problems in the city, but by their own admission last week, we should see rates fall in Toronto to at least come in line with those rates enjoyed by areas in the GTA. So there are savings there. If this bill hadn't been introduced, I don't think we would have seen the impetus for those companies. Those monopolies now will all be commercialized just like Ontario Hydro, and they'll have to act like businesses and pass those savings on to their customers.

Finally, in the area of stranded debt, as members know, the Ministry of Finance, following on the work by Dr Bryne Purchase, the former chief economist of the province, will be issuing an options paper at the end of this month or the first part of July further enlightening all of us on how we're going to deal with the issue of stranded debt. We're receiving lots of advice out there.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): How large is the stranded debt?

Hon Mr Wilson: "How large is the stranded debt?" is a very good question. There are three different expert accounting teams that are in Ontario Hydro now, along with the Ministry of Finance, all trying to figure out where those cobwebs are and all trying to find every penny of debt. It's an examination of conscience for some, I would say, and it's an examination of the books for others, as they go through Ontario Hydro, line by line, department by department. We will have a full airing, as we have had. I think one of the reasons we have had all-party consensus on the approach to this legislation is that I and my colleagues have all been very open and honest about this entire process, and we certainly will have a full airing with respect to the stranded debt.

But I don't like the word "new." I hear members opposite on talk shows, and others, talking about new charges. There's nothing new in this. I said to a panel of political experts on Studio 2 the other day, as they went on about new charges and new debt, "There's nothing new." The ratepayers in this province have always been on the hook for the decommissioning costs. They've always been on the hook for any debt that Hydro incurs, because every penny of it has been guaranteed, and that guarantee will be removed over the next couple of years. Hydro will have to act like a business and make decisions like a business. If they don't, we'll make sure there's a board in there that does, although we have great confidence in this particular board and the direction they've been steering Hydro in as it prepares for open competition.

There's nothing new. There's not a thing in this bill that would cause new financial pressures. It's all designed - all of the payments in lieu, the payments in lieu of corporate taxes that Hydro's been exempt from over the years. Its successor companies will pay money, not into the consolidated revenue fund, but money and charges that are in the system now will go towards paying down, will go into the financial holding company called the Ontario Hydro Financial Corp, or Holdco, and all that money will go towards paying down the stranded debt. That is a tremendous positive whatever way you slice it.

We will ensure and the Ontario Energy Board will ensure that the savings from lower debt interest costs and lower debt servicing costs will be passed on to consumers. We can see that prices over time should fall as a result of getting the burden off people's electricity bill, because 30% of their bill today at their house and their business is simply debt servicing charges.

It has always been serviced. As I said, Hydro's never missed a bond payment. There's $32 billion worth of bonds out there. They've never missed a payment and they've never missed a payment in any of their operations. So for someone to say that there are new charges or for the Municipal Electric Association to say rates are going to go up X per cent, they simply aren't making the case to back up those statements, and when asked to present that case they simply haven't been able to do so over the past several months.

For the most part, though, I'd like to thank the local utilities. They're going through a significant change, just like Ontario Hydro; the monopoly parts of their business will be separated as Hydro's will. I want to thank the environmental groups and then I'll thank the unions in a minute. Many of the environmental groups in the province, Energy Probe and others, have been extremely supportive of this legislation.

To think that those great inventors over the years who came up with ways to generate electricity through biomass or through solar power or wind power - it was illegal for them to sell that to willing customers, because Ontario Hydro and the local distribution companies, the local municipal electric utilities, had a monopoly on the wires. Yet we all paid for those wires, and there's a lot of consumers out there that want green power.

They want power, and they're probably willing to pay a cent or two per kilowatt-hour for power that comes from sources other than the fossil fuel sources, which we know create a great many emissions into our air that aren't good for us. Even though Hydro has met all its statutory and voluntary emissions standards, which are the toughest in the world - and they deserve full credit for that - it still would be nice to see a healthy green power, an environmentally friendly industry, be encouraged in this province. This legislation allows that to happen, because people that generate green power will be able to get their power now to their willing customers.

Second, I want to thank the unions as I wind up. We've had tremendous response from John Murphy and the Power Workers' Union. He has taken a very responsible approach. I think that the Power Workers' Union realizes, as much as anyone, that the days of a big monopoly functioning relatively inefficiently are over. They know prices are high. They know that all our jobs in Ontario depend on what we do through this legislation in getting prices down, that future jobs in the province depend very much on this legislation. The Power Workers' Union themselves, not the government, have been taking out newspaper ads and running media spots about private-public partnerships.

We have at least one party in this House that always dismissed partnerships with the private sector. It's the big evil. We saw it again in question period today. Yet we have a very responsible union out there which represents people in well-paying jobs, Ontario Hydro jobs, which says that, "No we can't keep going back to the taxpayers through the debt guarantee for more and more money to pump into this monopoly," that we should get business-like, and that the way to get business-like is to have the discipline of the market through a competitive structure.

They fully embraced where we're going and we thank them for that. I thank them for that involvement. In fact, that union is such a pleasure to work with. We've seen recently that the whole nuclear asset optimization plan obviously won't work without the employees' cooperation and embracing of that plan and we've seen flexibility between the union and management being able to move workers from Bruce to Pickering and Darlington, so we can bring those plants back up to world excellence and then begin to work on bringing back Bruce, depending on market conditions, after the year 2000.

1530

I'll wind up just by talking about the new vision for Ontario Hydro, because there's a lot of doom and gloom out there when you talk about this industry. I pointed out earlier that it served us very well for 92 years and that it indeed has a very bright future. Clearly Ontario Hydro has admitted, because it holds such a large part of the generating market - almost 95% of the generation in the province is done by that monopoly right now - it will have to give up market share in order to address the issue of market power. In other words, it will have to give up part of the market so that new generators can come in on a level playing field and compete with it.

What is Hydro doing? It's aggressively looking to the northeast United States. With restructuring introducing competition in the US market, you'll see probably over the next 10 years amalgamations of many of the generating companies. In fact, you almost see it daily when you read in the financial press in North America of the deals that are being worked out between different companies. It's expected that about 10 years from now, over the next decade, there will be 15 or 16 major generators in the US and in North America. Ontario Hydro wants to be one of those major players.

As a shareholder in Ontario Hydro, we don't talk about privatization because, first of all, that company needs a number of years, and the successor companies will need a number of years, to get their value back up, to enhance their value. Ontario Hydro is a badly devalued and demoralized entity right now. We do not want a fire sale so we are not talking about privatization. We are talking about introducing competition and commercializing, making sure that the new successor companies have to, by law, act in a prudent manner and in a business-like manner.

But one of the reasons we're not talking about privatization is my dream for Ontario Hydro is that, once again, it will begin to return a healthy profit back to the shareholder - and the shareholder is the people of Ontario - and that money in the future could be used to either lower electricity rates again or, once the debt is paid off, clearly that's money that could go into general revenues that can support health care and education and other priorities that the government of the day might have. That's one vision of where the money should go once Ontario Hydro is again a major player in the North American market.

However, people should not underestimate Ontario Hydro's ability to be a major player in North America. They clearly have a plan that they're putting in place and they're sharing with their employees that, as they give up market share in Ontario, they will capture new markets, beginning in the northeastern United States. It's very possible beginning almost immediately, because Hydro's price vis-à-vis the northeast United States is a very competitive price for electricity.

We're not competitive vis-à-vis Quebec right now where there's about a 30% advantage because they have the natural advantage of hydroelectric power and we have mostly nuclear power. On a good day 50% to 70% of the power is provided by nuclear power. It's great power and it's environmentally quite clean with respect to emissions, but it's expensive to get on line and to maintain. But once it gets going, nuclear power provides us with a clean, efficient and safe form of electricity.

When the plants are running well, and they will be again, Ontario Hydro will be very competitive in the US market, so that's where they're headed. They're going to need all their employees, and I bet in the future they're going to need more employees. In fact, they're starting to hire back former employees right now to bring them back up to world excellence in the nuclear division.

I don't think we're going to see the big layoffs the NDP were talking about on a talk show recently. Clearly they're going to have to sharpen their pencils, clearly they're going to have to become more efficient, but at the end of the day North America is their market and they will always have a mandate to serve the people of Ontario first. But if successful in the North American market, not only will it help to eliminate past debts and mistakes, it will return, we hope, very healthy profits back to the people of Ontario who after a few years of not seeing a return from Ontario Hydro probably deserve to see their investment improve and get a dollar return back on that.

I will yield the floor now to my colleagues. I want to thank members of this House, though, from all sides for supporting the bill on first reading. We ask for your support on second reading today and tomorrow and we look forward to committee hearings for a couple of weeks in August. I thank all members for their cooperation and for sharing in our new vision for a competitive energy market in this province.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): It is with great pleasure that I join the debate today. This is a very important and probably very necessary day to happen in the province of Ontario.

I would first like to say that along the line many people thought that this day wouldn't happen in the province. They thought it would take too long to put this act together, that there would be too many things that would come into play and that we wouldn't be able to move forward.

Today I would first like to say congratulations to the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. He's done a terrific job to move this process forward. One of the things I've been amazed at as I've watched him go through this process is the number of stakeholders he's dealt with over the period. He has been able to get commitment from these stakeholders, he's been able to get these stakeholders involved in the process and he's been able to glean support from the stakeholders. That's a very important process that has happened with this bill.

When we talk about stakeholders, I think it's important for the people at home to recognize that there are a number of stakeholders involved. There are people who use hydro every day. You and I as residential consumers use hydro every day when we turn on the switch in our homes. There are commercial enterprises and industries that also use power on a very large basis in Ontario. We had many of those large users of power at the table.

There are also people who produce electricity in the province who were at the table. Not only does Ontario Hydro produce that electricity that is there when you turn on the, but there are also small generators that produce power in the province, and they were at the table. We hope that in the future there will be many more generators who will work to produce electricity in very many different ways, and they were at the table as we came up with this bill.

There was also, as the minister suggested, the environmentalists, who are concerned about where this province is going in the future and how we can leave for our children a province that is environmentally strong, that's healthy and that allows them opportunities to get jobs and live a healthy existence in the future.

Then there were also the unions. The unions came to the table because they recognized that change had to happen in the electricity sector for the labour force to grow and maintain jobs and prosper, and so they were there.

We also had municipal electric utilities at the table. They're part of the change. They have to look at how they're going to change for the people at home, to bring the power from Ontario Hydro to our doorsteps and to our light switches. They're there and they're a very important part of this industry. They are going to change to work with us to make the electricity market a very exciting market.

Along with the municipal electrical utilities are the municipalities themselves. Many of those own the transmission lines, the lines we see going down our roads and in our cities. They have some concerns about how that transmission line will be funded and the revenue they'll get from that, so they were at the table.

