Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

UNSOLICITED FACSIMILE TRANSMISSIONS ACT, 1991

Mr Cousens moved second reading of Bill 134, An Act respecting Unsolicited Facsimile Transmissions.

LOI DE 1991 SUR LES TRANSMISSIONS PAR TELECOPIE NON SOLLICITEES

M. Cousens propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 134, Loi portant sur les transmissions par telecopie non sollicitees.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): The honourable member for Markham.

Mr Cousens: I would like to speak to this. It has had first reading in the House, and a chance now exists for us to debate a bill that, on a scale of 1 to 10, with all the things that are facing the Legislature -- well, I would none the less like to see this be given consideration this morning.

The Acting Speaker: The member has 10 minutes and a two-minute --

Mr Cousens: Gosh, there are so many rules around here it is going to be hard to live within them. Here I am trying to live within the rules of the Legislature, yet I want to have new rules and regulations for the world of finance and the world of business. I look forward to the day when we can deal with many other issues and when people look at this Legislature and say, "What are they dealing with that for?"

It just happens to be one of those issues that needs to be cleaned up, and in the hour we have this morning to talk about unsolicited faxes, we private members have a chance to do something. No one is going to twist our arms, other than our own consciences and maybe the outstanding arguments I present to all of us that we allow this bill to pass so Ontario can join those other jurisdictions that have said, "Let's do something about junk fax mail." That is where I am coming from on this one.

I have a little background information to give. The fact of the matter is, a few years ago we never even heard of a fax machine. I do not know whether we would put our pages to the test: "Have you ever received a fax? Have you ever sent a fax?" Maybe they have. Maybe they are sending their essays to school by fax and the teachers are now doing it the new, technological way.

For a number of years in Europe they have had facsimile machines where people have been able to transmit documents of all kinds to one another, escaping the entanglement of the post office or couriers, doing it far more quickly by virtue of using the communication lines of Bell, CN-CP or whatever to obtain that document more quickly.

Fax machines now are almost universal. In the world of business, if you do not have one, there is a small store not far away where you can send or receive a facsimile. We are seeing now in offices all over this country and this province that people have fax machines. People now can have one for their homes where, for special situations, they too can have their own machine.

Our MPP offices, just in the last little while, have been provided with fax machines, and on most of our business cards, as MPPs now, we will have a number for facsimile. The fact of the matter is, you can get them for cars, so there are portable faxes.

I realize that technology allows anything we have today to be extended further and further out. It is good that automation is expanding, and it seems to be helping business. Business then is able to do a great deal by using these machines. It becomes a legal document, so many real estate transactions now can be handled by a fax. Bankers, lawyers, many people are using these machines to expedite business. Let's face it: Things are getting faster and faster. We just have to have those tools available. We have to understand that it is a requirement just to run business today. The fact that we have it, the fact that we are using it is in itself something that says, "Well, we just have to move with the times."

As technology expands, the old situations we had before continue to exist. When members receive their mail every day, how often do they also receive what they do not want to receive, their bills, their tax bills? Some people think of junk mail as being the letter from their MPP, but I am not including that when I talk about junk mail, especially when it comes from me to my constituents. But people really want to get rid of the junk. They say, "Hey, it's just adding to the accumulation of garbage; it's something I don't want."

Yet I do not know how we deal with that. First of all, it is a federal matter and the post office does not come under our jurisdiction. But one thing that does come under our jurisdiction is the kind of thing that happens with junk faxes.

An organization known as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business did a survey not too long ago. The CFIB asked whether there should be regulations protecting the public from advertising by businesses via fax machines; in other words, regulations that would prohibit people from just using the fax for solicitations of a commercial nature. The results of this survey were that 81% of the respondents believed there should be regulations restricting the advertising by businesses using fax machines; 10% said no, there should not be regulations of any kind; 5% were undecided, and another 4% did not have any interest in the issue. The fact of the matter is, 81% of the respondents to this survey believed there should be regulations protecting the public from advertising by businesses using fax machines.

We have seen a number of jurisdictions take this seriously, and two states in the United States that I am aware of, Connecticut and Maryland, have both passed laws that will restrict the use of fax machines for the transmission of commercial solicitations.

I believe that when you have your own little machine in your own office these days you have made an investment, first of all, in the machine to have it there ready for your commercial activity. If the machine is tied up in receiving an extended advertisement or material that you did not want and that is not part of your normal business life, then you cannot use that machine. You cannot just turn it off. Once someone ties up your machine in sending out a large, detailed brief of some kind that you do not want, what can you do about it? You shut off the machine and then you shut off the communication once it is over.

Mr Curling: You take the phone off the hook.

Mr Cousens: You take the phone off the hook, as my good friend describes, and that is not why you have your business there.

The other thing is that these machines require an expensive coated paper; that paper is expensive for a business to have. When you tie up a fax machine, you are not only using their line, you are using their paper as well.

What we are trying to suggest is not a big move for the Ontario Legislature, when we can deal with the Constitution, the economy, the issues that deal with the environment and every portfolio. I am almost embarrassed to say this is the issue of the day. But it will give a message to business that says we, as the Ontario Legislature, want to see business streamlined. If we can help in some way and remove the impediments that keep people from having the success they want and deserve, that they are really trying for, then through this kind of bill we are at least putting a message out there that indicates that the Ontario Legislature is not close-minded to the needs of business. In that spirit I have brought forward this bill.

1010

It is too bad we did not debate it yesterday. Yesterday was Zero Garbage Day. A number of people will come into their offices in the morning, or even during the day, and receive 20 or 30 faxes that are unsolicited. It is just the kind of garbage they do not need.

If the House is able to consider this a worthy bill, in this one hour's time we will have been able at least to begin on this road of recovery that helps business and say we in the Legislature are working with them. That is part of the message I want to convey through this bill, that we are not isolated from the real world, where things are not all that easy, but from this perspective we are at least making the time and the concern known that we are prepared to do something about it.

Bill 134 is a very simple bill, and what it means is that if someone does use the fax machine for unsolicited commercial solicitation, he could suffer a fine of $1,000. This will not cut into the kind of solicitation that people make of us as politicians, it will not cut into some of the normal ways in which business is communicated, but it will start getting rid of what we call junk fax.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his opening remarks. He will have two minutes to summarize. Every recognized party in the Legislature now has 15 minutes to debate Bill 134, as presented by the honourable member for Markham.

Mr Kormos: There was so much enthusiasm about this legislation that I have to share the 15 minutes with at least two other speakers, and I am relying on the member for Kitchener-Wilmot -- why is it that we cannot call people by their real names? Their friends, their families, their spouses call them by their real names. In any event, I am sure Mr Cooper -- notwithstanding that Hansard may well correct that -- will let me know when I have used up what he deems to be my portion of the time. Of course, depending upon what I say, it may well motivate him to let me speak longer or shorter.

I am especially pleased to be able to speak to the bill of the member for Markham this morning, because I am going to be in Markham this evening, and I know the member for Markham is going to make every effort to be there too. The Zemplin Slovak Ensemble is celebrating its 30th anniversary tonight, Thursday, at the Markham Theatre, 171 Town Centre Boulevard in Markham. That is 8 pm. The Gymnik Orchestra from Slovakia is visiting Ontario and touring and performing, along with the Toronto Slovak Dancers and the Vychodna Slovak Dancers. I know Mr Cousens has been entertained by the Toronto Slovak Dancers and the Vychodna Slovak Dancers because he and I have been at some of the same concerts where these people have performed.

Mr Cousens: Is that a fax?

Mr Kormos: It is a fact, not a fax. That is an event that I am not going to miss in Markham tonight and, I suspect, any number of people who are watching this morning would not miss either.

I was a little bit concerned about the member for Markham's suggestion that pages may not be familiar with faxes. To the contrary, Robert Schmidt, the page from Brant-Haldimand, is very familiar with fax machinery and has used fax technology to communicate not just here in the province but as far away as Europe.

So just by way of correction, and I know the member for Markham takes this in the tone it is intended, I tell him Robert Schmidt from Brant-Haldimand objects mildly and modestly to his suggestion that pages are not familiar with faxes. On the contrary, I suspect these young people are far more familiar with that type of technology than many of the more mature, perhaps older persons here in the Legislature.

I was heartened by the member for Markham's comment that this legislation -- and it is clear from reading it -- is not designed to inhibit uses of fax technology where it is appropriate. Far be it from me to support legislation that would inhibit people from faxing their government members or opposition members about issues that are important and dear to them.

Surely this type of legislation would not inhibit people from faxing Ontario Hydro about the fact that the chairman of Ontario Hydro is making $400,000 a year. That is surely something that should get people concerned and irate enough that they would not only fax but fax frequently, and fax with some vehemence, about their objection to that sort of obscenity at a point in time when there are a whole lot of people not working in this province and a whole lot of people making a whole lot less. I know people who would do it for half the price. I suspect it is not the intention of the member for Markham, and it certainly is not mine -- because I am supporting the legislation -- to suggest that it should, can or is in any way intended to inhibit or prohibit people from faxing their concern about exorbitant salaries at a time of overall restraint.

I am convinced it is not intended to inhibit people from faxing their concern to the government, to the Premier's office and perhaps to the office of the Minister of Financial Institutions about the pending changes, as we were promised, in the auto insurance legislation, and about the fact that people out there in Ontario are really concerned that we are not going to keep our promise to restore the right of innocent accident victims to sue. Those people should be encouraged to fax, and fax frequently and fax articulately.

I know that a young fellow from Welland, Jeff Tremblay, did not fax me a letter but wrote me one and sent it through the mail from Roach Avenue in Welland. Jeff Tremblay is a sea cadet in 141 Bellerophon unit there. He writes as a very socially conscious young person, a very community-minded young person who is obviously keeping tabs on what is happening in this Legislature. Members should not think for a moment that people are not watching. They are watching and are concerned and are prepared to be critical, if need be.

Jeff Tremblay, from Roach Avenue in Welland, writes with concern about what has happened with the government's position on automobile insurance legislation, and I know that he is going to be concerned enough, if he has access to a fax machine, to fax those same concerns to the Premier and to as many people as he can reach through that same technology.

As I wrap up, I merely remind people once again that it is at 8 o'clock in Markham, at the Markham Theatre, 171 Town Centre Boulevard. Also, at 7 o'clock on Rogers Community 10, there will be a live program dealing with the issue of auto insurance. There will be Helen Anderson from the Consumers' Association of Canada, consumer advocate; Barb Baptiste from the Rehabilitation Management group here in Toronto, who performed an outstanding role of leadership in the right of innocent accident victims; John McLeish from a law firm; Judy Maddocks, regional manager of Royal Insurance, and myself. We will be participating at 7 o'clock this evening on cable 10, a live program which I believe will also entail a phone-in component, so people are encouraged to watch that and to participate in the debate.

I did mention that I support the legislation. I want to thank Mr Cousens for his interest in the issue, motivated as he was to bring this legislation forward, and I want to thank the NDP caucus for letting me rise and speak on this issue. I hope I have not offended anybody, but we will let the chips fall where they may.

Mr Curling: I want to thank the honourable member for Markham for introducing this. I cannot say I am excited about the bill he has introduced, but I can understand why he is doing it. As a matter of fact, I think his intentions are quite honourabl, and I know that most of the things he has done are honourable.

The reason I cannot get excited about it is that there are so many pressing things happening right now in our society, especially in the jurisdiction of human rights, that on a morning like this it would be wonderful to be in this House and have a private member's bill that would talk about some of the things, such as human rights, that are so neglected and which we cannot get the government to do. Quite naturally, some of the private members may bring that forward. I am not looking forward to the government bringing it forward, because as I said, from the government point of view, it is lax in its activities. I would have hoped that the Conservative member who has brought this forward would have brought forward some human rights issues.

1020

The bill is about, are we going to respect the unsolicitated facsimile transmissions that come through on the machines here? While I was hearing both members speak, our great member the defender of the auto insurance act and the member for Markham, I was a bit confused that maybe one is the Conservative and the other is the socialist.

To say that we will stop the flow of faxes coming through, to say to someone who would like to send you something on a fax machine, "It's going to waste paper because it was unsolicited," I thought this was a free enterprise system and that people would like to send you something and solicit your concern. In other words, as my honourable friend knows, it is like the telephone. I could equate the fax machine with a telephone. If you do not want it you can unlist your fax machine number. The fax machine is just like the telephone. You could take the fax machine from your constituency office, take it home, plug it into your telephone line and ask your friends to fax you something.

How we are going to stop that will be quite difficult. There is one other thing about it too. How would we monitor this? How would we police this bill and charge $1,000 for those who have violated the act? I do not know if we have any precedent on this. He has shown some precedents in the United States that have been instituted where they have restricted fax. Perhaps we should have done that for the junk mail that comes to our home.

I am not talking about junk mail, as the member has categorized it, as mail coming from a member of Parliament; not at all. I think that with the things I send out, it is a loss if people have thrown them into the garbage. It is good information. It is information about the government's mismanagement of funds. It is information about where we are going on human rights. It is information on some of the wonderful positions that are put forward by my colleagues here. I do not consider it junk mail, but we know the amount of junk mail that arrives at our doorsteps.

I cannot see how we would ever police this in our homes or in our businesses. A willing buyer and a willing seller: What would we do, for instance, if one phoned you and asked, "Are you selling your home?" or, "Would you like to buy a certain product?" I thought the Conservative government would be excited about that, because that is the kind of market we want, but I am hearing the honourable member saying we should cut that off. Therefore, I am very confused. I would have expected that this kind of information and this type of bill would come from over on that side of the fence.

Even if we were able to put this through, what law could we put in? Does it fall under federal jurisdiction or provincial jurisdiction? From my understanding, it comes under federal jurisdiction under telecommunications, so therefore we should put that forward. Members will recall that, I think, last year this bill was introduced for first reading and it died on the table. Here we are putting forward the same bill and he hopesfor it to be successful.

Mr Cousens: It wasn't debated last time.

Mr Curling: It did not reach as far as being debated, as a matter of fact, as the honourable member reminded me. We have a chance to debate it this time, a waste of time, I feel, honestly. There are such other pressing needs, pressing issues, that we could deal with.

The fax machine is a very good technological advancement today. The members actually saw the display by the post office. Our mail is coming late and there are the strikes. The fax machine will never strike unless it breaks down mechanically. It is a pity we cannot send our cheques through the fax; I think they would come much quicker.

I feel that to have this restriction on the fax machine would be extremely bad for business itself. As I said, I tried to get excited about this. I ask the honourable member, if he gets a chance to do another private member's bill, to do something about human rights. He is quite an advocate for having human rights issues advanced. We could work together on all sides of the fence here, the Liberals and also the Conservatives -- maybe we will be able to push aside this rhetoric that also comes from the government from time to time -- to do something and use the time, instead of trying to restrict unsolicited fax machine messages, to do human rights and other issues.

We also hope that as the members look at this bill itself, and I am sure they have almost another eight minutes in which to speak on this matter, we could hear from them as to some of the issues that would be helpful. We could send very good information around instead of restricting it.

I will not speak very long on this bill. I just want to put it on the record that I -- of course it is a private member's bill and all members may choose not to speak because they do not find other things to say on this -- that I hope the honourable member himself will find it within himself to say, "Having heard these discussions, there are other, more pressing issues to do than trying to restrict the fax machine."

Mr McLean: I am pleased today to stand in my place and support Bill 134, An Act respecting Unsolicited Facsimile Transmissions. It is interesting to note that the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario has indicated the problem we are having with faxes, the large number of unsolicited advertisements that are coming into business offices. Sidney Linden, Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner, said he believes Ontario is the first jurisdiction to issue rulings with regard to the number of faxes that are coming into offices.

Junk fax is a reality and junk fax is something like junk mail: It is only junk if the message is not appropriate for the person who is receiving it. When we look at some of the results of some of the questionnaires that have been sent out, it said, "Should there be regulations protecting the public from advertising businesses by fax machines?" Some 83% of the people who were asked that question indicated there should be, so there is an awareness out there. But we do not want to get the notion that they should not be faxing ministries or sending faxes to ministers on anything that is pertinent to what they believe to be important to them. I think that is why the fax machines are there. We all use them.

The essence of this bill is to try to slow down on junk faxes for advertising. There are two states, Connecticut and Maryland, that have passed legislation which prohibits people from sending unsolicited fax messages without prior approval. There are several statistics now where we see that in North America there are going to be some 11 million fax machines by 1993. It is becoming a major issue. When people and businesses want to advertise, they will want to now use the fax machine for advertising.

The other aspect of the whole issue is that looking at the environment, the amount of waste paper that comes out of fax machines can be astronomical. It certainly can affect the amount of garbage we are putting in and not recycling. That is another major issue to it.

Ontario has been urged to solve the junk fax problem. That is what I started out with, talking about the privacy commissioner who has indicated there is a problem here. Junk fax is a reality and I commend the member this morning for bringing this bill through to make the people out there aware of what is happening with the large number and increase in fax machines that are being put in offices and homes around this province. We are making it available for advertising people to be able to use the fax machine for advertising. That is really not, in my estimation, what faxes were meant for. They were meant for businesses to carry on their day-to-day business and meant for people such as us as legislators to deal with the concerns of our constituents in a more appropriate and faster manner.

I want to make it very clear that Bill 134 has its place. It is great that we are debating it here today and bringing if before this Legislature. I am sure honourable members here will support this bill because it is a step in the right direction and it is a good start.

The purpose of the bill is to prohibit the sending of unsolicited transmissions for the purpose of commercial solicitation. The prohibition would not apply to transmissions made in the course of ongoing negotiations or a pre-existing business relationship with the person receiving the transmission. In essence, junk fax is a reality. It is not an epidemic yet, but this bill will bring it to the attention of the people. We do hope it will not become an epidemic.

1030

Mr Frankford: I personally enjoy being part of Marshall McLuhan's electronic village. I really rather like receiving faxes, either at 281-2360, which is my constituency office, or at 325-7128, which I happen to share with a number of my colleagues, including the member for Welland-Thorold. He might well be reading my faxes or I might be reading his. I think this is all part of the process of open government which our party is committed to.

I think faxing saves me being there. I would really encourage faxing. I am rather surprised -- and I echo the remarks of my colleague the member for Scarborough North -- that the supposed party of business takes this attitude. Advertising is an important part of a business economy and the member's bill seems to discriminate very much against an important part of small business.

The member quotes some study saying that 80% of people oppose it. I did not gather who these people are who oppose it, whether they are people with faxes, whether they are businesses, whether they are small businesses, whether they are members of Parliament, whether they are the executive of the Conservative Party. Perhaps he will enlighten us later on.

Our party certainly stands for openness and we certainly, as has been stated many times, wish to help small business. I think the member who brought in this bill may wish to reconsider the impact his bill would have on small business. Furthermore, it would seem that this bill could only be policed within our province. I would assume we have no way of policing faxes that come in across the border.

I wonder whether the impact of the member's bill would be to drive some of these hardworking small businessmen over to paying phone charges to the phone company in Buffalo. I would appreciate the member's response on that. We are certainly trying to discourage cross-border leakage of funds. I think the member's bill stands a real risk of doing that.

The other issue that has been raised is the environmental question of the paper. I think the member has not given us the full story about what the technology can provide. I did not hear any mention of the fact that you can have fax boards. One can get paperless transmissions to one's computer. I would suggest this is something which is likely to grow. It is very convenient to type your letter on your computer and fax it straight off to someone else's fax. I think the member should realize that technology keeps on moving faster and that this problem of excess use of paper is unlikely to happen.

Neither of my faxes, 281-2360 or 325-7128, are fax boards at this present time, but I am sure it will be a simple matter to do that. We welcome the member's interest in efficient use of communications, but I think the problems he raised are solvable by technology, not by heavy-handed legislation.

Mr Lessard: What about plain paper fax?

Mr Frankford: Plain paper fax as well, but that is an intermediate step. I am glad my colleague reminded me of that. Anyway I would hope this problem will solve itself by technology, that we will not discriminate against small businesses, and I would ask the member to reconsider the wisdom of this bill he is proposing.

Mr Harnick: It is a pleasure to be able to participate in this debate on a matter that I might say has been studied very carefully by my colleague the member for Markham. He is a person who is concerned about the ability of people to protect themselves and what is private to them. Certainly that is the intention of this act. The intention is that people should have a choice as to whether their privacy should be invaded by people who are taking a technological device and using it for a purpose which it was not intended to be used for.

The fax machine was devised and developed for instantaneous communication between individuals. It was devised so that people could transact business in an efficient and economical manner, so that documents could be exchanged in an efficient and quick manner, and that would be an economical device to business people.

What has happened is that these devices can be programmed so that numbers can be fed into them, and commercial entrepreneurs have found that this machine can transmit messages that will help them sell their products, that will help them put out messages to people who do not want them. It defeats the purpose of the private ability to carry on business. A fax machine was not intended as a billboard, it was not intended as a magazine advertisement, it was intended to permit people to communicate privately.

It is interesting to note that the Information and Privacy Commissioner takes that position when talking about the use of fax machines, even by the government of Ontario. They have indicated that people should not leave fax machines in public places so that the information coming across them becomes available to anybody who might be walking by. They have also indicated that the destination fax number should always be reconfirmed prior to transmission, because unlike erroneously addressed mail which may be returned unopened, documents faxed to the wrong number can be read by several people.

1040

The sender should confirm that the fax was transmitted correctly by checking the fax activity confirmation report. The receiver should check the number of pages received against the transmitted fax cover sheet. All of these recommendations were provided by Ann Cavoukian, the director of compliance with Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner. The reason she has set out these guidelines for the use of fax machines by the Ontario government is because she recognizes that the use of a fax machine is a private matter. It is the same as a telephone call. It is the same as personal mail. It is almost the same as having a meeting in your office with another individual, but doing it by long distance or at some distance.

These documents and these communications should be private. That is why people have purchased fax machines. They have not purchased fax machines to be inundated by entrepreneurs trying to sell their products, by groups trying to convey a message. It is a matter of personal privacy we are dealing with.

That is why I commend the member for Markham, whose act is straightforward. It is very explicit. "No person shall make an unsolicited transmission to a facsimile device for the purpose of encouraging a person to purchase or lease any personal property, real property or services." It does not affect the private business relations between a constituent and the government, a constituent and his member of the Legislature, but it does protect people from being inundated with requests to buy a product, to obtain a service or to purchase any kind of property, be it real or personal.

The act is very explicit, and in fact there is an exemption in the act that it is important to understand. The exemption states, "Subsection (1)" -- which is the subsection I just read -- "does not apply to a person making a transmission in the course of ongoing negotiations or a pre-existing business relationship with the person receiving the transmission."

The act is a sensitive act, because it reflects sensitivity towards the private nature of these machines. That is precisely what these machines were intended for and that is precisely why a couple of states have in fact enacted comparable legislation.

As my colleague the member for Simcoe East indicated, there has been a poll done. The poll states, in a question that was asked, "Should there be regulations protecting the public from advertising by businesses via fax machines?" Eighty-one per cent of the people responding said yes.

I think this act is well thought out. The member for Markham is responding certainly to the public by presenting this act, and I would urge members here today to vote in favour of the act, An Act respecting Unsolicited Facsimile Transmissions. I would urge them to refer this to a committee so that we can hear representations from the public, which I know will be in favour of maintaining privacy and will be in support of this act. I would urge members, particularly on the government side, to accept the act as set out by the member for Markham and pass it. I think it would be a credit to everyone in this Legislature.

Mr Wessenger: I would like to speak in support of this bill in principle, probably because of my own personal biases in the matter, having practised law, having had a fax machine, having received these transmissions on my fax machine and having had it tied up when I wanted to use it for my purposes rather than somebody else's purposes. Also, I support it in principle because the fact is that it does impose a cost, although minimal, on the recipient. It is not like something that comes through the mail which does not impose such a great cost. Therefore in principle I do support it.

However, I have some questions and concerns about the workability of this legislation. One aspect I have not looked into carefully, but in view of the fact that it is related to telephone communications I have some concern that it might not be authorized constitutionally. It might be something that would require legislation in the federal rather than the provincial area, but hopefully that could be looked into. Certainly I would like to see it looked into in principle. Last, on the whole question of the amount of paper we are inundated with in our society, anything that would cut down that amount of paper I certainly would be in support of.

Mr White: I would like to say a special thanks to the member for Markham. I think this is an excellent bill. It brings up an important issue.

Interjections.

Mr White: Come, come now. This is private members' hour and we have the opportunity to speak to other private members; that is the whole point.

I think this bill speaks to the whole issue of privacy. It speaks to the way in which modern technology is continually intruding into our personal lives on an ever-increasing level. This is an issue that cuts across party lines. Even the member from the third party is talking about intrusion by business into other people's lives. We certainly see that constantly. We see the opportunities for people's sense of themselves continually encroached upon. Continually we find ourselves withdrawing into huddling spaces in our homes, and even home is no longer a haven in a heartless world but an area where still we have encroachments, these electronic ones.

To draw a barrier such as this law suggests is an excellent one. It allows us to be sure the tools we use are our tools, not something which can be used to inflict unnecessary junk mail, junk electronics upon us.

