Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF ENERGY (CONTINUED)

On votes 1801 and 1802:

Mr. Chairman: When we rose at 6 o’clock, p.m., we were considering the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, votes 1801 and 1802. Any further comments?

The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Chairman, I understood the minister to say that he was thinking of going into the uranium enrichment process. How much electric energy is this going to consume in order to enrich the uranium for export?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): No, I am not going into the enrichment business. All I am saying is that I think there are people in this country who are interested in going into the enrichment business -- probably not here -- probably in the Province of Quebec, because there is presumably more power there, and perhaps cheaper power, at least temporarily.

Mr. Burr: Have you any idea how much electric energy is going to be consumed in this, because in the US --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Two thousand megawatts.

Mr. Burr: Two thousand megawatts?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. Burr: For what?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: For a $1 billion enrichment plant.

Mr. Burr: Two thousand megawatts -- well, for what, per day?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: A Pickering plant.

Mr. Burr: Oh, you mean a plant of that size?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You would need a Pickering. You would need roughly a Pickering plant to run a $1 billion enrichment plant.

Mr. Burr: Energy to create energy.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. Burr: In the US it took huge amounts of electric energy in order to produce the fuel. In fact, it was years before they broke even. It seems a very wasteful process for, as you admit yourself, a dangerous use. You have said yourself that the enriched uranium plants are much more dangerous than ours.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, Mr. Chairman, I did not say that, on a point of order. What I said was that I firmly believe all nuclear generating systems are as safe as the inspection and safety authorities know how to make them. Having said that, I think the Candu system is probably safer.

Mr. Burr: I am sorry. You said that ours is safer than theirs.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s right.

Mr. Burr: Right. That doesn’t mean then that theirs is more dangerous than ours?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. Burr: I see.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Not from your perspective, no, it wouldn’t.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Yes, I have several little things I would like the minister to clear up for me, Mr. Chairman. I want to refer to the pink paper that the minister put out when he was the parliamentary assistant in Energy, and proposal No. 5 that was circulated around.

Ontario Hydro, through its chairman, reacted to the various proposals that were put forward to the Premier (Mr. Davis) by the now minister. Proposal No. 5 says that the government of Ontario should make continuing representations to the government of Canada to ensure that federal government policies have as their stated objective that exports of Canadian energy resources of all types, including uranium, are not permitted until long-term supplies for Canada are assured.

Of course, Ontario Hydro say they obviously agree with that and they say that this approach would also help to ensure that export prices would not set domestic prices and any legislative action would, of course, have to be considered in the light of potential reciprocal constraints by other countries. And they say that they -- Ontario Hydro, that is -- will keep the regulatory authorities advised of Hydro’s present and future fuel requirements and their methods of obtaining supplies to enable implementation of any legislative procedures that may be considered necessary.

In the light of events in the intervening months concerning various types of energy that might be used, has the minister changed his mind on that proposal No. 5, in the light of the Premier’s objective stated recently in this Legislature of calling for a more up-to-date look and a more advanced look at our uranium resources; and how he even intimated that we should be looking forward to assisting the uranium mining industry by allowing them to export, or at least advocating to some extent that the federal government release their constraints with regard to the production and the off-shore sale of uranium oxide?

In keeping with that, there was, I think, since the minister stated that proposal, there was a proposal presented to the province, I believe it was by the Acres Company, to construct a nuclear generating station somewhere along the north shore of Lake Superior, just north of Sault Ste. Marie, wholly and solely for export. That was my understanding at the time the announcement was made. I know that the chairman of Ontario Hydro, Mr. Gathercole, was questioned at some length during a recent trip to the north about this, about allowing a nuclear generating station to be constructed on the shore of the only remaining pristine lake, supposedly, in Ontario and North America, having regard for the thermal pollution and the use of a precious source of energy wholly and solely for export to the United States.

I have several other things that I would like a clarification from the minister on, based on this list of proposals to the Premier that the minister made in his former capacity. But I think for the sake of brevity and to maintain some semblance of order, I would ask about them one at a time.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, I don’t think there is any inconsistency between what the Premier said a couple of weeks ago in tabling the paper and what I said a year ago.

Mr. Stokes: Well, all right. You say that we should ensure that the federal government initiates a policy or continues --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Exactly, and that’s what our paper was all about.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, continues with a policy of not allowing any export until we know what our requirements are.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They don’t have that policy.

Mr. Stokes: Pardon?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They don’t have that policy now.

Mr. Stokes: Well, all right --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They have no policy.

Mr. Stokes: All right, what was the Premier saying then with regard to our uranium supplies, that maybe we should be looking at export --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, he did not say that.

Mr. Stokes: -- when we don’t know what our own requirements are?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He did not say that at all, Mr. Chairman. I suggest, with great respect, that the member read what the Premier said. The Premier did not say that.

He did not ask for, nor did the paper which was tabled ask for, a relaxation of the export controls. We asked for export controls in the development of a formula. There was nothing in what the Premier said which suggested that there was any desirability of not having export controls. What the Premier said and what the paper said was completely consistent with the proposal which was tabled a year ago.

Mr. Stokes: Well, all right. Further to that, it was related to it but Ontario Hydro said in connection with our uranium energies that our present uranium requirements to the year 2000 are approximately 80,000 tons.

Allowing for existing export contracts this represents nearly all of the proven reserves at less than $10 a pound in Ontario. In view of the impending surge in world uranium demand and the pressures this will exert on prices and available supplies, it is imperative that ample long-term supplies of low-cost uranium be secured for use in Ontario. We are currently evaluating whether our long-term needs are best met with contracts or by the purchase of uranium reserves.

As oil represents less of our generating capacity we have not as yet fully evaluated our situation regarding ownership versus contracts. However, with the commitment of the Wesleyville generating station to burn oil, an evaluation is under way.

They further state:

We will press ahead with evaluation of our long-term fuel requirements and the best means of securing them and will submit our findings as soon as possible. For uranium, initial indications are that the best course of action from the standpoint of both security and price is outright purchase of reserves.

Does this mean that if Acres made a proposal to either the provincial or the federal government for the construction of a nuclear generating capacity any place in Ontario that you would block it strictly for export purposes until you were assured of continuity of supply at a reasonable price, having regard for our own domestic needs?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No. If I had my druthers I would block the sale to the UK or block the sale to Japan and let Acres go ahead. But we are a long way from making that decision.

Mr. Stokes: Are you suggesting then, Mr. Minister, that in your opinion we have ample reserves in the short run --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I did not say that at all. What I am saying is that rather than export raw uranium I think it might be better to take a serious look at the export of electricity from the province. I have assumed over the years that that is New Democratic Party policy.

Mr. Stokes: It is certainly our policy to create jobs and do the ultimate in processing, but I question whether we should be using a source of energy, the quantity of which is undetermined and unknown at this time. Don’t you think it would be much wiser for us to know what our requirements are going to be for --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We know what our requirements are. Those are spelled out in the paper.

Mr. Stokes: Oh, we know what our requirements are in terms of energy, but we don’t know what our requirements are having regard for the various kinds of resources, whether they be fossil fuels or anything else. We don’t know what those reserves are, and --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, we do.

Mr. Stokes: Getting back to a statement made just recently by the president of Rio Algom. He says that the policies of the federal and many of the provincial jurisdictions have an inhibiting factor on the kind of exploration that they think is going to be necessary in order to determine what our long-term supplies are going to be.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He is quite right.

Mr. Stokes: So I am wondering why would you allow the generation of electric power from uranium for export purposes before our future requirements are, even in the short run, determined.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Why would you allow the export of uranium?

Mr. Stokes: We wouldn’t. We certainly wouldn’t.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You wouldn’t?

Mr. Stokes: No.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am just interested. You wouldn’t allow the present sales -- this is before the government of Canada, I am interested in this -- you would not allow the sales which have been made by Denison to Japan and the sale which is being made by Rio Algom to the UK? You would not allow that?

Mr. Stokes: Until we can be told unequivocally that they are surplus to our needs -- in much the same way that we opposed the export of natural gas to the United States. And, of course, events of the past two years have proven us right.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am just interested.

Mr. Stokes: As our friend Tommy Douglas says, you know --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, your friend.

Mr. Stokes: When they went before the National Energy Board --

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): You should get to know each other well.

Mr. Stokes: When the gas companies made the application before the National Energy Board we felt that we weren’t too certain that the amount they were talking about was surplus to our own domestic needs. The events have proven us right, because now that the contract has been let and the cheap gas is flowing freely into the United States, we have got the petroleum companies coming to us and saying we must develop new sources right now or we are going to be in real danger. So we are in the unhappy position of exporting cheap energy to the United States while we are furiously looking for capital to exploit the more expensive kinds up in the Mackenzie delta and offshore Arctic. I just don’t think that we should be making the same mistake with uranium that the federal government and the Province of Alberta have made with regard to oil, and gas for that matter.

If the minister says that he hasn’t changed from his statement of Aug. 29, 1973, and if he’s saying that the Premier’s statement in the House with regard to uranium hasn’t changed that policy either, I’m happy to have that assurance from the minister. If anybody makes an application to the federal government for large exports of uranium oxide that we consider aren’t surplus to our needs, I’m happy to hear that we have an ally in this minister.

I want to ask the minister what he proposes to do about energy price controls. He says in the same document in proposal 6:

The government of Canada should be pressed to resort to energy price controls, if this is necessary, to ensure that domestic prices of energy resources are not inflated by prices with respect to energy supply beyond the borders of Canada, and are not unduly influenced by the anticipation of higher costs of production related to future energy supplies.

As a result of initiatives taken jointly by the federal government and the province, we have what, in effect, is price control on oil, at least for the next year to 14 months.

What initiatives do you think should be taken by the federal government to assure the consumer in the Province of Ontario that you will intervene if there is significant increases in the price of other forms of energy? This was raised here earlier this afternoon, and I’m not sure whether the minister is aware of what has taken place in heating fuel for domestic consumption over the past year, since this somewhat contrived energy shortage hit us.

The minister mentioned something about tendering for large blocks of heating oil. I want to tell the minister that there are two school boards in my riding which buy in block for all of their heating requirements for various schools under their jurisdiction. One of them was the Geraldton district school board and the other one was the Lake Superior school board. In the case of the former, they buy in block up to 50,000 gallons, and they had invited three major oil companies to submit bids. Last year, when that was done, they got their fuel oil requirements at a fairly reasonable rate. It was something in the neighbourhood of 20 to 22 cents a gallon.

This worked so well that they did the same thing again last fall for their oil requirements, inviting the same three companies to submit a bid, and they got a bid from only one of them. That was the one that had supplied them the year previously. When the Geraldton district school board asked the other two companies why they hadn’t bothered to bid, they said they were only interested in serving present customers. The only one that submitted a bid increased the price by 50 per cent and nobody squawked except the school board, because the other two companies obviously weren’t interested in taking business away from their friends or competitors, depending on how you want to look at it.

You mentioned earlier there was tendering and in that way the prices would be competitive. I wanted to remind you that there were documented cases, as a result of this contrived energy shortage last fall, whereby there is no such thing as free enterprise in the domestic heating oil business. There is no such thing as competitive bidding; they just charge all the traffic will bear.

I don’t know whether you want to call it collusion or whether you want to call it -- well, you can call it whatever you want, I think it is gouging. I think that some agency of this government if it has the power -- and if it hasn’t, I think it should go to the federal government which certainly has -- should see that there is some protection not only for the independent homeowner but in the case of a school board which is playing the game by accepted rules but finds out it is going to get it in the neck anyway.

I would like the minister’s comments as to whether or not he thinks this is fair practice, and, if he doesn’t, will he prevail upon his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement) to intervene? I’ve already brought this to the ministry’s attention and he didn’t think there was too much wrong with it. What does the minister think?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: As I said this afternoon to the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt), unless you are going to institute price controls in this particular commodity, I don’t think there is anything that can be done about it. I would agree with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Stokes: Are you saying they don’t have to bid if they don’t want to? You do business with a customer for years and you put out bids and everything is going along fine until they’ve got to do a little bit of belt-tightening. Then all of a sudden they’ll say “No, we’ll let him have it.” Where is your competitive bidding?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I know of no law which requires somebody to bid no matter how long he has had the business.

Mr. Stokes: All right. Do you think a 50 per cent increase in the cost of heating oil under the circumstances --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Remember, I would say to the member, that was common all across the province.