We've had an incredible process of bringing people together. All of these stakeholders have put aside partisan interests, they've put aside things that are important to them and said, "How can we best work together to be able to find a solution to take our electricity sector into the 21st century?" They have done a terrific job, and for that I really want to say thank you today

1540

From those different groups I just talked about what came together was a group of individuals who formed two very important committees within our process. The first committee, which the minister talked about earlier today, was headed by Dr Ron Daniels. That's called the Market Design Committee. Their goal is to come up with ways to design this market so that it works efficiently in the future and moves us forward. They are thinking about things that you and I would never think about on a day-to-day basis. They're coming up with creative ways to work around problems that exist and they're coming to a semblance of consensus which allows us to move forward.

The second group, which I've been very impressed by, is the Minister's Electricity Transition Committee. They have tried to find ways to facilitate the process. They're going to be very important as we're in this transition period between the monopoly, as we see it in electricity today, and the competitive market in 2000. They're going to be there to help us through that period as we come up with issues we haven't thought about.

One of the things that I think made me sit back and really think the other day was that we had an electricity transition committee meeting, which I chaired. The vice-chair was reporting to us from the Market Design Committee. What he said to us was that as he made decisions every day about the future of electricity and how the market should work in the province of Ontario, he gave them a litmus test. The litmus test he gave every decision that the Market Design Committee made was: What would my mother-in-law in Guelph think about this decision? How would this affect her? Would she understand it? What does it do to bring power to her house?

I think it's very important as we go through many technical aspects of this that many of us who just flick on the switch don't understand. It's important for everyone to be thinking about the consumer at home and how that affects them and what services they receive as a result of the decisions. I was warmed by that. As we move through the process we're going to be very concerned about how this affects the consumers and what we can do to protect the consumers and what we can do to bring the consumers benefit. That's the direction.

One of the things that also has given some people in Ontario some confidence that we're going to be very concerned about consumer protection is the appointment of the previous member for Nickel Belt. He sat on the select committee on Ontario Hydro with me and a number of my colleagues. He is very concerned about the future of electricity in the province and understands many of the problems and dilemmas we're dealing with with respect to electricity. One of his major roles, of course, as the chair of the Ontario Energy Board will be to ensure that consumers are protected and that they receive the best value they can.

Just to go back a little bit, I would like to remind the viewers at home and the people in the gallery today that this has been a long, long process. We've seen, as the minister mentioned, Hydro evolve over 92 years. We've also seen a number of select committees that have come through this House to say how we can make the process better.

I always like to tell my friends and neighbours that many years ago the Premier of the province was in my position as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy. He looked at the process that was going on at that time in electricity and so he has a very strong knowledge about this process. As a result of that knowledge from being in the Ministry of Energy for about a year, he put into the Common Sense Revolution some documentation about how Ontario Hydro needed to change and move forward. The Common Sense Revolution first told us that we were going to make some changes to Ontario Hydro. The minister then came out in November with the white paper and then the legislation came out in the last week or two.

This is enabling legislation to let the market evolve. We're now looking for input and consultation with the people and the stakeholders and the consumers so that we understand exactly where we're moving in the future.

One of the things I want to speak very clearly about today is the bill itself. The bill is broken into four sections, and the first schedule or section is the Electricity Act. In that section we talk a lot about how the market should look in the future.

The second section is the Ontario Energy Board Act. In this section we review how that board will work in the future, will bring customer protection, will have some powers that will make sure that everyone in the province is being treated fairly and that we're moving towards a system that is fair and equitable.

Then there are two other sections, one being the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act, and the fourth section being other amendments and appeals.

As a result of the Ontario Hydro name, we've had to change a number of bills that have mentioned the name Ontario Hydro in the past.

So it's quite a daunting bill, but it is enabling legislation that allows us to move forward to introduce competition into the marketplace, and that we intend to do by 2000.

Today I wanted to talk about consumer protection, because I think that what's important for people at home to know is that this market isn't going to change substantially in their view as they turn on the switch at home. I want to talk about that. One of the things that has happened in the past is that we have been dealing with gas and we've had some issues about how we purchase gas. It's important today to look at exactly what we're going to do with respect to the Ontario Energy Board and how that's going to affect the consumer in Ontario.

Some of us, because we turn on the switch and the electricity comes on, may say, "Why are we making a change?" There are two major reasons for that change to be coming about. One is that this large monopoly has been providing power in the past, and in the future there are going to be very different ways that electricity is going to be provided. We need to create an opportunity for business to be able to come forward and bring us that power. We need to create that opportunity for people, so we need to create competition, because we believe that competition is going to bring us the lowest possible price to the consumer.

We also believe that Ontario Hydro in the past has had some difficulties. Some of those difficulties are a result of different visions that they've had; others are a result of different governments being involved. In the select committee, we found that there was no one reason or no one to blame for the debt that's in the province, that all parties and all governments had some responsibility to it.

The key issue right now is to move forward, to stop that debt from increasing. Right now people estimate that the debt is somewhere around $32 billion in Ontario Hydro. We have to move to be able to reduce that debt so that the youth of this province are not ladened with that debt in the future, with their cost of electricity going through the ceiling. We have to be very careful about debt.

Right now in Ontario what we have is the third-highest electricity prices, as the minister said. The average household pays approximately $1,000 per year for their hydro. What we want to do is insure that we can reduce those prices to the best possible advantage of the consumers so that they receive all the benefits that may come from introducing competition into the marketplace.

In the Ontario Energy Board bill, we're trying to ensure that the consumer is adequately protected against any unfair business practices of both gas marketers and, in the future, electricity marketers. What are we doing to be able to protect the consumer in that case? What we're saying is that marketers have to be licensed. They're going to be licensed by the Ontario Energy Board. The Ontario Energy Board will be able to ensure that marketers are financially sound, they're responsible to the consumers, and they understand that they have a responsibility to care for the consumer. The Ontario Energy Board will be in charge of that.

The second thing that the Ontario Energy Board will be providing will be a code of conduct for people in the electricity market and in the gas market. What we're saying there is that we're going to come together, all of the stakeholders, to look at a code of conduct that makes consumers be protected in Ontario. That's another way we're protecting the consumer.

1550

There are also going to be serious penalties if a marketer or someone working in the electricity industry does not comply with the regulations. No longer will it be a $500 fine; there will be substantial penalties, and the ultimate penalty of course would be that they can't be in the business at all and can't be licensed. We are providing more protection there and we will certainly work to strengthen those protections as we move through the two-year process of coming up to a competitive marketplace.

The board is also going to have some investigative powers. Those powers will ensure that parties are operating in accordance with the licence requirements they have and that no one is operating without a licence. We're going to ensure that everybody is working towards this consumer protection, everyone is following the rules, everyone is doing what they said they were going to do, and we'll have investigative powers to ensure that happens. That's important for the consumer to understand.

The other thing that's important to understand is that whenever this change happens in 2000, if you don't make any choices, you won't turn on the switch and have no power come on. What will happen is that the person who is supplying power to you right now will continue to supply power into 2000. We will have made the municipal electric utility the default supplier that is responsible to ensure that every Ontarian has power.

The Ontario Energy Board will be there, in case of any difficulties along the road, to ensure that this process works smoothly. But it is our commitment to the public that this process will be transparent, and if people don't want to make decisions, if they want to just stay where they are, they will be able to do that. In my own household, we haven't made any kind of change with our gas supplier or marketer, we haven't made any changes with our telephone company, but I know other people who have spent the time and invested their knowledge into finding good suppliers, and that will be your opportunity again when it comes to electricity.

In my final minute or two, I would like to say that from here on we're in the process - and in the past too, I suppose - of consulting. We have put this document out and we're hoping that many people across the province who are interested in this process will write to us and talk to us about things they like in the bill and things they would like to see changed. We think this is a very important time for people to get involved in the future of electricity in the province.

We also will be going out in committee for a couple of weeks at least in August, and it's our intention to speak to as many people as possible. I would like people to also recognize that of course the telephones and the doors are open at the Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology, to be able to contact us with any concerns they have with respect to this bill.

It is very important for us that people recognize that we believe we're moving forward on a very important issue but we're moving slowly and carefully to ensure we have as much input from stakeholders and consumers as we possibly can. To do that, we need people to become involved, so we ask the people of Ontario to become involved, to become informed on this issue and, if they have any comments, to certainly send them to us at the Ministry of Energy, Science and Technology.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I am certainly delighted to be able to address the Legislature on Bill 35, the Energy Competition Act. The people of Ontario have long enjoyed a high standard of environmental protection. This government will continue to uphold and improve upon this standard while giving Ontarians the benefit of a more efficient and competitive energy sector. These goals are not mutually exclusive. This is not an either/or proposition.

Mr Wildman: They didn't say you were doing such a good job.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Algoma, please. Order.

Mr Galt: The Minister of the Environment has been, and will continue to be, closely involved with the development of the Energy Competition Act. This is part and parcel of the Ontario government's commitment to ensure that strong environmental protection measures are built into the design of a competitive electricity market in Ontario. This commitment was made in the white paper, and we will not deviate from it.

In tandem with the development of the Energy Competition Act, we will implement and ensure that strong measures are in place to protect the environment. Specifically, regulations will be developed to cap smog and acid gas emissions for all Ontario electricity generators that supply power to Ontario. The smog regulations will take into consideration Ontario Hydro's voluntary limit for nitrogen oxide, a major smog-causing pollutant.

We will ensure that Ontario Hydro's voluntary commitments, including those for greenhouse gas emissions, are met. We will continue working with the federal government and other stakeholders to develop a sustainable national plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

We will develop strong emission performance standards that will apply to all generators wishing to sell in the Ontario electricity market.

Further, we will develop an emissions reduction trading program to provide incentives to companies that achieve emissions reductions above and beyond regulatory requirements as well as providing a cost-effective, flexible means to meet stringent environmental regulations.

We will develop a regulation to make certain electricity sector activities are subject to the stringent requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. This will promote a level playing field and ensure environmental protection.

Also, we will work towards achieving opportunities for greater use of more efficient, environmentally responsible technologies and accelerate the use of these technologies.

Finally, we will ensure that electricity customers can obtain the information they need if they want to buy the most environmentally responsible energy.

This will be an open process. We will consult with the public and all stakeholders as we develop these measures. All sectors must help in the effort to make these measures the best possible protectors of Ontario's environment.

I would now like to take just a few moments to go into more detail on a few of these areas I have just mentioned.

First, regulations to cap smog and acid gas emissions from electricity generators: These regulations will allow us to set limits for the total quantities of smog- and acid-rain-causing pollutants released into the atmosphere from electricity generators. This approach has been successfully used by the ministry to reduce acid-rain-causing emissions by some 70% from major sources. As already noted, these regulations will take into account Ontario Hydro's voluntary limits for nitrogen oxide. We will ensure that Ontario Hydro meets its other voluntary commitments, including those for greenhouse gas emissions.

Second, emission performance standards: We will set these standards, which will apply to out-of-province companies wishing to sell electricity to Ontario customers. If these customers want to be part of our market, they will be required to meet our standards.