Along the lines that the member for Simcoe Centre mentioned there may be some problems with the law, but I think generally it was well drafted. I want to compliment the member for bringing this to our attention, and this debate.

1050

Mr Cousens: I thank all speakers who have participated in this debate and I appreciate the guidance all have given. I do not think this is the bill that is going to change the world. I look forward to human rights issues and other issues to be debated as well. This floor is used for many things, but the floor of this House needs to discuss more of the business problems that are being encountered today. As one who has a business background, I believe an imperative should be upon all of us to see what we can do to help to improve the environment for business to prosper and succeed. That is the intent behind this bill. It is more of a symbol of the fact that government is there not always to get in the way of business. I realize this bill has certain restrictions around it, but there are more people out there in business who want us to intervene in this kind of way.

The member for Simcoe Centre raises a point; it was raised by a few others. If there is a question of federal and provincial jurisdiction on this, then extra time will be taken and needed to assure that we are not intervening in a federal area of responsibility. I am sensitive to that. It could well have to be reviewed in a number of ways before it could become law, and I accept the fact that things do not happen overnight in dealing with government matters.

I thank the member for Welland-Thorold for his comments and for going to Markham tonight. I am going to be at the opening of the Markham fair. The Markham fair is on this evening and I look forward to being at that. At least we have two MPPs in town tonight doing the right thing.

Mr Kormos: Eight o'clock, Markham town hall.

Mr Cousens: Eight o'clock, Markham town hall for the other function. I am receiving his fax for the Slovak ensemble.

Also, I went and took a small poll of the pages, and most of them have sent transmissions by fax, so I had better realize it is really pervasive. Technology is with us.

I thank the members of the Legislature for their time on this debate. The spirit of it is right. If we can vote the right way, we can at least lead it another step further, and the people of Ontario will have a chance to see we are not all just thinking about things that pertain to other matters, but that there are things that are pertinent to the world of business.

We in the Legislature have a chance to give that kind of leadership. It is not always that we have an opportunity to do that, because of the financial matters that are facing us, the environmental matters; we know there is a large cross-section of things. When you compare this bill to those others, I know it does not match in importance to them. It does as a symbol to the business community.

I am getting the signal that time is almost up.

This is an opportunity for us to make a statement to the business community. It says we as members of the Legislature are concerned and interested in what business needs to be successful. I do not see this as a bill in which we are trying to take away the rights of people. I get the smile of my friend the member for Scarborough North. He would like me to believe for a moment that I would try to take rights away. When it comes to junk mail and junk faxes I believe there is a certain right we have to be protected from that kind of intrusion, as was so well articulated by the member for Willowdale.

This House is a rich place. We will become the richer to the whole business community when we are able to take an hour, as we have now, to consider the impact we can have to make it a better world for business to prosper and succeed. I thank the members for Welland-Thorold, Scarborough North, Simcoe East, Scarborough East, Willowdale, Simcoe Centre and Durham Centre for all their comments. I think they will be helpful and I know the business community will be awaiting the decision we will be making here in another hour when it is time to resolve this issue. I thank the Speaker and all members who have participated in this debate.

PUBLIC SECTOR FOOD SERVICES ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES SERVICES D'ALIMENTATION DU SECTEUR PUBLIC

Ms Haeck moved second reading of Bill 133, An Act to require Public Sector Institutions to serve Food grown in Ontario.

Mme Haeck propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 133, Loi exigeant des etablissements du secteur public qu'ils servent des aliments cultives en Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for St Catharines-Brock has 10 minutes for her opening remarks.

Ms Haeck: It is a privilege to speak on this subject, the purchase of Ontario food products by the broader Ontario public service. For the farmers of St Catharines-Brock and the entire Niagara Peninsula, this issue is very basic. The Ontario government should support the Ontario farmers by purchasing the food produced by those farmers.

It has become obvious to me and to other government members that something has to be done to help the Ontario grower. Other governments have approached this issue by means of a direct subsidy. Farmers really do not want a subsidy; they want the farm to produce the food their neighbours are going to purchase and enjoy. Farmers find it more than a little strange that the very government that should be helping them does not set the example by making such domestic purchases. It really upsets farmers from my area when they come to Toronto and see farm produce not being utilized even though locally produced food and wine are very much in evidence in the stores.

One farmer told me about coming to Toronto on business at this Legislature. While here, he made the point of finding out the origin of the foods being served here. To take only one example, he was disappointed and frustrated to find that German brandy is served. There is a brandy distillery in Niagara, Rieder Distillery of Grimsby in the Lincoln riding. By the way, that distillery makes the effort to buy the fruit of local growers to make its product. The growers of the Niagara Peninsula, all of them Ontario taxpayers, want to see this government live by this very same buy-Ontario principle.

In looking for guidelines relating to procurement within the public service, I found that very few do exist, and none relating to the origin of products bought. There is no central agency responsible for purchasing. The vast majority of items this government needs and uses are bought through individual tendering processes carried out within each ministry. There is no way to easily oversee purchases.

Farmers in my area say categorically that this government should provide an example by the kind of product it uses. Farmers in the Niagara Peninsula have impressed on the regional municipality of Niagara the idea that this municipal government should have a buy-Ontario policy. In turn, farmers throughout Ontario are anxious for this government to take the lead on this issue.

Local growers have pointed out that the US government is the largest purchaser of food products in the US. Those products are utilized by military personnel, school programs etc. The origin of these products is America. Why would we, as Ontarians, want to support a foreign jurisdiction with our tax dollars by buying American food? I do not understand that and, quite simply, the growers of St Catharines-Brock do not either.

Let me reiterate the theme of my private members' bill, which is that transfer agencies such as school boards, universities, hospitals and correctional facilities must make the effort to buy the food products grown and processed here in Ontario.

The bill does not say that these facilities are forced to buy Ontario field tomatoes in January. There are none. It does not even require them to buy the institutional-size container of tomatoes processed by an Ontario cannery, because there are none of those either. Members of this House may be surprised that the food processing industry in Ontario has shrunk to such a degree that products like institutional-sized containers of anything are not prepared in Ontario.

This bill allows institutions the flexibility of continuing to purchase such products from foreign suppliers. What it does is to require these institutions to look at the Ontario market first to determine what kinds of products are available that meet their needs. For example, Canadian Canners of St Davids still cans fruit cocktail using local cling peaches. A hospital or a school board may be able to utilize the individual sizes canned in this facility.

Canada and Ontario are net food importers. I find this shocking. I grew up in the Niagara Peninsula where it is easy to indulge in the pleasures of tree-ripened fruit, something I personally enjoy and cherish. There is a great variety of fruit grown there, from strawberries to peaches and pears. Taste and quality are second to none. Recent commercials by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food bring this home. Local produce is of high quality and good taste, and those who purchase it help to keep the farmer farming. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food's slogan, "Buy the food that your neighbour grows," is most accurate. Support local farmers; buy local food products.

1100

I have been asked by members of the public if this bill would see an increase in the costs paid out by the institutions involved. No, the cost of food in Ontario is very competitive within the North American market. Let me expand on this point.

Over the last 10 years, the brokers who purchase food products from Ontario growers have used the threat of US imports to keep the price of fresh fruit and vegetables low. In the case of peaches, only about 4% may come from the United States, but local producers receive a similar price to that of the US producers even though input costs, as well as the seasonal nature of the product, dictate a slighter higher price.

I will not hide my own distaste for the free trade agreement and the problems it has caused. That agreement has brought great hardship to the farming community in the Niagara Peninsula. However, it is clear that for the immediate future the free trade agreement will remain in existence. That means that this kind of blackmail, with the brokers telling growers they must lower their prices to the US level or be shut out of the market, will continue.

I believe it is essential to support our own, to support the important aspect of Ontario life that farming is by making sure Ontario farmers have economic support. Buy the food that your neighbour grows.

What stands in the way of seeing this legislation implemented? There are several things. One is the fact that some suppliers have long-term contracts with those foreign facilities. The same situation exists within the grocery chains. There are very few independent stores left. Where they do exist, local fruit and vegetables usually predominate. The larger food chains have established contracts with brokers in California and Mexico to purchase the products produced there. Only through activism have local farmers been able to convince managers of these large chains to display more Ontario-grown produce. That is a battle this bill does not fight.

I hope that as a result of this debate shoppers will look more carefully at the place of origin of products they consider purchasing. Remember that price is not the obstacle. Availability of the products, whether the store stocks Ontario produce, will likely be the obstacle. Ask for Ontario food products.

Another hurdle that Ontario food products must overcome is bias. I am not sure if all members of the House realize the wide variety of fruits grown in the Niagara Peninsula. I would guess they are unaware that a kiwi variety has been developed to withstand the rigours of a Canadian winter. I know this because my parents have purchased such vines from a local grower and they have enjoyed their harvest very much.

Do members know that the nectarines of the Niagara Peninsula are absolutely luscious? They may not be as large as those grown in California, but they taste far superior.

Similarly many in Ontario and Canada still have the idea that only French wines are good. The wine industry in Ontario has won for Canada the distinction of being the only country to have won 12 gold medals in a single category at a recent wine tasting. The Ontario wineries which produce ice wine have been richly rewarded by these medals. This liquid gold is now enjoyed worldwide, yet the biggest hurdle is at home. Would members believe that the ambassadorial usage of Ontario wines is almost nil?

I see my time has elapsed, so I will continue a little later.

Mr Cleary: With some reservations, I commend the member for St Catharines-Brock in her efforts to support Ontario agriculture. I might note that I was also pleased in 1988 to support the former member for St Catharines-Brock, Mike Dietsch, who initiated discussions on this very topic.

I believe customers should have the opportunity to enjoy quality Ontario food at reasonable prices and be encouraged to do so through effective marketing. This province is very fortunate to have some 200 different products produced on some 14 million acres of land, which generates some $17 billion and creates some 583,000 jobs.

Despite the significance of agriculture in Ontario, it is evident that farmers across this province are in desperate economic conditions. For the past two weeks I have been participating in the emergency hearings before the standing committee on resources development over the crisis facing rural Ontario. With significantly decreasing prices and extensive crop damage, the income of many farmers has dropped by 30% to 60%, while input costs are ever increasing. I can speak from experience. While some of the farmers are selling their produce this year for the same price they got 17 years ago, some do not have any income at all because of severe drought damage.

Farmers are also concerned about cross-border shopping. Canadian shoppers continue to head to the United States for poultry, milk, cheese and novelty dairy products. These same-day Canadian travellers are shrinking the Canadian agriculture market by purchasing products in the United States, therefore causing serious problems to our agricultural community -- and not only agriculture, but the transporters, veterinarians, equipment dealers and feed suppliers.

This government, and especially the member for St Catharines-Brock, has only escalated the problem by increasing the taxes on fuel, one of the leading causes of cross-border shopping. While customs officials currently allow Canadians to import $20 in dairy products with a special import permit, the Ontario Milk Marketing Board is seeking tighter restrictions.

Fruit and vegetable growers also face stiff competition worldwide. Canadian grocers sell products from the United States, Mexico, Peru, Portugal, Argentina, New Zealand, Israel, Chile, Australia, Morocco and France, most of the time at cheaper prices. Despite high demand, Ontario prices have to stay competitive with 33-cents-a-pound peaches from New Jersey which area farmers say are of very poor quality. The same goes for strawberries.

It should be noted that one of the major input costs for the horticulture industry is labour. The standard of living is extremely high in Ontario. The agricultural minimum wage is set at $5.40. Subsequently Ontario's agriculture industry often faces strong competition with international labour standards. To cite one example, 56% of the cost of producing asparagus is labour. In Washington state, labour costs are one third of what they are in Ontario.

Just recently, the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association informed me that certain countries clearly exploit labour either through the use of illegal aliens or ridiculously low wages. Moreover, the fruit and vegetable growers have indicated that the increased minimum wage, particularly for students, will increase overall costs of production. Subsequently more will undoubtedly be brought into Canada at cheaper prices.

1110

I can appreciate that some Ontarians may question the necessity of supporting Ontario farmers when they can buy from South America or some other country much cheaper. I encourage Ontarians to purchase from our province, not just to support the province's economy but also to relish the superior quality of Ontario products.

Supply-managed commodities are seeking the protection of article XI during the ongoing GATT negotiations, while exporters are attempting to deal with free trade and other international pressures.

Some farmers have indicated that the Canada-US free trade agreement, as well as the trilateral discussions with Mexico, cast additional uncertainty for Ontario agriculture, particularly in the fruit and vegetable industry and other commodities that have a climatic advantage in the south or that are labour intensive.

Obviously, farmers are facing significant pressures provincially, nationally and internationally. I believe there is a clear need to support the farmers of Ontario. To do this, politicians and consumers must come to grips with the importance of agriculture, just to ensure the minimal survival of our communities.

I might take this opportunity to commend the Ontario Food Terminal that services importers, distributors, retailers and exporters.

In any event, I applaud such efforts as the upcoming Agri-Food Week to be held October 6-12. This celebration enters its ninth year.

As well, I hope the agriculture in the classroom program will inform urban students and educators of the importance of agriculture. Just this Monday I was at the inaugural meeting at the Ontario agricultural meeting in Milton.

I also appreciate the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food's recent campaign comparing locally grown produce with US-grown produce.

I believe these are effective and necessary vehicles to promote Ontario agriculture. General awareness campaigns, combined with current proposals brought forward by both the past member and the present member for St Catharines-Brock, are positive developments for this province's agriculture industry. I would like to merely caution that this type of proposal also has drawbacks. Indeed, Bill 133 will certainly hold many challenges in attempting to implement it while adhering to fair trade regulations, both nationally and internationally.

Mr McLean: Being a farmer, I am pleased to stand in my place today and speak on Bill 133, An Act to require Public Sector Institutions to serve Food grown in Ontario.

Some years ago we had institutions across this province that had farms attached to them, and food, vegetables, beef, pigs and dairy products were raised on these farms. I see some of the smaller institutions today are reinstituting that idea and I think it would be appropriate if this government took the issue and dealt further with it in order to have more homegrown food for people in our institutions.

The institution in Orillia also worked in conjunction with the hospital at that time. In Penetanguishene we had the mental health centre there, Oak Ridge, and there was also a farm there at one time which produced homegrown food for the residents who lived there. In Burwash it was much the same idea. I think that is something we should be looking at again.

Bill 133 indicates there are exemptions allowed with regard to fruit and vegetables that are not grown in Ontario, but I think if one took the time to go to the Ontario Food Terminal here in Toronto and observed the amount of food that is coming into that terminal from out of province, it would probably make one stop and think. The number of transports and tractor-trailers that come in there from all over the United States is amazing.

To say that we want the institutions to supply and are going to penalize them if they do not supply food totally produced in Ontario, that an institution would have its funding cut or "could have its funding eliminated or reduced if it was found that a facility on its premises was providing non-Ontario food or wine," is a pretty major statement to make when dealing with the people of this province and the food terminal, especially here in Toronto, where the food comes in on a daily basis.

I applaud the member for bringing this bill forward to make the people in Ontario aware that we should be buying food produced in Ontario. I have reservations many times when I look at some of the cancer statistics that we see and when we look at some of the major heavy-growing areas of vegetables and see that fertilizer is applied at the rate of 500 to 600 pounds to the acre, which gives me some concern. Maybe we are doing it to ourselves, so to speak, with regard to the amount of fertilizer we are using to grow our food and vegetables.

I guess when we look at the extra taxes that are being put on farmers, such as the gasoline tax, that is really one area where this government could look at helping the farmers to produce food at a more reasonable cost. When we look at statistics today and see the number of farmers who are losing their farms, who are going out of business because of what they are getting for their product, that is where the problem lies.

I would like to see the Ministry of Agriculture and Food somehow come up with some structure such as we have in the dairy business. The Ontario Milk Marketing Board saved the dairy industry. I was in the dairy business before that marketing board came in, and I know what it was like to accept a 60-40 payout, a low test. The marketing board saved that industry. I said some time ago that the only way farmers in beef and pork are ever going to get paid for their product is to be involved in some form of a marketing system whereby your input costs are attached to the price that you get for the goods you are producing.

As I heard the Ontario Federation of Agriculture say yesterday, "If the auto market was in trouble, if they were severely losing jobs in the auto industry, governments would be there to help." We are losing farmer after farmer in the agricultural industry, and who is there giving them a hand? It is not as severe as if it was in the auto industry.

When we look at this bill, while I applaud the member for bringing it forward, there are many other aspects that are involved in the agricultural area whereby we could help the farmers. I only mentioned one or two, such as the gas tax. The farm tax rebate should not be on the land at all. Farmers pay their taxes and then they have to come along and apply for a rebate. It is handled totally wrong, and it would be nice if the government would take the initiative to bring it in whereby it would be done once and for all instead of just negotiating year after year.

I want to thank the member for this resolution. I will be supporting it and I hope it will be a further initiative we can deal with in the agricultural industry.

1120

Mr Hayes: I rise in support of the broad intent of this bill. This government does and will continue to support Ontario farmers through its policies and actions. My colleague the member for St Catharines-Brock, in her remarks and in Bill 133, has underlined some of the basic concerns facing our farm families in our rural communities.

As my colleague has stated and as we all well know, farmers do not like subsidies. The minister's announcement of a special assistance package of $35.5 million is needed and it will help many farmers throughout Ontario, including the hard-pressed fruit and vegetable industries, such as those in Niagara and in Essex-Kent.

The farm leaders in this province were pleased by the government's initiative. A lot more has to be done. I would trust that our federal government fulfils its commitment also to assist the farmers in Ontario and Canadian farmers in this period of serious financial difficulty.

My colleague is also correct about the subsidies, but emergency assistance packages are geared only for the short term. The real solution must be found in a fair marketplace for all food products in Ontario.

I fully share my colleague's dismay that Ontario is a net importer of foods. I know all too well the impact of the Canada-US free trade agreement on our food processing sector and on the ability of our fruit and vegetables to compete successfully and fairly in our own markets. We must and should do more to assist our producers in our own markets. We must make our consumers, retailers and institutions, private and public, more aware of the quality, the freshness, the quantity and the competitiveness of our own fresh foods and processed foods.

My colleague the member for St Catharines-Brock has stated that it is not our intent to force or coerce local institutions to buy Ontario products. She has recognized the climatic and legal limits and such limits, but she has also stressed the need to ensure that our consumers, farmers and processors, that the customers are made aware of the bounty of foods that is almost on their doorsteps.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food has attempted successfully to bring these facts home to Ontario farmers, retailers, food service companies and institutional buyers. In 1991-92, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food will spend close to $5 million on domestic advertising and promoting services through Ontario to support the domestic markets for Ontario growers and processed foods and beverages. I am sure many of the members have seen these new ads linking our farmers, our farm land and our domestic markets. Moreover, the Foodland Ontario marketing campaign is aimed, by our partnerships with the media, the food retailing sector and our food service sector and joint market research, to help our producers and processors meet the demands of the marketplace.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food, the member for Hastings-Peterborough, has taken a personal interest in the opportunities for farmers and our processors in our own markets. The minister has met with numerous groups, farm processing and retailing, to ensure that a fairer, more prosperous market is available to our industry.

The issue of cross-border shopping, one that affects the Niagara region where my colleague is from, as well as Kent, Essex, Lambton, Sarnia and other areas of Ontario, is partially a symptom of the consumers' focus on perceived price differences rather than the value, quality, diversity and long-term competitive strength of their neighbours.

I think we must take up the challenge of my colleague's proposal. We must encourage, educate and reinforce through our own actions the necessity of supporting our own farmers and processors to ensure a safe, secure, affordable food supply for this generation and generations to follow. The Speaker himself has taken steps in this Legislature which I must compliment him for by promoting the wine industries.

Let us look at our own institution, this Legislature. Can we not encourage the presentation and consumption of Ontario foods in our own dining room and cafeterias? I feel that we should sponsor special events to correspond with a variety of crops and harvesting seasons right here in this Legislature. Such an effort would not only help build awareness with all members of this House and their staffs, but provide us with nutrition and variety.

I recognize that such an effort can only be a small step in the long-term initiative to better secure our markets for our own industry through education, awareness and the commitment to compete fairly and effectively, a commitment our industry has made and will continue to make.

I support the broad intent of this bill, but we must build new linkages and partnerships with all segments of the food industry, private or public. This government has undertaken that role and will continue, as my colleague has recommended, to work with the industries and institutions and our customers to purchase and consume the food that our farmers grow in Ontario.

I know there are other members who want to join in this debate and I do not want to prolong things, but I think it is very important that some of the points I mentioned here about our own institutions -- we have one right here in our riding. A woman came to me and she said she went to that cafeteria and wanted a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich. She said the lettuce was from Quebec and the tomatoes were from California. This is right in the middle of our own harvesting season, and these are the things I think we really have to look at. If we are serious about promoting Ontario, promoting the good-quality food that we have here, we have to do more than just speak about it. I think we have to take some action.

I hope the members from the other side will support this bill and work with us with their ideas so that we can continue to promote Ontario, a small way of helping the farmers and the farm families, to protect the family farms in Ontario.

Mr Cordiano: I am particularly delighted today to have this opportunity to speak on the private member's bill. I think it is important to get the views of what is largely a contingent from the urban centres. I am right smack in the middle of Metro Toronto. I represent the riding of Lawrence, which is in North York. I thought it would be interesting to make some comments on this bill from my perspective, and probably the views of urban dwellers right across the province. I hope I would reflect those views.

I want to support the member's intiative here, because I think it is important in so many ways and in far-reaching ways. I have limited time to speak, but there are a number of issues I want to cover.

First, I think most of our citizens who dwell in the cities do not appreciate what the farmers of this province do for them. The most important thing is that they would certainly provide us with a secure supply of food into the future, when I think that will become more relevant. We have heard a great deal on that, but I think more needs to be said.

The figures are interesting. One in five Ontario jobs results from the agricultural industry, which is quite amazing, when you think about it. That is an incredible economic base.

1130

The other reason I would link the city with the country on this is because farmers are small businessmen. Farmers can understand perhaps as well as small businessmen, wherever they may be, the difficulties which face farmers and small businessmen. There is a great commonality there. I would say to this government the real issue is that we are doing very little for farmers and we are doing very little for small business people who are facing difficult times. I think the policies of this government need to be directed to those very important groups. Farmers provide one out of every five jobs related directly or indirectly to the agricultural industry. Small business people provide a great deal of employment. In fact, they are the sector that increases employment the most. When we have an expansion, and it will come some time in the future, hopefully not too far, we will rely on those people to create wealth. I think it is important for this government to recognize that. It is not doing enough to recognize that important relationship.

So I say to the member, getting back to her bill, that this government is not doing enough for the farmer. Quite frankly this bill, although worthy and admirable on her part, and I will support it, does not go far enough. I hope she takes that message to the Treasurer and to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. There is a financial crisis among farmers, a deep crisis. It is getting worse. It started many years ago, but now is the time to do something about it.

Look at the retail situation with respect to Sunday shopping, with respect to the new policy that has been brought forward by this government. It is not going to help farmers one little bit. It is going to aggravate the problem. I think the government needs to seriously look at that as a factor contributing to this growing crisis.

In addition to that, the NDP's promise to fund the net income stabilization account did not go far enough; $35 million I believe it was. It created a gap. The amount required was $124 million, and that gap is severe. I think farmers would speak to that and have spoken out saying the government did not support them enough.

If we want a secure food supply into the future and if we want an indigenous agricultural economy that still allows for the independent farmer to exist out there, then we have to bite the bullet and say we are going to support our farmers, not just by the good member's initiative here with her bill that proposes to have public sector institutions support the agricultural industry directly, but I think through additional programs which would go a long way to helping the plight of farmers financially. That is the crux of the issue.

The concern I have with the private member's bill relates to international trade barriers. Of course GATT has a role to play in all this. I would say to the member that there are concerns that we comply with what might result out of the latest GATT negotiations, which have not concluded, and attempt to resolve the whole question of subsidies to the agricultural industry. I would be very careful treading in that area. I think we would not like to fly in the face of international pressures with respect to trade measures that would be taken reciprocally, shall we say, against our agricultural industry, which exports quite a few of its products around the world as well. So I would be concerned about that.

I would also like to say to the member, as I am running out of time, that her initiative needs to be looked at a little more carefully with respect to how we are going to enforce the provisions of this private member's bill. I think it is one thing to say that we should do this; it is another to say how we are going to go about enforcing and ensuring that our public sector institutions are complying with this initiative, if indeed the government sees fit to bring this forward as a policy of its own.

I commend the member for bringing forward this initiative. I also suggest to her that she lobby really hard for her government to adopt this and other practices which would enhance and promote the agricultural industry in our province.

Mr J. Wilson: It is a pleasure to rise today and speak about the private member's bill, An Act to require Public Sector Institutions to serve Food grown in Ontario, put forward by the member for St Catharines-Brock. I commend her for bringing that forward.

I know the member to be a good person. I have served on the standing committee on social development with her throughout the summer and found her to be a very conscientious member of this Legislature and one who is very much aware of the needs of her constituents, particularly the farming community in the riding of St Catharines-Brock. Certainly the member is well intentioned with this bill, and it would be difficult for any member of my caucus in the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party not to support the principles of this private member's bill here today.