Mr. Stokes: Pardon?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That was common all across the province.

Mr. Stokes: It may have been common. Do you think it was justified?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, but I’m not going to convince you of the reasons. The member thinks the shortage was a contrived shortage. The fact is I don’t think it was a contrived shortage. There were shortages and the minute there is the least sign of shortage, you will not get the kind of competitive bidding which normally you would.

Ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes), what has happened to the price of asphalt; ask any one of the school boards what kind of a response they’ve got. I think things have levelled out somewhat. But when oil prices were rising at the level they were in the early winter and last fall, there is no way that any company would give a guaranteed price for a year.

Mr. Stokes: I don’t expect them to give a guaranteed price.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s what they were asked to do on that bid. You look at your school board bid.

Mr. Stokes: No, they weren’t. They were asked to quote a price on 50,000 gallons of fuel oil and deliver it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: All at once?

Mr. Stokes: Yes.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, over a period of a year. It is a year’s requirements.

Mr. Stokes: Okay, I’m not going to argue with the minister. I think that it is patently unfair that oil companies should be allowed to operate in that fashion at the expense of the consumer.

Mr. Chairman, the other topic I want to get into is policy of this ministry but also relates to Ontario Hydro. If it relates to Ontario Hydro do you want me to bring it up under the --

Mr. Chairman: This would be the place, I suggest, because vote 1802 includes policy of direction to Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Stokes: All right. I want to chat briefly with the minister and before I do so I want to pay a tribute to Ontario Hydro for the enlightened way it has involved the public in northwestern Ontario as to the site location of a new thermal generating station someplace in northwestern Ontario. Now, I know they’ve come under a good deal of fire down here in the south and a good deal of it may have been justified. But I want to say that when you see an adjunct of this government, and an agency that we’re all so involved with, in the provision of something that’s so vital and so essential to our way of life as Ontario Hydro, I think when they do something well, I think that we should stop for a moment or two and say so.

I’m not saying that the choosing of a site for a generating facility is going to get unanimous consent wherever it may be built. The government is going to get people who are going to feel that it’s going to be an impairment to the environment, that it’s going to somehow change their life-style, that somehow things are never going to be the same. But I think that in the way that Ontario Hydro has provided a forum for people of all persuasions, whether they be environmentalists, whether they be wilderness buffs, regardless, they have been given ample opportunity to express their views. If they react to the kind of input that has been given them, I’m sure that the ultimate decision will be much more palatable than it would have been had an opportunity not been provided.

I want to ask the minister whether or not, when a recommendation has been made by Ontario Hydro to the Resources Development secretariat -- and I see the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development sitting there. I hope he’s listening.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): He is. I can tell he is.

Mr. Stokes: I want to know what happened --

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Would there be any other reason to come in here?

An hon. member: Since the minister asked --

Mr. Stokes: I want to know what happens after Ontario Hydro have their series of meetings with the public. They do get input, and then somebody in Ontario Hydro has to separate the wheat from the chaff and say: “This is how we read the comment of the public. This is what we think they want.” Or: “This alternative would be much more palatable to the others for the following reasons.” So it arrives before the Resources Development secretariat, and I want to know the mechanics. What happens from the time Ontario Hydro gathers all of the information and says: “These are the alternatives, now it’s up to you people to make the decision”?

After the government has all of the input, on what criteria is the ultimate decision based? Does it say: “Well, here are the environmental consequences of building the thermal generating capacity one place as opposed to another? Or does it say it will use this new source of energy, this plant, to produce new jobs and new technology and new skills in an area, so that in a very real sense the government is using this plant as a tool for further development in an area?

Does the government really look at the overall regional development plan for the Province of Ontario in the light of, for instance, Design for Development for Northwestern Ontario? Does it say: “We have opted for moderate expansion, moderate development, moderate job-producing potential. We think that this meets these criteria, and for that reason we will go ahead and direct Ontario Hydro to build this new generating capacity in that place as opposed to that place”?

I’m sure that not too many members in this chamber are aware of it, but I’m sure some of the people associated with Ontario Hydro are aware that there has been a great hue and cry from the people in the city of Thunder Bay as a result of the announced intention of Ontario Hydro to delimit the number of sites to four. Two of them are within the city limits of the city of Thunder Bay, two of them are down along the north shore of Lake Superior. Not only during the construction and development, there is going to be anywhere from 1,000 to 1,500 jobs for a significant number of months and perhaps up to three or four years. This will add, on a temporary basis at least, some economic stimulus and viability to the area.

But much more important than that is the long-term effect and long-term benefit that such an undertaking will have to the two areas that have been mentioned. One of them is Red Rock on the north shore of Lake Superior which is the site of Domtar Paper. The other one is Nipigon, just a few miles away, where their only direct economic activity, right within the confines of that municipality, is a small plywood mill. The town council of the township of Nipigon and the Nipigon planning board have asked my assistance to impress upon Ontario Hydro the need for some kind of economic stimulus, some job-producing activity, somewhere in the Nipigon-Red Rock area.

I think I would be remiss if I didn’t take advantage of this opportunity to relay and to express the sentiments of that area. If Ontario Hydro can build the kind of generating facility using coal from the prairies, and if they can bring a dust-free operation within that area and use all the very latest in technological savvy and knowhow to provide the cleanest operation possible, they would be willing to accept them. And those sentiments were expressed to representatives from Ontario Hydro who took the trouble and were courteous enough to come down and hear out those people in the area.

Sure there are some environmental concerns, and we want assurances that it’s going to be the cleanest operation possible. We also want assurance, and we are given that assurance by Ontario Hydro, that they would, in much the same way that it was done up at Port Elgin, assist the existing municipality to provide the extra services that are going to be required as a result of making one of those towns the dormitory community for the work force that would be involved in the new generating plant.

Mr. D. A. Evans (Simcoe Centre): They always do that, Jack.

Mr. Stokes: We already have that assurance and I am awfully pleased to hear the vice-chairman of Ontario Hydro confirm that for me, and I hope Hydro got that on the record.

So all I am saying is, we are in the market and we’d be happy to accept such a plant under the terms that I have mentioned. I want to know from the minister -- he hasn’t been listening too intently, and I think maybe it’s a little late in the evening and he’s getting a little tired -- but I hope he will react to what I have said and give me some assurance since --

Mr. Evans: See him getting tired?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: When they get on in years --

Mr. Stokes: Ah, that’s probably it.

We are really and truly interested in the Design for Development, a process that was initiated -- I think it was said it was fathered by this minister when he had another responsibility. It is in keeping with Design for Development. It’s one of the tools which we have said for years could be used to foster a greater economic and industrial activity for an assured supply of electric energy which is so vital. If I can have the assurance from the minister that all of the things I have talked about will be taken into consideration and that we will be given an opportunity to benefit from this kind of development, I am sure the people in the Nipigon-Red Rock area will be very happy to hear about it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We discussed this at some length this afternoon when I guess the member wasn’t here. That’s why I wasn’t listening quite as closely tonight because I heard the same remarks, perhaps put more succinctly -- I hate to say that to my friend from Thunder Bay -- by the member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid). He has never been noted for brevity but he put it all very well this afternoon; much what the member has said. The answer is yes --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He’s not as intelligent as this member.

Mr. Stokes: I don’t know how he could speak very intelligently because he has never attended any of the meetings.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- before the 11 sites were chosen there was obviously reference to Design for Development. What will happen is that Hydro, as I said this afternoon, presumably in the next three to five months, will make up its mind and will forward a report to me containing the evaluation of the site based on a whole host of factors, including Design for Development; with the comments of all the ministries with whom it has discussed it; with the ministries’ preferences or non-preferences; with the reaction to the public participation programme and evaluation of that; and with the final recommendation.

What will happen to it at that point remains to be seen. In the case of Bradley to Georgetown it’s been our determination that on the same day that the report is delivered to me it would be released to the public. I have said it will be at least a month after I receive that report before I make a determination, in consultation with my colleagues, as to whether I approve that site and recommend it to cabinet for approval or whether I would go the route of saying that there should be a hearing and if an Environmental Hearing Board should be constituted to do so or a hearing such as Doctor Solandt. Presumably we’ll follow the same method in the site for northwestern Ontario.

I imagine when we get the report we will make it public and before I make my final decision there will be a chance for reaction to it. When we’ve had that reaction I’ll decide whether there should be a hearing or whether I should recommend to cabinet to get on with it.

The report from Hydro will include an environmental impact statement; social, economic data; public reaction and so on; and the comments of the ministers. I think the same thing -- at least, that’s what will happen in the case of that site selection programme.

Mr. Stokes: Having regard for Design for Development?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Having regard for Design for Development? Yes, certainly that would have gone into the selection of the original 11 sites. Although what’s happened now of course, is, that we have gone beyond those original sites. Certainly that will be part of the impact because Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs will be making their views known and forcibly so.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Chairman, as the member for the area abutting the Grey-Bruce-Douglas Point area, there is naturally great concern in my area against the nuclear programme regardless of the boom in the economy that people are so excited about but it is a boomerang in effect. It’s working in the very opposite way for a lot of the industry in the area. It’s a false economy we are looking at in this area.

Naturally, as a lone voice in this Legislature, I’ve tried to convey my lone opposition to nuclear power and the great threat it poses to our people, bearing in mind, as I’ve said before, a one per cent leak can kill hundreds of thousands of people. A case in point is when there was a leak in London, England, some years ago and for 100 miles downwind the next morning all the cows were found dead in the fields because of a leak in nuclear power.

The prevailing winds at Douglas Point are westerly and so my whole area is affected seriously by the potential danger. The minister grins like a dog making love to a football when I talk about these things.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do you want to explain that?

Mr. Sargent: He knows what I am talking about, that’s all I care about, and that’s the way he looks some times. I think sometimes, Mr. Chairman, his credibility is taxed by the fact that he would do some streaking in the House himself when he talks about his great knowledge of nuclear power and its threat.

The people who wrote the book “Poison Power” show how much this government, this Hydro, this minister care about the threat of nuclear power. I am concerned about things like the fact, I repeat again, that we have had a leak there, we have had a million-dollar mistake, by these people who are specialists in this field. We have had to build huts to protect people against radiation, and we are closing up parks because of radiation, and now the crops are going to be suffering from radiation from nuclear power plants.

I understand, Mr. Minister, that all of your employees in Douglas Point wear geiger counters. Is that a fact?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Dosimeters.

Mr. Sargent: They are to measure radiation, are they?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Right.

Mr. Sargent: You had to ask your advisers whether that is true or not. You didn’t know that. You as the minister --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You as the local member would know; you would have seen it when you have been there.

Mr. Sargent: I have never been there. I think if I were to go there I would be in one hell of a battle to tell these people what I think of them, because of what is going on in the area of the vested interests, Mr. Chairman. This government and this minister are in the biggest ball game in the world. We are not talking about millions of dollars, we are talking about thousands of millions in the $15 billion programme in nuclear power. We need it like we need a hole in the head.

This government is almost bankrupt. We are paying $2.5 million a day in interest on our debenture debt. Now we are embarked on a programme that is going to increase our debenture debt. We are going to be paying $5 million a day on a debt we owe -- $5 million a day -- and he continues as the sole authority on nuclear power. He is committing us to a $15 billion program -- that is one thousand, five hundred million dollars he is committing us to -- and he is a man who doesn’t know the difference between a one per cent return on investment and an 11 per cent return on investment. He is a great financial brain.

I would like to ask you, Mr. Minister, are you shipping plutonium to France now?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. Sargent: When did you quit?

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Your wife wants to know that, doesn’t she?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There was one shipment, apparently, several years ago.

Mr. Sargent: You have ceased shipping plutonium to France? Where are you shipping it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is being stored.

Mr. Sargent: You have been storing it? Where are you storing it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We would be very glad to show it to you if you would like to come either to Pickering --

Mr. Sargent: I am asking you; I don’t want to be shown. I am asking you.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is there. We would love to show it to you at Pickering.

Mr. Sargent: Where?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Pickering.

Mr. Sargent: Pickering? How far from Pickering are you storing it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Right there.

Mr. Sargent: How deep are you storing it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: How deep? It is right there at the plant. You ought to come down and see it.

Mr. Sargent: I am asking you how deep are you storing it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t know how deep it is. It is right in the plant.

Mr. Sargent: What do you figure the radiation life of that is?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Oh, many years.