Third, emissions trading: Emissions reduction trading has great potential as an incentive mechanism. The legislative changes necessary to allow emissions reduction trading are being introduced as part of the Energy Competition Act. Emissions reduction trading will provide incentives to companies that achieve reductions above and beyond regulatory requirements. We will work with stakeholders in developing a trading program that is fair, flexible and allows participants to cost-effectively meet environmental requirements.

Emissions reduction would allow the government to stick with its appropriate role, the setting of stringent standards for environmental performance, while empowering the market to find the most effective and efficient means of achieving those standards.

Emissions trading was endorsed by the Kyoto Protocol and is being used more globally to provide incentives to industries that achieve reductions above and beyond the regulatory requirements. Here in Ontario we've already had some experience with this through PERT, the pilot emissions reduction trading project. Since its establishment in August 1995, PERT has shown us that emissions reduction trading can be a cost-effective approach to achieving emissions reduction above and beyond the regulatory requirements.

Of course, the bulk of experience with emissions reduction trading in North America comes from the USA. In southern California, the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market, acronym Reclaim, a cap-and-trade program for nitrogen oxides and sulphur oxides which contribute to acid rain, has consistently exceeded its emissions reduction objectives at lower cost than expected over the past four years.

1600

A pilot trading program for oxides of nitrogen, acronym NO_x, and for volatile organic compounds, acronym VOCs, in the northeast states proved that abundant low-cost emission reductions were available in the airshed upwind of Ontario and that trading could reduce total emissions. This group has recently launched a similar pilot program to demonstrate trading of greenhouse gas emissions.

Michigan, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire have implemented effective trading schemes for acid- and smog-forming gases. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has also written model trading rules for air pollutants which can be adopted by individual states.

We believe Ontario must explore this practice as part of the mix of tools we use to protect the environment. We will look closely at what other jurisdictions have done and consult with the public and stakeholders in developing programs that are appropriate for Ontario.

Fourth, the designation of certain electricity sector activities under the Environmental Assessment Act: This will promote a level playing field and ensure continued strong environmental protection. Ensuring a level playing field for all players is indeed at the heart of a competitive electricity market. The government will take steps to ensure that all proponents face the same rules for environmental approvals.

The thresholds for determining what gets designated under the Environmental Assessment Act will be based on the size, technology and expected environmental impacts of a project.

Recent changes to the Environmental Assessment Act have resulted in many improvements to the process. I was very pleased to be involved in this particular bill. There's tremendous feedback on how successful it has been.

In this process, first, the new terms of reference provision allows for clear, early direction and public input to the process; second, mediation provisions provide for early issues resolution; third, regulated time lines for each step in the process are planned to ensure faster turnarounds for decisions and a less costly process; fourth, provisions allow the minister to set time frames for hearings and focus on outstanding environmental issues only; fifth, provisions allow the minister to harmonize the environmental assessment requirements with other jurisdictions so that a project undergoes only one assessment.

All of these improvements together add up to a timely, efficient, consultative program focused more on environmental effects and less on process. In developing a new regulation to respond to a competitive electricity market, the Ministry of the Environment will have the benefit of these new features as well as an opportunity, through consultation, to identify additional improvements.

We will also provide a framework to support opportunities for greater use of more efficient, environmentally friendly technologies and accelerate the use of these technologies. Requiring emissions disclosure and developing an emissions reduction trading program will certainly assist in this.

Our commitment to ensuring strong environmental protection measures goes hand in hand with our commitment to reinforce a fair, equitable and level playing field for all participants in an open electricity market. As additional protection for the Ontario energy consumers, we plan to develop a pollution disclosures requirement to ensure that electricity customers can obtain the information they need to understand the environmental implications of their purchasing decisions.

I believe the Energy Competition Act presents many opportunities to give the people of this province greater access to less costly electricity while also ensuring that Ontario's environmental needs are met. Abundant and reasonably priced electricity must go hand in hand will a well-protected environment to create healthy and prosperous communities. The Energy Competition Act will help meet these goals, which I know are shared by all the members of this Legislature.

In winding up and closing, I'd like to re-emphasize some of the changes in the regulations.

First, regulations will be developed to cap smog and acid gas emissions for all of the Ontario electricity generators that supply power to Ontarians. The smog regulations will take into consideration Ontario Hydro's voluntary limits for nitrogen oxide, a major pollutant in Ontario.

We will also ensure that Ontario Hydro's voluntary commitments, including those for greenhouse gas emissions, are met.

We will continue working with the federal government and other stakeholders to develop a sustainable national plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

We will develop strong emissions performance standards that will apply to all generators wishing to sell in the Ontario electricity market.

We will develop an emissions reduction trading program to provide incentives to companies that achieve emissions reductions above and beyond regulatory requirements, as well as providing a cost-effective, flexible means to meet stringent environmental requirements.

We will also work towards achieving opportunities for greater use of more efficient environmentally responsible technologies and accelerate the use of these technologies.

Finally, we will ensure that electricity customers can obtain the information they need if they want to buy the most environmentally responsible energy.

Certainly it has been a pleasure for me to be able to be part of the Hydro select committee last fall to examine what Ontario Hydro is doing. I can look at this bill and read this bill and see where the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology, along with the parliamentary assistant, has worked on this bill and has brought forth a bill essentially right around what was being discussed by that Hydro select committee. Certainly it's been enhanced by the discussions and consultation that they have had with stakeholders, which is the hallmark of this government, as we spend a lot of time consulting with stakeholders, not only listening to their advice and their recommendations but also responding to their concerns. In this particular bill, Bill 35, that is front and centre as you go through it.

There's no question as we look at the price of electricity over the last decade, going from being the cheapest electricity in North America to being one of the most expensive - and I certainly recall a couple of years ago hearing from the Ford Motor Co. They make cars in some 17 regions in North America and they were showing where back in 1984 or 1985 they had here in Ontario the cheapest electricity to produce cars. They had by 1995 dropped to either 13th or 14th in those 17 regions, indicating that Ontario was no longer as competitive as it had been back in 1985. It was through the lost decade that we experienced in that period as we slipped behind and lost jobs. It's great to see in the last three years how we've been coming out of that particular lost decade and finding all kinds of new jobs.

Looking at Ontario Hydro, this particular bill is going to get us back into the competitive position where Ontario should be, Ontario as the engine that drives Canada. It's been unfortunate that we've slipped in that position, but I can assure you that within just a few years we're going to be the engine of North America. We're already back into the position as the engine for the Canadian -

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bernard Grandmaître): Questions and comments?

1610

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I want to say, as we begin the debate on this Bill 35, that without question I think we could get agreement that this is going to be one of the most major pieces of legislation we're going to have dealt with in this Legislature in many years.

I hope that during the debate we hear from all sides the pros and the cons about Bill 35. I would ask the government particularly, in their consideration of this legislation, to keep in mind that the line-up of vested interests is going to be as long as the hydro distribution lines in this province. I hope that at the same time this government moves along with its lobbying legislation - there's going to be a huge amount of money spent on lobbying over this issue and we have to be sure that's totally aboveboard and that all the interests, all the shareholders, being the residents and businesses of Ontario, have an opportunity to have equal input and equal access to suggestions that will be made to this bill.

I also hope that when this comes about - and I think it will; there's little doubt about that - there are strict marketing regulations and guidelines so that when the people of Ontario are given these choices, the choices are made on a basis that's well informed, and that all those who are competing for the interests and the dollars of the residents of Ontario have their message be clear and fair so that reasonable choices can be made.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): The Minister of Energy in his remarks talked about how important it is for us to ensure that we give consumers the best break we possibly can with respect to hydro rates. That's not something that any of us in this room can really disagree with. However, there may be differences in approaches in terms of how we do that.

He mentioned some of the savings that could be achieved to bring about some of these lower rates. He mentioned the amalgamation of the six municipal electrical utilities in the Toronto area and the efficiencies that may be achieved. But none of that is dependent upon the bill we're debating here today.

He says this bill won't bring about any additional financial burdens on to the generation of electricity. One of the things we need to keep in mind are things like clean-up costs or the decommissioning costs for nuclear reactors and how that's going to affect the calculation or the amount of the stranded debt or the residual stranded debt.

Something else that may affect the financial burden is debt interest costs that are artificially low at this time because of the government's guarantee of the debt, which also may increase because of the breakup of Ontario Hydro. The bargaining position for these large loans they've been able to obtain may not be there. New companies negotiating for loans may have to pay higher rates.

He says we need to have a competitive structure; that's something we do need, but we can have that with public sector involvement.

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This is a very special two minutes for me, to have the opportunity to first of all congratulate the Minister of Energy. I think it's amazing, the speed at which he and his staff, along with the chairman of Hydro, have been able to bring this whole thing together, in such a very professional and exceptionally well-presented way that we not only have the municipal utilities across the province but we have the unions who represent the Ontario Hydro and the utilities all understanding the need and all very appreciative of the work that has been done to date.

I really appreciate having the honour to serve with the minister on the transition committee. Again, there I found it really amazing, the amount of work that has been done by that committee, and they made no hesitation in getting the best people available as advisers to assist on that committee.

There's just one thing I want to say also in this short time. I haven't heard the term "Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario" mentioned at all. It's Ontario Hydro. For me, the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario was really the body that electrified this province.

Of course, as time went on many changes were required. The corporation was formed and the name then given was Ontario Hydro. But the service to the people, to the customers, is certainly something we're going to have to guard and -

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Time has expired. Minister, you have two minutes to wrap up.

Hon Mr Wilson: I want to thank the member for Essex South, who talked a bit about lobbyists. The only thing I'd say to the member for Essex South is that I keep reminding Ontario Hydro that they don't need lobbyists because the chair, the president, the CEO and I as energy minister meet regularly. So they don't need to keep hiring lobbyists, if that's what they're doing, although some of the names of these lobbyists I'm supposed to have met with I haven't seen for almost a year. Don't always believe everything you read. I'll tell you, even though this is a huge $10-billion sector, there are a heck of a lot fewer lobbyists than when I was health minister. From all sides you've got lobbyists every day.

I also want to thank the critic for the NDP from Windsor-Riverside. He's bang on in his comments about the devil being in the detail. We're all looking forward to the first part of July, when the Ministry of Finance and its financial experts peel back some of the cobwebs that have been in Ontario Hydro for a long time and we find out exactly what our liabilities and values are there and get us well on the road to figuring out what the stranded debt might be so we can get it paid off.

My colleague from Lanark-Renfrew, thank you very much. Mr Jordan, prior to being elected to this House, had just over 30 years' experience with Ontario Hydro, so he knows of what he speaks.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Careful. Those are the bad old days.

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member from the other part of Renfrew, Mr Conway, talks about those being the bad old days, but I don't think they really were. We had 30 years. Ontario Hydro served us well for most of its 92 years. Yes, it has made mistakes. I know the Liberal critic is probably about to give us a wonderful history of all those mistakes, and all three political parties are to blame. Not to dismiss any of that; we should know our mistakes and learn from them, but we are on to a new road here, a new vision for Ontario Hydro as a public corporation and a new vision for the electricity sector. I thank everyone who has worked so hard to get us to this point.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Conway: I'm pleased to join the debate this afternoon on second reading of Bill 35, the Energy Competition Act. I want to say how much I enjoyed the previous remarks, including those of the minister and my colleague from Lanark-Renfrew, about whom the minister is quite right. Mr Jordan has laboured long and productively in this particular vineyard.