But it is ironic that this government had to be forced into a debate on the farm financial crisis by the opposition parties, because it went through the first year of its government not spending nearly enough on agriculture and spending money in what we would consider many misdirected areas.

Mr Mills: Give us an example.

Mr J. Wilson: I will be happy to give the member some examples in a few moments.

On Monday of this week the leader of my party, the member for Nipissing, brought forward a resolution to force the government to deal with the farm crisis, and the NDP members in this chamber voted against that. Simply, the leader of my party called upon this government to sign up for NISA this year to make sure farmers receive payments they are entitled to under the federal-provincial program.

It is sad that they voted against my leader's resolution, which was very important and which had specific measures to address the farm crisis, and today they are bringing forward a private member's bill to try to convince the people of Ontario that they are deeply concerned about agriculture.

Yes, the next day in the Legislature, Tuesday, the Treasurer did make an announcement of some $35.5 million for assistance to Ontario farmers, but as you so ably pointed out yourself, Mr Speaker, as the critic for agriculture in the Ontario PC Party, $35.5 million pales compared to the need out there and in comparison to the misdirected spending and priorities of the government.

I point out that the government's payroll for civil servants this year is up 14%; that is $512 million it has given the civil service over the past year. They have also, in addition to that, given $20 million in bonuses to senior civil servants.

When I asked the Treasurer yesterday whether he had any money to help the frail and elderly in nursing homes -- there are some 12 to 15 nursing homes in receivership now, and we know after October 15 there will be hundreds of seniors out on the street if this government fails to address that urgent need in the nursing home industry -- when I asked the Treasurer about financial assistance in that area, he simply said, as he so often says, that my party is bound and determined to pit one group in society against another.

I want to give a message to the government today that when it comes to assistance for farmers or when it comes to assistance for the frail elderly of our society, my party stands behind the frail elderly and farmers any day of the week. If the Treasurer wants in his responses, time and time again, to try to pit us in the public mind one group against the other, we simply say to him it is a question of priorities, and that this party, through its long and proud tradition in the Ontario government, when it was in government and in opposition, has firmly stood behind farmers, and that is the topic of today's debate.

There are 60,000 farm families in this province. Again, $35.5 million pales in comparison to $150 million for 4,500 jobs at de Havilland. Now, I know Bob White makes a lot of the government's decisions and I know the Canadian Auto Workers union is exceptionally important to this government, but $150 million for 4,500 jobs at de Havilland is ridiculous. That $150 million would go a lot further than $35.5 million in helping to address the farm crisis and some 60,000 families.

Farmers in my riding can only dream of jobs as well-paying as those at de Havilland that this government has decided to prop up.

Mr Mammoliti: Are you saying they're not worth while?

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. You will have opportunities to address this.

1140

Mr J. Wilson: This government has decided to give $250 million for 600 jobs in Elliot Lake -- that is a pretty expensive job-maintaining program, I guess you would call it -- and $35.5 million for 60,000 farm families that are in serious need in this province.

Again, my farmers and the farmers in the riding of Brant-Haldimand, whom I and many of my colleagues met with recently, can only dream of jobs as good as those at the mines in the north and at de Havilland here in Toronto.

Also, Mr Speaker, you might point out that $5 million was spent by this government over the past few months to study auto insurance, and for what? It has decided to retract on it after $5 million in studies. My recommendation to them, as a former political assistant, would be to simply go to the library and read all the studies that are there. There are decades of them on auto insurance. They did not need to spend $5 million hiring consultants and wasting money that could have gone towards helping to solve the farm crisis.

Any day of the week, my party stands behind farmers and the truly needy in this province. And we understand priority setting, and this government really does not have a clue how to set priorities. We see the Treasurer yesterday having to retract and reshuffle the deck to try and come up with some cost savings which we know are not cost savings but simply deferrals to next year's deficit.

We understand that the Treasurer is admitting that he has made mistakes over the past 12 months, that his April budget was a disaster and that the government is trying to change direction. I simply say that we are here to help, if they need our assistance and our suggestions.

Mr Hayes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know that in this House it is a democratic system, and we all have the right to get up and say what we feel. But I think it is really a crime when we have a bill, such an important bill as this, talking about promoting the food of Ontario growers --

The Acting Speaker: I am sorry. That is not a point of order.

Mr J. Wilson: The reason I point out the misdirected priorities of this government is that we know 60,000 farm families should come before the millions of dollars it is spending on all kinds of other very expensive job creation and maintaining programs.

I ask the member for St Catharines-Brock whether she has thought of the implications for this bill on the international scene. In my opinion, from my past experience with GATT, this would likely be ruled another trade barrier. Farmers do not need more trade barriers. Our farmers can compete with the best in the world if they are given the financial support to be on a level playing field with other provinces and with all other jurisdictions in this world. The government has to put more money into financial assistance for farmers. We have to make an attempt to compete with other treasuries and, at the same time, continue the efforts and redouble efforts to get down those trade-distorting subsidies that are so common in the European Community and the United States.

In wrapping up, I do commend the member. She has the right principle, the right thrust. She is going to bat for her constituents, which is commendable, but I would ask her, in her remarks, to respond to the international implications of this and simply whether the bill would be legal if it were passed.

Mr Dadamo: I would like to make something extremely clear this morning. I want to mention that the problems with farmers and what they face today did not start overnight, did not start September 6, 1990. The third party was in power for many years, the Liberals for a number of years. All of a sudden we are faced with this dilemma and trying to do the best we can.

Let me mention also that it was an initiative of our government this past week and the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who made the announcement of $35.5 million for the farmers, and we are doing the best we can, and hopefully we can find some more money for the farmers that we could give to them in the coming months and the coming year. We are doing the best we can.

I also want to say that I am honoured to be speaking on Bill 133 this morning.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The Speaker has a great deal of difficulty hearing the member. The honourable member for Windsor-Sandwich has the floor.

Mr Dadamo: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also want to say that I am privileged to be a member of the rural advisory committee with 24 members of the government side. We meet regularly to talk about the problems of the farmers and we do a lot of work on behalf of the farmers. The members behind me, the member for Essex-Kent and the member for Chatham-Kent, who are also on the rural advisory committee and work along with us, do a lot of work.

This bill put forth by my colleague the member for St Catharines-Brock is in my opinion a very timely and strong statement which this Legislature, and especially the two opposition parties, should take very seriously this morning. This past week the Treasurer announced a commitment and a strong confirmation on behalf of the government that we would aid rural Ontario. The reaching out to our farmers by way of $35.5 million is a strong initiative.

I sat here this morning listening to the member for Simcoe West. I am not sure whether he is going to support the farmers. It was hard to make out what he was saying in the seven or eight minutes he was standing in this House. I feel compelled to support the bill of the member for St Catharines-Brock, which aims at serving Ontario-grown foods in the public sector.

The timing of this bill is impeccable. My colleague should be commended for caring for the agriculture industry in Ontario. I think we should all be supporting the farmers. We should all be buying food from Ontario. I do not think that is even debatable, considering what the farmers in rural Ontario are going through these days.

Bill 133, An Act to require Public Sector Institutions to serve Food grown in Ontario, is aimed in the right direction for the citizens of Ontario. As well, eating food grown here in our own backyard will only enhance our commitment to rural Ontario. We care strongly for and we should be supporting their hard work, their toil, their labour on the farms and their persistence in maintaining high standards in food products in this province. We should be supporting them.

I also want to mention a couple of things before my time runs out. Agri-Food Week celebrates Ontario food -- glorious food, I would like to add. It of course is a showcase for the variety, the quality, the freshness and the abundance of the food we eat. We should be thankful the farmers are working for us and are supplying us food. We are blessed to have farmers doing these things for us, even though a lot of them are not making any money in Ontario. Agri-Food Week is an annual harvest celebration in October. It is the week before Thanksgiving. We hope everybody buys pumpkins grown in Ontario.

In closing, Ontario farmers and their families work hard to grow the food we eat. The member for St Catharines-Brock is indeed intelligent for introducing such a timely bill. I would like to urge members of this House to think this through and support Bill 133. Otherwise, I think it would be tough to go home this weekend. For those watching throughout the province this morning -- I am sure many farmers and their families are since it could be raining in parts of the province today and they are indoors -- our hats are off to them. We hope the $35.5 million will aid them to some point. They can rest assured this government is working hard for them and will continue to work for them, because they are integral to the province.

1150

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for St Catharines-Brock has two minutes to sum up.

Ms Haeck: I thought we were going to hear some more interesting comments from the members opposite, but I think we have some good points on which to close.

I would like to address the issue the member from the Liberal benches raised with regard to labour costs. It is absolutely necessary for me to recognize the fact that horticulture is a labour-intensive area, a sector of agriculture. The minister recognizes this. In fact, on a recent farm tour to my riding he indicated to the farmers that he and the Minister of Labour are working very hard to minimize the impact of the recent proposed minimum wage legislation.

I also want to recognize that farmers are the first environmentalists. Definitely the farmers in my area feel very strongly about the issues the member for Simcoe East raised. This is something they take very much to heart.

I would like to also indicate that it is nothing new to the farming sector that this recession exists. It has been in existence for over 10 years. I remember that for even longer than that farming has always had some very strong issues. We as the government definitely recognize that this issue is not going to be dealt with overnight. What we are saying is, "Here's some short-term assistance and the long term is something that is very clearly being addressed."

In conclusion, I have presented this bill in support of Ontario food producers, the farmers, the food processers and Ontario wineries. I know my colleagues on the government side who have rural components in their ridings feel as strongly about this bill as I do. I ask all members of this House, the opposition and my fellows here on the government side, to support this bill. By doing so they will send a very positive message of support to an absolutely vital group in our society, our farmers. Their support is needed to see agriculture survive in Ontario. They should buy the food that their neighbours grow.

The Acting Speaker: This is the allotted time for ballot item 34, Bill 133. We have a small problem in that in the standing orders we cannot vote until 12 o'clock. Do we have agreement of the members present to proceed with ballot items 33 and 34 prior to 12 o'clock?

Agreed to.

UNSOLICITED FACSIMILE TRANSMISSIONS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES TRANSMISSIONS PAR TELECOPIE NON SOLLICITEES

The Acting Speaker: Mr Cousens has moved second reading of Bill 134.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptee.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, can this be referred to the standing committee on general government?

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member has requested that his bill go to the standing committee on general government. Is it the pleasure of the House that the bill go to the standing committee on general government? Do we have a majority of the members present?

All those in favour of Mr Cousens's motion going to the standing committee on general government will rise and remain standing. Those opposed to the bill going to the standing committee on general government will please rise and remain standing.

We do not have a majority for the bill going to the standing committee on general government. Therefore, it will go to committee of the whole House.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Le projet de loi est defere au comite plenier de la Chambre.

PUBLIC SECTOR FOOD SERVICES ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES SERVICES D'ALIMENTATION DU SECTEUR PUBLIC

The Acting Speaker: Ms Haeck has moved second reading of Bill 133.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptee.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Le projet de loi est defere au comite plenier de la Chambre.

The House recessed at 1156.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ANNIVERSARY OF GERMAN REUNIFICATION

Mr Daigeler: Today, October 3, is the first anniversary of Germany's reunification and its new date of national celebration. For many Canadians of German origin like myself, this day last year was a momentous occasion. After 50 years of totalitarian suppression, East Germans were finally able to join the democratic and free world community.

Rebuilding the economic, social and political infrastructure in the new German provinces is a difficult task. Many outmoded and pollution-prone factories and shops had to be closed. But I am heartened by the optimistic picture German parliamentarians gave me last night at a friendship dinner here in Toronto.

I also rejoice in the German chancellor's commitment to European integration. At a time when Canada's future is threatened by separatists, it is especially meaningful to hear Chancellor Kohl admit in his October 3 address:

"We achieved reunification under a common European roof. Our freedom and our prosperity are inseparably linked with our membership in the European Community and in the Atlantic alliance. Together with our friends and partners, we want to make our contributions towards building a United States of Europe."

To all Ontarians of German origin, I extend special greetings on this occasion, and to the German people themselves, I wish Godspeed in their rebuilding efforts.

TORONTO BLUE JAYS

Mr Arnott: Stepping up to the plate as the leadoff hitter, I want to congratulate the Toronto Blue Jays for their magnificent win last night at the SkyDome. We can all look forward to even bigger and better victories as the Jays take dead aim on the World Series.

Fifty thousand Ontario residents cannot be wrong. There was a resounding cheer as the American League East champions won their division. There was also a resounding Bronx cheer for the Premier of this province. I have to assume that the cheers in both cases were appropriate.

Not to dwell on politics, though, on such a joyous occasion, I just want to mention here at this time that it was a Premier representing the Progressive Conservative Party that helped to bring the Blue Jay franchise to Toronto.

The attendance record was also a major feature in last night's extravaganza. This is something our left-throwing Premier should keep in mind. His attendance in this Legislature is at the other end of the scale from that of the Blue Jays.

Again, not to dwell on the political, our lefty Premier could take a lesson from the division champs and realize that success does not come from left-fielders alone. We need someone in there pitching for the people, going to bat for the people, covering the bases and hitting home, but not with a tax burden that only a superstar can afford.

The Jays' division title is in no small part due to astute management. This is something our government in left field should keep in mind, before we all have to be dug out.

I am sure all members of the Legislature will join with me in congratulating the Jays on a job well done, and wishing them the very best as they take on the Minnesota Twins for the pennant, and then the World Series. Okay, Blue Jays, let's play ball.

ARTS FESTIVAL

Mr G. Wilson: On Saturday, September 21, I found a pot of gold in my riding of Kingston and The Islands. It was at the end of a rainbow of colourful characters parading through the early morning streets of Kingston to the Grand Theatre. This was the location of the fourth annual Have an Affair with the Arts, sponsored by the Kingston Regional Arts Council.

On display at the Grand was a year's cultural activities concentrated into six hours. The more than 3,000 festival-goers were entertained by actors, dancers, choristers, instrumentalists, marionettists and storytellers. Level of ability ran from novice to professional, and 35 exhibits as varied as book publishing and wood carving provided access to the arts throughout the rest of the year.

Hearing a seniors' choir follow a children's choir reminded me that an affair with the arts could be not only passionate but lifelong. Without support, however, there will not be the opportunity for our children to develop artistically or to share their talent with their community.

I am pleased to commend then the many volunteers who worked so hard to make the day a success. In particular, I would like to mention Annie Milne, parade co-ordinator, and Pat Hodge, event co-ordinator. I also wish to applaud the businesses which advertised Saturday's event by displaying in their windows work by local artists. This is a reminder that the arts are not only to delight the senses but also to generate wealth in the community.

Finally, the city of Kingston helped pay for the festival in acknowledgement of the essential role the arts play in the life of the community. This co-operation among groups in the Kingston area provides the basis for a flourishing cultural life. It is a model other communities might wish to follow.

TORONTO BLUE JAYS

Ms Poole: It gives me great pleasure to rise in this House today to pay tribute. From all corners of this province, from Windsor to Ottawa, from Trenton to St Catharines, from Sudbury to Mississauga, from Timmins to Metropolitan Toronto, even from Listowel to Wingham, from every region of this province, last night we proved that we are the best baseball fans in North America. For the first time in major league history a team attracted four million fans in one season, and that team, as we all know, is our very own Toronto Blue Jays.

Last night there was more good news. In fact, I think it is great news. The Blue Jays did not let us down. In a thrill-packed game, the Blue Jays clinched their third American League East championship in the past six years.

Some days there just does not seem to be much good news going around. People are pessimistic and people are cynical, and to many people of this province there has been precious little good news since September 6, 1990. But millions of people across Ontario and across Canada are just thrilled to celebrate the victories of our talented ball club.

I know I join with all members of this House in wishing our Blue Jays the very best for the coming World Series that we know is in the offing. Go, Toronto Blue Jays.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr J. Wilson: In light of the Treasurer's statement yesterday announcing spending reductions for each ministry and the trimming of $100 million from ministry operating budgets, concerns are being raised regarding certain capital projects for hospitals in Ontario. The Treasurer's announcement yesterday will undoubtedly jeopardize consultants' reports and redevelopment studies for several of Ontario's hospitals. Hospitals such as the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital, Orillia Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, Barrie's Royal Victoria Hospital, Mattawa General Hospital and Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital, to name just a few, deserve some direction from this government so that they can plan accordingly.

In the wake of the confusion that has resulted from the Treasurer's statement yesterday, I urge this government to provide a prescription that enables hospitals to plan for the future. The minister must move immediately to inform Ontario hospitals exactly what capital projects this government intends to cancel and what projects she will commit to. It is difficult enough for hospital boards to budget and plan for the future. I fear the Treasurer's announcement of yesterday, left as it is, will serve to cripple this process.

I am calling on this government to clear up the confusion and on the Minister of Health to start providing desperately needed planning direction for health care facilities and hospital boards.

LANDLORD-TENANT CO-OPERATION

Mr Mammoliti: In light of the heated debates on rent control legislation, I would like to share with every member of this Legislature a series of events that have recently taken place in my riding of Yorkview. What I am about to tell the members opposite and my colleagues will prove that tenants and landlords can work together.

The tenants living at 2850 Jane Street and their landlord, Mr Barry Klady, have successfully come together to work out their differences concerning the landlord's proposal to construct three new apartments in the building.

With the consent of the landlord and the tenants' association, represented by Isabelle Karakatanis, it was my honour to act as mediator for the two parties. I am pleased to say that both groups approached the discussions in a professional and sincere manner and produced an agreement that both can be proud of.

I am happy to report that an agreement was reached on the construction of a recreation centre for the building as well, to coincide with the addition of the new apartments. When both sides finally came to the table, further agreements were made as well. The lobby will also be expanded and three new washers and dryers will be installed.

It is a rare thing indeed when tenants and landlords can work together effectively to benefit both parties. I would like to congratulate Mr Klady and the members of the tenants' association for their efforts and hope that this particular case will serve as an example to all tenants and their landlords.

1340

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

Mr Bradley: The shipbuilding industry in Ontario has been dealt a major blow by the government of Canada, which has selected Montreal-based SNC-Lavalin, a company which has no shipbuilding experience, to build 12 minesweepers for the Canadian navy. Canadian Shipbuilding and Engineering of St Catharines, a firm with unparalleled expertise, a proven track record and a skilled and experienced workforce, has been denied the opportunity to participate in this $500-million contract.

Port Weller Dry Docks has produced a variety of ships on time, within budget and to the satisfaction of its customers. Yet Lavalin, which has been the beneficiary of a government bailout and which was seized less than two months ago by a consortium of banks and resold to Montreal-based SNC Group Inc, has been given the $500-million handshake by the Canadian government. Some 1,000 jobs will be denied to the employees of Port Weller Dry Docks and a much-needed shot in the arm will be denied to the Niagara region and the Ontario economy.

The Golden Horseshoe is no longer golden. The government of Canada must realize this. The jobs are needed. The Ontario government -- the previous government negotiating a contract; the present government completing the contract and awarding it -- has placed a contract there. The federal government should have followed suit. Something is rotten, not in the state of Denmark, but in the nation of Canada.

ONTARIO HYDRO LEGISLATION

Mr Jordan: I would like to ask the Minister of Energy who he is now trying to mislead. The amendments to Bill 118, as presented yesterday, are a joke.

The Speaker: The member is not suggesting that someone is misleading the House or misleading anyone, I trust. Would the member rephrase his statement.

Mr Jordan: I retract that statement.

The Speaker: If the member would rephrase his statement, it would be appreciated. Could we restart the clock? Perhaps the member could restart his statement.

Mr Jordan: The amendments to Bill 118, as presented yesterday, are a joke. From the beginning, this legislation has been flawed and unnecessary. This week the government bungled the delivery of new amendments by having a backbencher, instead of the minister, attempt to deliver the joke.

I can see the minister being embarrassed to deliver it, because the amendments vaguely address only subsection 9a(1) by the addition of the following: "On matters relating to the corporation's exercise of its powers and duties under this act."

Ontario has no guarantee in the future of a reliable source of power at cost. Policy directives still give the minister too much power. Fuel switching at Ontario Hydro customers' expense is ludicrous and not an acceptable business practice.

The government will not save 700 megawatts of energy. It will transfer it into 2,389,100,000 BTUs of fossil fuels at the expense of the ratepayer. The government will do this in a dictatorial fashion, without the approval of the elected municipal governments.

These powers are in the minister's hands, due not only to this legislation but to the government's political choice of executive control.

ROBERT MIDDAUGH

Mr Christopherson: It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to inform members of the appointment of Robert Middaugh as the new chief of the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Force. Chief Middaugh comes to Hamilton-Wentworth with an impressive array of policing and educational credentials. A 24-year veteran of policing, Mr Middaugh started his career in Peel region, moving to Halton as inspector, becoming deputy chief in 1980. Halton officials expressed to Rick Hughes of the Hamilton Spectator that Mr Middaugh was highly regarded in their community and especially respected for his analytic capabilities.

Our new chief also supports the new employment equity goals as set out in the Police Services Act, which call for more minorities and women on the force.

I would also like to commend the outstanding contribution of our outgoing police chief, Mr Colin Millar. Chief Millar joined the Hamilton police department 36 years ago and has served as our dedicated regional chief since 1978.

The Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Force is one of the largest municipal policing agencies in the province, with over 900 members. It is a force dedicated to the delivery of superior-quality policing services within our community.

In closing, I would like to join in welcoming Chief Middaugh and his wife, Judith-Ann, to our community.

TORONTO BLUE JAYS

Mr Malkowski: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was one of the four million fans who watched the Blue Jays last night. I was there at the game and I would like all of the members in the House and all of Toronto to show our appreciation by not only clapping but waving our hands in appreciation of what they did last night.

The Speaker: While the member for York East does not have a point of order, the Speaker can find nothing out of order with the Blue Jays winning.

VISITORS

The Speaker: I would invite all members of the House to welcome to our midst today, seated in the Speaker's gallery, a delegation of parliamentarians from the Federal Republic of Germany, headed by Mrs Eva Ruehmkorf and accompanied by Mr Walter Leuchs, the acting consul general. Please join me in welcoming our visitors.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

WASTE REDUCTION

Hon F. Wilson: I am proud to rise today to announce new measures that demonstrate this government's continued leadership in greening initiatives. Although this government has already cut by 28% waste produced in government buildings with a full recycling program, we are the first to recognize there is more that can be done, more that must be done. This is why the Ontario government has a green workplace program that promotes the 3Rs at work.

Today, in the spirit of Waste Reduction Week, this government takes another bold step forward by announcing new green workplace program initiatives. I want to remind the House that these initiatives not only improve our environment, they also reduce the cost of government and help to foster new, competitive green industries in Ontario. Waste reduction is a vitally important issue in Ontario. We produce enough waste to fill the SkyDome to the roof every three weeks. Our wasteful habits are not limited to home. The average office worker in Ontario creates one kilogram of waste each day. About 72% of that waste can be recycled, or not used at all.

This government, together with 70,000 provincial employees, is working to reduce, reuse and recycle in government buildings and all across the province. Under the green workplace program, we have expanded our environmental protection initiatives. We are continuing with the 3Rs and are now working on better purchasing practices, on energy and water conservation and on air quality and hazardous material management.

Today we are committing $3.2 million to new reduction initiatives. The money will be spent on projects that will deliver real environmental benefits over the next six months. Some of these projects involve high-tech solutions to reducing paper. Paper amounts to 80% of our office waste. We will be composting at psychiatric hospitals and corrections facilities, where up to 70% of the waste comes from kitchens. We will reduce our use of water, both outside on our lawns and inside by retrofitting washrooms. We will install new equipment to improve energy efficiency in government buildings and we will test new equipment to improve air quality. Also, we will be funding training for staff in handling substances harmful to the environment.

These greening projects will contribute to the economic revival and renewal in this province as well. Our program has the potential to create new jobs and stimulate economic development by creating markets for Ontario's new green industries.

1350

In a global marketplace that is more and more environmentally conscious, sunrise industries developing in this province will increase their export opportunities. This in turn creates jobs here in Ontario. By reducing what we use and what we waste, we are achieving real cost savings in the way we work and in the way we operate our buildings. This government is not content to sit back and watch. We are ready to move further and faster, and government employees tell us they are ready to move forward with us. Waste reduction and long-term savings are our goal. Through our broad efforts and the participation of our employees, we can make government offices a model for resource conservation.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY POLICE OFFICERS

Hon Mr Pilkey: I am pleased to announce that a new regulation on permissible political activities for municipal police officers has been passed under the Police Services Act. This regulation strikes a balance between the rights of all Ontarians to receive a high degree of impartial and politically neutral policing services and the rights of individual police officers as members of their communities. This regulation supports the concept of community policing which recognizes that police today are a part of, not apart from, their communities. This regulation permits municipal police officers to engage in most political activity while off duty and not in uniform. Officers may express views as individuals as long as they do not associate their position as a police officer with the issue or represent their views as those of their police service.

I wish to remind members that the old Police Act did not address the issue of political activity for municipal police officers. Consequently, this resulted in widely varying local practices. This new regulation will clarify and guarantee the political rights of municipal police officers while ensuring province-wide consistency and fairness. This regulation has been developed in consultation with both public and police.