Mr. Sargent: Is that 100,000 years or 100 years? How long?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well my mind doesn’t go much beyond that. Whether it is 100,000 or 200,000 years I honestly don’t know.

Mr. Sargent: You are the sole authority that people can talk to, and the boss of energy. Will you tell me what will happen to this country if we were under attack, when one of these plants contains enough power of 10 Hiroshima bombs, above ground? They are sitting targets for attack. What will we do in the case of an attack?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Sargent: There is no obvious answer. Mr. Minister, I want to tell you something. When you became the minister of this department I thought I would get intelligent about this big subject. I don’t know too much about the guts of nuclear power but I know this much, that you don’t know anything about it; that’s how much I know about it.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Sargent: I certainly do. As a matter of fact, I am worried about the fact that you have this control to spend $15 billion of our money and you don’t know where in the hell you are going -- and neither do your people. We have enough energy up in that north country -- we have millions of lakes storing power -- to give us hydro forever in this country. Right now we have a 15 per cent cushion.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Sargent: Don’t you laugh when I am talking. I know what I am talking about in this area. We have a 15 per cent cushion in power, and here you are breaking trails for the world in nuclear power. You are mortgaging us for 100 years because you are breaking trails. You are bankrupt.

You said right now you are going to call in the private sector to give them a piece of the action. And we know from your record what that means. We know what that means, buddy.

In effect, Mr. Chairman, he says it is good Tory philosophy to give our friends a piece of the action. I want to tell the minister that this hydro is owned by the people, not by him or by Hydro.

For 68 years we have owned this facility, and you are going to break it up and give your friends, a consortium of GE, Westinghouse and all American-controlled corporations, a piece of the action. Well, I don’t buy it. And you haven’t named me yet one Canadian company that is going to have a piece of the action, because there aren’t any Canadian companies left; they are all American-controlled.

I get so mad because you sit there behind a façade because you people happen to be winners. You are sitting there because you won the election, and you have the right to plunder and pay one guy $1,000 or $2,000 a day to give you advice on legal affairs. And we have the shipment of radioactive materials in an aircraft with one stewardess. Well, I am fed up with it.

I am getting into very technical business now, Mr. Chairman, but I want to say that in our area we are now facing an impact study of about $22 million that that nuclear power programme is bringing to my area. And the biggest thing that has happened is that you have offered to give them $250,000 in the interim to look after immediate needs. You know what they are saying to you? They are saying to you, “Shove it. We don’t want it. Let’s sit down and talk some facts.” I don’t think there is any chance of talking any facts with you people, because you’ll do what the hell you want to anyway.

Take over, somebody else.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for High Park.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister what is being done with the radioactive waste that is being produced in Pickering?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: As briefly and as colourfully?

Mr. Shulman: I will try not to be quite as colourful.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The waste is being stored at Pickering. It is not the size of this room. It looks like a gorgeous swimming pool, something like the hon. member himself might have. It is 27 feet deep. It is a beautiful --

Mr. Cassidy: Do you hold parties beside the pool?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You could. It is a beautiful blue colour. There is no question that in the longer run -- you know, people talk about it enveloping the earth, with the amount of waste there is. But it will be years, I guess, many years before that pool is full. There is no question that there was a point when we were selling the plutonium and there was a plutonium credit, which lowered the cost of the power -- not that much but it was a factor. I think this is something that AECL are concerned about and working on -- Hydro are as well -- and at some point there will be a breakthrough and the waste will be re-used or -- and I’m high over my head -- in some way will be deactivated or neutralized.

It is not the most serious problem we have, but I think it is obviously of some concern to all concerned.

In the longer run, one of the other kinds of reactors, other than Candu, which AECL are talking about -- and they would like to build a prototype -- would actually re-use that waste.

Mr. Sargent: Why don’t you sit down? You don’t know what you are talking about.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s a step that may well come but the member’s concerned and I am somewhat concerned too. At this moment I don’t think there’s a problem, but at some point, sure.

An hon. member: We don’t know.

Mr. Shulman: It is my understanding that some of that material has been trucked away from Pickering. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The very low level wastes are trucked to Bruce.

Mr. Shulman: That’s the point I am driving at. I am not so much worried about what’s sitting at Pickering as I am worried about what is being trucked. What happens if somewhere between Pickering and Bruce there’s a car accident?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: What we are talking about taking to Bruce is rags, papers, stuff that has been contaminated at a very low level.

What would happen if somebody ran into it? I think nothing.

Mr. Shulman: Is the minister familiar with the accident that took place last month on Delta Airlines in the United States where an equivalent amount of similarly radioactive material exposed some 900 people to --

Mr. Sargent: One hundred and fifty people.

Mr. Shulman: One hundred and fifty were on the plane and another 750 at the various places where they stopped. It is my understanding, and I stand to be corrected, that this material is sufficiently radioactive that if there was an auto accident or a highway accident that there would be a very serious hazard. If I am incorrect, I would like to be so advised.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t know, but I am advised that there would not be a problem if there were an accident. I am not familiar with the Delta Airlines case but I would be glad to look into both those things.

Mr. Sargent: Who are your advisers now? Who are your advisers?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member for High Park still has the floor.

Mr. Shulman: How is the material transported? In what type of tanker -- container?

Mr. Sargent: A big black limousine.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’m sorry I don’t know about this. They are put in drums, taken in a closed truck. There are no precautions -- no police escort or anything, as far as I know.

Mr. Shulman: I would just suggest to the minister that perhaps the system being used is not the best.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is not secure enough?

Mr. Shulman: Not safe enough.

Mr. Sargent: You know that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We had better take a look at it.

Mr. Shulman: All right. There is another thing I want to ask you about. Up at Bruce Point, you will recall that during the construction period the American workers were being paid a higher rate than the Canadians. Is that still in force or is everyone paid the same now?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am afraid I don’t know the answer to that question.

Mr. Shulman: Would you inquire for me?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, I will.

Mr. Shulman: Is there any storage of radioactive wastes taking place anywhere else than at Pickering at the present time?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Each of the reactors has its own storage bay. Douglas Point has its, MPD has its. At each of the reactors, there is a storage bay. There will be a storage bay built at Bruce for the Bruce waste as well.

Mr. Shulman: Has a test of the down water from Pickering been made as to radioactivity?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The waste is continually checked. The effect on the water is monitored by both the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources. They are into that act, as well as the Ministry of Health. If I can back up to the previous question, the transportation of the waste is regulated by the Atomic Energy Control Board. They are the safety arm, as you know.

Mr. Shulman: In your testing of the water on the lake, have you found that radioactivity is getting into that water?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Not to my knowledge. So far as I know, all that’s happened is that there are more fish than ever before. I have a note that says it is less than one per cent of the allowed level. As the member is aware, there is radioactivity in this room. I don’t know what the allowed level is as a discharge. It would be set by AECB --

An hon. member: That’s right --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- after consultation with the health people and everybody else. The discharge of Pickering is less than one per cent of the allowed level.

Mr. Shulman: What is the effect on the fish of your cooling towers or the heated water coming into the lake? I know you have more fish, but what is happening to the natural fish that should be there? Are they persisting or are they dying out?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No. Bigger and better -- according to Environment.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’ll state here frankly that there is a difference of opinion between some people on this subject -- not yet entirely resolved. The Ministry of the Environment who we would say are the people who are best equipped to determine the problem or otherwise are satisfied.

This doesn’t just apply to Pickering by the way. This applies equally to Nanticoke, it applies to Pickering or to any of the stations on the lakes. I am told there have been no discernible problems at all. When I say that the fish are bigger and better, that is what the Ministry of the Environment tells me and I have heard other people say that.

But I should be honest with you. There are people in some of the departments who think that there are problems. The Ministry of the Environment are the people responsible for checking and who soon will be responsible for the assessment of the environmental impact statement -- they are satisfied.

Mr. Chairman: Vote 1801 and 1802 carried?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if before you carry your vote I might interrupt the proceedings to --

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you. I have the pleasure of introducing a group that is here tonight -- and I know that everyone will want to meet them. I am sorry that my friend the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. J. R. Smith) isn’t with us; I know he is busy. But there is a group in the gallery from Hamilton-Mountain NDP Riding Association visiting the Legislature.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for, er, Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: You fellows have a terrible time remembering what riding I am from. It is Ottawa Centre.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will tell the hon. member that he is not the member for the Island --

Mr. Cassidy: You know if the Premier insists on getting it wrong, I will start talking about him as the member for Peel North and the Hyatt House and then we will be even --

An hon member: Dirty.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to make a long statement here -- and I hope the minister comes back to his seat very quickly -- because I have already made a statement on the Arnprior dam in this Legislature during the course of the Throne debate. I suspect that the minister or his people have had a look at it and have reviewed some of the major points in that speech. Rather than go through that speech at length again I want to talk with the minister about some of these things, since we have not yet had an occasion in public to discuss and seek to reason together about this particular project.

If I can remind the House very briefly, in that speech, which was fairly long, I pointed out that the Arnprior dam was now estimated to cost about $82 million; that its power output had been reduced; that people in the area -- the farmers in particular -- are extraordinarily upset at the flooding that would be produced; that there is now evidence that the dam will not totally cure erosion problems on the Madawaska River; and that there is very clear evidence that the Hydro-Electric Commission never at any time devoted any intensive energy or time or studies to seeking alternatives to the problems along the Madawaska River which could be achieved at less cost and to the satisfaction of the local community.

Moreover, I pointed out in that speech that Hydro’s programme of public participation or involvement was a sham -- was worthless -- in fact was less than worthless, and it worked very badly. I pointed out the conflict of interest that existed between C.A. Pitts Ltd., the contractor, and Acres, the consulting engineer on the site, and there were a few other comments as well.

Since making that speech, Mr. Chairman, I have prepared and presented to the Ontario Energy Board a brief about this particular project asking them to review the Arnprior dam because it seemed to raise some very serious questions about the management practices of Ontario Hydro on major projects.

The Energy Board considered that carefully and decided not to go into it, basically because the Arnprior dam as a specific project was outside its terms of reference from the ministry. They felt that although the questions of management decision-making were important and of interest, inevitably they would get deeply enmeshed in specific questions related to that particular project, which was not in their terms of reference. Taking that against their desire to look into the way Hydro was carrying out its management responsibilities, and in view of the fact that they wanted to get on to their study of the future rate policy of Hydro, they had to pass that by the board and decided to forego it after receiving mv brief and statements oy the Hydro counsel, Mr. Genest, and the commission counsel, Mr. Macaulay, into the record.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can start by directing a question to the minister, arising out of a speech that he gave to the Toronto branch of the Engineering Institute of Canada in April, just a month ago today in fact. In that speech the minister urged very strongly that Hydro carry out a policy of openness. He said among other things that openness is telling the public as much as possible as soon as possible. “I am for openness,” said the minister. That was specifically related to the purchasing policy of Hydro. However, I’d like to ask the minister whether his advocacy of openness extended to other operations of Ontario Hydro as well?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: My remarks were connected with tendering procedures.

Mr. Cassidy: Does the minister feel that Hydro should be open in other things that it does or only in the area of tendering procedures?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I was just discussing tendering.

Mr. Cassidy: I am asking the Minister of Energy a question now. Does he feel Hydro should be open?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, what does the member specifically mean?

Mr. Cassidy: The minister gave a number of definitions of openness, which he said was difficult to define. He compared it to the difference between making love to one’s wife and one’s mistress. Perhaps he, therefore, has something to offer the House about openness. It seems to me that it means, according to the minister, telling the public as much as possible as soon as possible. Does he believe in that, as far as Hydro is concerned?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, obviously.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister then explain why he refused for a period of weeks to give to this Legislature the engineering feasibility report on the Arnprior dam?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Because it was an internal document.

Mr. Cassidy: If the minister believes that Hydro should tell the public as much as possible as soon as possible, can he explain why he stops short at internal documents when they are of interest and relevance to the public?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: My colleague says it was as soon as possible.

Mr. Cassidy: That was definitely not as soon as possible.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’ve already said my reasons as quietly as possible, because we have given the member other documents. We gave the member the opportunity of meeting with the Hydro officials to discuss it as he requested. He was all set to accept that and bring the press along with him.

You really don’t want the answers. Why kid everybody? You used the material that was given you previously for your own purposes. You picked stuff out of it for your own purposes. Why give you anything more?

Mr. Sargent: Well, don’t you do that all the time?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s the answer. You know that surely.