I want to disabuse the minister of his sense that perhaps all I came to do this afternoon was to recite some of the history, but I am going to talk a bit about some of the past, because quite frankly I'm here today to support in principle Bill 35.

My colleagues and I have looked at the whole situation and we recognize and have said previously that we are not happy with the current situation in which we find ourselves. We have come to recognize that competition and more transparent and rigorous regulation are absolutely essential if we are going to move forward in a productive and positive way. So I repeat that my colleagues and I, because we support those principles of competition and a more rigorous and transparent regulation, will this afternoon be indicating our support in principle for Bill 35, though I must say there are important aspects of the bill and the policy which undergirds it that give us a great deal of concern. The minister just a moment ago blithely referred to one of those.

1620

We are asked this afternoon, or this week or before next week's adjournment to support this bill and the enormously important and complex policy that it brings forward, without critical information. I said to one of my colleagues in caucus yesterday that this, at one level, is like going to the bank and being asked by your banker to sign a mortgage document without knowing what the rate is going to be and what the amortization period is going to be. That, at a certain level, represents a contempt of the Legislature.

I understand that there are some very difficult and complex issues and I want to join others in saying I recognize the hard work the minister has expended to date. It must not have been easy. But we have critical issues yet unresolved and not even advertised in some respects. The Legislature is being asked today to do what it's been asked to do on so many previous occasions where the electricity issue has been raised, and that is basically, "Vote now and pray for a good and happy result."

Unlike other people I can say I've been in a situation here where I've been asked to do that before. When Jim Wilson was in short pants, I was here listening - it's true - to the speeches being made 22 years ago by very committed public people who said: "Listen, this is the new plan. Trust us. We can't go wrong."

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Well, born in 1963 - you were 12 when I got here. The parliamentary guide may be wrong. But we've been asked to do this so many times before. I've only got an hour, which for me is not a great amount of time.

I want to say again that my colleagues and I support the principles of competition and more rigorous regulation of the electricity and energy sector. This policy is being advertised as the new religion that will give real and measurable benefits to everyone - that's the promise and that's the new religion: the competitive marketplace - and it will give equity of result to everyone. Who could be opposed to that?

Let me tell you it is the new religion. It is the new religion across North America and much of Western Europe. But when I hear a policy advertised with such unanimity and with such theological rigour, I say to myself, "Have I ever heard this before?" and I have. Do you know what? The performance was well short of the promise. It was abysmal. The member from Humber is absolutely right.

Let me say to the Legislature and to those watching, particularly my friends at AMPCO, who have a very legitimate argument - that's the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario, very good people. The nuclear commitment on which this province entered 35 years ago, and which I have supported more openly and more shamelessly than many of you, and a commitment that fundamentally changed Ontario Hydro, was none the less a commitment openly, continuously and joyfully supported by big government, big business and big labour. They sang as one voice out of one hymn book. Today many of those people want to forget and have forgotten that they ever assented with such vigour and such a lack of critical oversight to a commitment which, at least in the degree to which it changed Ontario Hydro, created much of the problem we've had in the last 30 years.

There is buried away in the public archives of Ontario some very interesting material in the Leslie Frost papers, where the sage of Lindsay was talking to the then chair of Ontario Hydro about his concern with not only the technical complexity of the nuclear commitment, but the capital requirements and what it would do to further exacerbate one of the long-time problems, namely, how would a Legislative Assembly and a government of laypersons ever exercise meaningful control over a public utility that was going to be increasingly nuclear. That was Leslie Frost's concern 40 years ago, and it turns out to have been a very legitimate concern.

Not to spend too much time - the minister talked a bit about Adam Beck. I want to just simply say a couple of things about the Beck vision, most especially, where did Beck come from? What was it that created the environment in which he could become so enormously powerful and effective as probably this province's greatest business-centred lobbyist and public activist? I'll tell you what it was, very simply.

At the turn of this century, small business people with names like Snider and Detweiler and Beck, the cigar box maker in London, and those other gentlemen in places like Waterloo and Cambridge recognized the enormous significance that this new white coal, electricity, would play in the economic life and development of this province. They were absolutely terrified that control over this vital new commodity would fall into the hands of some of the most dubious capitalists that Canada had ever produced, by the names of Mackenzie, Nicholls and Pellatt.

They were terrified, and rightly so, because the arrogance and the insensitivity of people like William Mackenzie running the Toronto railway company and Nicholls running the Toronto electric company would scare the wits out of anyone. It was one thing that they had control of a municipal electric lighting franchise or a municipal transit system, but if they ever got their hands on this white gold, people in Preston and Hespeler and Galt and London would be badly disadvantaged. It was that fear that created the political environment where Adam Beck developed his fame. The expectation is that those days are gone forever. I hope so, because my belief is that if private power interests or private financial interests would turn to some of those instincts, let me tell you there will be a retribution and there will be a new Adam Beck.

I want to say as well that there's been a lot of misinformation about the place in the last while about Hydro's 92-year monopoly. It didn't have a monopoly in the beginning on generation. It was never intended to have a monopoly on generation. What it had was a monopoly on transmission. But there was a lot of private power in the pre-World War II era. Interestingly, Ontario Hydro came to own a lot of it that it never intended to own, because the market behaved in a fashion that was unexpected. Because this commodity is so vital and because it touches on every aspect of our economic and social wellbeing, it has a political power unlike just about any other commodity, particularly in a large northern expanse like Ontario, where you've got winter five months of the year.

It's interesting, this energy debate. People sometimes talk about Ontario like we were southern California or Great Britain. I'm going to tell you, stand at the corner of the main street in Chapleau on a January afternoon and ask yourself if you feel like you're in London or in Palo Alto or in Phoenix. I don't say that lightly.

People say, "Take the politics out of Hydro." Well, we are now embarked on a new course, and again I don't want to particularly bore the minister, but have we had private power before? Absolutely. Was all of it bad? Certainly not. And I wasn't responsible for the monolithic, monopolistic generating utility that Ontario Hydro became. That was a very serious mistake, and it was made decades ago. The nuclear commitment only exacerbated it.

1630

We've had private power before. I'm going to tell you, among other things, it has given this province, I would argue, its greatest political scandals. I won't bore you with the details, but there should be a book in the library and I would recommend it, for those of you with an interest. It's 200 pages, published a few years ago by the University of Toronto Press, called The Beauharnois Scandal. It's the story of a remarkable private power development and a remarkable engineering and financial feat. Our own Bob Sweezey from the Kingston area was the proponent. He was a Quebecker but he went to Queen's University, so I guess I can say -

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): Two great places.

Mr Conway: The interesting thing about this is that a certain government of the day - it's the scandal that smeared three premiers of Ontario and three prime ministers of Canada and very nearly ended the public life of the sainted William Lyon Mackenzie King. It's very bipartisan in its view of how the politicians behaved in this private power market. There's a very interesting story in here about how the proponent of Beauharnois complains bitterly about Howard Ferguson, Premier of Ontario, on the eve of the 1929 election, demanding $325,000 worth of toll, which he got apparently: $125,000 for the party, which was about to enter the 1929 election campaign, and $200,000 that apparently went elsewhere.

People say, "That's that, that's history." Well, probably it is. But as my colleague from Leamington said a few moments ago, I do not know of a public policy which opens the door to more lobbying, more hucksterism than this. To test that theory, all I have to do is look at what's been happening south of the border just this spring. The Connecticut state Legislature has, just a few weeks ago, been involved in this very process. Wonderful articles in the New York Times about what's been going on down there. I will just read one from the New York Times, Sunday, April 18, 1998:

"The idea of ending electrical utility monopolies and opening the $200-billion US electricity market to competition is a national policy craze. While no one is sure how it will work, one thing is certain: It's a gold mine for lobbyists."

What makes the bill such a magnet for lobbyists? Simply because it touches on so many moneyed interests. Their ethics office, which of course does things we haven't got here, has the obligation to tell the people of Connecticut what's going on. By the way, all of the lobbying is going on during the process of the bill's passage. The ethics commission in Connecticut reports that there is at least $1 million worth of lobbying fees being paid out by groups as varied as Hydro Quebec and power companies in Pennsylvania. Every lobbyist imaginable has been down there working the legislature and working the phones. There's a great story in this about how somebody actually phones one of the Democrats who is involved in this legislation to ask a specific question about the legislation they are working with on the floor, and the member just turned the phone over to the lobbyist in his office and said, "You answer it." Why did he do that? Because it's so bloody complicated.

"That may only be going on in Connecticut." We know it's not the case. It went on in Britain, it's going on in California and it is certainly going to go on here. What did we see when a critical recommendation was made by the Market Design Committee, a very good recommendation, and to give the government its due, it accepted the Market Design Committee recommendation? But no sooner had the Market Design Committee made a very good recommendation about making sure that the central market operator was independent of he who owns the grid - and you have to do that if you're going to have a level playing field - what was the first thing that our public utility, Ontario Hydro, did? They went out and retained Leslie Noble to lobby the cabinet. To the cabinet's credit, they obviously said no. And Mr Daniels - the letter's been read in the House, I won't bother you with it again.

But that instinct is entirely understandable, and that's just one public example of what will go on throughout the piece. This is a $10-billion enterprise. This is a huge opportunity for the investment bankers and for the financial institutions. One of the tests in this policy - for me, it is the critical test - surely has to be, what are the benefits going to be to the average residential and farm consumer in this province?

I'll tell you this: They will not have the wherewithal to go out and hire lobbyists and representatives to work their way through this very complicated piece of legislation. There will be other special moneyed interests that will do exactly what Ontario Hydro did, and the test will be: Does this policy which we are supporting here today produce an equity of benefit for Main Street as well as Bay Street? Does it produce a fairness in the shouldering of the multibillion-dollar burden that will be the stranded debt? Do those opportunities come to individuals in the same timely fashion as they undoubtedly will to the moneyed special interests who have already lined up?

It was with some interest a few weeks ago that I received from a gentleman at one of the larger municipal electrical utilities - you might be thinking: "Is Conway the oppositionist just raising concerns that are more theoretical than real?" I received a few weeks ago a memorandum from an individual who happened to have been to New York to a one-day conference sponsored by, among others, the Toronto law firm of Smith Lyons, Scotiabank and Scotia capital markets. This conference was held in New York City on April 16, 1998. The keynote speaker was advertised as the Honourable Jim Wilson, but there were people there - Brian Armstrong, partner at Smith Lyons, senior counsel to the Ontario Energy Board. I know a Brian Armstrong and I suspect it's the same Brian Armstrong, not a man without intelligence or connections, I might add. We had people like Patricia Moir, vice-president of the Bank of Nova Scotia, we had Steve Dorey, ADM, Ministry of Finance, Ontario. It appears to have been a very interesting discussion. I'll return to this in a moment.