I am most pleased to inform this House that the regulation has the full support of Ontario's police leadership, which is represented today in the visitors' gallery. I wish to recognize Chief Rick Zanibbi of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, Ruth Lovell of the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards, and Ted Johnson, Bob Morrison and Neal Jessop of the Police Association of Ontario.

With respect to the Ontario Provincial Police, my ministry will continue to work closely with the Human Resources Secretariat, which is examining political activity rights for crown employees. I am confident that the regulation which I am announcing today will strike a balance that ensures that Ontarians will receive impartial and politically neutral policing services while providing individual police officers with rights as members of their communities.

RESPONSES

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr Grandmaître: I would like to comment on the minister's green workplace program. I think it is very commendable that finally the government is realizing that much more is to be done if we are to accomplish what was initially started with the 3Rs program. I would have preferred the Minister of Government Services to stand in his place today and talk about the relocation program that was started with the Liberal government.

What would the minister have to say to the mayor of Haileybury in stalling the relocation program to his municipality, and also the mayor of Peterborough for again stalling on the relocation program? This is what we would like the Minister of Government Services to address in this House one of these fine days.

I said that the green workplace program is commendable, but I find it strange that the minister would stand in his place to announce a $3.2-million program and yet the Keele Valley and Britannia sites are being left wide open to accumulate millions of tons of waste. In his statement, the minister was saying "enough waste to fill the SkyDome to the roof every three weeks." If the Keele Valley site and the Britannia site are left open until 1993-94, the minister should just imagine that 80 SkyDomes will be filled.

Again, it is not much of a program, but not too much is expected from that government.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY POLICE OFFICERS

Mr Curling: Members may recall the Police Services Act that the Liberal government put in place. The regulation that the minister announced today came out of that Police Services Act which was passed by our government. We welcome the minister's announcement of the increased but really limited role of the police officers. From our very preliminary view, the regulations appear to be sound regulations based on work done by the previous government.

One concern we do have is that while the consultation was to have involved both the police and the community, the public, there is nothing in the Solicitor General's statement, if you examine it, that tells us of the public's participation in the process. Before we pass any final document, we would like to review the regulation. He should remember that in his days that was consistently the view he took. We want to view it entirely. More important, we would like to be assured of the community's support of the regulation.

I am a little disappointed, though, that the Solicitor General has not been able to demonstrate community support today. I am very encouraged, of course, that the police have taken this great interest in this, and I think they should. We were unable, of course, to bring any of the community support that he speaks of so highly.

I am also encouraged -- I think we must give credit where it is due -- by the new consultation approach of this Solicitor General. I presume that when the oath to the Queen was banned without consultation this government was really taught a good lesson, that consultation works. I want the government to continue to do that. I am sure the community will be watching very carefully. I think we have some wonderful police officers in our community and of course they should participate in the political process, but we would like to take a very close look at this regulation before it is instituted.

Mr Carr: It was interesting to note that in a day and age when we are now faced with an increase in crime of 37%, this Solicitor General is worrying about how to ensure that the political activities of the police force do not become a big problem.

In my riding we had 4,000 people out in the Take Back the Night walk because of the concerns about crime in the street. We had two murders in our community during that period. It has become the number one problem in my area. The number one problem for the people in Halton is safety on the streets. What does the Solicitor General do? He comes in and he is worried about people being able to organize.

One of the things we on this side are going to be grateful for, I tell the minister right now, is that when they do begin to organize and get politically active, the first thing they are going to do is try to put this government out of office next time around.

We have finally gotten through to this government. The members opposite talked about consulting. It is interesting to see they are finally listening to some of the fine folks who are here today, because when it came to the other regulation, when it came to the change in the oath to the Queen, they listened to no one. It happened in the dead of night with no consulting, and the people of this province are mad about that too. The next time around, the people who are concerned about things like the oath to the Queen and crime in this province are going to be the ones who are going to put this government out in the street.

1400

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr Turnbull: To the Minister of Government Services I would say first off, good effort, but I find it rather ironic that the most significant environmental initiative this government has made in the last year has come from the Ministry of Government Services. Unfortunately I do not think it is going to do anything to solve the mess that the Ministry of the Environment has created in the greater Toronto area. I would also say congratulations on an attempt to cut waste. I certainly hope it has more success than the Treasurer had in his statement yesterday.

Normally I associate this government with the 3Rs, and the 3Rs, as far as the members opposite are concerned, are review, recant and retreat. Hopefully it will do something to reduce the pile of garbage which has no place to go in the greater Toronto area. I am sure this will be the first of many efforts this government will attempt to regain its slipping credibility. The government may be a cleaner place, but what about making the government a more efficient place?

ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER

Mr Miclash: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am actually quite disappointed that again we have a government here without the Premier. As we know, question period is very important to people on this side of the House. It is very important for us to ask the Premier what he is doing in terms of some of the policies he has and to get some of the honourable members' ideas across to the people of Ontario. There is a lot of dissatisfaction out there and I think the Premier should be here to answer some of our questions regarding some of that from my constituents.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, because this has been raised a couple of days in a row, I would like to point out to the House that on September 23, when the House resumed, the Premier was here. The next day he attended the funeral of a fallen OPP officer. On September 25, he spoke at a community college association. On September 26, he was here. Earlier this week he was in Milwaukee. He was also at the opening of the Bank of Montreal training centre, and today he is speaking to the international woodworkers. Today is the 81st question period for this government and the Premier has attended 66 of those question periods, or 80%.

The Leader of the Opposition is not here.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will members come to order, please? I am asking all members of the House to come to order, please.

The member for Kenora, and indeed other members who have raised a similar point of order, will know that there is nothing in the standing orders which will be of assistance to the Speaker in this situation. Of course the Speaker would very much like to see every member of the House in full attendance at all times, but there is nothing in the standing orders that speaks of attendance. I would ask that we continue with our business in a calm and reasoned way.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Conway: I have a question for the Treasurer and it concerns his most controversial, much-troubled budget to which he administered some rather interesting plastic surgery in this Legislature yesterday afternoon. Would the Treasurer not agree that the people of Ontario understand the very dire straits in which this budget now finds itself? They understand that the expenditures are above what was projected and in fact many feel the expenditures are running out of control. Perhaps as important, evidence builds that revenues are not spot on, as the Treasurer would like us to believe. Given the not inconsiderable prelude to yesterday's midcourse correction, is the Treasurer not embarrassed that all he was able to do for the taxpayers of Ontario yesterday was to defer much and decide very little to deal with the budgetary haemorrhage in fiscal year 1991-92?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member opposite is being somewhat extravagant in his description of the state of the budget, but on the other hand, I have always enjoyed his extravagances.

I should remind members that what we did yesterday was announce a 1% correction or adjustment in our expenditures for this year. That is all; nothing more. Expenditure pressures have been building this year for reasons I explained in some detail in my statement yesterday. All we are saying is that in order to keep to our target on our expenditures, we simply must make some midyear adjustments. I think any large organization that was responsible would do the same thing. We have simply said that we are going to make this correction in order that we stick to our guns on controlling our expenditures. I think the people of this province expect no less and we are determined to do that.

Mr Conway: There is a Ronald Reagan-like calmness in the Treasurer's comments just delivered, and against that backdrop, I want to look specifically at what the Treasurer did yesterday on the expenditure account.

What the Treasurer did not do on the expenditure account is that he made absolutely no effort to restrain or constrain in this fiscal year some of the most protected, privileged and well-paid people in this province, namely, the doctors, the teachers, the union bosses and the public servants, good people all.

What the Treasurer did do yesterday, as he cowered at the prospect of that common front with which he made a happy alliance in the election campaign of 1990, is that in the fiscal year 1991-92 he cut back $13 million from the budget of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. While he did not have the guts to deal with the doctors, the teachers and the public servants, he thought not a second about asking the college and university students to carry a disproportionate share of the restraint burden in the fiscal year 1991-92. As a social democrat, is he not embarrassed to stand in this House and defend that kind of iniquitous tax policy?

1410

Hon Mr Laughren: The member opposite has moved from extravagance to cruelty in his charges to me. I should say to the member opposite that he is not being fair either. On all counts, he is not being fair. This government has for the first time put a containment on the overall costs of the health care system. That has never been done before in the history of this province. We did it.

Second, we have sent a very strong signal out there that we are going to manage our expenditures very carefully, including our negotiations with the public sector, but that will be done through the collective bargaining process, which we respect unlike some other jurisdictions I could name in this country.

Finally, it is not accurate to state that we have simply moved the problem from this year to next year. There were two issues on which we did indeed move, not the problem but a pressure, from this year to next year because there is a retroactivity to them. One is the pay equity settlement of $50 million. We are going to have to pay that in the next fiscal year, absolutely. That was done because the amendments to the legislation will not be through. Second, the wage protection fund will not all be paid this year as originally we thought it would be. That will be paid next year. Those two numbers will be moved into the next fiscal year. The other numbers are effective savings for this year and for next year.

Mr Conway: The spin doctors would be happy with the headlines today which indicate that Ontario has lopped $600 million off its budget. When I look at what the Treasurer said and did yesterday for the fiscal year 1991-92, I see that $460 million of that $600 million was in fact deferred to next year. Would the Treasurer not agree that having regard to the expenditure part of his growing budgetary problem and haemorrhage, all he did yesterday on behalf of the beleaguered taxpayers of Ontario was to pay this year's MasterCard with next year's Visa?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member has returned to extravagant language in his final supplementary. I would simply say that is not accurate. The savings we are effecting, for example in the expenditures of the various ministries, will reduce the base for next year and in the next 18 months will effect a saving of about $300 million. That is real money and it is real savings. That is not simply deferring expenditure to next year. That is simply not the case. The member is not depicting it as it really is. Those are permanent savings in the expenditure base of this government. We are determined that we are going to carry through on those expenditure savings, because I believe that is expected of us and we are determined to do it.

TAX REVENUES

Mr Conway: I have a second question for the provincial Treasurer. I would like to leave the expenditure haemorrhage for a moment and now deal with the revenue difficulties. I must say, listening to the Treasurer respond yesterday to my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, I am increasingly persuaded that my honourable friend the member for Nickel Belt knows more about the revenue difficulty than he is yet prepared to announce to this House. Be that as it may, we must deal with what we have before us. He says that in the here and now his revenues are spot on.

The Treasurer's budget plan for the fiscal year 1991-92 anticipates a decline in retail sales tax revenues of approximately 2.5% over the previous year. Statistics Canada has indicated that in the first six months of this calendar year retail sales in Ontario were off by fully 8%. Can the Treasurer indicate whether or not his officials at Treasury have briefed him that the retail sales tax numbers, even though they were discounted by 2.5%, may in fact be seriously overstated as we speak?

Hon Mr Laughren: No. At this point in time, and that is as far as we can go, the numbers indicate that our revenues are as we forecast in the spring budget. I would put a couple of cautions there, which I tried to do the other day as well. Although there is no indication that there is going to be a decline in revenues, there are two major sources of provincial revenues, our own source revenues, whose numbers come in quite late. One is the retail sales tax revenues, and a big chunk of them tend to come in during January because of the shopping period in November to December. The other number is corporate income tax, which comes in even later than that, because of the way in which it is reported. Those are the only two numbers, and at this point in time we think our forecasts are accurate.

The final proviso I would put to the member opposite is that historically -- and members of his party would understand this -- the federal government's allocation or transfer to us of provincial income taxes, which they collect for us of course, has been somewhat volatile in the way it comes to the province. A couple of years ago they were almost $1 billion over, as I recall.

Those are the three provisos I put to the member opposite, because at this time I have no indication from anyone that our revenues are going to be less than we have forecast.

Mr Conway: I appreciate the response, but much of it was a pink herring. I am interested only in provincial retail sales tax revenues for purposes of this question, and I repeat, this budget plan for fiscal year 1991-92 anticipates a decline of 2.5% in retail sales tax revenue over last year.

The Statscan data already in for the first six months of this year suggest that retail sales taxes in this province are off by 8%. If anything like that trend continues, and those well-paid minions at Treasury must know this, the Treasurer's revenue figures for provincial retail sales taxes in this budget plan are overstated by anywhere from $300 million to $450 million. In light of that assessment, how can this Treasurer honestly and credibly tell us in this Legislature this late in the cycle that his revenue plan is spot on?

Hon Mr Laughren: I will be as direct as I can with the member. I have received no information that leads me to believe our forecasts will not be realized. The member opposite must know as well as anybody in this province that sometimes one's forecasting can be off.

Mr Conway: My final supplementary deals with the retail sales tax revenue. The Treasurer alluded to my next concern in his second-last answer, and that is, as I think all members would know, that a large portion of retail sales occur in the economy in the eight or 10 weeks prior to Christmas.

As the Treasurer of Ontario, the man who must defend this increasingly incredible budget where the revenue projections are overly optimistic, does the minister not feel the time is right to take some immediate action with respect to his government's wacko Sunday shopping legislation, to ensure that the retailers of this province are going to enjoy some kind of activity prior to Christmas, if for no other reason than that these very optimistic retail sales tax numbers on which this most controversial budget now turns in large part can be materialized?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the member is not accurate when he implies that Sunday shopping would resolve any kind of retail sales tax woes that may or may not be there. I simply do not believe the world is that simple and that extending the shopping week from six to seven days somehow gives us a great big bonus in retail sales tax revenues. We remain committed to our position for a common pause day.

1420

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Carr: My question is to the Treasurer. I understand today is his birthday, but when he reads the survey that just came out he is going to age very quickly.

This morning the Canadian Federation of Independent Business released a shocking result of a survey: 36%, over one third of the small businesses in this province, say they are considering pulling out of Ontario, taking with them 500,000 jobs. They are laying the blame squarely on this government and the Treasurer and the Premier. I quote:

"Mr Bulloch charged that Ontario Premier Bob Rae and his government, by virtue of the misguided policies based on rigid ideological philosophies, are responsible for a dramatic decrease in business confidence and threaten to turn much of this province into a rust belt."

My question to the Treasurer is very simple: What is he going to do about it?

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, I wonder whether you would allow me to refer the rigidly ideological member's question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Hon Mr Philip: Nobody is more aware than this government of the problems small business and business are being faced with as a result of the recession. The major problem small business and all businesses have had in this province has been the GST, which was imposed by the federal Conservative government.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take his seat, please. I imagine that the member for Oakville South, who posed the question, would like to hear a response. The Speaker is required to hear responses as well as questions.

Hon Mr Philip: The Conference Board of Canada has estimated that this province will grow this year at a faster rate than any other province in Canada. I can also point out that new industries are settling and expanding. Only last night I opened Dover Elevator, which is expected to create 800 jobs. It is in the riding just next door to the member's own riding.

Mr Carr: Businesses are saying very clearly that the problem is with this government. They cannot blame other governments and the Liberals. They are saying very clearly it is the responsibility of the Ontario New Democratic government that has been in for over a year. I give a quote from Susan Swift. This is what they are saying, and I hope the minister will listen, "It is very clear that the Ontario government's policies and its overall disdain for economic logic and business reality has become the major concern of small businesses." Not GST; the major concern is the minister and his government. For example, 94% call the government's last budget irresponsible. Only 2% say it was good and 94% say the government is irresponsible.

My second question is, is the minister prepared to admit the mistakes and change the course so we do not lose 500,000 jobs in the province?

Hon Mr Philip: Members of the Conservative Party were very anxious to have hearings on this budget this summer. An overwhelming number of people who appeared at those hearings, be they business, labour or community leaders, were overwhelmingly in support of this budget and overwhelmingly against the GST, I might add.

Let me just add that no Treasurer, Liberal or Conservative, other than this Treasurer, the member for Nickel Belt, had the courage to fight the recession instead of keeling over and dying before the recession.

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

Hon Mr Philip: There is a restructuring going on throughout North America. Some companies are closing some of their plants and opening others. Let me give you an example, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Quickly.

Hon Mr Philip: Keeprite has just closed its plant in Illinois to open up a larger plant in Brantford, which will create over 700 jobs in this province in the next five years. That is what is happening in business.

Mr Carr: The fact is that the statistics that come from them say 20% more businesses today than last March are thinking of leaving. The minister's problem is that he is taking one step forward, but he is taking two steps back. For every job that is coming in there are two saying they are thinking of leaving.

More shocking is the fact that 54% of Ontario's small manufacturers are thinking of leaving Ontario; one half are thinking of leaving Ontario. The minister can talk about some of the companies coming in, but 54% are saying they do not like what he is doing. They are thinking of leaving and they are thinking of voting with their feet. The minister cannot blame the federal government and he cannot blame the previous Liberal government. The jig is up. Business is calling his bluff. When is he going to start to react by trying to change the policies to help these companies that are saying if he does not they will not be around a year from now?

Hon Mr Philip: Business is calling the bluff of the Conservative Party. That is what is happening. Chrysler Canada in Bramalea was just selected to open its production site on a new model. This will cause the creation of 1,000 new jobs. That is what Chrysler Canada has said. Chrysler Canada has added another 1,400 jobs to Windsor. That is what business is doing. They are not thinking about leaving. They are creating jobs. They are doing things here.

If the member wants an estimate of what is happening --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Philip: I know the member does not want to hear and therefore thinks he can outshout me. But if he looks even at today's paper, for example, the president of Imperial Oil describes the Premier as a pragmatic politician and says he is heartened by some of the new initiatives the Premier has taken. That is what the president of Imperial Oil is saying.

Mr Stockwell: If everything is so great, why are the unemployment rolls swelling so far? I do not think everything is great.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE SALARIES AND BENEFITS

Mr Stockwell: My question is to the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet. Yesterday, as part of his --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It is very difficult to hear more than one question at a time. I realize people are very enthusiastic about this topic, but I would appreciate if I could hear the question. The member for Etobicoke West is the person who has the floor.

Mr Stockwell: Yesterday, as part of his spending deferral program, the minister said, "We are aiming for low wage settlements in forthcoming negotiations with bargaining agents in the Ontario public service sector."

The minister's predecessor at Management Board used to be an OPSEU negotiator, and she was so tough with these unions that when she had his job the Treasurer kept telling her it was the toughest recession we have faced, and the public service payroll increased by more than 14% and employee benefits went up by 20%. That was collective bargaining. That was no collective bargaining process; that was a love-in with his brothers and his sisters.

Now he wants us to believe he is prepared to play hardball. Why does he not tell the taxpayers the maximum pay increase he prefers? Why does he not tell the taxpayers exactly what kind of increase he is prepared to tolerate? Is it 1%, 2% or 3%? Is it a single digit? The taxpayers have a right to know. Why does he not let them in on the secret?

Interjections.

The Speaker: It would be very helpful if all members could co-operate so that the member who asked the question will be able to hear the response.

Hon Mr Silipo: First of all, let me say to the member something I am sure he is already aware of. He continues to talk about this 14% increase that was put in place last year and he knows full well, as do members of the House, that the 14% was a total amount that covered salaries as well as increased staffing that needed to be put in place to deal with increased pressures in the court system as well as the pay equity adjustments, and that the salary increases within that 14% were between 5% and 6%.

To answer his question in terms of what we are going to be doing, let me say very clearly that I said yesterday we are committed to the collective bargaining process. That means to me that we do not bargain collective agreements on the floor of the Legislature. We bargain them at the bargaining table.

I know very clearly, and this government knows very clearly, the kind of direction we need to follow. I think we will do our utmost and we will fulfil our responsibilities to get a negotiated agreement that is fair to our employees and fair to our taxpayers.

1430

Mr Stockwell: I understand exactly what came about to make up the 14%. Ask the unemployed worker or someone who is earning less than the average civil servant how much more it cost to run this government. The answer is that under this government, the payroll in this province went up by 14%. If the minister thinks that is acceptable, he is dead wrong.

The minister can understand the scepticism out there in the public. His estimates show that his operating expenditures are up by more than $1 billion dollars, and 65% of that hike is due to a $766-million increase in the amount the government is spending on salaries, wages and benefits.

Given the record, I doubt the public sector unions are exactly shaking in their boots with the thought of meeting the minister at the bargaining table, because it is not clear which side of the bargaining table he is going to sit on.

I ask the minister again, what is the bottom line on his public sector pay hikes? He should tell us the number and tell us exactly what he is prepared to give away. If he is going to hammer out a low increase, is he going to give up the right to strike? Is he going to cancel or postpone --

The Speaker: Would the member for Etobicoke West take his seat, please.

Hon Mr Silipo: I was trying to listen very intently to see how the question was different from the first time it was asked. I do not think it was, other than that of course the member has taken the opportunity to make a speech about various other bits and pieces.

Let me just say that we understand very clearly what we need to do. We understand and I think our employees understand very clearly the new reality, but we do not believe in resolving questions by coming in here and bringing in a maximum number. We also understand that there are other issues in terms of job security and various other issues that are going to be on the bargaining table. We will negotiate. We will negotiate hard. No doubt the unions will negotiate hard. And we will get, I believe, a deal at the end of that process that is a good deal for all of us.

Mr Stockwell: The minister refused to bring in a wage restraint program for 98% of his employees. He refused to bring in a restraint program for the broader public sector. He refused to tell us the maximum wage increase he will tolerate and pay for in the public sector. All we get from the minister are comments about the sanctity of the collective bargaining process.

The minister has a choice. He, personally, has a choice. He can either be a watchdog for the taxpayers or a lapdog for the public service sector unions. The choice is his. Why does he not stand up for once? Why does he not stand up for the people of this province for once and simply tell his big union friends that they have to live with a freeze? Other provinces have done it and it has not been the end of the world. Why cannot his government, with its special relationship with big labour, sell that idea? He can either fight for the taxpayers or fight for his union buddies who support his campaigns and work in his elections.

The Speaker: Would the member conclude his question.

Mr Stockwell: Who is the minister going to fight for?

Hon Mr Silipo: We are going to fight for the interests of the taxpayers and for the fairness to our employees that all of us, particularly we as government, need to demonstrate. That is the kind of leadership I think the people of the province expect from us, and that is what they are going to get.

I might add that we certainly have learned a few lessons over the last few weeks in watching the member's federal cousins and the way they have operated vis-a-vis their civil service. We do not intend to follow that example. We intend to deal with our problems fairly and equitably and to do it through the collective bargaining process, and I believe we can get to the solution we need through that process.

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mr Beer: My question is to the Minister of Education. Recently, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development issued its annual report on the Canadian economy. It confirmed what thousands of Ontarians who have lost their jobs or have faced the anguish of unemployment or personal or business bankruptcy know, and that is that this economy is in serious trouble. In particular, the report underlined yet again the problem of a 30% dropout rate from our secondary schools.

What are the minister's plans to meet the needs of thousands of Ontarians who leave our secondary schools without adequate education, without appropriate skills and without hope for the future?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I want to assure the member opposite and this House that we take very seriously the situation in terms of retention in our secondary schools. We certainly agree that it is a major issue for us as a society to find a better way to, first of all, provide the kind of education our youngsters need as they go forward into a whole new era of economic circumstances.

There are a number of initiatives under way right now in terms of improving that, including the curriculum restructuring that is going on which concentrates on the need to emphasize maths and sciences and technological training, and finding ways in which we can shape both the curriculum and the way we deliver that curriculum to meet the varying needs of students throughout the province.

We also know that a lot of students drop out because of their social circumstances. They do not have the kinds of social and familial supports that make it possible for them to thrive in our school system. We are looking at the kinds of initiatives mentioned in the report Children First to try to give them those kinds of supports so that they are able to remain in school and to thrive in that system.

Mr Beer: I think, frankly, that answer indicates not only why our educational system is not serving those young people and why it is in difficulty, but also why the economy is in such trouble. Here we have a respected international organization, the OECD, identifying specific problems in the minister's educational system and calling for more funding and more training and more apprenticeship as the keys to economic renewal in this province. Instead, what we get back is a series of platitudes and a mumbo-jumbo of programs.

Yesterday we saw, through the Treasurer, that education is simply not a priority for this government. We saw it in terms of the $13-million cutback at the post-secondary level and we see it in the lack of action around jobs and training and apprenticeship at the secondary level. Last week, Janet Halliwell, the respected head of the Science Council of Canada, stated that our educational system "is out of step with the economy's need for a technologically proficient workforce." She said it is simply unacceptable that the secondary school system "produces as many dropouts as it does university entrants."

This is a crisis situation. The youth unemployment rate right now in Ontario is over 20%. The Minister of Education is producing an underclass of young people without hope.

Will the minister commit to this House today that before the end of the current legislative session she will introduce a specific, detailed plan to drastically reduce the 30% dropout rate from our secondary schools?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I can certainly assure the member that the issue of retention is one that is specifically important and is specifically mentioned in terms of our economic renewal plan.

We do not disagree at all with the kinds of criticisms that have been levelled about the lack of action that the member's government was able to take in terms of a problem that is not new. It has been occurring over a number of years, and we are very aware of the need for urgent action.