Mr. Sargent: What’s your game?

Mr. Cassidy: That’s a very unacceptable answer, Mr. Chairman, in the Legislature. The minister is a member of this Legislature, I think.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: When the vice-chairman was to arrange a meeting in his office with the officials, does the member deny that he was going to arrive with the press?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They always do.

Mr. Foulds: What is wrong with bringing the press?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s great openness.

Mr. Cassidy: I told --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: When you did that, there was no way we were going to try playing ball with your silly little games. Don’t think that we’re that dumb.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, now wait a minute.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Do you deny that you were going to bring the press?

Mr. Cassidy: I phoned the member for Simcoe Centre -- I phoned the vice-chairman of Hydro -- and told him that I wished to bring the press. He said he did not want the press -- because Hydro was not acting in an open fashion on this. Now who is being open about this? I phoned the member.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Do you deny that you wanted to bring the press to that meeting with the vice-chairman?

Mr. Foulds: What’s wrong with bringing the press?

Mr. Cassidy: Of course, I do. That is openness, that the discussion is carried out in the open.

Mr. Sargent: What do you want to hide?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Fine.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): You could use a little bit of press.

Mr. Sargent: You need all the help you can get.

Mr. Chairman: All right, let’s get back to the vote. This has got nothing to do with the vote.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, yes, it is on the vote, Mr. Chairman. It has been agreed between the minister and myself that this would be the occasion on which we would discuss the Arnprior dam. This has been something which has been brought up a number of times.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Let’s just be honest; that’s all I ask.

Mr. Cassidy: Sure, okay. Hydro was not open on that.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Do you know the meaning of the word, Darcy?

Mr. Cassidy: The next question is this -- can the minister explain his rather extraordinary behaviour when he went up to Arnprior some six or seven weeks after the initial appointment to go up there? Why does the minister not talk to the local people before making declarations to the press? And why was it that he went along with Hydro’s decision to announce the letting of the second contract on the dam -- to make the decision about the letting of that contract -- before he had been to this long-awaited meeting?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I suppose I could ask the member another question, put to him as simply. Why did the member indicate to the local people that there might be possibly a change in me government’s mind?

Nobody had indicated that to anybody except the member. The member deliberately built up the local people that this was some sort of a tour on which decisions might be made. The government policy had not changed. I went up to have a look at it. I did not go up to change my mind. The government’s decision had been made some time ago. I saw nothing that morning or heard nothing that morning, which would indicate to me that a change should be made.

The member, not for the area, I might say, but from some distance away, led people to believe that because he had interjected in this thing and issued all his press releases, the government might be changing their mind. You have that on your conscience. I don’t.

Mr. Cassidy: This correspondence in the file between the minister and Reeve Stewart led Reeve Stewart to understand that there might be a change if the minister came up and had a look at it. The people in the area told me they understood that if the minister came up to the area, there was a chance that they could get him to change his mind. If they had been told that the minister had no intention of changing his mind, then there was obviously no reason for them to want to have the minister up there.

Can the minister explain why, when he was there, he held a press conference first, and why he laid this on everybody rather than listening to local people? What kind of openness is that?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member would be the expert on press conferences. I’m not.

Mr. Martel: You were the one who called it, weren’t you?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about the costs of the project. Would the minister confirm that the 1971 estimate of the project costs of $51,450,000 went to $60 million in March 1972, and to $82,742,000 some time in 1973?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Today’s figure -- and all the contracts obviously haven’t been let -- comes to about $80 million, not $82 million, so far as I’m aware. We won’t know that definitely until it’s done. Yes, it is true. The costs, after the soil costs were completed, went from the $54 million figure to the $60-odd million figure.

Mr. Cassidy: And what is the current estimate of the total cost of the dam?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Eighty million dollars.

Mr. Cassidy: I see. How does that relate to the $82 million estimate in the material which was given to me by Hydro and which was presumably prepared in the latter half of 1973?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Seventy-eight million, plus or minus five per cent.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, can the minister say what the total amount of engineering costs will be on the project?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’m advised that it will be about 12 per cent of the cost.

Mr. Cassidy: About 12 per cent of the cost. In other words, a total of about $8 million. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Correct.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister explain then why, in the memo for the Hydro commission, it states that the escalation in engineering costs between March 1972 and the latter part of 1973, is $4 million and that the engineering costs would remain at “approximately the same percentage of the total cost”? That’s 20 per cent of the increase, rather than the figure which the minister has given, and would indicate a total engineering cost of approximately $15 million to $16 million.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The larger figure includes, as well as engineering, the field costs, supervision and so forth.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, in that case, can the minister give an estimate of the total amount that will be paid to Acres and firms employed by Acres for engineering, field supervision, and any other services that they provide to Hydro in connection with the Arnprior dam?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I will get that figure.

Mr. Cassidy: Could we have the figure, or something similar to the figure, now, please?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I haven’t got it here.

Mr. Cassidy: Approximately what proportion of the total cost of the dam will be paid to Acres?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I will get that for the member.

Mr. Cassidy: Can you give me some indication? Twelve per cent of the total cost will be for engineering. How much in addition will be paid for supervision on the services?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I will get that figure for you.

Mr. Cassidy: When?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: As soon as we can.

Mr. Cassidy: Before the vote, Mr. Chairman?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don t know what --

Mr. Martel: We have to have the assurance that you can, because we can’t get back at it.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the cost of the dam, as the minister says, went from $60 million in March, 1972, to $80 million as of now. That is an escalation of 16 per cent. In fact, the estimate of $80 million was made last fall, and on that basis it is an escalation at an annual rate of something like 20 per cent. How much further escalation does the minister expect in the total cost of the dam before it is completed in 1976 or 1977?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The $80 million estimate at this moment includes, so far as we know, an adequate provision for any further escalation, but heaven knows what happens to the cost of material and labour before all the contracts are let. The contracts which tenders were received for on Tuesday, I think, actually were slightly below the escalated costs which have been estimated -- slightly below, nothing significant.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister tell us about the way in which Acres --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The low tender is slightly below.

Mr. Cassidy: The low tender is slightly below. Can you give us those figures men, Mr. Chairman? For what the contract was for?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No. They were about $1.1 million, $1.2 million. I am sorry I haven’t got them. I had them here earlier, but I don’t seem to have them now, but one figure is about $1.2 million. This is for a bridge, the new bridge. There were four tenders, as I recall.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I want to put some facts on the record --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They are in the Daily Commercial News, as a matter of fact, my colleague tells me.

Mr. Cassidy: I beg your pardon?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They are in the Daily Commercial News, so as soon as we find them in the Commercial News we can give you the figures.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay. Has the minister been in touch with Hydro as regards its openness in tendering procedures? If so, what changes of policy has Hydro made beyond the rather embarrassed and individual cases?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Hydro hasn’t completed its review. It made a change at the first of the year, but it has not completed its review, to my knowledge. Or, if it has, it has not yet informed me, and I don’t believe the staff or the board have completed their review of their tendering policies. It is on the front page of the Daily Commercial News.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What happened to the hon. member for Ottawa Centre’s research?

Mr. Cassidy: I read it every day.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It says:

Ontario Hydro has followed up its first public tender opening with the second public opening of bids for the replacement of the existing two-lane county-road bridge across the Madawaska River.

Low bidder on the bridge to be built 2.5 miles upstream from Arnprior was Armbro Material and Construction Ltd. of Brampton, which submitted a price of $1,165,032.

Other tenderers were W.D. Laflamme of Ottawa, $1,647,000; Robert McAlpine of Toronto, $1,417,000; and C. A. Pitts, at $1,371,000. The bids will be analysed, [and so on.]

Tenders for structural steel work on the bridge, which was bid separately, will be opened May 14.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, could the minister make a comment about the conflict of interest in having Acres continuing to assess tenders for which one of the companies that seems to be bidding consistently is G. A. Pitts -- a company with which there is a direct corporate relation? And does he feel that this would be permissible within the government under its present conflict of interest regulations, if, for example, a deputy minister, making judgements about contracts in the Ministry of Government Services were to have that kind of corporate link with one of the firms bidding?

Mr. Evans: Will the hon. member for Ottawa Centre please note the firm in question didn’t get that contract?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t concede that there is a conflict of interest just because there happens to be a relationship with one person sitting on a board. I just don’t concede that. The member does. The member has that kind of a mind. I don’t.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, Mr. Chairman, I point to the minister, in case he hadn’t noticed, that the Premier himself is now saying there would be a conflict of interest for the fonder Premier, Mr. Robarts, to take a position in the Algonquin Forest Authority if he doesn’t give up his directorships in the forest industry.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I don’t think he said that.

Mr. Cassidy: In other words, boardroom links are an important cause of conflict of interest as far as that government is concerned, except when it comes to the Minister of Energy. What has happened to the Minister of Energy’s concern and sensitivity to conflict of interest, which he showed so markedly when he resigned his seat in the cabinet a couple of years ago? Why is he so insensitive now?

Mr. Chairman: Is the member for Ottawa Centre finished?

Mr. Cassidy: I wanted an answer from the minister, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Well, apparently he is not answering.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister give an answer on that question of conflict of interest, please?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t concede that there is. Mr. Cooper, as I understand it, wrote to the member. He doesn’t accept this; we debate this at great length.

Mr. Cooper has suggested that if the member said it outside the House, he would have something more to say about it. I notice the member hasn’t been quite as explicit outside the House as he chooses to be here.

Mr. Cooper sits on the board of Acres Ltd. It is not Acres Ltd. that is involved here; it is a subsidiary company, which is Acres Consulting Ltd. The member sees a conflict of interest. Quite frankly, I don’t.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, I just think the minister is wrong. I would point out to the minister that at the time the total cost of the project was estimated at $60 million, the value of the White Lake road bridge was estimated at $600,000. Now, if the White Lake road bridge has come in on a bid of $1,167,000, and if the minister says that is below his people’s estimates in Hydro of what it ought to cost, does that not suggest that the value of this total project will now go to something over $100 million?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am not aware of what the member is referring to, but I am informed that the estimate of Acres was $60,000 more than the low tender.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, I am just pointing out, Mr. Chairman, that the development engineering report prepared for Hydro specifically says that the White Lake road bridge would cost $600,000 out of a total cost of $60 million.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Are those the 1972 figures?

Mr. Cassidy: Those are the 1972 figures. If you wanted to escalate it, as it is escalated here, to $76 million, there would be an increase of 10.8 per cent, raising that to $670,000 from $600,000. In other words, the bridge has come in at something like half a million dollars over the estimate which was made on this document, dated May, 1972.

Mr. Chairman, can the minister give us a cost per kilowatt-hour of power generated by the new dam on the estimated number of kilowatt-hours to be generated annually?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The number of kilowatts that are going to be generated there will be about the same, for example, as are being generated at Lower Notch. The member would like to confuse peaking power with base load power.

The member will not accept the fact Hydro has stated on a number of occasions, at Arnprior -- and the member doesn’t accept this -- that the cost of the power generated from Arnprior, if that were the only consideration, is not economical. The cost of the erosion control is not economical. Taking the two things together, we have power which it makes sense to produce. As for the erosion problem, while there is no guarantee -- nothing can be certain -- the erosion problem will be cured.

If you put the two things together, if you want to assign the cost of $40 million to the generation of power and $40 million to the erosion problem, then the $40 million for power would make sense. And so would the $40 million -- and these are rounded figures -- for the erosion problem. But the member will not look at it that way.

The member also refuses to concede what is Hydro’s fundamental basis, that if Arnprior is not proceeded with, there would be a reduction in the power production upstream, which would cost money. The hon. member will not concede that. He has twisted those figures every time -- and he goes on twisting them.

Mr. Cassidy: I see that the minister has at last looked at the details of the case in a way it is clear that the cabinet did not do, nor did Hydro, at the time the original decisions were made. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if challenged in private, rather than in the position where he had to defend bad decisions made by Hydro and the cabinet, that the minister would not be talking as he is talking right now.

Mr. Chairman, my question was, what is the cost per kilowatt hour of the peaking power generated by the proposed Arnprior dam?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: A thousand dollars a kilowatt, roughly.

Mr. Cassidy: What is the cost per kilowatt hour of the power actually to be generated?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, I haven’t got that in front of me. We can work that out.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, I have worked it out at about 70 mills per kilowatt-hour. Mr. Chairman, how does that compare with alternative costs from peaking plants actually operated by Hydro?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t have those kinds of comparisons here in front of me.