But let me tell you, the 100 or so invitees to that conference got more specific details about what this policy means than this Legislature has had in the last couple of days, weeks or months. If I am from Main Street, if I am that older woman sitting at home in Guelph or if I am my 81-year-old father up in Barry's Bay in west Renfrew county who is very dependent on electricity, that won't surprise me. I will expect this to be a honey pot that is going to attract all manner of special moneyed interests with their hangers-on, their retainers, their lobbyists. The evidence is very clear in other jurisdictions. I cite only Connecticut, but there are certainly others to which I could make reference.

The question remains, what are the measurable benefits that are going to attach to the average residential and farm customer and when are those benefits going to arrive? You see, I have no doubt there will be big, almost immediate benefits to big power consumers and there will be all kinds of opportunity for the investment bankers and for the financial industry, no doubt about it.

What about stranded debt? How is it going to be calculated? How is it going to be divided? What menu of instruments is going to be used to write it down? Those are critical questions, and this bill is going to be given second reading with very little information on that account - to be decided. Can you imagine a self-respecting Legislature being asked this week to pass this at second reading, to be told that next week you're going to get some kind of paper from Dr Bryne Purchase, a very good fellow, who is giving advice to the government on these very questions?

Taxes, a point to which I am going to return: I am surprised that there has not been much talk about the enormous new tax opportunity that Bill 35 affords to the Ontario government. More about that later, but if I'm a residential customer, I'm going to look at that and I'm going to say, "Ah-hah, taxes." Some members opposite look incredulous. More on that later.

1640

Another aspect of this bill continues a trend that I find obnoxious, and that is that we have, as someone said earlier, an enabling bill. Here are the general principles, but all the key questions are going to be decided by the executive department, the cabinet, through regulations we have not yet seen.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: I just know what the bill says, and the bill says it will be the cabinet's responsibility to make regulations and we're going to find out about those later. As a member of the Legislature, it is not the way in which I like to do business. A certain amount of regulatory authority is understandable. This bill, like Bill 26, represents a massive concentration of executive power, because let me tell this Legislature, once this bill is passed, it is gone, and as one analyst observed in the Hamilton Spectator the other day, you're not going to get another chance. It's all going to be done through regulations. If I were in the executive branch of government, I suppose I'd like that, but given the enormity of the issues and the interests and the costs, I don't think that is appropriate, certainly not to the extent that we see in this legislation.

I just want to say a couple of other things about the general situation before I deal with the specifics of the bill. We talked a bit about Ontario Hydro, and I want to turn back a bit to the situation we've seen in the last couple of years. No one was more stunned to see the chairman of Ontario Hydro report, as he did a couple of summers ago, about the mess at Ontario Hydro Nuclear. Previous speakers have talked about the select committee that inquired into the problems at Ontario Hydro Nuclear. And let us not kid ourselves: In the last two decades, Ontario Hydro has essentially become a nuclear company; 60% of our output, as our minister said, is from those nuclear reactors. They've not been performing very well; in fact their production targets continually drop, and they have been dropping for a variety of reasons, as the committee heard.

But when I look at the behaviour of the board in the most recent situation, I say, I hope dispassionately, that the behaviour of the Ontario Hydro board through the 1990s was as bad as it has been in my experience in the last 30 years, and that's not a very flattering comparison. That Bill Farlinger and his crowd would have given the kind of cavalier wipe-off to Norm Sterling's letter back in early August 1996, a letter which basically said, "On behalf of the Ontario government, we as a cabinet want you to look to look at all of your options before you make a decision" - and it's clear from the evidence advanced at the select committee that the board gave it hardly a passing notice.

That's a behaviour that is so typical of mainstream Hydro board activity in the recent number of decades as perhaps not to be surprising. But it gets more interesting, it gets even more exotic. After that, we get a while later the 1997 Ontario Hydro annual report, and I would expect business people in the government and in the opposition to be apoplectic at this. What have we got here? We've got a release made - I forget when it was; I guess earlier this year. And what does Farlinger do? He's a very respected accountant, apparently. If you haven't read this report, it's worth reading, because essentially what he says is: "Because the Ontario government imposed a rate freeze over the last five years of this decade, we can't recover a lot of the costs that are going to be associated with running this nuclear business. Therefore, we're going to use our rate-setting authority to write down $6.3 billion worth of costs against our 1997 financial statement."

That is hocus-pocus if ever there were such. I tell you, I say to anybody who looks at this - and there have been people independent of the government and the Legislature, not the least of them being the Provincial Auditor, who was not impressed at that kind of behaviour. Do you know, by the way, that they've actually factored in some of the 1998 ice storm costs as part of the write-down against the 1997 operating statement?

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Exactly, I say to the minister. If you can do that, all manner of magic is possible.

On another level I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, because what we've had in the last few years is a big public utility that is conflicted. At the one level it must address the nuclear problems, but as it does that, it also wants to prepare for the competitive new world order. Let me tell you, that is a very basic conflict of interest. I ask the question again, who is looking out for the Ontario consumer, the average residential and farm consumer and the Ontario taxpayer? Who is looking out for their interests? I can tell you, it's sure not the Hydro board, with that kind of financial planning.

I say to the minister, nothing makes me happier about your policy than the notion that had it been in place, the NAOP scheme would have been forced on to the energy board. Take your pie-in-the-sky plans, go down there, and if the energy board, with its resources, is willing to give it the green light, fine. That these people have continued in this manner well after the government changed - it was one thing to give the Minister of Energy, Mr Sterling, the kind of brushoff he was given, but then to turn around and do this, I'll tell you, if there was no other reason to support that part of Bill 35, that surely is it.

I also want to encourage the government in this critical transition period: Do not expect that Ontario Hydro is going to behave like anything other than a big corporation out to improve its standing. Somebody who had a gripe against the British Empire once said: "Perfidious Albion. She has no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interests." Let me tell you, that could be truly said of Ontario Hydro. Its permanent interest now is to be as big as it is, to be as free of all of the manure that has been piled up in the Augean stables of their management over the last 40 or 50 years. Dump it on somebody else while they head south.

Farlinger made a speech last week to the chartered accountants. It's worth reading. In fact, I have a copy here. It's very interesting reading. What's he going to do? According to this speech, he says, "If you're going to be a survivor in this continental market" - and he's right about that; this is going to be a continental market, not for mom-and-pop operators - "you're going to have to be a generator with 30,000 megawatts." He said, "We will have 30,000 megawatts." That's a very interesting commitment. "We're going to have 30,000 megawatts," he says, and: "We are going south. We are heading to the bluegrass of Kentucky." The minister is on record as saying that's probably not a bad idea. You know what? Maybe it isn't.

I say again, before that Hydro horse heads down the road to Kentucky to feast on fresh new bluegrass, I bloody well hope that Her Majesty's Minister of Finance is going to make damned well and sure that that horse bears an appropriate saddle for the kind of accumulated debt they've left behind. Make no mistake about it: That Ontario Hydro horse won't be in Kentucky very long before we start hearing of mergers and acquisitions. That too may be not a bad thing, but I'm telling you, we're talking about a huge corporation with a new set of interests and opportunities, and they are not going to be too interested in looking back to the mess they've left behind.

Anybody who would offer up a financial statement like the one I just cited is capable of all kinds of behaviour that in my view will not be in the public interest. I support this principle because it's supposed to deliver an equity of benefit and an equity of sharing the burden, but I have no evidence yet as to how that's going to happen. I just have an instinct that corporate Hydro is going to do everything it can to shirk as much of its responsibilities as possible in that connection.

Now to Bill 35. What does it say? What does it offer? I must say that the bill is fairly consistent with the recommendations from the white paper released some months ago. The bill gives us a number of expected things. We see the Independent Market Operator established. That's going to be the new independent referee to make this market work.

We get the disaggregation of Ontario Hydro; we get the new Genco and the new Servco. That's not a surprise. In some ways it will be; I must digress for a moment.

1650

In his report, Donald Macdonald made plain, as have others, that if you're going to have a competitive marketplace - and remember, that's the key; you're not going to make this policy work if it's not a truly competitive marketplace - there are some absolutely essential ingredients. You've got to have a market operator that is neutral, that is not in the pocket of any one of the players. That's why the government made the right decision, and I congratulate them for that in respect of how the Independent Market Operator is structured, as I understand it.

But as important, analysts will tell you that when you've got one player with 90% of the market power, you've got a big problem. I know the Market Design Committee and others are working at ways of trying to deal with that very complicated problem. I see in the press and I read from Mr Daniels and his group that they're looking at vested contracts and a variety of other tools, and I encourage them in that.

But make no mistake about it that a fundamental premise of this policy is that you've got to have a number of significant players in the generation business to have a real competitive market. We do not have that, and, on the basis of the minister's public statements in these kinds of environments, we don't yet have a public plan. I know there's a plan, and I think the gang in New York two months ago got a much clearer insight to what it's all about than we'll ever get here, certainly before the election. But that is a fundamental issue.

If I wanted to attack this policy on fundamental grounds, I would say, "Minister, this can't work as you've designed it because you have turned aside the Macdonald committee's recommendation that there must be a true disaggregation and breakup of Ontario Hydro's generation power in two or three of the ways that were imagined." The minister smiles knowingly, and I understand why he can't or won't say what he knows.

We have those realities in this bill, but we have some other things. I must thank Steve Dorey and the people over at finance. I think half the Ministry of Finance was on tap last Thursday afternoon when I went over for my briefing about some of the tax questions and some of the financial implications. I just simply want to say again that if I was talking to my constituents and this could be related to them in layperson's language, I'm going to tell you, those parts of the bill, parts V and VI, schedule A, I guess it is, of the bill - if you have a copy, we're looking at page 24 of the bill, part V, "The Financial Corporation." I find it very interesting looking at parts V and VI of the bill.

Let me say, in deference to the people over at finance, who I'm sure thought I was obtuse and truculent on these points last week, I understand the argument that says that if you're going to have a competitive marketplace, you've got to have a level playing field. A critical part of that level playing field is a fair and equitable taxation regime. That I understand.

But I think it's important for the House to understand that we have in this policy some new opportunities of permanent taxation for Her Majesty's Ontario government. I've sat here and listened for three years about the taxes we've reduced and the this and the that which we have provided to alleviate the burden on the overburdened Ontario taxpayer. Let me tell you that Jim Wilson and Ernie Eves are about to enter, for whatever good, theoretical purpose, into the Elysian Fields of new tax possibilities, because you know what they're going to be able to do here, folks? Read it for yourselves.

The government of Ontario will now set up the following structure: It will tax the successor companies to Ontario Hydro at all levels, but it's also going to tax, fully, the municipal utilities. You'd think that's a good thing, because of course it levels the playing field and there's going to be a multibillion-dollar stranded debt. That is the debt left behind after the new Ontario Hydro companies are sent on their way.