What we need to do is to work that action in with the kind of work we are doing in our communities so that we have a buy-in from all the players. Our work on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board and our work with our business and labour communities is an important part of that. That work is ongoing, as is the kind of work we are doing on our retention policies. I certainly hope I will be able to bring that in by the end of the spring term. That is my intention at the present time, depending on how the legislative schedule goes.

Mr Beer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The minister would want to know that the former government took many initiatives to address this problem. This government has had a whole year and has done absolutely nothing to address this issue. I know the honourable minister would want to know that.

The Speaker: That is certainly a point of information, if not a point of order.

1440

ASSISTANCE TO DE HAVILLAND

Mr Carr: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. When he quoted, he forgot the headline on the last quote from Imperial Oil. It said, "Imperial Oil Plans to Cut up to 600 More Jobs." That is the most important part.

Let's go on to another problem. Yesterday, as the minister knows, the European Community blocked the sale of de Havilland. Federal officials have been quoted as saying --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Sometimes I think it was quieter in the SkyDome last evening.

An hon member: They had something to cheer about.

The Speaker: Yes, and something for everyone to cheer about. Right now, however, I would like to hear the member for Oakville South, who is waiting patiently to place his question.

Mr Carr: It is a little quieter -- except when they booed the Premier last night; that was rather loud.

As the minister will know, the European Community blocked the sale of de Havilland. Some of the federal officials have been quoted as saying, "There is no alternative buyer." De Havilland has already cost the Canadian taxpayers in the neighbourhood of $800 million. Will the minister promise this House that the taxpayers will not be forced to spend any more money on this company?

Hon Mr Philip: Numerous governments, both federal Conservative and federal Liberal governments, have spent a lot of money on this and other aerospace companies because they know that only through some government participation can the aerospace industry exist in any country, and we have seen that.

It is unfortunate that we have had an unexpected decision. We have been in contact with my federal counterpart in Ottawa. We are also in touch with the officials of Aerospatiale Canada Inc and Alenia SpA and we are assessing the situation. I will report back to the member when some decisions have been made on that.

Mr Carr: The problem is that now that the company, the unions, the banks, the suppliers know the government is going to put money into it, there are not likely to be very many concessions. Instead of the company, the union, the suppliers and the banks working out a deal, they are waiting now for the government to pile money into it. The taxpayers are worried about the amount of money that will be going into it. The Treasurer made it clear yesterday that at least with the $9.7-billion deficit, there is not enough money to go around. Yes or no: Will the minister get the stakeholders to get together or will the government be plowing more money into this company over this next little while?

Hon Mr Philip: The federal government, which has an even larger debt in percentage terms than the provincial government, was quite prepared to pour money into this company.

I can say that we will not walk away from this company. We are working with the original purchasers, we are working with the existing company and we are working with the federal government to do everything we can to save this important company and to save the aerospace industry in this province. We are not going to walk away from it.

ELECTROLYTIC EPILATION

Mr Owens: I was going to comment on the absence of the opposition leaders, but as they are usually not here when they are here, it does not really matter.

My question is for the Minister of Health. She recently announced that the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It would be most helpful if the member could identify the minister to whom he wishes to address a question and then simply place his question.

Mr Owens: I was in the process of doing that, Mr Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Health. She recently announced that the procedure of electrolysis was being pulled from the OHIP billing schedule. Can she explain to this House what that will mean in terms of dollars to the taxpayers?

Hon Ms Lankin: The procedure of electrolysis will be delisted from the OHIP schedule of fee benefits as of November 14.

[Applause]

Hon Ms Lankin: I thank the opposition. I know this is an issue a number of members in the House have had concern about.

On the amount of money, I think it is important for us to look at it historically in terms of what it will mean in the next fiscal year as well. Back in 1980-81, there were 21 physicians who were involved in billing for electrolysis and at that point in time in the province we paid out about $16,000. That is not unlike the level of payments for this procedure in other provinces at this point in time, but that was in 1980-81, 10 years ago. In 1989-90, this had escalated to 121 physicians who were providing this service, many of those in the Metropolitan Toronto area, and the claims totalled over $6.5 million. In fact, in this fiscal year we had felt it was going to reach the $8-million mark. For next year, we believe we will save $11 million from our budget.

It is an example of where we are trying to be effective managers of the system. We will have to make some tough decisions about those services that continue to be paid for and reallocate dollars to higher-priority areas.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mrs Y. O'Neill: My question is for the Treasurer. Mayor after mayor and retailer after retailer across this province has begged the Treasurer, and indeed almost every member of this Legislature, to think again before implementing the second phase of the gasoline tax increase of the 1991 budget. Such an increase, as the Treasurer knows, is to come into effect on January 1, 1992.

I remind the Treasurer that the resulting $141-million revenue loss will drain the Ontario economy and that this gas tax directly and indirectly results in small business bankruptcies and an estimated 14,000 job losses. In Sarnia alone, six out of seven cars crossing the Blue Water Bridge to shop in Michigan include a purchase of gasoline during that visit. The direct impact of this has been the closure of more than one dozen gasoline stations in that city alone. Each member of this Legislature can point to dozens of such closures in their own communities, especially those members who represent border communities.

The Speaker: And the member's question?

Mrs Y. O'Neill: Will the Treasurer tell this House whether or not impact studies are being done? Has the Treasurer or the Minister of Revenue directed that impact studies, especially in border communities, be done before he imposes this second phase of what is a 30% increase in a regressive tax on a necessary commodity for businesses and consumers in this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, we did look at what we thought would be the impact of a gasoline tax increase when we were preparing the budget in the spring. While I understand the pressures in border communities and I understand the pressures in northern Ontario, where I reside myself, because of gasoline prices, at the same time it is my belief -- as a matter of fact, I did a little bit of analysis on the taxes on gasoline -- that we could wipe out every single penny of tax on gasoline and in border communities it would still be a lower price across the border in the United States communities. That would do what I think would be very serious damage to the revenues of this province.

I am sure the member was listening carefully to the member for Renfrew North a few minutes ago when he was expressing alarm about the potential loss of revenues in this province from retail sales taxes. We are not in a position to take action that is going to reduce revenues this year in the province, given the enormous pressures we have on expenditures.

1450

Mrs Y. O'Neill: There seems to be some difficulty talking about different sources of revenue. The Treasurer certainly seems to be ignoring the fact that gasoline tax revenue is very directly related to sales tax revenue and that certainly people are very seriously considering and are indeed doing their Christmas shopping in another place than Ontario.

Given the devastating impact of this latest gas tax increase and the Treasurer's statement that he has done "a little bit of an analysis," I am afraid the people of Ontario are going to find that less than useful. Before the Treasurer imposes the schedule for January 1, 1992, I wonder if he will seriously consider cancelling that second phase before the impact of another price increase adds further to the crisis in the cities of Cornwall, Windsor, Sarnia and St Catharines, in fact all Ontario communities, but as the Treasurer and I know, the border communities of this province are dying.

Hon Mr Laughren: I am very much aware of the problems in the border communities. That is why there was established, with the federal government and the municipalities, a cross-border shopping summit, I believe it was called, which examined the whole question of the problem of people crossing the border to shop -- to be fair, not just to buy gasoline. I concede that a lot of that does occur, but I do not believe a 1.7-cents-per-litre reduction in gasoline is going to resolve the cross-border shopping issue. That is not what I think is a solution.

The three levels of government, the border community municipalities, the federal government and the province, came to an agreement among all three on a package of marketing and education in the border communities that we hope will go some way to resolving the problem by encouraging people to shop in this province, because when they shop in this province -- I know members of the assembly understand this -- and pay taxes in this province, they are helping to pay for the services they receive in this province.

HUNTING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr McLean: Will the minister with dual responsibility for natural resources and native affairs confirm that he has a draft agreement or a final agreement prepared, ready for signing, that would permit the Algonquins of Golden Lake to begin hunting in Algonquin Park after Thanksgiving weekend?

Hon Mr Wildman: I appreciate the question. As the member knows, negotiations started on June 15. We are very close to finalizing an interim agreement that will allow the Algonquins to exercise their aboriginal rights to hunt for food. Those negotiations have been long and complex. We have reached a draft that I hope will be satisfactory to all.

The draft recognizes the aboriginal rights of the Algonquins of Golden Lake and improves the circumstances of their lives, and I believe it will take into account the concerns of non-aboriginal people in Ontario as well. I am committed to ensuring that the terms of the draft agreement will be shared with the interested parties prior to the province signing that agreement.

Mr McLean: Am I to take from the minister's answer that they may be able to hunt there after Thanksgiving? It is my understanding that he promised to involve third-party consultation in the process. There are many people I have talked to who have indicated that they have not been consulted, nor has the minister consulted, as he indicated he would, with third-party people. The ones I have contacted have said the process has not been creditable and were wondering how he justifies indicating that the process is almost complete when people I have talked to have said they have not been contacted.

Mr Wildman: Of course, I am not fully aware of and the member has not made clear the people to whom he has been talking. However, he will know that the ministry has conducted a series of meetings with third parties to discuss interim arrangements and other communications regarding interim arrangements have been carried out through mailouts, correspondence and key contacts within the interest groups.

The fact is that we are committed, as I said in my earlier response, to sharing the terms of the draft interim agreement with interested third parties before signing. We hope we will be able to involve them in a consultation that will determine what their views are with regard to the control of the amount of harvest, the areas where harvesting will be allowed, the dates on which harvesting will be allowed and the control of access using motorized vehicles. These are all issues that are very important to the people who consider Algonquin Park, as we do, the jewel of the parks system in Ontario and who also value the importance of resolving aboriginal issues in an equitable way.

The Speaker: The Minister of the Environment, with a response to a question asked earlier by the member for Brampton North.

FUEL SPILL

Hon Mrs Grier: I have a response to the question asked yesterday by the member for Brampton North. The member raised the issue of the response time from my ministry's spills action centre and said that "1,000 litres of gasoline leaked into the soil over the course of the weekend."

As I indicated yesterday, the spills action centre operates 24 hours a day and all calls are recorded. The first call received about the spill to which the member referred was at 1:56 on Friday, September 27. It was from Esso Petroleum and it reported that approximately 900 litres of gas had leaked on to the ground from a tank on private property. Esso indicated it had filled the tank with about 1,000 litres on August 28, 1991, and believed the tank to be corroded. At the time they called, they had a backhoe on site. The property owner subsequently confirmed to the ministry that indeed the leak had occurred over the past month and Esso has confirmed that at the time it reported the spill to the spills action centre the tank was empty.

Responsibility for fuel spills lies with the fuels safety branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The Ministry of the Environment informed them on Friday and indicated that representatives of both ministries would visit the site as soon as possible next week. MOE officials visited the site on Monday, September 30, sampled the well water and no odour was observed.

Mr McClelland: I appreciate the minister's quick response to the inquiry that was raised yesterday. I suppose it begs another question, and that is -- I do not want to use the word "discrepancy" -- the uncertainty in terms of facts as relayed today with the information that was given to the property owner in question. The property owner in question maintained to us that there was certainly unclear direction.

I think the issue here is that it is all well and good that the minister is talking about it in terms of whose responsibility it is, but at the end of the day what we have here is a person in the province who called and was not able to access direct, succinct information giving him the assistance he required.

The Speaker: Your supplementary?

Mr McClelland: The substance of my question yesterday was, is the minister going to address the issue? She states the action hotline is available 24 hours a day. We have a situation where an issue was raised and apparently the succinct, direct information she is able to offer here today, and advice, was not available.

The Speaker: And the supplementary, please.

Mr McClelland: The question remains, will the minister ensure that people who call that action hotline will have a direct response that will be helpful to them?

Hon Mrs Grier: It was Esso Petroleum that called. They indicated that they were on the site and that cleanup could commence. I think the underlying issue the member has pointed to is that the jurisdiction is split between the fuels safety branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Ministry of the Environment for empty fuel tanks. That is something that certainly in opposition I shared the member's concern about. I still do and have discussed it with my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

In this situation we are not talking, as the member indicated yesterday, about an immediate leak. We are talking about soil cleanup and I certainly agree with him that there needs to be a clear understanding of jurisdiction and response wherever and whenever that occurs.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Cordiano: My question is to the Minister of Housing. As the minister would no doubt be aware, as she is a well-informed minister, the residents of my riding, in particular the residents of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority buildings at Jane and Falstaff and the surrounding residents, have been subjected to an increasing level of crime and violence. In fact, the minister would know that this resembles a war zone, not just at this location but right across Metro and other places in the province. What we have here are residents who have been subjected to problems that have erupted from the drug trafficking situation in the area and right across Metro.

I would ask the minister today to commit herself to making the realization of safe and secure homes a possibility for the residents of the area. Will she commit to specific steps to improve the situation at the MTHA buildings at Jane and Falstaff?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I will reply to the member that, as I come from Ottawa, certain areas in the city of Toronto are not areas I know like the back of my hand. I know there are many areas in Toronto, as there are in many cities, where we do have problems of the kind he has described.

Certainly within the city of Toronto the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority has put a good deal of effort into trying to address these problems in a reasonable and practical way, and the Ministry of Housing has been providing resources to communities where special problems have been identified. These are concerns I take very seriously, and I hope the member will feel assured that the ministry and this minister will continue to try to improve the situation.

1500

Mr Cordiano: The minister would like to know I have met with residents of the area on numerous occasions, and it is in fact a life-threatening situation for a number of residents. They are held hostage in their own homes by what is going on around them. They have been victimized. She would know that.

The previous government had committed funds to an in-house security project for the MTHA buildings at Jane and Falstaff, which apparently has been stalled by this government. I want to know from the minister if she is prepared to commit today to funding that program so that we can get that in-house security project moving. It is a model project for other MTHA buildings, and I want her commitment and assurance that she will do everything to make sure this moves along and will become a reality.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I think the member is mistaken to say that the Ministry of Housing has delayed any approvals of any allocations to proceed with the programs we are hoping to see in place in troubled communities. He certainly has my assurance that, as minister, I will do my best to make sure that the programs we are putting in place are going to be programs that will reassure people who have a right to feel that they are safe and secure in their homes.

Mrs Witmer: I would like to say, before I ask my question, that I am pleased that the electrolysis payments have been removed from OHIP, and I was pleased to bring forward the petition on behalf of the electrolysists.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Earlier this week, the minister responded to my question regarding the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act by saying that he wanted to "involve workers and working people in the decisions that are going to affect them and the future of plants and jobs in this province".

I can assure the minister that I too strongly believe that all workers should have a voice in this important decision. That is why I would like the minister to tell us today why, in the preparation of the Burkett committee report, did he rely on union representatives to speak for workers in this province when in fact some 64% of Ontario's workers do not belong to a union and do not necessarily share the same views as union organizers?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the answer to that is fairly obvious. The workers that are organized into unions had the expertise and the ability and the personnel to make their position with respect to the Ontario Labour Relations Act known, something that probably unorganized workers have not had the experience with, or indeed has ever been before the act, and it was the Ontario Labour Relations Act that we are taking a look at.

Mrs Witmer: I am very disappointed. The minister talks about equality and fairness, yet 64% of workers have not had a voice in this very important law. I can tell the minister there are many workers who have written to me and phoned or stopped me on the street to tell me they are very concerned about this proposal and the impact it is going to have on them. They are concerned about their individual rights and freedoms and their jobs.

What plans has the minister made to ensure that these workers who are not members of unions are going to have the same opportunity to participate in the consultation process as the members of the unions have already had? What assurances is he going to give these workers that their individual rights will be protected?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the member is aware that there will be a consultation period and any group can appear before that consultation process. Following that, when legislation is actually drafted and brought into this House, I would be very surprised if the members opposite do not send it out to one of the committees. We will probably have a tour of the province by the committee dealing with any legislation as well. So it is fairly obvious there will be all kinds of ability to participate.

I would ask her, though, to tell us how we can assure who the unorganized workers she is referring to are going to report to and who they are going to represent, which is one of the reasons why you go with the organized groups in the deal.

PETITIONS OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr Henderson: I have a petition which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

That petition is signed by several hundred individuals and I will happily affix my signature as well.

TOBACCO TAXES

Mr Villeneuve: I have a petition signed by 974 people and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the present high level of taxes on tobacco products are excessive and contrary to the interests of Ontario's two million smokers; and

"Whereas high tobacco taxes are contributing to retail theft and our province's cross-border shopping crisis; and

"Whereas the punitive taxes and resulting lost sales are contributing to inflation, as well as costing jobs in Ontario; and

"Whereas high cigarette taxes are regressive and unfair to low- and modest-income citizens;

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

"That Ontario's tobacco taxes should not be increased in 1991, and further, that these taxes should be repealed and a new lower and fairer tax be introduced."

I have signed this petition and I agree with it.

Mr McLean: I have a petition with 784 signatures on it. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the present high levels of taxes on tobacco products are excessive and contrary to the interests of Ontario's two million smokers; and

"Whereas high tobacco taxes are contributing to retail theft and to our province's cross-border shopping crisis; and

"Whereas these punitive taxes and resulting lost sales are contributing to inflation, as well as costing jobs in Ontario; and

"Whereas high cigarette taxes are regressive and unfair to low- and modest-income citizens;

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

"That Ontario's tobacco taxes should not be increased in 1991, and further, that these taxes should be repealed and a new lower and fairer tax be introduced."

As I said, it has 784 signatures and some of them are from my riding. That was from the International Plowing Match.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr J. Wilson: I am privileged to rise today to present a petition to the Legislature of Ontario that reads as follows:

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

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

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

I have affixed my name to this petition also. It is signed by several people from my riding of Simcoe West, from the townships of Adjala and Tecumseth and the village of Tottenham.

1510

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mrs Cunningham: I have a petition with over 3,500 signatures from people living in the London area which reads:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario, especially the newly elected members, as follows." It is a very long petition, so I am going to paraphrase it. Responsible government means listening to the people who have elected you. They are very concerned about the lack of proportional voter representation in Ontario. They are asking that Bill 8 be repealed and that the province have a referendum.

They want full disclosure of the costs of French education by local school boards versus the total cost of education by those same boards. They are asking for the total cost of bilingualism at all levels. They are asking that this government be prepared to deal with the unjust demands from Quebec. They are asking that it also be prepared to deal with possible Quebec separation. They also want the government of Ontario to prepare an economically sound working paper to deal with free trade.

I have paraphrased because it is very long, but I have signed it and I will turn it over for your perusal, Mr Speaker.

NURSING HOMES

Mr McGuinty: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of some 14 residents of Ontario who have signed this form, and I have affixed my name. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario immediately rectify the inequity in funding between nursing homes and homes for the aged. We strongly support the Ontario Nursing Home Association in their efforts to provide better care for nursing home residents through increased funding."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SOCIETE DE L'ELECTRICITE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 118, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

Suite du debat ajourne sur la motion visant la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 118, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Societe de l'electricite.

The Speaker: By rotation, it should be a member of the third party. Did the member for Carleton wish to have the floor?

Mr Sterling: No.

The Speaker: Bill 118. We left off last day with the member for Renfrew North concluding his remarks on the debate. The member for Oakville South.

Mr Carr: This is a little sooner than I had anticipated, but I am pleased to rise and speak on this particular bill. I will not be speaking quite as long as the previous speaker did yesterday. It was rather enjoyable and, as I have often said, maybe at the end of my career I will be able to speak like that, though as my wife said last night, "Don't do it when I'm around." But it is quite a talent, and I am pleased to speak on the debate. For those who were tuning in to see the member continuing, I am sorry but they will have to watch the reruns.

I am particularly concerned about this bill. I, like many of the members, was immediately approached by some of the people who are involved in my riding in Oakville. The people at Oakville Hydro called me with some very, very serious concerns they had. They were so concerned about this piece of legislation that they in fact tried to schedule a meeting between some of the members from the Halton area and the people at Oakville Hydro to discuss some of the concerns they had about this piece of legislation.

Unfortunately, on the date that had been selected for it, my friend the member for Halton North was unable to make it. It was during that period of time when the Toronto Transit Commission strike was on, and in anticipation of the legislation to bring those workers back, we had to cancel that meeting. But hopefully we will get a chance to get together and hear some of the concerns, because the group involved in that are people who have been around many, many years and are extremely concerned about pieces of legislation such as this. They wanted to voice the concerns of the people who are in that area, I think principally to the NDP member who sits in the Halton caucus.

What they wanted to do was voice some of the concerns with all three of the parties so that we could bring them forward. So we have had some discussions and hopefully we will have some others.

One of the other reasons I am anxious to speak to this bill is because as the new critic for Industry, Trade and Technology I have had the pleasure of meeting with business groups and I will be meeting with labour groups and, quite frankly, anybody who wants to meet with me at any time to discuss some of the concerns that are out there.

When I sit down with some of the members of the business community, some of the major users of energy in this province, they are extremely concerned. I was quite surprised on where the supply of energy ranks with the business community in this province. It ranks very heavily with some of their major concerns that are going on in this day and age. Of course, they talk about all the other logical things -- the taxes and the regulations -- but they are very concerned about having a supply of energy in this province second to none. As you look at it, this is probably the single biggest factor in our history for having such large manufacturers come to our province. We did have a tremendous amount of energy to supply our industries.

Some of the tours I have gone on were interesting -- the people at St Lawrence Cement, for example. I went and toured their facility in my part of the riding where they produce, in tremendous quantities, the cement that is needed for this province. I was amazed at the amount of energy they expend on a daily basis. It is their single biggest cost. When you drive by right now, you will see the piles of coal there. When you get in and get a chance to see what is happening in that industry, you understand very clearly why they spend so much energy. It is more than they spend on personnel or any other factor, even raw materials.

When you get in and see the furnaces, I guess we would call them, you see the tremendous amount of energy expended. We had an opportunity to put the masks on and go in and look at the actual operation. When you look in the furnaces, it is almost like looking at the sun close up; all the material inside is bubbling. It is very clear why businesses like St Lawrence are so concerned about energy, because that is in fact what allows them to make their products. While they have made some great strides, and companies like that are attempting to do even more to make themselves energy-efficient, in the long term they are concerned about what Hydro, and indeed as a result what the government of Ontario, will be doing. So it is also as a result of being the critic for Industry, Trade and Technology that I am so concerned.

In addition, I had a chance to meet with some of the people involved at Dofasco. Of course, in steelmaking as well energy is a very big factor in the cost of production.

When we look at it in a day and at a point in time where businesses, large and small, are doing everything they can to make themselves more productive and to reduce operating costs and to get more efficient, the supply of energy is going to be a critical factor in our ability to compete over the next few years. What we have to do as a Legislature and what this government has to do is make sure we have the energy and the supplies necessary. Quite often what happens with energy and the whole supply is that we take it for granted. When we realize how fortunate we are to have such an abundance in this province, as a result of that we tend to take it, like a lot of things, for granted, because it has been so prevalent in this province.

I think more of us who have not been involved have taken the energy of this province for granted, but the business community is saying very clearly that it is concerned. I have had a few calls. Some of the people have voiced concern about this bill, because in a day and age when people are a little sceptical of politicians and the political process, one of the comments people are making is, "In this critical period we would really like to have the people making the decisions the people who are the experts."

I thought this government would have seen it is almost natural that the people who can best decide what needs to be done are not the people who sometimes only look to the next election and look for narrow, quick fixes to problems. We should look to some of the people who have been in the industry for a long time. That is not the politicians. I guess politicians, if they have one fault, try to get involved in things that are beyond their expertise, and the worst part is they often come across and try to say they know more than some of the people who have been involved in it.

1520

So it is with this bill. At a time when the people of this province are mistrusting of politicians and the political process and parties, when it comes to energy and trying to encourage more confidence in the system by moving more of the responsibility to elected officials, the government is indeed hurting the confidence out there.

I think this goes to the root of some of the scepticism that is out there, that this government comes in and the first thing it does is attempt to tell the people at Ontario Hydro what is best for the people of Ontario. If you ask the average person, "Who would you like to make the decisions on your energy future?" -- and let's be blunt about it, we are not talking about something long-term where if we do not make the right decisions we may have the lights dimmed for a little while; we potentially could have serious blackouts in Ontario as a result of decisions that are being made. They are critical decisions.

I as an individual would feel much more confident having the decisions made by some of the people who are the specialists in that area, some of the people who, when you look at the record of Ontario Hydro, have been with that corporation for many years. If anybody is to look at the statistics, he will know very clearly that people who work for Ontario Hydro stay there for long periods of time. It is ironic that we have a former Hydro employee coming up now as we speak about that, the fine member for Lanark-Renfrew.

The fact is that in Ontario Hydro we have a tremendous amount of expertise. It is not an area where there is a great deal of turnover. People come in there and progress and become knowledgeable, similar to my seatmate who got in there and now understands it more fully than, I suspect, anybody on that side of the House does or ever will. He has a tremendous grasp of what needs to be done and how it needs to be done. I was interested in listening to his comments as a former employee on exactly what needs to be done.

As I reflect on it, the confidence of the people of this province rests on this minister's shoulder. I can say clearly that I am very pleased to have my seatmate, the member for Lanark-Renfrew, here to be able to keep this government on its toes, because he will be doing that continually. I hope the minister will get a chance to reflect on some of his comments as a man of a great deal of experience. It is not only people like the critic for the Conservative Party but indeed all the people at Ontario Hydro whom we should be listening to more than the government of the day, which looks at things from the short-term quick fix, "How am I going to get elected next time?"