Mr. Cassidy: Does the minister not feel that he should, in order to reach --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We had them when they were examined; they would have been available to the hon. member, completely available, when he made the request and the offer was made for him to meet with whoever he wanted from Hydro, to sit down with them and ask all the questions he wanted. The hon. member chose not to have that meeting, by bringing the press. Now, I am not going to have those figures here tonight, obviously; we’ll keep track of the question and --

Mr. Cassidy: Wait a minute. The minister had better get his facts correct. I asked if I could bring the press in order to have an open meeting, and that was refused. The meeting was subsequently held. At the meeting, the president of Hydro refused to give me further information and the chief of this particular project threatened me with legal action. It seems to me that Hydro was hardly as co-operative as the minister tries to pretend.

Mr. Martel: In fact, the minister is misleading the House.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am not misleading the House. When has the hon. member ever been in the minister’s office and had the press there? That’s not the way we do business. We all know that. The hon. member wanted to bring the press to the meeting with Hydro --

Mr. Martel: He doesn’t deny that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He knows better than that.

Mr. Cassidy: I asked, I was refused, and I went in without the press --

Mr. Chairman: There is repetition here. We have been through this --

Mr. Cassidy: No, we are having --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: What you are saying now about the meeting with Hydro is what you first said. So it’s repetition at the present time.

Mr. Cassidy: I have a number of questions --

Mr. Chairman: Well, go ahead with your other questions then.

Mr. Evans: Mr. Chairman, just to straighten this out: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre asked me to hold a meeting which he wanted with representatives of Ontario Hydro, which I agreed to. Then he tried to arrange to bring the press, which I refused to have.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Why not? Why shouldn’t the members of the press be there?

Mr. Evans: There was a meeting in my office, which he requested and I arranged. When he decided to bring the press, I told him that there would be no meeting if the press were there.

Mr. Lewis: But you had a subsequent meeting, right?

Mr. Evans: Yes, but there was no press there.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Evans: Certainly the press shouldn’t be there. It had to be a meeting --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Evans: I arranged the meeting, and I decided who would be there. I had all the officials there --

Mr. Lewis: You decided?

Mr. Sargent: You decided?

Mr. Evans: By the way, he wouldn’t even accept the information that was given to him. He even said that he was threatened. This is not the case. I can tell you exactly what was said. It was said by one of the men who was at that meeting --

Mr. Foulds: Who was that?

Mr. Evans: He said:

You have continually misinterpreted the data we have provided to you to the extent that you appear to be deliberately making false statements on the subject. If you were a professional engineer, there might be reasons for charging you with unethical conduct.

Now, this was stated by Mr. Morison.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Evans: That is exactly what was said.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the hon. member for Simcoe Centre say how he knows the exact wording of that particular statement by Mr. Morison?

Mr. Evans: Yes, I took it down at the time.

Mr. Lewis: You took it down? You took that down?

Mr. Foulds: You can’t even write.

Mr. Lewis: My colleague is right.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Order.

Mr. Cassidy: Did the vice-chairman of Hydro have a tape recorder running during that meeting then?

Mr. Evans: I don’t need one.

Mr. Cassidy: What other comments was the vice-chairman taking down at that time? Were you bugging the meeting?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Do you want the transcript?

Mr. Cassidy: I find this quite incredible, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Was he taping the meeting?

Mr. Evans: Mr. Chairman, no sir, I did not tape it.

Mr. Lewis: Were there shorthand notes taken of the meeting?

Mr. Evans: Just by myself.

Mr. Lewis: Just by yourself? Good.

Mr. Cassidy: I find it most extraordinary. I would have thought the vice-chairman of Hydro had better things to do, like listening to the points that were made, studying the briefs that were presented, seeking to answer the information that was provided.

If you want the information on the record, Mr. Chairman, a meeting was arranged and then cancelled by Hydro before there was any question about whether or not the press should come.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Cassidy: It was cancelled at the last minute. Subsequently, after very great difficulty, a second meeting was held.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Why was it cancelled?

Mr. Cassidy: Why? Because the vice-chairman suddenly discovered he had to go to a Tory caucus, which he could have predicted

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It was cancelled because the member was bringing the press.

Mr. Cassidy: That is not true.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That is so!

Mr. Cassidy: That is not true!

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Certainly it is!

Mr. Cassidy: It is not true. The meeting was arranged by the chairman of Hydro, Mr. Gathercole, and was then cancelled because of reasons which I do not accept.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Because you were bringing the press --

Mr. Cassidy: It was cancelled because Hydro was indulging in a coverup.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, what has ever been done by Hydro to compare the peaking operation on the Madawaska with the cost of building new peaking operations on other hydraulic sites? I know that the minister will accept there are a number of hydraulic sites that are available within the province.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Some of them, as is my recollection, undoubtedly would be cheaper, Mr. Cassidy. Oh.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Not cheaper than correcting the erosion and using that height of dam as a credit against the power. No, it would not be.

Mr. Cassidy: And what studies were ever done to see about the costs of using certain hydraulic facilities in the southern part of the province for peaking purposes, and shifting their baseload to other facilities?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Those studies are made from time to time, but the point is that a certain amount of money was going to have to be spent -- in round figures $40 million -- half the cost of the power facility at Arnprior. That $40 million needed to be spent in any case. Add the $40 million for the peaking power on top of that -- it made a great deal of sense to handle both at the same time.

Mr. Cassidy: Let’s talk about the erosion, then, for a bit. What was the degree of erosion? Could the minister tell us, and could he give us chapter and verse of the studies that he did?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, the hon. member has that in reports that have been given to him.

Mr. Cassidy: No, I do not, Mr. Chairman. There is no adequate study -- no real study of the erosion along the river. The best study made was completed after the fact in a report by Hedlin Menzies, I believe, which indicated that over a period of time that there had been slides. But this study does not indicate to what degree the slides took place, and how much they were caused by Hydro’s operations, and to what degree they were natural.

Mr. Sargent: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre is flogging a dead horse!

Mr. Lewis: You may be right, but you work at it.

Mr. Chairman: Can the minister --

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is looking for figures and information.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. member for Renfrew South is losing his seat over this. It’s worth working at.

Mr. Cassidy: You’re back, eh?

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): The hon. member may be losing his seat, but not me.

Mr. Cassidy: You’re going to run against me! I may be acclaimed.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Is the hon. member for Ottawa Centre going to run in the Island or in Ottawa Centre?

Mr. Cassidy: The hon. member for Middlesex North (Mr. Stewart) is not going to run at all!

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Why don’t you deal with the issue instead of this extraneous stuff?

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right, yes.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Order. Does the minister have an answer to the last question?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: I didn’t hear the answer, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The minister says he has no answer at the present time to the last question.

Mr. Cassidy: He has no answer at the present time? I’ll tell you why --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I haven’t got a paper to table in front of the hon. member. I remember seeing pictures three years ago of observations starting to be made of erosion, on the river-bank’s instability. Those began in 1969 and are still continuing. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre has been there on a number of occasions. He can see what’s happening.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that two or three photographs appeared in every report on the Arnprior dam to prove the question of erosion. They were photographs of poor Mrs. Jones’s cottage, or something like that -- three or four -- but at no time has there been a serious study of erosion.

To my knowledge at no time has there been a model of how the erosion would continue. To my knowledge there has been, at no time, any kind of an effort to predict what would happen to the banks of the river in that particular 10-mile stretch if Hydro’s river regime continued as it was then going, or in some other way. This was never done. Hydro simply panicked for the sake of the hon. member for Renfrew South and went ahead and built the dam.

Mr. Yakabuski: That’s a lot of nonsense. Why don’t you grow up and mature?

Mr. Cassidy: Good God!

Mr. Lewis: The only thing growing up has done for the hon. member for Renfrew South is to introduce senility! Now, you just sit down! The debate is over here.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister say --

Mr. Chairman: What right does the hon. member for Scarborough West think he has to tell the hon. member for Renfrew South that he has to sit down?

Mr. Lewis: Why not? I was concerned about him violating the rules.

Mr. Martel: You are supposed to be impartial when in that chair.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Apologize to the Chair!

Mr. Lewis: I apologize to the Chair. I’m not at all sure why, out I apologize. If it makes people feel better, I will apologize to the House.

Mr. MacDonald: It’s a therapeutic exercise for the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre has the floor.

Mr. Cassidy: There’s not much point to what’s being said here, Mr. Chairman. Can the minister say to what degree erosion will be reduced by obliterating this 10-mile valley and building a lake in it instead?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Nobody can say with complete certainty, but it’s my understanding that hopefully all of it.

Mr. Cassidy: Will the minister not agree that if all of the erosion were to be eliminated, then the 30 or 40 miles of bank of the new lake ought to be available for all kinds of recreational uses?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. Cassidy: Is he not aware that all of the reports that have been produced, from the Santos committee on, have indicated that most of the banks of the new lake will not be suitable for recreational purposes?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s not correct; the member is aware of the report that was prepared on what recreation will be possible. Some will, some won’t. There’s a very extensive study done on the recreational aspects, and it certainly doesn’t say there won’t be recreation.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the minister is aware that he’s got all sorts of other responsibilities -- he flies off to England to sell nuclear reactors, and we wish him well on that. I have been concerned, as one member of this House, with this particular project. I possibly know more about it than the minister.

I tell the minister and I tell his officials that they are not aware of the fact that the reports all say that most of those river banks or those lake banks will not be suited for recreation. That is that.

You will not be able to put cottages there because of septic tank problems. You will not be able to have intensive recreation because of the instability of the banks. You will not be able to have power boats on the lake because of the effect they may have on the edge of the banks. Because of cattle grazing nearby you will have difficulties with agriculture alongside that lake.

The reports all indicate severe concern about what might happen with the lake banks if the level of the new lake is not regulated with exceptional severity to prevent any substantial raising and lowering. By substantial I mean more than about 6 in.

I tell the minister that because his own people probably haven’t told him. There is a tendency within Hydro to try and tell the people at the top what they want to hear, and that’s why Hydro got itself into this mess.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s not my reading of the Hedlin Menzies report; and I don’t think it’s a fair reading of the report. I’ll read those recommendations and we’ll see whether they would come to the conclusion the member has come to in terms of the recreational potential:

(a) In some areas slides can be expected after impoundment. Based on preliminary information, certain areas should not be developed for two or three years, until the reservoir slopes have stabilized. In other areas development could proceed sooner.

(b) The rising water will inundate much of the area presently forested. Reforestation programmes will be required to achieve a reasonable tree cover, especially for areas intended for recreation purposes.

(c) The Arnprior Reservoir will function, biologically, more like a river than a lake. Initially it will experience a high production of fish which will eventually decline as stabilization occurs over the next decade. At that time management techniques will be required.

(d) The major recreation activities should be day-use and camping, each located in areas recommended to be suitable for them. Cottage use should be permitted but restricted to the upper reaches of the reservoir as designated on map 13. Demand for recreational facilities will increase radically over the next decade. However, the amount of land available for development for recreational purposes is close to anticipated demand. Careful staging of development will therefore be required. The programme for the development of recreation areas should be carried out under provincial, municipal and private auspices. Provincial involvement may be required in light of the divided jurisdiction found in the area.

(g) The clay soils above the reservoir will result in a certain measure of turbidity in the water, especially in the proposed beach areas. To counteract this, it will be necessary to deposit sufficient sand to create both a sandy dry beach and a sandy wet beach. Moreover, swimming areas will have to be developed in such a manner that they can compensate for the two-foot drawdown. This will mean a wet beach of sufficient width will be required from the low water mark.

If that adds up to non-recreational use to the member, then that is the member’s interpretation; and that, I say with great respect, is the way he twisted the facts on this thing right from the very beginning.

Mr. Cassidy: That means that approximately 30 miles of the banks of the reservoir will not be suitable for cottages? We agree on that? Because only the upper region should be --

Mr. Yakabuski: Right, absolutely.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You read the report.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay. I am just putting it on the record.

Secondly, in areas of day camping and so on, it’s suggested they will not really be suitable for that until there is tree cover in the area, and that that will not exist until the new trees are grown or brought to the site: If they are brought to the site that will be a great expense. If they are grown in that climate it takes something over half a century to grow deciduous trees of any substantial size; and therefore you will change the nature of the tree cover in the area. Even if you grow conifers it will take somewhere between 10 and 20 years to get adequate tree cover.