So we have that. We have a situation where, for example, with the Ontario Hydro successor companies - the generation company, Genco, and the services company, Servco - they are now going to be levied a federal corporate tax. Interestingly the Ontario government, not Ottawa, is going to collect and pocket that money, and that money in first instance is going to go towards paying down the residual stranded debt of Ontario Hydro. But once that debt is defeased, to use Donald Macdonald's wonderful word, once that debt is paid off, that happy little stream - and it's not going to be a very little stream, presumably - that new stream of government taxation revenue will flow in perpetuity to the Ontario government.

There's more. On the municipal side, the Ontario government will with this policy impose a tax on the adjusted gross revenues of all the municipal electrical utilities in this province. That's a very large rate base. The MEUs, as they're called, serve about 75% of the Ontario market. It is a rate base of millions of people and billions of dollars. This policy gives the government of Ontario the right to impose in perpetuity a tax on the adjusted gross revenues of the Ontario municipal utilities such as they will be after, as the minister rightly observes, a major reorganization in the coming months and years.

Again I say to the people over at finance, I understand the argument about levelling the playing field, but let there be no confusion: There is one big league beneficiary of that level playing field and it's the Ontario government treasury. We are not talking about nickels and dimes. This is a huge rate base. You won't need to take very much by way of rates to get a very large yield. There's something delicious and ironical about a situation where you've got the Minister of Finance who under this policy, again for reasons that I understand, has absolute power. If ever there was a player and umpire and beneficiary and reporter and judge in one game, it is the Minister of Finance in this policy.

Wonderful language. There are two or three places in parts IV and V of the electricity bill where the government is clear on critical questions of how much is the stranded debt; how does it get paid; when is it deemed to be paid off? One person gets to decide, and that's the Ontario Minister of Finance. There are a couple of places where it's made plain in the language of the bill, "and you shall not have recourse to the courts to challenge the determination made by the Minster of Finance."

For those of you with a libertarian or Preston Manning Reform instinct over there, I just simply want to tell you that is a not inconsequential power. I always like a referee who is neutral in the game.

Hon Mr Wilson: It's a standard clause.

Mr Conway: I say to my friend, what we've got now is the Ontario Minister of Finance who with one hand is going to reach in and forever cream off the federal tax payable to the successor companies of Ontario Hydro and put that money in his pocket, and with the other hand he's going to reach into the revenue base of the municipal electrical utilities, the vast majority of the existing rate base of the province, and he's going to cream off in perpetuity a portion of the adjusted gross revenues of the MEUs. Let me tell you that is a referee with an interest. Any of us who fantasize about the Minister of Finance, as undoubtedly the member for Simcoe West does, will salivate at the possibility.

1700

I understand the argument for a level playing field. I simply want to advertise what this bill does. This bill at one level represents an enormous tax grab which is going to have yields of hundreds of millions, probably billions, of dollars. Why I say that is, if you look at the analyses that have been done by people like Don Macdonald and others - Steve Dorey was down at this meeting in New York and he thought that the stranded debt, which is going to be in the order of $15 billion to $20 billion to $25 billion - the expectation is that that mound of debt is going to be written off in less than a decade. That ought to tell you just how rich some of these new taxation sources are going to be.

Let me tell you, on Main Street they're going to be interested. They're going to suspect, and rightly so, that they will be, at the end of the day, expected to shoulder a disproportionate share of that burden through their residential and farm rates.

Why, you might ask? Because it's simply such a large base. Why do these utilities attract the interests of the Rob Sampsons, who in a previous life were down on Bay Street or over on Wall Street? Because they are essentially regulated utilities with a huge base. As one of the government members indicated, the average residential bill is $1,000 a year. If you can get a piece of that action, let me tell you -

Interjection: It won't go up.

Mr Conway: The member says it won't go up. I hope and I pray that he's right. I've heard that before. The old-time religion about the last round: "Buy this and you will walk forever with a blue sky overhead and fresh green grass underfoot."

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I hate to interrupt the member but I think his comments are so important and historically relevant to people here that people should be here to hear them. I would appreciate if you would check and see if there is a quorum.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary L. Leadston): Is there a quorum present?

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is present, speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member of Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: As I was saying, this bill affords the government a very significant new array of taxation and it is going to be, I think, of very considerable interest to Main Street and to the average electricity consumer in this province that this is part of the policy.

I was also noting and I should add that any municipal electrical utility that in the course of its rationalization transfers any of its assets or whatever under certain conditions is also going to be facing a transfer tax - all of these taxes to be decided in amounts and under schedules that only one person is going to decide.

Can you imagine, for example, on the stranded debt question, I'm the Minister of Finance and let's say for the sake of argument that I - you see, we laugh and we're distracted. I can be a little more exercised on this because that's what legislatures have done repeatedly with this kind of policy. We laugh and we're distracted. We're given a few general bromides and we go away.

I'm going to just digress for a moment. I was really mad when I got looking at the Ontario Hydro stuff. I read the shilling of the likes of David Frum when he's going on about, "All public enterprises, terrible, terrible, terrible."

I read the New York Times, as some of you know, pretty regularly. Lately they have been telling the story about Lilco, Long Island Light, an 85-year-old, investor-owned utility in New York state. It's a debauchery even worse than Ontario Hydro - it has nothing to do with public enterprise - a grotesque rape and pillage of ratepayers and taxpayers, and it's still going on. The New York Times reported the other day that as one last gasp, the executives running Lilco - do you know what they had the nerve to do, having stuck taxpayers and stuck ratepayers for decades? Those gangsters walked out, and the president of Lilco, as a last gasp, paid himself a $42-million severance package. It is unbelievable. That's private power. I'd like to hear David Frum talk about that.

For those of you who are buying the new religion, let me be clear. The evidence is very clear that this problem is not the exclusive preserve of public utilities. The Times had two articles on Sunday, June 14, "The Legacy of Lilco: No-Fault Failure" - a multibillion-dollar boondoggle, and guess what? There is nobody around to accept any responsibility. That's before they find out that these clowns who wrecked the bloody thing walked out with I think $65 million worth of severance bonuses.

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): You've got a million, of course.

Mr Conway: Of course I've got a million, thanks to Mike Harris. That's not my point. If you want to talk about the business at hand, Mrs Marland, which is serious - we're all doing other things - that's what people want us to do.

The only problem with this is that we are responsible. We all offer up the bromides about accountability, and the bloody problem with this business is that we should be having a court martial here, we really should, and I guess I should be hauled up because I, unlike some of you, have a greater responsibility.

But I'm going to tell you, successive legislatures have been lied to, abused and otherwise trampled upon. Now we've got the mess and we've got the bill. I support the change, because the status quo is not an option, but just don't think for a moment that because we've changed direction we're not going to get our own version of Lilco.

When I look at California, when I look at New York, when I read Macdonald, for example, I say to the minister, it is said that if you really want to be fair to the retail consumer, you've got to be prepared to do a couple of things that I don't see anywhere in this policy. You've really got to embark on a very serious, rigorous, ongoing campaign, either on your own or with the industry, of public information.

The average customer is going to look at this - one of the previous speakers said that people had to make choices around telephones. I understand that. If you think deregulation in natural gas and/or deregulation in telecommunications was complicated, what is it going to be like on something more basic and more vital in our northern climate, electricity? All the evidence, particularly in places like California and Britain, suggests that if you're going to be fair to the residential customer, you've really got to go out and campaign with good public information that tells consumers what's going on, what are the choices, what are the consequences, where are the worry spots and where are the opportunities. There is none of that to date. We still have some time, and I want to see some of that.

The other thing that Macdonald and his group made plain is that this is a very complicated world. Macdonald recommended wholesale competition first and then retail competition, because to get good retail competition there's a whole new world that has to open up out there: agents, marketers, brokers, energy services companies. Some of those people are there, but they need time and room in which to develop. There is just no regard to that in this policy that I can see.

I'm going to tell you, as someone who supports competition, I am concerned, because this commodity in Ontario is so vital and it is therefore so political. If we get it wrong, we're going to hear about it, and we may inadvertently undermine the very policy we want.

1710

Can you imagine, if I'm a reader of the Belleville Intelligencer and in a year or two I see a version of Lilco, and meanwhile my rate or my service is going sideways or up, I am going to be ballistic, and I will be after Rollins or Hugh O'Neil or Harry Danford or Conway or Elmer Buchanan or whoever is my local representative, and I'm not going to be very polite.

Again the argument is: "We've learned from our past mistakes. It can't happen again." My experience in this business is that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, and this is complicated. It's not easy, and I respect the minister's problem. He's in a tough corner. That mess with Ontario Hydro Nuclear, the notion that we've got a rate freeze - listen, I'm not here to argue for a rate freeze - is a complete joke. How do we get a rate freeze? The rate freeze gives us a write-down of $6.3 billion last year, just so you know. Abracadabara.

So what are we going to do with Ontario Hydro over the next 18 months? It's all well and good to hear Dr Galt talking about the environmental possibilities. What did those of us who sat on the committee hear? Ontario Hydro is going to pull back about 4,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity, and it may or may not bring some of that back on stream in the next two or three years.

The economy is growing. Demand for power is going up at the very time when our generating capacity is going the other way. Yes, we will get some new capacity. I was happy to see TransAlta make its announcement last week about 540 megs of cogeneration for the Chemical Valley, but that's not going to be on stream for at least two or three years. How do we get through the night, and it's going to be a troubling night, if we want to keep rates, level and supply good, and keep safety and environmental standards?

Make no mistake about where we're going in the spot market for a good bit of the intermediate power. We're going to buy dirty, coal-fired electricity from the Ohio Valley. That's where we're going. That's just one of the problems we're going to have in the next two or three years. We are going to have to suck it up a bit environmentally, because according to the evidence presented to the committee, in the short term there aren't going to be very many opportunities to pick up that megawattage. We're talking about 4,000. I hope I'm wrong, but that was the evidence presented not that many months ago.

What about managing these costs? Farlinger is in the press talking about stranded debt - or total Hydro debt, I should say - that may be in the order of $45 billion to $47 billion. He's now saying his view about the stranding might be that the debt could be $25 billion to $30 billion. That's twice the figure that has been generally advanced: $25 billion to $30 billion. We'd better pay attention.

You see, my friends, these are not issues for which there are easy answers. The problem we have had is clearly one of accountability. Adam Beck's vision was to develop a public utility beyond public control, and he succeeded. It sounds crazy and paradoxical, but that's what he wanted. He wanted a public utility beyond public control. As he used to say, "I don't want the politics of the Intercolonial Railway," that public utility in Atlantic Canada built to carry not passengers or freight but elections.

Part of the Beck problem was that his vision was so infused with theology and religion. How many of you remember going, 15 or 20 or 30 years ago, to a Hydro meeting? I remember going. Talk about a corporate policy and corporate religion. It was something, and in a growing economy, hey, tomorrow is always going to be better than today or yesterday. Why not build the biggest and the best?

When we talk about public utilities, it's really interesting. Lilco's downfall was largely the result of the ill-fated Shoreham nuclear power station. Just so you know, it was built but never opened. The cost overruns at Shoreham were in the order of 100 times. These captains of private industry: 100 times was the overrun, and it never really opened. Just unbelievable.