In fact, the problem is that when the lights go out and there is no more safe supply of energy in this province, the people who have made the decisions will be long gone, well off into the night -- and so they should. I think what is going to happen is that some of the decisions they make now, in this field more than any other, will not affect us till down the road a little. In fact, it probably will be a few years until the actions that are taken by this government start to ring through.

The problem with the public is that the government of the day, when the Conservative Party is back in power, will be the one that is going to have to clean up the mess from this government's decisions made way back on June 5, 1991. That is a challenge we look forward to. It is not just in the energy field; it is in a lot of fields that we will be there to clean up.

When my friend becomes Minister of Energy, I suspect there will be a great deal more confidence in this province, knowing we have somebody making the decisions who has had a background at Ontario Hydro and knows what is happening. Because it is very scary to have the situation we have now, where this government is making major fundamental decisions that will be affecting the business community, affecting all the jobs -- unionized and non-unionized jobs -- and all the people of this province with their energy demands. There has been, over the last little while, no regard for some of the fine people at Ontario Hydro who are making the decisions.

If we look at what this bill basically is, it has a fairly simple intent. The bill is an attempt by the Minister of Energy to exert more control over the operation of Ontario Hydro. As my friend and seatmate the member for Lanark-Renfrew has said, it is a dark, dark day when that happens here in the province. He was right. This is nothing but an attempt by the Minister of Energy to exert more control over the operation of Hydro.

At a time when people are sceptical about politicians and their political ability to make the right decisions on very simple issues, when it comes to the complex decisions that need to be made to ensure that the lights stay on in this House the people do not trust the Minister of Energy as much as they do the people right across the street down at Ontario Hydro.

With regard to some of the decisions that have happened over the last little while since the government came in, the people at Ontario Hydro, I think to their credit, have said: "We're not going to sit back and take it. We're going to make some moves to ensure we have control." I had the opportunity to meet the former chair speaking at, I believe, the Canadian Club. Some of the people at Oakville Hydro had put together a meeting with him to discuss some of the problems. At that time, we had a chance to chat on some of the directions of the government. I remember him talking. It was very early on, because it was probably right around this time last year, if memory serves me correctly. They were just getting into it with the new Premier. I think he had already had the meeting with them and they were just getting to know one another.

As I sit back and reflect on it a year later, if someone had told me a year ago that this chairman would be out and that we would be looking at Bill 118, I would have been absolutely and positively flabbergasted. To all those people who are out there saying, "This government has moved fairly slowly; it's consulting," I say that when it comes to bills like this the government knows how to move very quickly.

The ironic thing is that unfortunately it is not quickly in the right direction and it is not what the people of this province want. We have very little input from some of the fine people of Ontario Hydro. We have a Minister of Energy taking over from the previous minister, who says that he now will be making the decisions. Quite frankly -- and no reflection on the minister's ability -- to have political people who are elected making decisions on the energy that is crucial to this province is a very scary thought indeed.

I notice the former Minister of Energy has come in. Again, it is no reflection on the individuals, because they have some talents in different areas, but when it comes to something as fundamental as the decisions that need to be done in the critical areas of energy, then I think most people of this province would say: "Thank you very much, politicians. Stay out of it and leave it to the people who have the better expertise to do that."

Because when it comes right down to it, a lot of the decisions that are made in this ministry are not even made by the minister. They are political decisions made by some of their assistants. Again, that is no reflection on the former minister, the member for Peterborough, or the present minister, but the fact is that fundamental decisions are being made in this province by people who are unqualified.

Instead of recognizing that and saying, "What we should be doing is trying to get more expertise" -- it is going to be critical enough to make the right decisions. It is going to be tough enough to be able to meet the challenges with the most qualified and best minds of the men and women who work right across the street. Even if we did that and listened to some of those people who have years and years of expertise, it is still going to be very difficult to meet the demands as the province grows, as our demands grow and as the economy hopefully expands over the next few years. It is going to be interesting to see exactly what direction this government takes.

Maybe as a result of some of the things, we are not going to need as much energy. Some of the statistics that are out there today and the one we heard today about industry wanting to leave are very clearly the result of some of the policies of this government. Instead of recognizing that and saying, "At least in the field of energy we will leave it up to Ontario Hydro and to the experts who have many years of expertise," they just reinforce what people are saying about these people, that they do not care as much for long-term planning as they do short-term fixes.

Essentially what happened with this bill is that the government got in a fight with Ontario Hydro of the day, and as often happens in fights like that the rhetoric got moved up. Ontario Hydro said: "No, we're fighting for the people. We want a long-term secure supply of energy in this province, so we are going to do what is right." To those people I tip my hat and say, "Congratulations to you." That is what the people want. They want them to be able to stand up to politicians, because politicians need to know very clearly that they are going to be challenged on issues.

1530

But what happens as a result of some of the challenges is that the government of the day notches it up with this bill and says: "Okay, we're having a little bit of a problem with you. You're the ones who are kicking up some of the problems and embarrassing this government." It is ironic that it will embarrass them more by taking over control, which is what this bill does. When the lights go out, they are going to be extremely embarrassed by what happens in this province.

The rhetoric was moved up and lo and behold along came Bill 118, which will allow the Minister of Energy to issue policy initiatives to direct Ontario Hydro on what should be done in this province. When we talk about the hands-off approach and staying separate, between the elected officials and Ontario Hydro, the people want Ontario Hydro to make the right decisions. To all those people who went out on a bit of a limb -- I guess they did, because some of them will be moving on -- I think at the end of the day the people of the province will say, "They tried their best." As a result, this bill's coming in will be, as my friends from Oakville Hydro say, very significant. It is very scary to them.

The feuding that went on -- I guess it was around last November -- started with the speech from the throne. Instead of sitting down and consulting with the people at Ontario Hydro and saying, "This is what needs to be done" -- in fact, in the past it has been the policy of the governments to do that. There have been more studies about what needs to be done for long-term viability of energy in this province than probably needed to be done, so they were all there.

Instead of trying to implement some of the solutions that were there, this government of the day decided to turn things around and change directions. When the former Hydro chairman left last March, I certainly would have loved to be a fly on the wall during the discussions between the Minister of Energy of the day and the former chairman.

Then we had the new chairperson come in. He came in and took over and moved very quickly in trying to get Ontario Hydro to change what is happening.

When we had our discussions with the people at Oakville Hydro, they said one of the things they wanted was for us to take a look at what some of the people from the Municipal Electric Association are saying. Of course, as the minister will know, they put together a very detailed brief on some of their ideas and concerns. That particular group is made up of some of the stakeholders who have literally generations of experience in this field. They are concerned about where this government is heading with this bill. I think as we reflect on some of the comments they feel are necessary at this time, we would do well to listen to some of the concerns.

Ultimately, I guess, at the end of the day the politicians will be the ones who will take the heat for the decisions. I am certainly not advocating that we listen to everybody all the time, but there are some very valid points that are being made by some of the groups like the Municipal Electric Association. As most of the members will know, they did a fairly detailed brief of what they see in this bill.

When I read it, very clearly I think their first line says it all. In the detailed brief that they put together, I think fairly quickly, they call the bill a flawed piece of legislation. They say -- I agree with this -- it will set a dangerous precedent and has the potential to turn electrical bills into a new tax grab by the provincial government.

In a day and age when we are a little bit cynical about politicians and the political process, instead of the government's coming out to the people of the province and saying, "Yes, we know we've got a deficit. We know it's at $10 billion and people are literally protesting in the street about it, but we still believe there are some changes that need to be done. Some of the programs that we want are going to cost some money and here is how we're going to do it," it attempts to hide some of the figures and some of the costs, buried in Ontario Hydro.

That is not the only area it is done. When we look at and get a chance to see some of the books, with things like the unfunded liability of the Workers' Compensation Board and some of the other costs, the fact of the matter is that this province is in worse financial shape than most people even realize with the big deficit as it is. I do not want to scare anybody, but when members get a chance to look at it and see where some of the problems are, it is even scarier.

That is essentially what some of the people in the field feel this government is attempting to do. As many of us know, Ontario has had a long-standing policy of power at cost. It is a policy that has worked very successfully and allowed the corporation and the people of Ontario to plan for the long term. That is really what we are talking about: long-term planning. Unfortunately in this day and age most politicians look at the short term and think more about the next election than they do about the next generation.

This long-standing principle will be changed, as I read the bill. There is no doubt it will force rates up. It not only will result in economic hardship for Ontario residents and businesses but will also discourage the much-needed growth. With all the factors that we heard business being concerned about today, this bill will do nothing to alleviate them. When people get a chance to really understand where this government is headed and what direction it is going with this, I think it will make them even more concerned than they already are. That is hard to believe in this day and age, because the confidence factor in this government is so low as it is.

One of the reasons we have been successful is that we have been able to plan for the future and we have been allowed to have power at cost in the province. I think it should be very much concern to everyone. There is no one who does not at some point in time consume some of the energy needs that are met by the province, so it will be one of the big, fundamental concerns of people over the next little while at a time when because of the high tax situation, it is more expensive to live in Ontario.

I guess now we go well into August, if you include the deficit, to pay taxes in this province. On top of that, the consumer bills, some of the things you pay for like energy costs, will be going up as a direct result of some of the changes in this bill. I do not think that is fair to the people of the province who have always counted on this special relationship of having power at cost.

Bill 118 changes the fundamental relationship between the provincial government and Ontario Hydro. There will be more government involvement at a time and a point in our history when many of the crown corporations are trying to be more decentralized and to move away from government control, certainly at the federal level, where they have attempted to say, "No, we're going to let the people with the expertise make some of the decisions."

That is probably as a result of some of the modern management techniques that are now prevalent, the decentralized approach where you try to get the decisions down at the lower level where the people who are best able to do it make the decision. That is happening right across this province, on the shop floor at the Ford Motor Co in Ontario, where they are listening more to the people and not making decisions at the head offices. That is the same for the small butcher shops that are out there that have people working for them. The decisions about how to operate are being made closer to the actual people making the decisions.

Here we are: all the modern management techniques that are out there and have been talked about for many generations, whether they be by the Peter Druckers or the Chester Barnards; all these techniques about decentralizing control. But when it comes to government, we do the reverse.

I think in this day and age there are not too many people who do not know that the old ways of doing things are out, some of the techniques that have worked in the past with regard to management and management style and management philosophy. Now people are learning very clearly at an earlier point in their career how to properly analyse situations, how to take corrective action, how to implement solutions and how to sustain them. That is happening on every shop floor right across this province by the well-run progressive companies out there.

1540

It was interesting that yesterday as we met with some of the people in the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology over the estimates, they actually put on some of the management programs that are out there for companies to help them worry about quality, to be more efficient and to look at their operations. Of course, you know what happens when you do that: The people become more involved. It goes right back to the fundamental principle of enjoying your job more. There were the old days of, "You go do this and report back to me in 15 minutes," and, "Here's how you do it; come back and then I'll kick you if you don't do it right." When it comes to the shop floor, when it comes to the businesses, progressive businesses are taking a different approach.

When it comes to government, though, we are centralizing everything. We are saying, "No, sorry." I hate to think how many years the employees with experience at Ontario Hydro would be there. Instead of saying, "No, you people have an idea," and "Yes, we are going to set the policy directive because it is an important function, but you people are going to be able to make the decisions," we try and bring it back into the government of the day. Regardless of the political stripe or which party it is, I think the people of this province believe it should be done closer to the source.

Here we have a government that comes in and says, "We are listening, we care and we have met with more business people than anybody else." I think the Treasurer said that this morning. At a time when people are being a little more decentralized in their philosophy, we go and do the exact opposite.

I have had a chance to have some very good discussions with some of the people on the government side when they were talking, and I think back to some of the discussions we had about getting more involved. I am thinking of the member for Chatham-Kent talking about more involvement. He was one of the representatives with the union. At a time when we are talking about doing that and getting more labour involvement with business and so on, when it comes to the government of the day, it is trying to centralize more control into the hands of the people who are least able to make the decisions.

I think that is what concerns me more than anything else with this piece of legislation. It is ironic that at a time when we are championing more involvement with people and on the one hand saying, "We are listening," on the other hand we are taking more powers back to us. As I look at it, I think that is more of a scare to me than any of the actual pieces of legislation, because it goes to the fundamental principle of this government: They believe very clearly they can make decisions better than some of the people across the road.

Bill 118 changes Hydro's mandate to include anything the government says. Regardless of what the programs would be, this government will, through the actions of this bill, allow it to have more control over what is happening. Some of the provisions are of concern to some of the people. As I flip through it and look at some of the sections, section 2 of the bill, subsection 9a(1), permits the government to issue binding policy directives to Ontario Hydro on any matter and basically says that it has, if I can use the term, carte blanche to do whatever it wants. At a time when we are talking about consulting and having more involvement from the people at the lower levels, it introduces this section of legislation which basically says: "No, that is not the way it can be done. This government will have final authority."

Also, section 6 of the bill will allow the government to change Ontario Hydro's mandate by decree. Regardless of whether they have confidence in the present minister, the past minister or any future ministers who might come along, the people of this province say they are concerned about anybody with that much knowledge having the ability to make the decisions. Quite frankly, I think that this comes to the centre of it, and I hope that other pieces of legislation will not come in other areas where the government of the day says it believes it has more control. As I pointed out earlier, the modern management techniques and the progress of the 1990s and all the things that some of the members opposite champion should be to get more involvement, not less.

One of the groups that is concerned, the Municipal Electric Association, has about 312 municipal electrical utilities representing about 75% of the electrical consumers in this province. I would encourage the minister and the parliamentary assistant and the former minister, who is here listening intently to my every word, to be able to point that out to the present minister, because I suspect that the parliamentary assistant has a great deal of influence with the present minister and we will use some of the year's experience of the member for Peterborough in passing that on to the minister. I hope they would be considered very seriously and, if this minister decides not to implement some of the things that have been recommended by some of the people like the Municipal Electric Association, he would say very clearly why not.

I personally would like to see them go through point by point in this Legislature in conjunction with all the people here, and if they are not going to proceed with some of the changes that have been asked for by some of these organizations, they should explain to us very clearly why not. I think they owe that to the people representing 75% of the consumers.

The association has worked hard for many years and, like the rest of the people of this province, it believes in the two long-standing principles that I think are fundamental to this whole question. That is that public power should be power at cost. To put it simply, the Municipal Electric Association believes in a system of municipal public utilities that will provide a safe, reliable supply of electrical power to the people of Ontario, the consumers, the businesses and the people using it. They are the ones who pay the rates based on the actual cost of producing the power, not as a result of some of the other programs that may be put in there.

I think, regardless of their political stripe, people are saying they do not want any more government involvement. As we sit back and reflect on what some of those changes will be, and I know the government's office has said it is not going to change that much -- it is there but we are not going to use it -- I say the public does not buy that. They know very clearly if the power is there, they are trying to grab the power for one reason and one reason only, because they would like to exercise the power. I think that is what is going to scare a lot of the people of the province.

The brief that came from some of the people in the Municipal Electric Association was an attempt to try to be constructive, to explain how the bill will influence and change the concept of power in Ontario, and I hope the members opposite will take a hard look at it. In this day and age, we need to be aboveboard and clear in our intentions because we do not want to see any taxation or any programs that are hidden go through the electrical bill.

Most people, when they see the hydro bills coming in, do not understand where the costs originate from, how all the costs are entailed or what the decisions are. They want to know something very, very plain. They want to know there is going to be a supply of power in this province and that they will be getting it at a reasonable cost, which is a cost that is not inflated by any other programs of the government.

If the government is going to do that, it should put it into the established programs that are there, start a new fund, whatever it wants to do and at least allow the people of this province to know exactly what it is doing. Do not hide it in electrical bills. That is why a lot of people are very concerned about this piece of legislation.

The act goes back for many, many years. We have been very well served. Changes have come about over the last little while, but the original intent was to really form a partnership between the municipalities in order to pay for some of the portions of the services rendered. Again, what we are saying is that in order to be successful and to have the supply of energy that is needed in the future, we need to have an era of co-operation, not confrontation.

Unfortunately, that is what this piece of legislation does. It does not do anything to alleviate the fears that are out there that when push comes to shove, this government will do whatever it needs to do in order to enact its agenda. I think that is a sad state.

1550

Most of the cost of Ontario Hydro has not been borne by the Ontario government. The electric utilities and the electric customers have, over the years, had a very, very prominent role in some of the decision-making process, and with some of the changes that are proposed here, that fundamental principle will change.

Members who have looked through it will know that Bill 118 contains about 11 sections, and three of them combine to fundamentally change the way that Ontario Hydro works. I think those three sections are very significant because they really do combine to fundamentally change the way Ontario Hydro works.

The people of this province and the members who may not have read this bill should know very clearly that this piece of legislation changes it fundamentally. We are not talking about a small cleanup piece of legislation here. It is going to change it fundamentally, and when you get into it and look into much of the detail -- I will not spend too much time going through all of it today, but I would encourage some of the members to look at it, because when we talk about fundamentally changing something, I hope that all sides and all issues will be heard. Some of the points that have been made by the people at Oakville Hydro, the people from the Municipal Electric Association, should in fact and in deed be a part of the consultation process that is out there.

Some of the sections that concern a lot of the people and that I would encourage the members to look at very clearly are section 2 of the bill, section 9a of the current act, which was added to create the policy statement outlined. It is replaced with the following, and I will read it for the members who might not have had a chance:

"9a(1) The minister may issue policy directives that have been approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

"(2) Before issuing a policy directive, the minister shall consult the board with respect to the content and effect of the directive on the corporation.

"(3) The directors shall ensure that policy directives are implemented promptly and efficiently."

It is interesting to note what they mean by "promptly and efficiently." With the wording in that, when I saw it for the first time, I thought when the government of the day snaps its fingers, the directors will have to act promptly, so it is interesting. Although they will consult, they also say promptly, and so the consulting process may be lost.

"(4) A director is not accountable for any consequences arising from the implementation of a policy directive under subsection (3) if he or she acted honestly and in good faith in relation to its implementation.

"(5) The board shall report to the minister whenever it exercises a power or performs a duty to which a policy directive relates."

Again, where we had in the past a hands-off attitude towards it, the government wants to know what is happening. They want to be continually looking over the shoulders of the people at Ontario Hydro to make sure that they are doing exactly what the government wants. As a result, what we may see instead of the long-standing practice of having power at cost and having an ample supply of power to meet the needs of this province, for whatever reason, whether it be through mistake or misguided policies or to be able to appeal to a particular special interest group, whatever the numerous reasons that may be out there, is that the government of the day may enact and direct Ontario Hydro to do something that really may not be in the best interests of Ontario Hydro and ultimately in the best interests of the people of Ontario.

I think that is who we are concerned about more than anybody else. In spite of the fact that we are obviously concerned about the employees who are now going to feel they do not have much input into what is being done, the real people I think we have to be worried about are the consumers, the people of this province who have been well served by Ontario Hydro.

This part of the bill, subsections 9a(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), means a provincial government can essentially issue policy directives that are binding on Ontario Hydro and they must be implemented.

It goes on to say that the Ontario Hydro board of directors, who are supposed to act in the financial interests of the corporation, will not be held responsible if the policy directives that are forced on them turn out to be not in the corporation's financial interest, and that is something that has been different from every other corporation.

As a director, supposedly what you are supposed to do is look after the interests of the corporation because if that prospers and flourishes, then in turn you make sure that your customers are happy, your suppliers are happy, the banks are happy, your employees are happy. Everybody is happy if the directors act in the corporation's interests.

I think that is one of the problems with this government. It had somehow thought that people at the top -- in terms of the top I mean some of the directors -- would not be acting in the interests of some of the people, whether they be the customers or the people working there. But very clearly, as a director, if you have the corporation's interests at the forefront, that is what will help the employees and ultimately your customers. I think we have learned something very clearly. If a corporation's financial house is not in order, then the people that suffer are the employees when that company goes out of business or cannot meet the bills. We have seen too much of that in this province.

It is kind of ironic that we are asking a government to become more involved in the financial interests of Ontario Hydro at a time when it cannot even get its own house in order. Some of us in the province would feel a little bit better if we thought that this government had the ability to manage properly, but as we saw through its management of all the things, whether it be the bills that were introduced going back or I think more fundamentally the budget and the financial matters -- here they are saying, "We're going to have more control over Ontario Hydro," yet when we look at what they have done with the province, they have thrown the province into bankruptcy in one short year."

We all know the statistics. In four years they are going to double the debt, but here they say: "Trust us with this. We are bad managers, yes. We're going to double in four years the accumulated deficit that the province had through its entire history and we're going to run up the biggest deficit in the history of the province, in the history of this country. But when it comes to Ontario Hydro, trust us because we're good managers." I think the credibility is very far stretched.

If this had happened a year ago, even before the budget and the fiascos and the mismanagement of everything from the oath to the Queen and some of the scandals that have been out there, then I think the people might even have been at that time willing to say, "Well, maybe they can manage it," but when they see one year later what this government has done in terms of being able to manage, then they are very sceptical.

Of course, people will remember what I said yesterday in my statement about the Minister of Community and Social Services, where we could not even get a letter to the minister to get an appointment. Three letters were lost. Here we are, in a ministry as important as that, which I guess has, combined with Health, well over half the spending in the province and we cannot even get things into the minister's office for the minister to get a simple reply out so people will know what the heck is going on. Yet they say: "But when it comes to Ontario Hydro we want more control. Trust us, because we're good managers."

I say very clearly the people of this province are sceptical and I suspect even their own people are very sceptical about the ability of this government to manage. When they came in, there was a wait-and-see attitude on some of the concerns out there for the management of this province by this government. Very clearly now that has changed and people are saying, "These people are having difficulty managing their own ministries, their own government, and we do not want them more involved through policy directives in Ontario Hydro." I think that is why people in the province are more scared of this piece of legislation.

The question I think everybody asks about this is, "If you're not going to use it, then why put it in there?" Very clearly the government wants to be able to force Hydro to carry out any of the government's directives, no matter what they are and whether they are financially sound or not. When the minister says "jump," Ontario Hydro will say, "How high?"

I hope that through all this the fine people at Ontario Hydro will continue to do what they believe is in the best interests of the people and not in the best interests of a political party and the government of the day, which may not be around four years from now anyway. I do not know how we can alleviate some of the fears and concerns of those who are working for Ontario Hydro, but very clearly this government is going to act and that is why it wants this in.

1600

Further, I think this section, if one were to reflect upon it, could lead the Hydro directors to refuse to act on anything that is not decreed through a policy directive, in order to protect themselves from liability. We have introduced confusion into it. Instead of worrying about long-term planning and what needs to be done to secure long-term viability of energy in this province, we now have directors, and the people at Hydro are questioning exactly what this government is up to. The situation we are facing nowadays is adding to the confusion out there and I suspect that is going to create in this province some very serious problems.

Section 6 of the bill adds a new section. For those members who have not read it, I will read it:

"56ba(1) The purposes and business of the corporation include the objectives set out in any policy directive issued under subsection 9a(1)." That, I talked about.

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

"(3) The corporation may do such things as in its opinion are necessary, usual or incidental to the furtherance of the objectives set out in the policy directive."

Very clearly, if members read through that and try to go through it, it essentially says that the government of the day will have the final decision and will decide how it is going to act. In a day and age when we are talking about more decentralized control, when the people closer to the action should be making the decision, this piece of legislation is directly fundamental to what most of the modern and progressive businesses and companies and governments of the day are doing.

This section of Bill 118 changes Hydro's mandate to include anything the government forces Hydro to do under a policy directive, meaning that Hydro's mandate would be determined by government decree, not by its relationship to the original objective of the act, the supply of electricity. It also repeats the protection of Hydro directors from liability.

Ontario Hydro should only be able to exercise power and undertake duties that are authorized by legislation. However, this section of Bill 118 would mean that the essence of the Power Corporation Act can be changed by policy directive rather than through the democratic process of legislative debate and amendment. Any time that particular change comes in, there will be a great deal of debate from myself, because I think it is fundamental to the principles.

That touches on some of the other concerns that have been out there. I know my friend the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who has come in, talked about that at length, with the regulations during some of the Police Services Act; also, as I mentioned a couple of times before, the member for Welland-Thorold.

The concern out there is that this sets a dangerous precedent in that it allows the government to bypass the safeguards built into the legislative process and to change Ontario Hydro's mandate by decree. As much as we sometimes get a little critical of how the legislative process slows down changes, the reason we have the process is that before action is taken there is a tremendous amount of consultation. That is why all the members were elected, to do whatever they can to ensure that points of view are heard, some of which I am outlining today.

This gets by that. This gets by and says: "No, we want to act in any manner we believe necessary. We are going to do that." I think some of the people who may be on the government side should be concerned about that, because somewhere along the line they are going to be on this side, and I think the fundamental principle of how we operate should be that the legislative process allows input from all the parties concerned.

When Bill 118 was introduced on June 5, the government said the provisions were similar to some of the provisions in the federal Financial Administration Act, and therefore it had a precedent. When members take a look at it, I do not believe that to be the case.