The thing, Mr. Chairman, is that we have the reservoir on the Ottawa River, behind power developments, just a mile or two away, where there was enormous recreational potential, which could be developed for sums in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and not for sums in the tens of millions as is being proposed right here.

The report also states that the beaches will only be suitable for recreational day use if sand is brought in and if they are constructed in a very artful way in older to accommodate the two-foot draw-downs of water which may be expected on the reservoir.

It sure doesn’t sound like the kind of place where I would like to go with my kids, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know about the minister. I don’t know whether he would accept that kind of thing for himself and his children or whether he is happy to have some other kind of privileged retreat to go to.

The Hedlin-Menzies report also -- because it wasn’t asked to; because it wasn’t within the brief given it by Hydro -- never looked into the recreational potential of the Madawaska Valley as it stands right now. It is a very pretty valley. You could do a heck of a lot with that valley for half a million dollars. You could provide swimming facilities, boating facilities, hiking facilities, cross- country skiing facilities and all sorts of things like that -- and at far less expense and far more appeal now than the kind of arrangements that are being made. Could the minister comment on that?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We already have. The valley couldn’t be used now. The power would be run at Stewartville -- the water goes up and down -- it is too dangerous -- the fluctuation is too great. Obviously it is not in public ownership.

This is not going to be perfect recreation overnight, but it will be much better than what is there now. That is the tenor of that report. It is an improvement on what is there now. It offers I think something which can be developed -- not overnight, but over a period of time and which is possible and which will be good. The member won’t concede that. What is the point of my commenting?

The fact is, it is a good report. It has been well accepted in the area. It is an improvement, I would think. The area was looked at as an improvement over what is there now. It is not an improvement perhaps from what was there before any of the dams were built, I concede that point. But the first dams having been built, this is an improvement over the existing situation.

Mr. Cassidy: The point is, Mr. Chairman, it is an $80 million improvement when perhaps a half-million dollars --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No -- it is not an $80 million improvement, and the member knows this.

Mr. Cassidy: That is what is being spent.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That is nonsense.

Mr. Cassidy: For $80 million you can get this particular park project which may be available in 10 or 15 years with adequate trees and beaches. For half a million dollars or less -- God knows, we don’t know the alternatives because they were never studied -- you could have had good recreational facilities in the valley as it stood.

Could the minister give details of any significant look made by Hydro to reduce erosion by cheaper means than this dam -- which he now says is costing at least $40 million as far as the erosion factor is concerned?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have just answered that question. The member has those figures in front of him. There is a whole combination of things.

You would have to build a large weir; you would have to undertake the diversionary work, which was there anyway. As I recall the figures which were given to us at the policy field, there would be as much flooding with the exception I think of something like -- it was less than 100 acres as I recall. As much land would be lost in the remedial works, with the exception of about 100 acres, as there would be by producing the power. As I recall, the figures were the difference between 325 and 320 -- but I am not sure of that. And that information has all been made available to the member as well.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the information that Hydro had was, I must say, the most juvenile kind of reasoning that I have seen. Does the minister not feel that senior policy people will at least raise their eyebrows when they are told that the alternative to buying land on both sides of the river or buying easements was not considered satisfactory if in fact it was even possible to obtain all the river frontage? Doesn’t the minister and his people realize that Hydro has got that kind of power?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman. I am not an engineer nor were the policy field when they considered this on a number of occasions, nor were the cabinet engineers.

The member considers us to be juvenile. If that is what you feel then so be it. We were convinced on listening to the advice of engineers and people who had studied this that the right decisions were being made. The member doesn’t agree. I don’t know what more I can add.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister then explain what happened in cabinet between Dec. 22, 1971 and June of the following year, during which time Hydro itself washed its hands of the project on the grounds that the cost had escalated up to from $51 million to about $60 million? At that point, it passed responsibility for the project on to cabinet. What did cabinet and the policy field do at that time in order to lead them to decide that they would actually go ahead and build the project, since clearly Hydro had decided that it wanted quit of it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The project went from Hydro to the minister in January and it was announced here in the House in June. I don’t recall why it didn’t go through the process more quickly.

I assume that from January it went to various ministries for comment before it ultimately went to the policy field and before it went from the policy field to the cabinet. I would think that would be a normal length of time, six months on something of that magnitude, to receive comments from the various ministries of the government.

Mr. Cassidy: The point, Mr. Chairman, is that the ministry had a responsibility. It seems clear, even after Hydro had said “No, we don’t want it, but if the ministry wants it for political reasons they can go ahead,” that there was no thorough study by the ministry. At that point, the superministry was a very rudimentary body. Maybe that’s one of the reasons.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It would not have been a study by a superministry or by the secretariat. The study would have been done by the respective ministries. Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture and Food, I think, had a look at it, as I recall. Those responses would have been co-ordinated in a secretarial way by the secretariat and brought back to the secretariat.

Mr. Cassidy: I am nearing an end to these questions now, Mr. Chairman. I know that my leader (Mr. Lewis) wants to get in and possibly other members as well.

Can the minister tell me what he would consider to be numerous complaints about a government project?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have no idea.

Mr. Cassidy: Is he aware that the rationale offered by Hydro for this project was “numerous complaints,” but that its own listing of complaints says only three or four came from the area now being flooded?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’m aware, of course, that the person who has to some extent stirred up a great deal of the concern and complaints now emanating from Arnprior is a well-known politician of another party who sat through meetings and never has questioned the project.

Mr. Cassidy: You are saying that Reeve Stewart could have started to question the project earlier. Is that right?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He sits on the committee.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes. Is the minister aware that the committee was muzzled and was told not to pass any information out?

I agree with the minister that it would have been nice if people in the area had started a complaint sooner, but I don’t think that excuses the government, when it’s drawn to the government’s attention that a bad and costly mistake has been made, for trying to cover up and simply bulling ahead with the project. Was the minister aware that only three or four complaints were recorded for the 10-mile stretch where all this erosion was alleged to be taking place?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t recall how many there were.

Mr. Cassidy: I am telling the minister that. Can he tell us why it was that the cabinet concluded with Hydro that the public’s environmental concern would inevitably lead to a limited operation to the Stewartville dam upstream, if this $80-million project was not built, and on what evidence?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, I do have some information on the number of complaints. The implication that the member has made is that they’re only minor complaints, and I think that’s misleading. Hydro owns part of the shoreline, something like four miles near Stewartville, where the banks are steep and where a number of slides have taken place over the years. It’s highly unlikely that Hydro is going to complain to Hydro. In the period between the start of peaking at Stewartville, from 1969 to 1971 inclusive, at least 70 complaints expressed concern over the Madawaska River water level changes and erosion by letters or petition.

A letter from the reeve of McNab township in October, 1969, supported strongly by the Ottawa Valley Travel Council, expressed great concern by cottagers, businessmen, tourists, and farmers in the area of the mouth of the Madawaska River, due to river level changes. Certainly, I recall being at a meeting in Ottawa -- I don’t know just when it was -- and hearing about the damage that was being caused and what was going to be done about it. I think it is very fair to say that there was a great deal more than three or four complaints, which is the implication of the member.

Mr. Cassidy: What I was pointing out is that his own log of complaints, which it gave in the document which testified for them -- I’m just looking for it here -- records approximately 60 or 70 complaints. I grant that. But those complaints come from the area upstream of Stewartville, they come from the town of Arnprior proper, below where the new dam is being built, and only three or four come from the actual place which the dam will flood.

But the chairman of Hydro, Mr. Gathercole, received a petition about the erosion problem; he received it, though, either 10 minutes before or 10 minutes after the announcement of the dam, and it was very obviously a put-up job.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey-Bruce -- pardon me, is this on the Arnprior dam?

Mr. Sargent: Go ahead.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I would like a few words on the Arnprior dam. I want to say to the minister that, ironically, while this exchange was taking place between the member for Ottawa Centre and the minister, I was signing a letter to Neil McMurtrie, the director of property of Ontario Hydro. I don’t suppose I should indicate in advance what I am sending out, but it is a rather friendly letter. It comes as a result of a meeting which Mr. McMurtrie and others had with my colleague from Windsor West (Mr. Bounsall), the member for Huron (Mr. Riddell), the member for Huron-Bruce and myself about transmission corridors in western Ontario. I was rather struck -- and maybe I should be more cautious or more circumspect in the way I put it -- by the way in which Neil McMurtrie had grasped some of the sensitivities of the people involved, and some of the absurdities of previous Hydro policy, and I felt a little better in my own mind, at any event, that what would happen in the future would not be as bloody-minded as what had happened in the past. I thought I would write Neil McMurtrie and tell him that, since I sat and talked to him for two or 2½ hours in the company of others, it was a matter of some relief that there was such a man in any event who at least knew what had gone wrong, whether or not Hydro is capable of altering it I don’t know.

As I listened to the debate tonight, I thought back to that meeting. I experienced the same kind of frustration, which my colleague from Ottawa Centre experiences in knowing that the blunderbuss absurdity of the way in which Hydro dealt with the farmers in western Ontario -- now finally perhaps to be corrected by open public hearings -- is precisely parallel to the fashion, largely illegitimate and without reason, in which Hydro dealt with the Arnprior dam, not to mention the head office building in downtown Toronto.

There was a period in Hydro’s history, somewhere between 1969 and 1972, where the management was positively unstable about financial and development decisions. They were wrong, they were ill-considered, they were ill-advised.

The Minister of Energy is a pretty able fellow. Most of us understand and recognize that. He is capable of weaving an artful web. And what you people have done now, in the last few months after the extraordinary attack from the member for Ottawa Centre, is to begin to construct the tissue of explanation for the Arnprior dam somehow to give legitimacy to a public project which is absurd, which is a waste of money, which should never be built, and which the minister, were he not afraid of opening up a Pandora’s box, would repudiate. But he won’t do that. Instead, choosing a bit from Hedlin Menzies, choosing a bit from recollection, choosing a bit from what was put to him by Hydro people, the Minister of Energy is trying to indicate that somehow the Arnprior dam is a legitimate decision.

Well, the minister knows it wasn’t legitimate; the minister knows it was made during the period when George Gathercole and company had no more interest in financial, developmental or environmental factors than any of us who are laymen in this House.

It is only now, before the Ontario Energy Board, that Hydro is beginning to get the kind of scrupulous examination as to its behaviour that it should have had over the last five to 10 years. It’s only with the select committee of inquiry of this Legislature that Hydro was revealed for the absurd, administrative structure that it was in the dealings with the building in downtown Toronto. And I must therefore say to the minister that those of us on this side of the House, recognizing that there is perhaps some small fragment of sanity being imposed on Hydro now for the first tune in the last 20 years, nonetheless, we still have to take into account the kinds of decisions which were made in the past. And the minister has an $80 million folly in Arnprior.

I’ll tell you, Mr. Chairman, what offends us on this side of the House. What offends us is that the way in which the government uses those $80 million in an underdeveloped and neglected area of Ontario.

For that $80 million, Mr. Chairman, the government could bring health services to Pembroke, to Barry’s Bay, to Renfrew, to Smiths Falls. For that $80 million, it could give by way of housing and the industrial park what the mayor of Smiths Falls has been asking. For that $80 million, it could develop tourist and recreational facilities for Renfrew, Lanark, Stormont, Glengarry, Prescott and Russell. For that $80 million, it could buy Lemoine Point park a hundred times over. But instead it is using the $80 million to construct a dam as a monument to a Tory office holder without any rationale or justification at all which won’t provide a single permanent job. Am I right in that?

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right. Not a single job.

Mr. Lewis: Not a single job, for an investment of $80 million in an absurd project.

Boy, has the minister his priorities screwed up. Forgive me for putting it that way. If ever there was an economic decision which was wrong-headed, it’s this decision. And this government has no right to do that to the people of eastern Ontario.

It has no right to play so capriciously with their needs; taking $80 million that might be used in other areas. And don’t tell me it’s Hydro money. Hydro borrows on the credit of the Province of Ontario. We underwrite everything they do.

And if this government wanted to earmark that kind of money for something else, it could well do it. It is folly to make that kind of investment in a part of the province which is crying for economic and social support; not create a single job; not guarantee recreational facilities; not even guarantee to solve the erosion problems.