You ask yourself, as the people of Long Island asked: Where was the energy board? Where was the public utilities commission? Where was the state Legislature? What was going on? Part of it was of course that there, like here, the big unions, the big governments and the big businesses were all lined up saying: "Ready, aye, ready. Progress, you must understand." Only a nattering nabob of negativism would want to discount the possibility of this old-time religion. So it happened.

Interjections.

Mr Conway: The ministers giggle. They won't be here. If this policy misfires, Mrs Marland will be at home enjoying her grandchildren, and I'll be long gone as well. Part of me wants a court-martial, because nobody ever gets to accept the responsibility. Go back, for example, and look at the performance on the Denison contracts. That's not very long ago. I look at those now and I am absolutely stupefied at the unbelievable boondoggle.

I remember the day - it was a Friday afternoon - that William Grenville Davis, with Kathy in tow, walked into the committee and put oil on troubled waters. It worked magic. There were a few people who were nattering away about, "Doesn't this just seem incredible?" and there were a few people writing in a few journals. The matter came up again in an election, where the government of Mr Davis won a very clear victory. I'm a democrat; I'm not complaining. I look back on that now and say: How did that ever happen? How did we ever get away with it? That's only as a context for this point of new departure.

I conclude my remarks again by saying, what's the test? The test for me is yes to competition, yes to transparent and rigorous regulation. I said earlier, nothing would have made me happier than for Bill Farlinger and Carl Andognini to take their NAOP and, before coming to the Legislature, go down to the energy board and let some people with some experience and some professional oversight and cross-examination capacity have at them, and if they pass that test, then come to the Legislature. They come to the Legislature, just pile a great big dose of feathers and honey on the place and away they go.

Yes, I'm for regulation. I recognize the growing convergence between gas and electricity. I believe that had there been the competitive instinct in the marketplace, there would have been the discipline to have made Ontario Hydro Nuclear meet some kind of market test for real cost.

I say again, what I want to know is, what benefits are there going to be for the regular residential and farm customer? There are a lot of people I represent in places like Beachburg and Barry's Bay and Palmer Rapids, people like my colleague from Hastings up in places like Bancroft and out in rural Grey and up in Muskoka. I'm going to tell you, I would want to know what's going to happen to the reliability, the safety and the price of the distribution world in my part of mid-northern or rural Ontario.

There are some very warm and fuzzy statements being made. The test will be in the performance downstream. What are the benefits going to be to Main Street? When are they coming? Will there be an equity of benefit in rates? Will there be an equity in the sharing of the burden? I know, as Connecticut has shown clearly, that the lobbyists and the political activists will be there working overtime, burning the midnight oil, to make Bay Street happy, to give very real and very quick benefits to special moneyed interests that will not have my interests as a citizen or the public interests as their first concern.

With those remarks I take my seat. I will certainly be looking, in the coming weeks and months, for very critical information, like the amount and the mechanism for retiring stranded debt, without which no sensible Legislature could make a final judgement about this enormously important public policy.

1720

The Acting Speaker: I remind the member for Renfrew North, when you're referring to a member, you refer to her riding, not to her name.

Questions and comments?

Mr Lessard: It's been a pleasure to listen to the member for Renfrew North on a subject in which he has so much knowledge. I was just starting to get into it and he's only been speaking for one hour.

I wasn't in short pants 22 years ago when the member for Renfrew North started here, but I do remember when I was in short pants back in grade school. John Robarts was the Premier. The all-electric house was being touted as a panacea for comfortable lifestyles. Comic books were distributed to the school that I went to that talked about the wonders of nuclear power. That was the new religion that was in vogue during that time and we see where that's got us to now.

I think we need to pay some attention to the member when he talks about the new religion that's being touted now, the new religion of deregulation, privatization and giving over to the private sector what the public sector has been doing in the past and doing that on the basis that there had been some mistakes that have been made in the past and therefore we should just unload all this responsibility in the hope that maybe somebody else can do it better. We have a new system and that might benefit consumers.

That really is the question that we need to ask ourselves: How is this going to benefit John and Mary Q. Public, who are at home and turn on the lights and just want to have a guaranteed supply of electricity at a lower rate and pay their hydro bill every couple of months? We do require regulation to ensure that the environment is protected, that consumers are protected and that the benefit of this deregulation goes to consumers.

Hon Mr Wilson: I want to join with our colleagues and thank the member for Renfrew North for I think a very insightful dissertation about Bill 35. Just a couple of things. His litmus test that he posed was, who's protecting the consumer? I want to just stress that every consumer protection that's available under the law today under the Power Corporation Act and the Energy Act, all the good stuff, is contained in Bill 35, plus there are enhancements. The consumer will now have a choice where they get their electricity supply, just like they do with gas and long-distance telephone, or if they don't want to exercise that choice, as the honourable member for Huron, the parliamentary assistant, said, many of us have chosen to stick with our current gas company. Yet we've seen rates go down at least 30% in the natural gas sector over the last 10 years. So the average consumer has benefited.

The rural rate assistance and assistance to remote customers remains part of this legislation, as in past legislation, and opportunities for environmental enhancements, a brand-new part of our energy industry, can emerge, which will be good for the environment. That's something that concerns all of us.

I say to those who think this is strictly a bill for the big-money men that really what you're describing is the status quo. What could be bigger than the $32 billion for the bondholders out there who are the Wall Streets and the Bay Streets? In fact, this bill should be seen as finally we're getting out from under the crushing burden of the big-money men and we're finally having some freedom. Consumers will have choice and freedom to shop and freedom to finance electricity generation projects in the future from those other than the big-money men who buy Ontario Hydro bonds.

You could actually see this as a very liberating piece of legislation. The huge amounts of money, hundreds of millions of dollars we pay in interest and debt to Wall Street and Bay Street because of mismanagement by previous governments and Ontario Hydro is exactly what this bill gets us out of.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I'd like to thank my colleague. The minister referred to comments of the member for Renfrew North as a dissertation. I think it's a thesis. The universities are handing out honorary doctorates and I think the member for Renfrew North should be given an honorary doctorate for the simple reason that there is no one in this room as knowledgeable as the member for Renfrew North, especially when we talk about Ontario Hydro and the energy provided by Ontario Hydro.

As the member pointed out, yes, we approve in principle. The status quote is unacceptable. We need some changes. But we need some answers. Who will pay for this great debt of Ontario Hydro? I'm sure it's going to be the customers - you, you and everybody else in this room. Somebody has to pay for this debt. What the member for Renfrew North is telling us today is, be wise, be very careful when you make these major changes to Ontario Hydro.

The government is trying to sell the possibility or is telling us that our rates will go down by 20% or 25% or maybe 30%. Well, there is nothing in this bill that will convince me or anybody else that our rates will go down by even 5% or 10% down the road, five or 10 years from now. What we are faced with today is a major decision, and it shouldn't be taken lightly by the government.

Hon Mrs Marland: I must say, I agree with the member for Ottawa East that an honorary degree to be bestowed on the member for Renfrew North would be appropriate at any time for his service to the people of Ontario and his service to all of us who have had the privilege of being in this chamber with him. He is, in my opinion, one of the greatest orators we have ever had in this chamber.

Although I wouldn't agree with all his comments on this afternoon's legislation that is before us, obviously the status quo in terms of Ontario Hydro and the provision of electric power in this province simply isn't acceptable to anyone, either the consumers or the taxpayers. But as the member for Renfrew North says so well, it is important that all these issues are on the table and being discussed. That's the reason I'm very happy that the bill in its present form is before the House.

When the time comes for the member for Renfrew North to leave this chamber - frankly, when the member for Ottawa East said that there's no one here like him, there isn't anyone in this chamber today or any other day that's like him, ever since the departure of Bob Nixon, Ian Scott -

Ms Lankin: Bob Rae.

Hon Mrs Marland: Thank you - Bob Rae, and Bill Davis.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Renfrew North has two minutes to respond.

Mr Conway: To my colleagues I will simply say this: The late Adlai Stevenson once observed, "Flattery is fine so long as you do not inhale," and like Bill Clinton, I'll try not to inhale.

Two comments. First, no decision in this process is going to be more critical to the average consumer and taxpayer than that whole question of stranded debt. I ask you to consider subsection 79(7) of schedule A of the bill, the electricity. Listen to this:

"The determination of the Minister of Finance that the residual stranded debt has been retired is final and conclusive and shall not be stayed, varied or set aside by any court."

When you take that section and marry it to a couple of the other places where the determination around stranded debt is set out, it's absolutely the centrepiece of much of this policy. If I'm a residential customer, living in Barry's Bay or Bancroft or Guelph or North York, the determination of that is central, and only one person gets to make that. That individual is an elected official, granted, but he has, because of the tax implications of this policy, an enormous interest. I say, what protections are there for the general public? Those decisions around how stranded debt is decided, how it's apportioned and how it's going to be carried by generators and by consumers, by everyone - that is a central question, and I see little or no protection for the average person in this policy. It may develop, but again, the Minister of Finance is not without an interest. He has a huge taxation interest.

A final observation: Last Wednesday's Financial Post reported that Ontario power users may face long waits for reductions in rates. Bill Farlinger says it's a leap of faith and it may be years before residential customers see a break. Bob Lake from Peterborough PUC says the same: a leap of faith. The regular customer is going to want more than just a leap of faith.

1730

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Lessard: I want to begin my remarks in a similar vein as my response with respect to the minister's statement on the introduction of Bill 35 last week. That is to say that I and members of my caucus support competition generally, but we're not supportive of competition at any cost. We acknowledge that bringing competition into Ontario's electricity sector is something that needs to be done, and we acknowledge as well that there have been problems at Ontario Hydro over the years that have got us to the point where drastic action like that set out in Bill 35 has to be taken. Perhaps saying that there have been problems in Ontario Hydro over the years is a bit of an understatement.

We have some serious concerns with respect to the approach that has been taken to try and deal with those problems and to try and introduce competition into the Ontario electricity market. I'd like to outline some of those concerns generally and then elaborate on some of them as I go along.

First of all, although this is a very substantial bill - it's some 161 pages long - there are still many details that we need to hear about in the coming weeks and months. There are a number of unanswered questions that need to be answered as well. We are concerned about the impact Bill 35 will have on the quality of our environment, because we know that opening up the Ontario market to other generators of electricity will mean that American generators are going to be selling electricity into the Ontario market, and that is probably going to mean generators who burn dirty Ohio Valley coal. We have experienced the impact of that in my area, in the Windsor-Riverside community, and that's something I want to spend a few minutes on as well.

We are also concerned about the impact the legislation is going to have on consumers. That's really the major reason, the carrot the government is holding out in trying to get a buy-in from the public to support Bill 35: the expectation that consumers will enjoy lower rates through deregulation of Ontario Hydro and the opening up of competition in the electricity sector.

We are also concerned that this bill, although it doesn't specifically address the issue of privatization, really is silent with respect to privatization. Although the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology has indicated that it's not an option he's considering at this point in time and even if he were, it's at least five years down the road, there really isn't anything in this bill that prevents a move towards privatization of Ontario Hydro, and that's something that I want to speak about further as well.