The government also indicated that the policy directive would only be issued in relation to energy conservation and demand-management programs. However, the current wording does not say this. I think if the public realizes one thing, it realizes that the government will exercise the largest amount of its authority whenever it deems necessary. On the one hand, the government cannot calm our fears and say, "Don't worry about it, we're not going to use it," because in so many instances that has not been the case.

Section 7 of Bill 118 amends section 75 of the current act, which deals with what Ontario Hydro can include in the cost of power to municipal electrical utilities. It amends this section by adding the following to what Hydro can do under subsection 9a(1):

"(ac) the cost of complying with a policy directive issued under subsection 9a(1)."

This part of Bill 118 simply means that the cost of the government policy directives will be borne by the cost of power through the rates we pay and through the rates that electrical consumers pay. That goes to the very fundamental principle which this changes, that power will be at cost. That is the section that says the cost of the government policies will be borne out in the cost of power through the rates you pay. That is where we should be concerned, particularly at a time when we know that the government of the day has difficulty managing its affairs.

When we add all these critical sections up, section 2, section 6 and section 7 of Bill 118 combined will fundamentally change the way Hydro does business and destroy the principle of power at cost. That is what people are concerned about, that it changes the very way Hydro does business and it destroys the principle of power at cost. If these sections become law, Ontario Hydro and the consumers, through their electricity bills, will become the provincial government's new source of taxation revenue. Anything the government wants to do, any program it deems necessary in terms of regional development and in terms of some of the social programs, it can order Hydro to do, and you pay for it through your electricity bill.

As I said earlier, what I think should happen, in my estimation, is that regardless of what the government does, it should do it through the established means and not attempt to do it through Ontario Hydro -- or in fact any other government agency or board. It should be aboveboard, it should be honest with the people, and I would hope this would happen.

Under Bill 118, anything the government deems necessary it can order Hydro to do. The poor people on the board who historically would have been able to say, "No, we're not going to do that because it isn't within the financial interests of the corporation to do that," can no longer say no. That is why they take the liability out from them. They say, "Do it, but don't worry, you're not going to be held responsible." In a day and age when people are saying they want more responsibility from their elected officials, from the people running the companies and from their fellow workers, we are in fact saying: "Take that away. You won't have any responsibility for your actions. Just rubber-stamp it through. You're not going to be hurt through any of the liability." I think that is why they did it. Very clearly, if they did not, there would not be anybody who would be interested in serving on the board, although I suspect that anybody who has to operate under this is going to feel very constrained by the actions of this government.

It may be used for extreme cases; it may be used in simple cases. It may be used once a year; it may be used a hundred times a year. That we do not know. Only time will tell, but the people of this province should be very concerned that indeed it is in there. The government of the day can use the long arm of Ontario Hydro to implement anything by issuing an order in council stating that Hydro would be authorized to do anything it deems necessary. It would have nothing to do with the supply of electricity, but they could do it. One of the concerns people have is that this exercise of great power could be used by a government for something other than ensuring that we have a safe supply of energy in the province.

There are some changes that I think will be proposed, and some people have heard the member for Lanark-Renfrew talk about them. I would encourage the members opposite and the government of the day to listen to some of the changes that have been proposed, because there are some very key ones. As opposition parties, we look at a piece of legislation that has some problems and attempt to add some things to make it better and take some things out that make it better. This bill certainly needs a great deal of work. I hope the members opposite and the government of the day will be listening. They talk about wanting to have more involvement from the opposition parties, and it will be there.

In this case, we not only have an expert in the field of energy as a critic and as a politician -- and he will point out some of the safeguards -- but we also have somebody who knows first hand. He was on the front line. He has served the people through Ontario Hydro and knows through contacts what needs to be done. He is the one who has had to face customers, he is the one who has had to face employees, and this government of the day would do very well to listen to the member and his comments in terms of what he has suggested. If most of the members have not had a chance to listen, they should. In particular, the minister, who is new to the position and does not have much of a background in this field, would do very well to listen to the member for Lanark-Renfrew, as well as the parliamentary assistant, the member who may know a little bit more about it after the year in power.

1610

I believe the debate that has gone on in this Legislature is important. I am concerned any time a government wants to act quickly. To quietly pass this piece of legislation -- I can say the people at Oakville Hydro are on to them. I see my friend the member for Halton North has come back now. He was supposed to be at the meeting with the people from Oakville Hydro. We had that meeting and, as I mentioned earlier, when he was not here, it had to be cancelled. Hopefully, we will get a chance to hear the input and the member will be able to take that back or, more important, be able to defend the government's position if he does not. The people who were in that meeting were some of the people who have worked hard, some of the people who have run for the commissions. These are people who have had to put their seat on the line in the past when it comes to what they have done. As we get together with some of the members in our particular area, I would encourage some of the discussions to come out.

The members on the government side owe it to some of the people in their communities to explain very clearly why they are proceeding with this piece of legislation. I will be the first to sit and listen. I will help the member for Halton North if the people get too excited over this piece of legislation, because they are upset and angry. I will be there as support for him and any of the other government members who might need it. Very clearly, the people are on to them with this piece of legislation, and in this day and age the people who are going to be affected, the people who are working in the area, who have the expertise, are the ones who are going to be standing up and pointing out some of the flaws in this piece of legislation.

Ultimately, it is those people who are going to have the responsibility, because in this day and age when most of the other people are so concerned about some of the other pieces of legislation that affect them fundamentally, day in and day out, they are going to rely on the long-term decisions being made by the people who are associated in this field.

I have added a few points that I think would be helpful on that. I did have a little more, but I think those will be some constructive comments.

The last point I would like to make is that there is a tremendous number of people out there who know the situation, who are concerned about this bill. I would hope the government of the day will listen, because the future of the energy supplies of this province for consumers and for business is very critical. We as legislators should take our responsibility, as we all do, very critically on this piece of legislation, because what we do will have a long-term effect on consumers and business and ultimately in terms of jobs for the people of Ontario.

Mr Huget: I listened with interest to the member for Oakville South, particularly to his comments around rate increases, current and future. I have to remind the member that the rate increase is really the result of decisions that were made in the past. More than half the rate increase is due to the nuclear program. The lower-than-forecast performance of the existing nuclear stations has increased Hydro's costs significantly.

Darlington alone accounts for about one quarter of the increase this year, and customers will face additional increases when the rest of Darlington is brought into service. Moreover, they will be paying for the $13-billion cost of Darlington over the next 40 years. The bill for past decisions must now be paid.

There is another point. In spite of the increases, Ontario's electricity customers face lower costs than customers in most other jurisdictions in North America. For example, the monthly average residential bill in Ontario is currently 29% below the average of other large North American electrical utilities. Even with the 11.8% increase for 1992, these bills are predicted to be 25% lower.

Ontario's industrial prices are also lower than US industrial prices. The government's goal, through its New Energy Directions, is to ensure that Hydro can keep future price increases as low as possible. Making customers more energy-efficient will also help lower customers' energy costs. The government has the ultimate authority to act in the public interest, and it will do so and ensure that the activities of Ontario Hydro are always in the best interests of the people of Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: I thank the parliamentary assistant for his statement and I thank the member for Oakville South for his contribution to the debate. One of the things that bothers me about this bill is the conclusion we have to draw, that the minister's conception of what power costs is somewhat different from my conception. Unfortunately his interpretation is purely subjective.

In particular we have to look at what happened at Elliot Lake. I keep coming back to this, but I think it is significant. Recently, as a result of a problem being experienced by the people of Elliot Lake, a problem which warranted consideration and attention from the government, this government directed Ontario Hydro to donate $65 million to the northern Ontario heritage fund. It did that at a time when the existing legislation was in place. That legislation provides that Hydro cannot be compelled to do anything unless it is within its ambit of providing power at cost, so somehow this donation is deemed to be within the ambit of providing power at cost.

If that is power at cost, then I say the ratepayers of this province have a great deal to fear from this bill because of the particular interpretation being put on it by this minister. Just so we know what happened to that $65 million, $10 million of it was directed to be used for job creation programs. Approximately another $10 million was used to pay off debts of two municipal councils, Elliot Lake and Blind River. Why are the Hydro ratepayers going to be saddled with those costs? Again, we are not against helping out the people of Elliot Lake in any way whatsoever, but that is an appropriate job for the government and not for Hydro.

Mr Stockwell: The first point I would like to make is that they cannot comprehend in the government that it was good business decisions and sound management that gave us a low rate, decisions put in place that guaranteed us a low rate. The changes the government is legislating today will not guarantee that low rate. It will not be able to stand up and claim superiority in pricing to neighbouring jurisdictions. That is the kind of intelligent and thoughtful process that went into the operation of this facility.

Second, they will pass on the cost and the cost will be passed on to the consumer and the manufacturer and it will cost them more to do business in this province, which is another incentive to leave. They are leaving at an alarming rate because they do not trust the government and do not believe it.

Third, this government is gutless and spineless. When they announced the cap for their 2,000 highest-paid employees yesterday, the gutless and spineless group that they are no longer accept responsibility for setting the chairman's and CEO's salary. Why? Because their dip friend wants to make $400,000 a year and they did not want to kick him off. Rather than setting the record straight and holding down the cost to Hydro and setting his salary at a reasonable rate during these recessionary times, they passed it off to the board, which he chairs and of which he is CEO. If the government is going to defend the decision it made yesterday it should defend it for all the bureaucrats, not just the people who do not happen to be NDP friends and affiliates.

1620

Mr Duignan: I have listened with great interest to the rhetoric coming from across the floor here. What we are doing is nothing different from what they did when they were in power, except for some very basic differences. What they did was in closed session, informal policy decisions with senior management. Who were those people? I believe they were Tory bagmen. We are opening up the process to the taxpayers of this province, making Ontario Hydro more accountable to the people for things that government failed to do, and when they had an opportunity, they failed to do so too.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): We now have had four participants, which is the maximum we are allowed. The honourable member for Oakville South has two minutes to reply.

Mr Carr: I would have liked to hear the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, but he will probably get a chance to give it to me. I say to my friend the member for Halton North, who as I mentioned earlier was supposed to be at the meeting with Oakville Hydro, that I hope he will defend --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Oakville South has the floor.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I hope my friend the member for Halton North will be prepared to say that to people like those at Oakville Hydro. He will be at the meeting. I say to the members I hope he has as much enthusiasm, because when I have talked to those people they have had as much enthusiasm as he does. Unfortunately it was against the bill. As I said earlier, I would like to be there to see the goings-on.

I hope he will be prepared to defend the bill before the people who really know, because those are the people who deal with it day in and day out. When he gets a chance to face them and defend the position, I would like to be there. I will be there to see it because I do not believe he is going to be able to defend it before the people who really know. It is a little ironic that the opportunity to defend it was not taken.

If I had been the member on the government side, I think I would have refused to meet with some of the people as well. I say they have a responsibility. It is part of the tough part of being in government. I think the members opposite have not listened to some of the points we made today in terms of trying to be constructive on some of the ideas. The ironic thing is that day in and day out the Premier champions that we want to hear from the people. They have one of the finest members who knows more about this field, having worked in it day in and day out on the front lines and yet nobody listens to him. This is a sad day. I just hope for my kids' sake the lights do not go out because of this government.

The Acting Speaker: I must remind all members that interjections are out of order, particularly when they come from members who are not in their own seats. Further debate, the honourable member for Niagara Falls.

Ms Harrington: I think it is very important for several reasons for me, as the member representing Niagara Falls, to make some comments with regard to this proposed amendment to the Power Corporation Act. First of all, Hydro historically for many decades, since the turn of the century, has been an integral part of our city. Also in a historical context, in 1987 I ran against the Minister of Energy, Vince Kerrio, the then member for Niagara Falls, on several issues with regard to Hydro, the matter of whether Hydro was out of control in Ontario and the costs of building the Darlington nuclear station, which are now reflected in the rates this province is going to have to pay.

I would like to start with the importance of Hydro to the city of Niagara Falls. Everywhere you go in Niagara Falls you see evidence of Hydro, whether it is the change in the flow of the Welland River -- locally we call it the Chippawa Creek -- in a reverse direction to the canal, whether it is the huge canal that is dug right through the heart of our city or whether it is the power stations along the face of the gorge. Hydro is very much a part of our city and owns much property within the city.

Of course it has affected the environment of the city. It has also affected the economy of the city, as it has very much affected the economy of this whole province. It is an integral and very important part of our economic future as well as our past.

In the 1920s the Sir Adam Beck No 1 station was built. In the 1950s the tunnel was dug and also the canal through the city, and I believe 10,000 workers were imported to the city. I guess many of them stayed. It was a great influx of money and economy to our city.

Even from the beginning of this century the abundance of power at Niagara Falls has caused our industrial base to prosper there. We have many abrasives factories which go back almost to the turn of the century. Of course the future of all industry across Ontario, as well as Niagara Falls, is dependent upon a reliable source of power.

Right now the rates we pay in Ontario are less than comparable situations in the northern and central United States; 70% of the power we produce in Ontario is industrial or commercial power, 20% is residential and the other 10% is for farm use and other uses.

The reliability of that supply is most crucial to our future. I believe all the members as well as the general public know we are now facing a jump in the increase in the cost of power. We did last year, we are this year and possibly will be next year. By 1994 the rate should stabilize for the next 10 years.

There is one thing the previous speaker, the member for Oakville South, said which was correct, that we certainly must plan ahead. The increases we are facing right now are a direct result of the plans that were made by previous governments, and especially the cost of the Darlington nuclear power station. Just last night's Peterborough paper says, "Hydro is hiking its rates by just under 12%, or an average of $7 per residential customer as of January 1. More than half the rate increase will go to pay for the $13.5-billion Darlington nuclear generating station," so it is common knowledge that what we are reaping today is the result of these decisions that have been made by previous governments.

Besides that historical context, I would like to set this decision to go ahead with these amendments to the Power Corporation Act in the historical setting of this Legislature during the 1980s. Although I was not here during the 1980s I have some quotes, and these are directly from the Hansard of this chamber. I think this will give us a good idea of what has been going on.

First of all, I mentioned the previous Minister of Energy during the previous government was Mr Vincent Kerrio, MPP for Niagara Falls. This is what he said in 1983 when he was critic for Energy for the opposition party during the Conservative government of 42 years leading up to 1985: "Ontario Hydro is not only out of control. It is not only not accountable to this Legislature; it is not accountable to anyone."

The Liberal leader, Mr Peterson, quoted in the Toronto Star, said in 1983: "Ontario Hydro has been allowed to run out of control. It now has a larger debt than the government of Ontario."

At the same time as that article in the Toronto Star, Mr Peterson also said, "Ontario Hydro has been allowed to slip through the cracks of the legislative authority." That applies directly to what this government is now trying to do.

Let me continue. I like this quote because it is from another MPP from Niagara Falls. I hardly remember; this is before I even moved to Niagara Falls. Mr George Bukator said, back in 1969, "Hydro has become a monster that cannot be controlled by this Legislature."

I have a further quote from Patrick Reid, who was the Liberal finance critic. This is from 1982, and if one remembers back that far, when my children were small, we did go to see Star Wars. He said: "Star Wars must surely have been inspired by Ontario Hydro. I can think of no other empire with the ability to strike back at the public with such impunity."

Further, in 1983, David Peterson said, "Hydro must be held to account and the direction of the monolith changed so that it will be a servant of the people rather than the master of its own fate." That is what we are attempting to do.

Vince Kerrio, again in that same debate in 1983 in this House, said, "The thing that Hydro does to justify its existence is to have nearly as large a staff in public relations as the Ministry of Energy has to run its whole operation." That is the context of Ontario Hydro.

Now we have a quote from the current Premier with regard to the environmental policies of Ontario Hydro. This was from 1983 as well. He said, "Ontario Hydro's decision to renege on its earlier commitment to put in scrubbers has created a credibility problem for Ontario and for Canada among some congressmen in the United States."

The government obviously was concerned about environmental policy -- the Conservative government at that time, I believe, certainly would be concerned about environmental policy -- and was trying, as I understand from this quote, to get Ontario Hydro to put in scrubbers at one or more of its plants within Ontario. The lack of will of Ontario Hydro to do that was at that time causing Ontario's government and possibly even Canada's government to not be credible with environmental people in the United States and, from this quote, congressmen in certain states of the US.

In effect, if Ontario Hydro does not believe that environmental policy, or whatever policy it happens to be, is important to the government of Ontario, it does not seem to feel that it has to go along with the policy. This is exactly what the amendments we are looking at now are trying to do.

Vince Kerrio again has a quote, "Ontario Hydro could be more aptly described as the Ontario Energy Enterprise Corp, probably under the mandate of Empire Builders of America." Also, "Hydro has done a very good job of frightening the people of Ontario into letting it do anything with threats -- otherwise, the lights will go out." I think we have heard that a couple of times from the previous speaker this afternoon. It is very easy to threaten that the lights will go out.

Mr Kerrio concludes by calling it "a giant bureaucracy grown beyond any kind of accountability." This was in 1983 when he was the critic calling for the government of the day to bring some accountability to Ontario Hydro.

One other person, Jim Taylor, former Minister of Energy -- and this is from at time even previous to that, in 1978 -- said Hydro's internal bureaucracy is so tangled that "often the chairman of the board doesn't have the decision-making potential you might think he has."

So there is quite a history involved before these amendments were put forward.

Finally, I quote from the Liberal leader of the day, David Peterson, in 1983, "The high cost of Hydro's nuclear plant construction is jeopardizing the very financial soundness of this province."

The rates, I have just read from yesterday's paper, are going up across this province, and it is due to what Mr Peterson had said way back in 1983, what the previous speaker, the member for Oakville South, has said: that we reap down the road, years down the road, the results of the decisions that are made by Ontario Hydro.

I have shown from quotes from this chamber that these decisions by Ontario Hydro have not been controlled -- -maybe I should not use that word -- they have not been as closely tied to the policy of the Legislature as they should be.

In the period between 1985 and 1987, Mr Kerrio was the Minister of Energy in this province. When I spoke with him in 1987, and we spoke publicly, I said: "Mr Kerrio, these are your quotes, when you were the critic for Energy in this province, about trying to bring Ontario Hydro under control. What have you done?"

Between 1985 and 1987, there was no piece of legislation in this House that had to do with Ontario Hydro. There was no attempt to answer the charges that had been laid in this House that Ontario Hydro was out of control. I think it shows very clearly that the time has come for the will, the determination, to do something about this.

I was going to mention one other angle on this, and that is the Ontario Energy Board, which is a board of people who are to be a watchdog, an adviser, to Ontario Hydro. What kind of role have they had?

Back many years ago, in the early 1980s, the board actually recommended directly to Ontario Hydro that it lower its public relations costs. Of course, we want power at cost, but do we get power at cost? No, we get power at public relations costs, plus many other costs. The public relations costs in 1981 were $10 million. They escalated by 1983 to $30 million. So what kind of input, what kind of advice would Hydro take from the Ontario Energy Board? It certainly does not look like much.

We asked, as many people asked, that the Ontario Energy Board have some say in the rates that would be set for Ontario Hydro. But no, it is only an advisory board.

In 1987, Mr Kerrio, quoted in our Niagara Falls Review paper, said, "If the board was in power to set rates, it would increase them to pay for the debt, and I wouldn't want to see that shock on the system."

We have to pay the debts, and we are paying them now. We have to face the music years later for the decisions that have been made before us. Because Darlington went way over cost, because policy was made behind closed doors instead of in the public domain, that is why we have higher rates now. I believe anyone looking at this whole situation rationally would have to reach the same conclusion.

It is now evident that this government, the New Democratic government, is the only government that can and will and is determined to bring this giant monopoly under control and stop the empire-building which has been going on for quite some time.

The whole reason for doing this is to better serve the people of Ontario. This bill will make Ontario Hydro more open, more accountable to the people, and will bring policymaking to the public domain.

I would like to finish with one further comment. With regard to the actual wording of the amendments in the bill, this is very important, because the future supply of electricity in this province is so crucial to our future and our economic renewal that I think every phrase of this bill, of these amendments, should be examined in public. It is very important to hear from everybody involved, all of the stakeholders, whether they be industry or business, small or large, especially, I believe, the businesses in Niagara Falls, which depend so much on a reliable and cheap source of power, a competitive source of power. I think it is very important that we as a government make sure it gets out to committee, that we hear how this bill can possibly be improved, but certainly not take away from any of the basic thrusts of this bill, which have been so long in coming and which are so needed.

1640

Mr McGuinty: I enjoyed the member's historical references to other members of this House who have levelled criticisms, many of them very legitimate, against Ontario Hydro.

I note also with interest that her references were coming from a book which I believe to be Larry Solomon's book, a fellow from Energy Probe, called Power at What Cost?

Ms Harrington: I didn't quote the book. I quoted only Hansard.

Mr McGuinty: That is fine, yes. I am not concerned with that.

I have a question for the member. If she has read through the book, the member will undoubtedly understand that Mr Solomon makes the argument that it does not matter if we change the players, that is, it does not matter if we put Hydro's directors in charge of Hydro or if we put governments in charge of Hydro, because he does not have much faith in governments. His recommendation is that Ontario Hydro should be privatized. I would like the member's opinion regarding that particular approach advocated by Mr Solomon. The member may be aware that in a number of jurisdictions throughout the world at present there is a trend towards privatization, and Ontario Hydro in some ways is a bit of a holdover from an earlier day. I wonder if I can get the member's thoughts with respect to that particular approach.

I might indicate as an example, and I am coming back to Elliot Lake, that when we have given government an opportunity -- and other governments have abused this power as well -- to manipulate or to exert influence over Ontario Hydro, it has often been to the detriment of the ratepayers.

Mr Jordan: I would just like to talk for a minute on the phrase that is being used so commonly on the government side, that Ontario Hydro is out of control. What bothers me is that the legislation we are being asked to put in place does not indicate a solution to a problem, if in fact the problem existed.

What is the definition of a corporation being out of control? I cannot think of any utility or corporation or company that has been so investigated by all governments over the years. After a lot of money and time and contacts with personnel of the utility who have the answers for the government, after they do the study, then they find out that in fact the utility has been doing the job that the people of Ontario have expected it to do.

I certainly agree with the member that there are departments in certain areas in any corporation that need to be turned around, that the management needs to be looked at, that the size of that division maybe should be scaled down, and that corporations, like the government with its 92,000 employees, are reluctant to scale down the staff. With Ontario Hydro, it is for the simple reason that it has a lot of very highly skilled technical people who I can assure members are not going to stay in Ontario unless we have work for them.

Mr Mahoney: I am a little concerned about some of the comments. I think it is always helpful to go back in Hansard and read comments made in days past. Hydro traditionally has been I guess what you would refer to as the whipping boy of the Legislature.

There is, I think, a general agreement that there is some need to get Hydro under control. I question how this particular act is doing that, really, when you think that the total debt of the corporation of Ontario Hydro is about $30 billion and when you compare that to the debt of the province when we left office, somewhat unceremoniously, I might add, it was $39 billion for the entire province. It is somewhat startling.

I recall many members of the NDP when they were on this side of the House -- Mr Speaker, I am sure you will recall as well -- saying that when the government states its debt position, it should include the debt for Ontario Hydro, yet past governments have been reluctant to do that. I assume this government, since we have not had a statement on it, is changing its position in that matter as well as the many other areas where it has changed and is not prepared to include the debt of Hydro into its total financial picture.

This government is using Hydro as a tool, as an instrument of social policy. When you take a look at the fact that they are using the dollars available in Hydro to solve problems of other social concern, whether it be in Kapuskasing or in Elliot Lake, instead of funding that openly and honestly with the people through the government debt, they are using Hydro as an instrument to solve social policy issues. I do not think we are going to see major changes under this particular legislation, and I wish the government would look at the debt financing.

The Acting Speaker: We can have one more participant.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: The member for Niagara Falls says that tying policies of Ontario Hydro to policies of this province is a good thing. I feel that is a very broad statement. I feel it could even be a dangerous statement.

Ontario Hydro's responsibility is to provide power at cost. That is what its responsibility has been to this province.

The member continues to reiterate that this whole bill is going to make Ontario Hydro much more accountable. I did not hear her once in her remarks mention the people who are on the front line in Hydro in this province, and they are the members of the hydroelectric commissions of this province, who are well represented and who are democratically elected in many communities. Many of them will be renewing their commitment on November 12 this year. These people are accountable day after day in their communities.

To say that bringing Hydro's policies in union with government policies is the only way to go in accountability is in my mind some kind of misrepresentation of how accountability and responsibility in the provision of energy in this province has traditionally been provided.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Niagara Falls has two minutes to reply.

Ms Harrington: It is difficult to touch on all the points that have been raised. First of all, I want to say that I believe there is a general agreement somewhere down deep here between all three parties, both historically and now, that we want to improve the situation with Ontario Hydro. I believe it is up to those people as well as us and the public out there to ensure that we have the best amendments possible, and I am looking forward to members' participation in all the ins and outs and intricacies of this bill.

The first member asked the question about privatization which was raised by Mr Solomon. That is a very broad and deep theoretical question, but we believe -- at least I speak for myself -- that there are some things that are so important they should be in the public domain.