Had Hydro looked at the alternatives in advance, in a way which was a reflection of skill, of expertise, of professional knowledge, we’d have no case. We’d have no case. There would at least be a sense of why the dam was chosen, but Hydro never did that. Hydro never did that. It’s only in the last few months that Hydro’s been falling all over itself trying to justify what is essentially illegitimate.

So the minister says, “Okay, you’re socialists over there and I’m a Tory minister and we have a basic difference of opinion on this kind of thing; and I’m not going to move and it’s obvious that you people with your prejudices aren’t going to move.”

Well, let me tell the minister, I may have my differences of opinion with the member for Renfrew North. Isn’t that where he comes from? Renfrew South or Renfrew North, they are relatively the same both as members and as areas.

I may have my differences with the member for Renfrew South. I may even regret what I say about him occasionally, public and privately. I may even think that he is more creditable than I will admit, but let me tell the member for Renfrew South something through the Chair, he is not worth $80 million. No sir. He may be worth 80 cents, but he is not worth an investment of $80 million.

This government would be better losing the seat than exercising that kind of absurdity to sustain --

Mr. Sargent: He sure knows how to hurt a guy --

Mr. Lewis: -- to sustain the present member for Renfrew South. There is no other reason for that project. There is no other reason for that project, and he knows it and I know it. And as a matter of fact --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Yakabuski: The people of Renfrew South know better.

Mr. Lewis: They have re-elected the member time and time again -- until 1975 my friend, until 1975. The bell tolls for him. He is going to be going over the dam. That’s what is going to happen to him in 1975.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: And let me tell him that we won’t be there to fish him out.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: I want to come back to the minister for a moment. There is an enormous frustration in dealing with this project for all of us; frustration because Hydro was wrong; because it never made the studies; because it’s backing and filling frantically now; because it was in an era where Hydro did nothing right.

I understand that the minister can’t reject it. He knows what a run of admissions of failure are in the Pandora’s box that he would open. I understand that. But to pretend to justify it is not worthy of him -- it is not worthy of him.

Let him just concede that the member for Ottawa Centre has identified a project which is entirely unreasonable; that you’re throwing $80 million down the drain; that you are therefore distorting the economic priorities of Ontario again and we’re going to put that on the record every time we visit the eastern part of this province.

It’s not just the arrogance toward the farmers. It’s not just the inquiry officer and the refusal even to publish his report -- which the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) has refused. It’s not just the way in which you’ve manhandled the whole project. It’s your refusal to use $80 million for the benefit of the people of the entire eastern region and your insistence on using it to build a folly, providing no jobs, as a testament to Tory frailty in eastern Ontario.

It’s all over. This project is doing you in in eastern Ontario.

Mr. Yakabuski: I thought you were beyond that. I thought you had more beyond that.

Mr. Lewis: Beyond what? Beyond identifying what I know to be true?

Mr. Yakabuski: Just as he’s destroyed his credibility, you’re destroying your own credibility by defending the member for Ottawa Centre, who has destroyed his by his ridiculous statements.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I regard this as heckling. I feel I should tell you and I think you should call him to order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Let me tell you something Mr. Chairman, for the member for Renfrew South. Everywhere I travel in eastern Ontario, from Pembroke to Renfrew to Lanark, to any of the little towns in Prescott, Russell and to Hawkesbury and I ask the people of the area who their member is they tell me their member is from Ottawa Centre. Because this MPP is representing all of eastern Ontario as you Tories cop out, as you abdicate your responsibility.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Sure. Are you apoplectic tonight?

Interjection by an hon. member.

An hon. member: You should know.

Mr. Lewis: We are the very essence of moderation over here -- cultivated, thoughtful moderation.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): You had better speak to the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick).

Mr. Lewis: Well, the member for Riverdale is the quintessence.

Mr. Cassidy: You know, the Minister of Energy has just told the member for Renfrew South to shut up.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, as a matter of fact --

Mr. Yakabuski: That is not what he said.

Mr. Lewis: Is that not what he said?

Mr. Yakabuski: He was telling me a little story about your credibility.

Mr. Lewis: I know the minister. I know I can’t draw the Minister of Energy into this as we couldn’t draw him into the Elliot Lake situation. He’s put his views on the record. I wanted to support my colleague from Ottawa Centre in his views so that it’s widely known what we intend to say up and down eastern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Perhaps the member would allow me to make one correction to what he has said. The Minister of the Environment has not refused to release that report.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, he did.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: When?

Mr. Lewis: I asked him if he’d received the report of the entire outfit.

Mr. Cassidy: In the Legislature a couple of weeks ago.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He had not, at that point, considered it. To my certain knowledge, and I saw it, he signed the report on Monday and signed his decision on Monday, which was substantially the same as the inquiry officer’s report. It was his intention to release both the inquiry officer’s report and his decision, I thought, either Tuesday or Wednesday. Now, whether it has been done or not, I don’t know. I asked the hon. member for Renfrew South whether he has seen it, and nobody here seems to know whether it has been released or not.

Mr. Lewis: No, it has not been released as yet.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well then, it isn’t out yet but it is signed and he has made his decision, which substantiates the opinion of the inquiry officer.

Mr. Lewis: Well, that is fine. It would be interesting to see the report.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, the minister has been talking about selling uranium. The whole world is the market for Canadian production. The minister says that two big sales are awaiting Ottawa’s approval. Mr. Minister, how do you ship the uranium?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In drums. It is called “yellow cake.” It is processed at Port Hope and shipped from there.

Mr. Sargent: By military escort?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. Sargent: By plane? How do you ship it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There is nothing harmful about it. I assume it goes by truck to Montreal or Toronto and goes by ship to the UK, if that is where it is going.

Mr. Sargent: Well, I would suggest that it goes by aircraft.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I doubt it very much.

Mr. Sargent: I want to get it on the record that the only way people seem to have any idea about what is going on in this area, is by what they read in the papers. No one in your industry will tell the people what is going on.

It has come to light in the States that about a million shipments, in 1973, of radioactive material were by aircraft, and that tens of thousands of radioactive packages were carried on Canadian planes annually. The odds of you getting on a plane today that is carrying radioactive material, is 50 per cent. One in two planes will carry it.

Putting on the record what is involved and what the hon. member for High Park was trying to get across to the minister was the concern of the ordinary people. In one Delta Airlines flight, 150 people were involved, and one of the stewardesses said, “I panicked because all I could think of was my unborn baby.” The doctors recommended that she undergo a clinical abortion because she, as a stewardess, was sitting in the rear of the plane above the hold carrying the baggage.

The point I am trying to make is that in Canada, the standards are that no one individual should be exposed to more than 500 milligrams a year. What would happen on a flight like this is that they would be subject to 12,000 milligrams, or 25 times the dose they should get.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Who are?

Mr. Sargent: Anyone travelling in the stewardesses’ position on a plane carrying radioactive materials such as uranium. They are getting 24 times the ordinary dose of radioactivity. The point I am trying to make is this -- we don’t have anyone in your ministry telling people what is involved regarding the dangers of nuclear power in the Province of Ontario. We have heard some dialogue tonight about how you bury the spent fuel rods. You bury them 27 ft.

I understand you are talking about Pickering and Douglas Point. I want to say to you that I am concerned about the fact that everyone in Douglas Point has to wear a geiger counter. These things are about the size of a package of cigarettes. You can carry one in your shirt pocket. You learn that in the presence of radiation it will give off a small sound that will tip you off. The frequency of the chirps of this machine indicates the intensity of the radiation.

Also, if you are carrying this on board a flight and you start hearing a lot of noise from your small geiger counter, you know that you are probably in an area you don’t want to stay in too long. In other words, the experts in the United States say that if you are flying, sit in a forward position, not over the baggage compartment of a plane, because stewardesses or stewards or whatever they are called, will not be able to bear children if they are on any prolonged flights and one out of two flights is carrying radioactive material. To make people aware that this is a dangerous product, the airlines and you, Mr. Minister, should be letting the people know exactly what the are involved with.

You mentioned that you shipped one shipment of plutonium to France. Plutonium is the world’s most dangerous explosive component for bombs. We don’t know what you are shipping it for, whether it is for peaceful purposes or not, but I suggest that you were shipping a lot more than one shipment of plutonium to France and it was going without military escort. However, there seems to be no saturation point at all and no interest in talking about the dangers of radiation.

But what I want to get to the minister before I sit down is this. You have been talking about the fact that you have been secretly negotiating with a group of firms, now down to five, to give them some of the $600 million heavy water project of Hydro. I think it has come to the point now that you tell the people of Ontario and you tell me now who those five firms are. You told me you didn’t know but you would get the information. I would suggest to you, sir, that the people of Ontario, in an issue of such magnitude as this, are stockholders of Hydro and they should know exactly what’s going on. Before you take this action, there should be a referendum among the people of the Province of Ontario before they give up this big piece of their property.

I don’t know if I will get an answer here or not, Mr. Minister, I want to say this to you: That if we were to get a list of the donors to the Conservative Party election fund, I will bet everything I have in my life tonight that the major donors will be the suppliers of Hydro, and you know I am not mistaken very much when I say this. How do you raise $5 million for an election campaign if it is not through things like this?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: I want to say this.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: All right, we are dealing with these estimates and I want to say this, that I give no quarter to the minister, no quarter at all. I don’t think that he’s in the same ball game as the US president; he’ll never have to go on the air and say, “No, I am not a crook.” I don’t think you are a crook. But I want to say this, that I feel that you are in a crooked political party, that you have --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: Just a moment.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That is part of your muck-raking mind -- your muck-raking mind and the whole gang of you are --

Mr. Sargent: These are my opinions. These are my opinions and I have a right to say them in this House.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That is something you can’t prove and you know it.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. We are on votes 1801 and 1802.

Mr. Sargent: I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I can’t find out from this minister who these five big firms are that are forming this consortium to take over Hydro.

Mr. Lewis: You don’t deserve such help. You have enough of a majority without it.

Mr. Sargent: You know it is nice to be sitting there as winners all the time. Fat cats who pull all the strings --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: I am going to sit down shortly, if you will tell me now who the five firms are that control this consortium with which you are going to share Hydro.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I indicated that I have been informed informally that as I understood it there were some 30 or 40 inquiries following Hydro’s proposal call --

Mr. Sargent: It was 60 the last time you talked.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’ve forgotten how many there were. I was told this -- I don’t know that I have even seen this. There were meetings held I think with 20 or 30 different people who were interested. There were phone calls and so on, and finally there were five firm proposals which have been received. They have not yet been determined by the Hydro board any more than the information as to who bids on a project is released until the tenders are opened. I don’t think Hydro are under any obligation to release who have put in these five proposals. In any case they have not informed me, and my answer is the same as it was a week ago that I, at this moment, cannot inform the member.

Mr. Sargent: All right then. Can you tell the House, are they Canadian-controlled firms?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t know.

Mr. Sargent: You, the man in charge of energy for the Province of Ontario, do not know whom we are talking about sharing a piece of Hydro with? You don’t know who they are?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We are not talking about that; the member knows it.

Mr. Sargent: Pardon me?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member knows that -- we are not talking about that.

Mr. Sargent: Well, that’s what I’m talking about.

Mr. Ewen: Sit down.

Mr. Sargent: Who said that?

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): He did.

Mr. Chairman: Maybe the member for Grey-Bruce --

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, this is a very vital issue and I want to stand here and find out the information. The minister has the audacity to say that he does not know who Hydro is going to share $600 million of our property with -- whether they are Canadian firms or not Canadian firms. That is most important and I think that I should have an answer from him.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I can’t give the member an answer because I don’t know.

Mr. Sargent: When can the minister find out?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: When Hydro have reached their decision undoubtedly, as I indicated the other --

Mr. Sargent: I don’t give a damn when Hydro will find out. The minister will find out tomorrow and let us know.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, the basic principle of this House is that members equally have the same rights. That minister has no more right to control all the money he does and to hide things like that involving $600 million --

Mr. Chairman: It seems to the chairman that when the hon. member for Grey-Bruce had the floor the last time, these are the same questions he asked of the minister.

Mr. Sargent: I know, Mr. Chairman, you are so right.

Mr. Chairman: But you can’t --

Mr. Sargent: But I won’t take that kind of con from anybody.

Mr. Chairman: It’s repetition all the way along.

Mr. Sargent: He should know. If he doesn’t know, he shouldn’t have that job. You know that.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, but I am saying that last time you had the opportunity to speak, and that was tonight, you asked the minister the same questions you are asking him now.