Finally, one of the issues that causes a great deal of concern, which has been alluded to already this afternoon, is the whole issue of the stranded debt. How is that stranded debt going to be covered? First of all, how is it going to be determined? We don't even know what the amount of the stranded debt is at present. We're told we're going to receive a paper about it sometime in July and it will give us a better idea of what the stranded debt is. We want to know how that's going to be calculated and, most important, how it's going to be serviced.

Is there going to be an opportunity for some consumers of electricity in Ontario to somehow escape having to pay the stranded debt? Are there some small retail consumers who are going to end up paying an inordinate share of the stranded debt? Is the determination of the size of the stranded debt going to leave the successor companies of Ontario Hydro in a non-competitive position and therefore subject to being encouraged to be privatized? Because they're no longer competitive, one might use the argument that as the stranded debt they're being saddled with is so high, probably the best option for them is to privatize those successor companies.

That really, in a general way, outlines the concerns that I have with respect to Bill 35.

The legislation has been introduced as not only inevitable, but something that's going to be beneficial to consumers. The objects of the legislation, the purposes of the bill, are set out in part I. This is what they say:

"1. The purposes of this act are,

"(a) to facilitate competition...

"(c) to protect the interests of consumers...

"(d) to promote economic efficiency...

"(e) to ensure that Ontario Hydro's debt is repaid..." and

"(g) to facilitate energy efficiency and the use of cleaner, more environmentally benign energy sources in a manner consistent with the policies of the government of Ontario."

You know, it sounds pretty good. Certainly none of us can disagree with those objects. It sounds almost too good to be true. You know what they say about things that sound as though they're too good to be true; they are. Before we start to believe what this government has to say about the reduction in rates to consumers and the increased protection to the environment, we have to ask some very serious questions.

We know that the prices for Ontario Hydro are the third-highest in Canada and we need to try and bring rates down, but is the problem with respect to high rates going to be solved by breaking up Ontario Hydro? That's a question we really need to ask ourselves. Is this going to benefit all consumers, or are some consumers going to benefit more than others?

I'm not so sure that all consumers are going to benefit from lower rates or from the breakup of Ontario Hydro. It seems as though Bill Farlinger, the chair of Ontario Hydro, agrees. Quoting from an article in the Toronto Star from a few days ago, he calls the Premier's confidence that lower prices for all were going to be the result of Bill 35 "a leap of faith." We're going to be very vigilant in ensuring that that is going to be the result of the passage of Bill 35.

We know there are going to be major power users. Ford was one of the companies that was mentioned here this afternoon, and I have a number of large energy users in my area as well. Chrysler is one of them, General Motors, Ford, and the casino as well - a huge consumer of electricity. If they are going to get lower rates, who is going to pay for that benefit that they're going to receive? We saw with the breakup of telephone monopolies and gas retailers that sometimes those benefits aren't quite enjoyed by all consumers. When telephone rates were deregulated, certainly large customers of long-distance services benefited greatly. However, residential telephone users who didn't use a lot of long-distance services ended up paying for that benefit. Local telephone rates increased, and have increased substantially, over the years. That's not something that we want to see happen with respect to the breakup of Ontario Hydro.

1740

We've heard from some of the government members this afternoon that there are going to be some protections in the bill with respect to the environment. Certainly there are some provisions in Bill 35 with respect to protection of the environment and I just want to refer to those. They are regulation-making powers, by and large, and because this is really an enabling statute, it leaves a lot of the details with respect to environmental protection for the regulations, which we don't have before us.

We receive all of these vague assurances from government members about how there are going to be all of these grandiose plans to try and enhance environmental protection. This is what it says in schedule B of the bill. It's in section 69. It talks about licences for people who are going to be involved in the marketing of electricity. Conditions of licences can be applied, according to section 69, and some of those conditions are going to include "specifying information reporting requirements relating to the source of electricity and emissions caused by the generation of electricity." That's something that is going to be a condition of the licence of a person who is engaged in selling electricity.

How is it that they're going to come up with those standards that need to be complied with? That's set out in section 87. It says, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations." Not "shall make regulations;" it says "may." So it enables cabinet - that's the Lieutenant Governor in Council - to make these regulations. It doesn't require them to make regulations, but it says these are some of the things they can do. It says to require retailers to disclose "the nature and quantity of the prescribed contaminants emitted by the generation facility from which the electricity being sold" comes from. It also indicates that they have to provide information about contaminants from a source or class and they also have to give information "respecting the manner in which reductions, credits or allowances acquired by a generator under the Environmental Protection Act may be used...." They also have to make timely disclosure to consumers.

It all sounds very good, but once again I have to remind you that this is enabling legislation. It says that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make these regulations, and there's no absolute requirement that there needs to be information collected about the contaminants that are produced by generators of electricity and no requirement that there needs to be compliance with certain limits with respect to contaminants as well. When we consider in good faith the comments that have been made by the government members about their willingness or their intention to introduce regulations to enhance environmental protection, we really have to measure that in relation to their record over the last several years in dealing with environmental issues.

I have the 1997 annual report from the Environmental Commissioner, which I've referred to on numerous occasions here in this Legislature. I think it's important that I highlight once again the comments of the Environmental Commissioner. She said:

"Overall, environmental health continues to be a very low priority for the ministers of this province. Ministry business plans indicate that ministers are withdrawing from their environmental commitments. More and more, they are failing to integrate their responsibility for the environment into their core business plans and into their social, economic and scientific considerations."

She refers to a number of examples to back up that statement as well. A couple of them have to do with Ontario Hydro. On page 33 of the report, she talks about how Ontario Hydro in 1991 - when the New Democratic Party government was in power, by the way - had planned to cut nitrogen oxide emissions, NO_x, by 19,000 tonnes by the year 2000. What's happened to that commitment?

We know that as a result of Hydro's unexpected announcement in August 1997 of having to shut down seven of their nuclear reactors, they had to shift to more burning of fossil fuel. That commitment to reduce NO_x emissions is in serious doubt - not in serious doubt; I would hazard to say that there is absolutely no way they're going to be able to meet that commitment, considering the shutting down of those seven nuclear reactors.

Again with respect to Ontario Hydro, on page 66 the report deals with a number of reviews and investigations that were conducted by the Environmental Commissioner. One of the investigations she made was a result of an allegation that Ontario Hydro had discharged large quantities of heavy metals into the Great Lakes due to the erosion of brass condenser tube walls at its power plants. Those investigations are to be completed some time in 1998, but they really indicate a less-than-favourable role by Ontario Hydro in the protection of the environment.

It's lucky that we have someone like the Environmental Commissioner who can undertake investigations to ensure that Ontario Hydro has lived up to its environmental commitments, because if we have to depend on this government to do that, we know their record is less than exemplary. Part of that has to do with their agenda, finding the money to fulfil their commitment to their phoney tax scheme.

We've seen what the result of that has been in the Windsor area, and that's referred to in the Environmental Commissioner's report as well. She says that because of Ministry of Environment budget cuts, the committee we had in Windsor, the Windsor air quality committee, has become inactive. The Ministry of the Environment's Windsor office has lost half of its staff. There's no local action plan or target to improve Windsor air quality.

You'll recall that a few weeks ago the Ontario Medical Association released a report that talked about how awful the air quality was in southwestern Ontario and most specifically in the Windsor area, and the negative impact that has on the health of the people whom I represent.

1750

We know that much of that smog that we're forced to inhale, much of that dirty air that comes into Ontario through the southern part of the province comes from the United States. We acknowledge that. However, given that reality, we have to be asking ourselves what we want to do in making the hydro market more competitive. Do we want to encourage electricity generators in the United States who are going to burn dirty coal so they can sell cheap power back to us? Is that really what we want to encourage? I don't think that's what I want to see in my area. So there are some trade-offs we need to be aware of when it comes to offering to consumers this promise that there are going to be lower hydro rates if only we pass Bill 35.

What we really need to be doing is ensuring that the United States commits to more rigorous standards for particulates and ground-level ozone. In fact, in March 1997 the Ministry of the Environment made a submission to the US Environmental Protection Agency and asked them to do just that. However, the Environmental Commissioner acknowledges in her report that: "Ontario's negotiating position is very weak. Although some of the air quality guidelines have lower concentrations than the new US standards, Ontario numbers are only guidelines and therefore are unenforceable."

So here we are trying to say to the Americans: "We're opening up our markets so you can sell us cheap power. You're going to be generating it with dirty Ohio coal. The bad air is going to be coming over into Ontario for us to breathe, and we'd really like you to reduce your emissions." The Americans are going to say to us: "Look, you don't enforce your own standards. They're unenforceable. They're voluntary. Why is it that you're coming to us to tell us to lower our standards when they're better than yours are?"

What the Ministry of the Environment needs to do is set enforceable, regulated standards for inhalable particulates and develop a comprehensive compliance program to ensure that those standards are met. That is the context within which we need to be looking at those environmental regulatory powers that are set out in Bill 35. I think, notwithstanding all the remarks that have been made and the commitments that have been made by the government, the legislation should be amended to state very clearly that those environmental standards for those who generate power to sell into the Ontario market shall be imposed. Those regulations must be put in place. They need to be stringent and they need to be enforceable as well, which brings up another question.

Even if those regulations are put into place, how are we going to ensure that American power generators are going to be in compliance with them? If they're not in compliance, how are we going to be able to impose any sanctions on them? I don't see that in this bill. I'll be looking forward to hearing from people about the bill when we go to public hearings during the summertime, to see what suggestions they have to place in this bill some very strong language in dealing with environmental protection for United States power generators.

When it comes to the generation of power by American companies, we have a situation on the Detroit River, right across from the area I represent. It's called the Conners Creek power plant. It's a coal-fired power plant. It hasn't been running for 10 years. Of course the environmental standards 10 years ago were much lower than they are now. They want to restart that plant, use those 10-year-old standards, use the equipment that is probably close to 50 years old, and run it during this summer, a time when the air quality in the Windsor area is notoriously bad. Those days when it goes up to 30 or 35 degrees, the air is very humid and it just hangs in there. That's when they want to fire up this Conners Creek power plant.

We see the difficulties that we're having in trying to get that power plant to comply with current US Environmental Protection Agency regulations. This has required the federal Liberal government to get involved, to make submissions to the Environmental Protection Agency. I've made statements about this power plant here. It's something we need our Minister of the Environment to get involved in as well with the state of Michigan. I would encourage him to do that, because if we're having problems like this now, once we start to open up our hydro market to foreign generators, I can just anticipate that there are going to be more problems with respect to the environment as a result of dirty coal-generating plants producing electricity that they can sell cheaply into the Ontario market.

Some of the things that I want to cover when I continue after we break this evening have to deal with the stranded debt -

The Acting Speaker: The time being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 6:30 of the clock this evening.

The House adjourned at 1758.

Evening meeting reported in volune B.

17 juin 1998