Mr. Sargent: I know, he doesn’t answer me. And that is my responsibility as a member of the opposition.

Mr. Chairman: I am just warning you that you can’t be repetitious.

Mr. Sargent: That’s why we get paid extra money to be over here because -- but it is a shocking thing to me, Mr. Chairman, that that minister can sit there and say he doesn’t know who we are going to see our $600 million with -- whether it’s American concerns or Canadian concerns. So I suggest to the minister that he get up off it and have those answers damned soon or he is going to have a lot of trouble.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Yes, Mr. Chairman. As the minister probably knows, in the latter half of last year there was a Royal Society symposium in Ottawa on the topic of energy. Needless to say, in spite of the looming oil supply question, that Royal Society meeting discussion went well beyond the immediate questions of oil supply. It might be instructive just for a moment to indicate just how high-powered a meeting that one was. For membership in the Royal Society, you are invited to it. You have to be of international fame, or very strong national fame, within your own field, no matter what that is -- physics, biochemistry, biology, and so on. At those Royal Society meetings, the members present papers and have discussions with people whom they invite. People just can’t go and send papers in and hope that they’ll be discussed. Those are invited papers as well. So the whole tenor of the meeting is a very high-powered one and exceedingly wide-ranging.

I mention that because there were some figures that came forth there with which I wish to know if the Province of Ontario is in agreement. They indicated that by the end of this century for Canada nuclear and hydro electricity will account for 40 per cent of the total of all energy used, and currently we are around 20 per cent. Then for the year --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: What was that again?

Mr. Bounsall: It would be 40 per cent of the total of all --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: What would be 40 per cent?

Mr. Bounsall: No. All electric power including both hydro and nuclear, is 40 per cent for Canada. And for the year 2050, 90 per cent of Canada’s energy consumption will be in the form of electricity. With Ontario being more industrialized than the rest of Canada, I would think that perhaps that figure would be a little higher in Ontario. I would like to know if the Ontario projections for Ontario are about in that same ball park.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t think they would have been, as I recall the ACE figures of two years ago. One of the interesting things when people do this kind of forecasting is that they seem to end up, for the most part, showing the same share of the total energy market for electrical and petroleum as they presently have, although most of them would show a lesser share for water power and a greater share for coal.

I don’t think that we officially would put the figure that high, at 40 per cent. The chairman of Hydro, however, on a couple of occasions has said a doubling, and I would think that within Hydro their best guess would be that electrical power by the year 2000 will be occupying that share of the total energy market. Mind you, a lot of things have to happen beyond that.

The 2050 figure? I don’t know. It depends on the electric car, for one thing. It depends on a whole host of variables. I think you are really sticking your neck out then. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the 2000 figure worked out to be that.

We had people there, by the way. The chairman of the Energy Board was there; I think the deputy minister was there. I think we had two or three people at that most interesting, as I recall it. Royal Society meeting.

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, most interesting and most stimulating, I would think. Well, I asked that because I wanted to know just how the Ontario figures might fit with the national figure. From what you can recall and what you know now, it matches for the year 2000. I am not too concerned about the year 2050 either, because there are too many variables that do come in to any sort of extrapolation that far away, while we are only 26 or 27 years away from the end of this century --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: If I may interject, I think I would agree with you about Ontario’s figures: if Canada is 40 per cent, Ontario might well be projected to be 41 per cent or 42 per cent. We will probably use a little more electricity, because western Canada may well still be using a greater amount of gas and oil. Unless, of course, we find something in Hudson Bay or James Bay at some point.

But I think our figure for electrical energy is a little bit more than the country as a whole now, although Quebec uses more energy totally than we do.

Mr. Bounsall: Well, that has some implications.

One other thing that conference did -- and I mentioned this very briefly before the supper hour -- was it dwelt quite at length in a couple of its sessions on alternative sources of energy. It was a far-ranging discussion; they didn’t restrict themselves to oil. They dwelt for quite a while on hydrogen.

Don’t let me give the impression that I am sold entirely on hydrogen as the only alternative source of energy to the ones we are now using -- petroleum products and electricity -- but there are a couple of further points I’d like to make.

Before I do, I was rather disturbed before the supper hour, after I asked if the Ministry of Energy was engaging itself in research into further and other sources of energy, to hear you say no, you didn’t have any plans for that in the immediate future.

In a sense, that is fair enough, if you meant you didn’t have any plans to have a research facility built, called “Ministry of Energy Physical Research Plant No. 1” or what have you, in which you were, in fact, as a ministry, directly engaged with your own individual personnel in actually carrying out the technical research.

I would agree with you. I wouldn’t expect that to happen, if ever. But I am a little bit appalled and disturbed if the answer is no -- and the Ontario Ministry of Energy is not doing anything through its funds to encourage research in alternate forms of energy.

There are two ways their research could easily be done in Ontario. One is through the Ontario Research Foundation, where a group could be gathered together, paid by this ministry, or perhaps paid by other means. But at the Ontario Research Foundation, the nucleus of a group could be formed, ready to work on various projects. As a scientist, the project I am most convinced of is in the hydrogen field, so that we could at least get in on the technological development side, where we are rapidly finding ourselves not owning any of it.

Alternatively, the Ministry of Energy could disperse research funds through grants to competent people in the field at our universities, or other research institutes, to take a look at other new forms of energy.

At that same Royal Society meeting, electrical power was talked about as being very expensive to transmit from one point to another and over long distances. Certainly -- quite apart from the problems we have seen in southwestern Ontario over the purchase of the transmission rights of way -- the transmission of that power is expensive over long distances. And, no doubt, one of the easiest ways that power can be transmitted is to put it into another form such as hydrogen by creating fuel cells.

Dr. Brian Conway, an internationally famous electrochemist at the University of Ottawa -- he is sort of “the” electrochemist on the North American continent -- was at that conference. He said that Hydro Quebec could save $1 million by the year 1980 by the use of fuel cells involving hydrogen. And this is simply by taking hydrogen and making electricity out of it.

In other words, hydrogen -- used as a form of raw material and not in the conventional power plant design we have now -- can be combined with oxygen to produce electricity. This is not just burning it per se and using it as an alternative to coal or nuclear power, but there is a way in which it can be combined. I am not an electrochemist, so I don’t follow it exactly.

And Dr. Conway states that this is where the $1 million saving comes in, applied to remote areas to which hydrogen would be shipped with the use of these fuel cells generating electricity on site. This is estimated for 1980.

However, the reverse of that, to me, is even more intriguing. If by the year 2000, 40 per cent or slightly more, of our energy needs in Ontario are going to be supplied through electrical means, this means -- and presumably this percentage will increase thereafter -- that we shall have to have more nuclear generating stations than we have at present. It is becoming increasingly obvious that to have these stations located in populated areas of the province is going to meet with ever-increasing resistance.

So what would be more acceptable to the general population would be to have nuclear stations situated in remote areas of the province. The electrochemical method of producing hydrogen would be in operation at these sites, from which hydrogen would be shipped out. Hydrogen is much easier and cheaper to transmit than electricity, although it is slightly more expensive to produce at the source than electricity.

However, once you have the hydrogen, it is fairly inexpensively recreated in a fuel cell back to the electrical form. And that, I suggest, is going to be one of the feasible routes of getting the electric power needed in the Province of Ontario without having to have one of your various nuclear stations located in the centre of a populated area.

And when I say that, Mr. Minister, I am on the record in this House -- in the Throne Speech debate -- of saying that the Candu reactor is the safest reactor there is for producing electrical energy from nuclear power.

I have no hesitation as a scientist in praising that particular system. It is a safe one. It is almost, as far as I can see, free from the nut who might want to come in and sabotage it. It is virtually sabotage-free and could only be destroyed in terms of a direct hit in time of war, and if that occurs, then we are all in trouble anyway. If there is a war, we don’t really have to worry about our nuclear stations, as it is probably going to be a nuclear war. We can discount a limited war that creates a nuclear problem because of our nuclear stations.

In operation, the Candu system is a good one. But there is still going to be increasing public resistance to more of these stations being built in the populated areas of our province.

Without going on into any more urging by me for you to get into hydrogen research, which I feel very strongly you should do for a couple of reasons, I come to a question at this point. Do you have anyone or any group at all within your ministry charged with investigating or recommending alternative sources of energy and what actions might be taken in the area of alternative sources of energy?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. Bounsall: How many do you have?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Just one.

Mr. Bounsall: You just have one?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: And he certainly doesn’t do that full-time. Hydro keeps an eye on it. We are attempting to keep an eye on the viability and otherwise of other forms of energy.

Mr. Bounsall: What are your plans to expand within the ministry?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: None.

Mr. Bounsall: Is this one person who spends part of his time within your ministry or within Hydro?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, full-time in our ministry.

Mr. Bounsall: Do you really think that is enough within Hydro with their having devised the Candu system?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes. They spend more time at it and so does AECL and EMR. What we don’t want to do is duplicate what other people are doing.

Mr. Bounsall: There is a danger here. There are only about 10 different groups, all of them small, conducting research in the area of alternative energy sources or hydrogen in the whole of Canada. With that small an input in this, I believe Canada is in danger of being shut out of the technology completely here. This is going to be developed anyway.

Let’s forget about the fact that if we took a hand in it directly we could speed up this technology. Let’s forget about that point. When that technology comes we are in great danger of not having developed or not owning any of that particular technology. We are going to have to buy it outside the country and bring it in at a greater cost to ourselves than what we would have to if we had got into that development ourselves. I think that is a disgrace, Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t want to argue with the member. This was the point that was being made by his colleague. You can say the same thing about solar energy or wind energy and geothermal energy. We just haven’t the resources nor do we intend to acquire in the Ontario Ministry of Energy those kinds of resources to commit ourselves to that kind of research. It just isn’t there.

Mr. Bounsall: What I am suggesting is that you should fight for funds in your ministry so that that is there, at least to make an investigation of that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s what the Science Council is all about. That’s what AECL is all about. That’s what the national effort is all about -- just what I have described. I suppose you are talking $5 million or $10 million to do any kind of a job without funding outside research. We don’t think that is our job at this moment. It may change.

Mr. Bounsall: I hope it would change. As I said here today, the Province of Alberta spends around $4 million a year through the Alberta Research Foundation and we spend about half that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We have no gas which they have in great quantity.

An hon. member: Carried?

Mr. Bounsall: No, not carried. We spend about half that as a province.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We are spending on Hydro about $12 million.

Mr. Chairman: Is there much more discussion on vote 1801?

Mr. Bounsall: I have points in another area as well on this, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the committee rise and report

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply begs to report progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I adjourn the House I think I would be somewhat remiss in my responsibilities to the members of the Legislature if I didn’t inform them that the great member for Dufferin-Simcoe is celebrating his 70th birthday.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): He’s been celebrating it all week.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): When was his birthday?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I have just been informed he has been celebrating it all week; I am not sure about that. Nevertheless, as a senior member of the Legislature he has an outstanding record of 37 years of service and I think we might recognize that.

Mr. A. W. Downer (Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, through you I would like to express my appreciation to the House leader and to my colleagues and every member of this House for their good wishes and their hopes for my health and happiness, I suppose, for the future.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: And his return to the House.

Mr. Downer: And return to the House.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Some of us would not go as far as that.

Mr. Downer: If I had the time I would like to reminisce but this isn’t the time. This is the time for adjournment.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The member is right there.

Mr. Downer: This is a bit of a sad day as well as a glad day because when I arrived here in 1937 I sat beside George Doucett. I sat beside him for four years until I joined the army and today we pay tribute to his memory.

I would like to say that I have many memories of this House. This is the most exclusive club in Ontario -- in Canada, really -- and I enjoy belonging to it. I have a philosophy of life and with this I am going to close. I have a philosophy of life and this is it:

I would like to think when life is o’er

That I had filled a needed post

That here or there I paid my fare with more than idle tale or boast

That I had taken gifts divine

The breath of life and manhood fine

And tried to use them now and then

In the service of my fellow men.

Thank you very much.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will return to the consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, to be followed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

On Monday of next week, if the members opposite would care to jot down these numbers, we will return to the legislation programme and the bill numbers will be as follows: 25, 36, 34, 33, 14, 53, 44.

Should the House feel productive, I would think that about Thursday we might discuss the budget and on Friday of next week we would return to consideration of estimates.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Budget only on Thursday?

Mr. Foulds: Excuse me, those were bill numbers, were they?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:35 o’clock, p.m.