One example that comes to my mind because I am from Niagara Falls is the Niagara Parks Commission, which was established 100 years ago. People realized way back then that if we let the private sector just take over, you would have hot dog stands and wax museums right at the very brink of the falls. So government, that is, the Niagara Parks Commission, is now in charge because it is important to the public of this province. There are many other examples of that and I believe Ontario Hydro should be the part of a system of public ownership that it is.

1650

The question of social policy: I did not state in my remarks -- maybe someone else did; I am not sure -- that social concerns should be part of Ontario Hydro. I believe it is an economic tool. It always has been and it will be in the future. I do recognize the importance of our local elected utility commissions. They are very important and we believe they should be part of this control in Ontario.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I rise this afternoon to take part in the debate on second reading of Bill 118. This bill presents this House with certain fundamental changes to the structure and mandate of Ontario Hydro, and many of us, particularly on this side, have pointed that out very clearly.

These changes, I believe, will be detrimental to the people of Ontario. I would like to take this opportunity to add my thoughts to those this House has already heard from many of my colleagues. The riding of Ottawa-Rideau, which I represent in this Legislature, contains areas within three of Ontario's cities: Ottawa, Nepean and Gloucester. Representatives from the hydroelectric commissions in all three of these cities, which make up the riding of Ottawa-Rideau, have contacted me, have come to my office personally, to show me the reasons they feel Bill 118 is a regressive step.

In addition, I have received a copy of the position paper drawn up by the Municipal Electric Association, which outlines in detail its concerns about the proposed legislation, some of which I feel have been addressed in the amendments we are about to discuss. The Municipal Electric Association represents 75% of the consumers in Ontario. That is the group I just mentioned in my remarks. For that reason alone, 75% of the consumers being represented, I believe all and each of its statements, concerns, letters and telephone calls must be taken seriously.

The hydroelectric commissions of Ottawa, Nepean and Gloucester are unanimous. That is not always the case. They are unanimous in their objection to this government's attempt to meddle -- the words "meddle" and "interfere" have been used by these informed people -- and interfere with a long-standing mandate of Ontario Hydro, which is to supply power at cost to the citizens of this province. Compelling Ontario Hydro to comply congruently with government policy directives sets a very dangerous precedent in the relationship between Ontario Hydro and the government of Ontario -- a unique step, but certainly not a progressive step.

As my colleagues have stated earlier in this debate, this directive power amounts to a very hidden, but again regressive form of taxation. This bill gives the NDP government the power to direct Ontario Hydro's spending on various matters of energy-related government policy. That is with the amendments. It was much more devastating before the amendments and the retraction made by the Minister of Energy in this House yesterday.

Here we have new directions on various matters of energy-related government policy. Bill 118 would restrict and limit the autonomy of Ontario Hydro to fund programs it believes to be in the best interests of Ontario's ratepayers. The first and foremost responsibility of hydroelectric commissions and Ontario Hydro is certainly their ratepayers.

The example of Elliot Lake is instructive here, and that is a recent example. The provision of financial assistance to that devastated community is, I think we can all agree, a most necessary function of government. This assistance, however, should properly have come from the Ontario taxpayer generally through the consolidated revenue fund and not directly from the Ontario Hydro ratepayer; a regressive tax, a hidden tax they did not know they were paying.

The Ontario Hydro consumer, both industrial -- may I state that the industrial component certainly is very directly related to the recovery from the recession we all want to get out of -- and residential, must use hydro. Many of them do not have any choice and they are going to pay disproportionately for regional economic subsidies, which are no doubt priorities for this government but which do not fall within the responsibility of Ontario Hydro.

There is a fundamental question of taxation policy, of revenue collection incorporated in this bill. It raises the question of whether this government recognizes the difference between regressive and progressive taxation. Certainly those of us who have listened to NDP members over the years have always been told that the taxation that has been in existence in this province has been regressive, that we want a more progressive form of taxation. To this date, I have not seen a change. I have seen regressive tax placed on regressive tax, and I mentioned that earlier in question period today.

Martin Montague has been chairman of Nepean Hydro for a long time. He is a very highly respected member of the community I represent. He is quoted in this week's Nepean Clarion: "The proposed changes to the Power Corporation Act will turn Ontario electricity bills into a new source of hidden taxation for the provincial government. This philosophy goes against the long-standing principle of power at cost and it must be strongly opposed." Mr Montague has served his community on the hydro commission for 20 years. He knows of what he speaks. He goes on to say, "Hydro electricity bills will be higher in a time of economic hardship for Ontario residents and businesses and discourage much needed growth." I remind the members Mr Montague is also a businessman in my community.

While Premier Rae says his economic goal is to be competitive in international markets, day after day, competitiveness seems not to be part of the intent of this government. High energy costs and a competitiveness spirit: they just do not gel. You just do not get people coming into a province when you have the highest energy costs and they are being directed by a government for purposes other than energy.

In a letter to me dated September 25, 1991, Mr Bisaillon, chairman of the Hydroelectric Commission of the City of Gloucester, said: "Under Bill 118, the provincial government would be able to issue policy directives that bypass the democratic legislative process," and which "are binding on Ontario Hydro.... In addition, Bill 118 would force Ontario electricity consumers to pay for these policy directives through their rates" -- the rates of the ratepayers of Ontario -- "This is unacceptable," says Mr Bisaillon, and I agree with this gentleman.

1700

This is not just a concern of eastern Ontario, Mr Speaker, although you know as well as I that this region has been particularly hard hit by the recession. Our leader and members of our caucus have had letters from all parts of the province expressing shock and outrage at the intention of this government to impose its policy objectives on Ontario Hydro ratepayers. This form of hidden tax grab -- at its very best, a regressive tax -- is particularly dangerous in that the government has no direct accountability to the ratepayers upon whom it is forcing higher and higher rates. Increases of 40% to 45% are projected over the next three years and may even be greater than that.

They are going to be tied to government policy that is now going on a $9.7-billion deficit, not knowing whether that is really going to be the final figure this year, let alone next year, a back-breaking increase of 40% to 45%. This whole policy and indeed Bill 118 itself have to be re-examined, should be resisted, at the very best reviewed. Hopefully this bill will be reconsidered further. Ontario cannot absorb costs of 40% to 45% in this time of recession and unemployment.

Ontario Hydro's chair, Marc Eliesen, announced on September 11 not only his salary but that Ontario Hydro rates for 1991 will be increased by 11.8%, and that was before Bill 118 had passed this Legislature. Indeed, it has not passed this Legislature. Thus this uncontrollable fire has already started. How much more can the beleaguered ratepayer pay next year, I ask again, when it is tied to government policy which has not got this budgetary process under any control? Certainly its forecasts are less than substantial.

The Treasurer is really calling the shots on Hydro rates and we have seen that the Treasurer has not been very successful in calling the shots on very much of the budget process to this point. "Spot on" means something different to this Treasurer than it does to me. We are talking here of an essential service, an essential part of every community and most people's homes, being priced beyond the ability of Ontario's businesses and Ontario ratepayers to pay.

These strongly voiced concerns that I have heard, and that no doubt members have heard, have been raised by the hydroelectric commissions all across this province and by many ratepayers across this province. Surely this government must see that this ill-conceived piece of legislation, which has already been changed drastically, is a mistake. It was changed drastically in the amendments presented in this House yesterday, before we really even began the debate, so it is ill-conceived. In fact, over the past few days we have seen this government backtrack on many important policies. On this one, the backtracking has been good. We hope they will continue to backtrack and withdraw the whole of the bill.

The criticism has been focused. It was immediate. Concerned Ontarians knew they were at risk. I urge this government again to withdraw Bill 118. I am delighted that the NDP government has agreed to public hearings. What I am not sure of and what I really hope will happen is that these will be full public hearings, that they will travel the province, because the communities across this province that will be affected are not within the very environs of the city of Toronto.

We as legislators have to go out to the communities to see how hard-pressed they are. We have to go to eastern and northern Ontario to see what these rate increases of 40% to 45% are going to do to these communities, to the businesses and residents of these communities. I ask again for full public hearings across this province for as long as it takes to hear the people who want to to be heard on this bill. This bill deserves open and long debate, because we have to find a way to either withdraw it or make it more meaningful and accountable to the people of this province.

Legislation that removes the accountability, and this bill does that, of Ontario Hydro to provide hydro at cost, which again I reiterate is its main raison d'être, has to be more accurately looked at, more closely revisited, revised, recalled. The ratepayers of this province deserve nothing less. Indeed, all Ontarians will be affected by Bill 118, either in the price of the goods they buy or the services that are in their own homes. I ask this government and the government members to reconsider Bill 118, to continue to press for amendments to that bill and to ask for full public hearings across the province on this bill which is so important to this province.

Mr J. Wilson: In listening to the previous speaker from the Liberal Party, two thoughts struck me. One is that my message to the NDP government would be that even the Liberals, who tried to be all things to all people -- and what we saw was mediocrity across the board -- even they did not try to politicize Ontario Hydro. Shame on the government for its attempts with Bill 118 to politicize Ontario Hydro.

Second, I am a little confused. Perhaps when one of the members of the government has an opportunity to respond in the two-minute rebuttal, he or she could clarify the matter of whether the government has agreed to public hearings or not, because the Premier and his colleagues on the campaign trail themselves used to screech at every all-candidates meeting -- I remember them very well-about how open the government would be and how accessible it would be.

That is striking, because I get calls every day to my office saying, "Bob won't talk to me on the phone." I say: "God, did you really believe the guy? You thought you were going to be able to pick up the phone and talk to the Premier of the province?" None the less, I have sent dozens of letters to the Premier's office saying: "Mr and Mrs So-and-so from my office have been attempting to talk to you, Premier. You've said in the campaign, you've said several times since, that you'd be available and absolutely open and accessible to the people of Ontario. Please give them a call." I have yet to hear back on the dozens of letters I have sent the poor guy, yet to hear back whether he has returned any of those calls.

The people of Ontario want input. This is extremely important legislation. In a few minutes I will have my opportunity to give the members some input on behalf of the residents of my riding and the concerned people in Ontario who have contacted my office. My good colleague the member for Lanark-Renfrew, our critic for Energy, has received dozens and dozens of letters from concerned people, and not just from individuals but from groups, from many public utilities commissions, that are very concerned about this bill.

Mr Mahoney: It is nice to have the Minister of the Environment here with us today.

I want to congratulate the member for Ottawa-Rideau on her speech and point out that when the members opposite get excited it really lends credence to our arguments because what we come to realize is that perhaps the people in the back benches of the New Democratic Party do not understand the hidden agenda of this government. The member is too much of a lady, I submit, to put forward the hidden agenda. However, I am not and I would be delighted to give the members my opinion, because the hidden agenda is very similar to the one in Environment.

The hidden agenda is that if the government drives the costs through the roof, people will conserve. If they conserve in energy, we will not need nuclear as an option. That is their hidden agenda.

1710

An hon member: There is nothing hidden.

Mr Mahoney: Sure it is. But there is a problem they do not understand: The reason we will not need nuclear, and indeed the reason we will not even need co-generation or any generation of additional hydro, is that this government is putting everybody out of business; nobody can afford this government. The members opposite do not think so. That is what is amazing. What is wrong with an 11.8% increase when they are paying the chairman $400,000 a year?

Does the government realize that what it is doing is making it absolutely impossible? There will be darkness in all the buildings in downtown Toronto and there will be darkness in the office buildings in Sault Ste Marie because there will be no businesses left to turn the lights on. The government should understand what it is doing: It is bankrupting the province.

Mr McGuinty: We like to engage in all kinds of esoteric and sometimes academic arguments in this House relating to a number of issues, including the energy issues, and we talk a great deal about supply and demand. But the people on the street, I can assure members, are not talking about supply and demand; they are talking about their hydro bills.

The question, of course, that I would have as a ratepayer is, what does Bill 118 do for my hydro bills? In the context within which we are operating, that is the crux of this matter. That particular context is this: We have been told by the new chair of Ontario Hydro that we are going to have increases, cumulative over the next three years, of 44% on our hydro bills. This past year our increase was 15.6%, taking into consideration GST. Next year, we have been told, it is going to be 11.8%.

What is this bill going to do for my hydro bill? Can I take comfort in knowing that this bill will ensure that my hydro bill will not be unduly elevated and, furthermore, will be controlled? I have to respond in only one particular way, and that is that the answer is --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Ottawa South has only two minutes.

Mr McGuinty: This bill will do nothing whatsoever to help control my hydro bill. In fact, given the track record of the government, given its propensity to involve Hydro in social policy initiatives, it only means one things for my hydro bill, and that is that it is going to be further elevated. It will not be controlled. This bill will only exacerbate the problem, and I can take no comfort whatsoever as a hydro bill payer.

Mr Jordan: I would just like to comment on the input of my colleague the member for Ottawa-Rideau to this debate. I think she has brought out a very important factor. When we were talking about Ontario Hydro being out of control, she brought to the attention of the House that over 70% of the customers are covered by the Municipal Electric Association, which elects its membership every three years, the same as municipal councils, and these people monitor the operation of Ontario Hydro. It is done not only from this Legislature, it is done right from the grass roots, right up through to the chairman. The people have brought many concerns to the chairman and board of Ontario Hydro, and they have heeded them and they have acted.

The government cannot legislate good management. If they do not have good management, then they should hire it, but they cannot legislate management. They can issue all the directives they like, but they will not end up with an efficient, well-run utility.

This idea that we are going to have the power to direct Ontario Hydro and bypass this Legislature is going to do absolutely nothing for the people of Ontario and will do absolutely nothing for the cost of building future generation. It does not matter whether this government builds it in the next three years, but it is going to build it.

This thing of saying they are going to save 700 megawatts of energy is false. They are not going to save 700 megawatts of energy; they are going to transfer it into fossil fuels and put C02 into the air, and we will have far more problems than we will ever have from using nuclear energy.

The Acting Speaker: This terminates the debate. The honourable member for Ottawa-Rideau has two minutes to reply.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I am very pleased that recognition of the Hydro commissioners has finally come to the floor of this House. These men and women who serve in our communities have done more for energy conservation in this province than any government. They are good managers, they are good communicators, and I have nothing but praise for the people who offer themselves in what is often a very humble position in the community but which is a very key position. Many of them get calls much more often than we realize. Whenever there is a storm, an ice storm in particular, these people are on the front lines, and they deserve our support.

I want to reiterate that tying Ontario Hydro's policies and decision-making to this government's policies and decision-making is dangerous, particularly when they are tied so closely to the decisions of the Treasurer and the decisions of the Premier in this government that has a $9.7-billion deficit this year.

Mr Mahoney: It is hard to say that, isn't it?

Mrs Y. O'Neill: It is hard for me to get out because it is hard for me to believe. It is a $9.7-billion deficit this year and we do not know what it will be next year.

We are asking ourselves to tie another agency's fiscal policies to a government policy that seems to be out of control, mismanaged. It has been changed within five months of its presentation to this House. That makes me very shaky about tying economic policies to a government that has not got an economic plan.

Energy costs are directly related to the recovery of this province. They certainly are related to the economic recovery of the commercial sector and to the recovery of many individuals who find the hydro bill is the thing that is breaking their backs.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Bill 118. The honourable member for Simcoe West.

Interjections.

Mr J. Wilson: I thank the NDP members. I know they always look forward to my speeches in this House because essentially they will learn something once again from the commonsense approach that I and my caucus colleagues on this side of the House take.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to join in this very important debate today. For one reason, it is a historic debate. It is a historic debate because the ladies and gentlemen who sit across from us, who form the government, have decided to implement socialism right in the heart of Ontario Hydro, and we are here to tell them that it is not a good idea.

The legislation we have before us, Bill 118, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act, is significant for two other primary reasons. First, it will have profound and far-reaching consequences for Ontario Hydro and, second, it embodies the most critical faux pas this government continues to make; that is, this government continues to misinterpret its mandate when it won some 38% of the popular vote in the last election. While Ontario residents have given the NDP a mandate to govern, they did not surrender the NDP a blank cheque to implement its socialist agenda.

About 40 years ago, then British Prime Minister Winston Churchill -- members of the government know who Winston Churchill was, do they not?

Mr Dadamo: Yes, I think we have heard of him.

Mr J. Wilson: They can read history. It is reassuring. I was not sure.

Winston Churchill, while touring the American Midwest, spoke of the Iron Curtain that was being drawn by the USSR across eastern Europe. Today, businesses and individuals in Ontario are coming face to face with the very same reality that Churchill spoke about four decades ago. It is amazing how history repeats itself when those who cannot read history and refuse to learn from history do not take the time to learn from history.

Bill 118 is one more act in a play designed by the NDP government to draw an iron curtain over economic growth in this province. Bill 118 is a shameless, senseless attempt by the government to control and politicize Ontario Hydro. This political coup comes at the worst possible time for a province attempting to lift itself from the throes of the economic recession. With Bill 118, the Premier and his merry band of business busters are once again short-circuiting the few remaining hopes held by industry and business that they can survive and prosper in this province.

1720

Bill 118 is not good legislation. It is self-serving, manipulative and ignores the economic realities that exist in Ontario, the economic realities that I and my colleagues on this side of the House try, day in and day out, to point out to this government, not what Marxist theory is, not what Stephen Lewis/Bob Rae socialist theory is, not the type of crap government members spewed at all-candidates meetings during the election, but realities -- the men and women in this province who pay taxes, the highest-taxed jurisdiction in North America, the portables in our schoolyards, the lineups for health services. There are all kinds of issues -- yesterday, nursing homes -- that the government fails to address because it is spending time, wasting taxpayers' dollars, trying to politicize and implement a socialist agenda through Ontario Hydro, and I say shame.

Not only does this legislation signal a dark day for Ontario, but I fear that it blacks out any chance for economic recovery in this province. With Bill 118, the Premier and his government are in effect dimming the lights on the 18,868 Ontario workers who have been affected by layoffs and plant closures in the first eight months of this year. The government's House lights are on, but no one seems to be home for the thousands of people left unemployed by a recession that has seen unemployment rise in the second quarter of 1990 to 9.6%, when at the same time last year -- the government may want to take note -- the unemployment rate in Ontario stood at 5.4%. It was still a disgrace, but it was a heck of a lot better than the more than 9% we have now. For the past 12 months, this government's major economic initiative has been to criticize the federal agenda, while implementing social legislation that further distances this province from a full economic recovery.

Getting back to Bill 118, what does this legislation do? Bill 118 makes the chairperson of Ontario Hydro chief executive officer of the corporation, a point I will come back to, because it is important; Bill 118 increases the membership on the board of directors of Ontario Hydro from 17 to 22, another significant point, and Bill 118 allows the Minister of Energy to issue policy directives that would be binding on the corporation. There is the history on this bill, the unprecedented move by the Minister of Energy to grab power, as it were, unto himself, unto his cabinet colleagues, and dictate policy to Ontario Hydro that would be binding on the corporation.

Bill 118 allows Hydro to promote switching from electricity to fuels which, as my colleague the member for Lanark-Renfrew, our Energy critic for the Ontario PC Party, has pointed out, will cause greater pollution.

I note that my colleague the member for Wellington is over there trying to give the members some firsthand advice on how to get back on track. He is over there and I notice that he has been able to quiet down the government members so they can listen to my remarks, which I think are important and reflective of what real people out there -- real people who are trying to create jobs and generate economic wealth, real people who pay taxes -- are saying to the government.

They only got 38% of the vote. They should not fool themselves. They did not get a blank-cheque mandate, so I think they should be quiet for a few minutes and listen to what we have to say, because we think and we believe and we know we have some input. The Premier is always telling us he wants our input. The government members should listen; we are going to give them some input.

Most of us are aware of the tug of war that is being played out in the headlines of newspapers, pitting the NDP government versus Ontario Hydro. This tug of war is simply a skirmish to determine who should control the future of energy and energy policy in this province. In an effort to control Ontario Hydro, the Premier and his cabinet have installed an NDP political hack to run the largest corporation in Ontario. He has done this in the face of resistance from Ontario Hydro itself, which naturally feels that the corporation's chief executive officer should not have the initials NDP beside his name.

The question I put to this Legislature is this: Should the boss of Ontario Hydro be someone whose strength is loyalty to a political party? Should that be the criterion, solely? Or should it be someone who is uniquely qualified to guide one of Ontario's largest corporations at a critical time in the history of this province?

As has been pointed out by many members prior to myself here today and in the debate yesterday and the adjourned debate in days gone past, Mr Marc Eliesen, the CEO and chairman of Ontario Hydro, wants a salary of some $400,000. It is absolutely ridiculous. I do not know how the Premier, any of the cabinet, any member of the NDP could possibly try to justify that, not only to their own supporters, but to the people who reside in my riding and my colleagues' ridings who would not see that kind of money in years and years of accumulated salaries. It is absolutely astonishing that they would be contemplating giving the chair of Ontario Hydro, their political appointment, $400,000. I think that says something about socialism. I think that says something about socialists feeding at the trough, and I think it is disgraceful.

The importance of Ontario Hydro cannot be underscored enough. It is the cornerstone of our infrastructure, infrastructure that is vital to sustain and maintain our quality of life in this province. Decisions made by Ontario Hydro have profound and enduring consequences for all of us, for every citizen in the province. Simply stated, Ontario Hydro is too important to our society for a governing party like the NDP to strong-arm it. Its function is too critical for it to be imprisoned by a socialist ideology and pressured into performing the role of social welfare provider.

The decisions made by Ontario Hydro will echo for years to come, long after this government's mandate, and this government's decisions will have a profound effect on the future of this province. I know you are having a rough time governing. I know things have not been going well. I saw the Minister of Energy yesterday trying to paper over some of this bill and trying to make those people out there, such as the Municipal Electric Association, less worried about the thrust of this legislation. I know you are having a rough time, but to socialize Ontario Hydro and to pay its chair $400,000 is shameful, disgraceful, and if it were not so sad, it would be funny. I note that members opposite often take great humour in these things, but I do not think they are funny at all.

I know you are having such a rough time governing this province that you probably have figured out by now that you will not be the government next time. You probably have figured out you can do things like socialize Ontario Hydro and change its mandate and try to fool people that energy conservation alone is the ticket to the future, is the ticket to securing long-term energy for this province. You can try to fool the people of Ontario and you may get away with it for the next three or four years, you may get away with it before public opinion catches up with you.

But you will not be around when the blackouts occur, you will not be around when the brownouts occur. It will be the members of my caucus and our government at that time that will have to clean up not only your deficit mess, your fiscal disaster, but Ontario Hydro now, for goodness' sake, and we will probably have to give some huge severance package to the chair because he is making a $400,000-a-year salary.

Interjections.

Mr J. Wilson: Mr Speaker, it is unbelievably wild in here.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It might assist the member for Simcoe West if he were to address his remarks to the Speaker.

1730

Mr J. Wilson: My pleasure, Mr Speaker.

It is all the more reason to invest the reins of Hydro with someone who is there for the long haul and not with someone who is unlikely to survive the demise of this government.

In order to further cement its hold on Ontario Hydro, this government has tabled Bill 118, which also proposes to increase the membership on the board of directors of Ontario Hydro from 17 to 22. More big government, the pay-them-more-money socialist philosophy.

Let's not fool ourselves. This government has flexed its patronage muscles in order to squeeze out any dissent from the policies it wants to implement through Ontario Hydro.

What is the cost to the taxpayer in order for the Premier to have his own way with Ontario Hydro, regardless of whether it is the best policy for Ontario? Because the NDP government needs to enlarge Ontario Hydro's board of directors for its own benefit, taxpayers will dig deeper for $25,000 each year, plus an extra $185 per meeting for each of the five additional board members.

It does not sound like a lot, but when members consider they are doing this in a number of areas, in a number of pieces of legislation, it certainly adds up to tremendous increases in administrative costs, not only to Ontario Hydro but of course ultimately to the one taxpayer of the province, each individual, who pays taxes. There is one set of pockets. These guys are tapping them dry. Surely this government should be more concerned with putting unemployed people back to work than lining the pockets of NDP hacks at the expense of the public.

Bill 118 is also the product of a feud between Hydro and the Premier and his cabinet. I would suggest that this government would be better served if it concentrated on getting Ontarians back to work and end its war with Ontario Hydro. It should withdraw this bill. It is the most sensible thing to do. It has heard that from thousands of concerned people across this province who are represented by the public utilities commissions, who have written to us, who have written to government members, who have written to the Premier, who have written to cabinet ministers. The government should withdraw the bill.

The people of Ontario could care less about who blinks first or whether the Premier thinks he is Gary Cooper. I quote from the May 21 editorial of the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. The member for Guelph, right next door, should be very interested in this. "Open confrontation between Ontario Hydro and the Ministry of Energy serves the interests of no one," something the government would do very well to remember.

I also feel the best interests of Ontarians will not be served by ramming through a bill that usurps the mandate of Ontario Hydro. Hydro's mandate has been and should continue to be the delivery of a secure, reliable power source at the lowest possible cost.

What is the principle of power at cost? We have heard it discussed a great deal today and in previous days in debate. I want to read from a backgrounder that was provided by the Municipal Electric Association, which I feel explains the principle of power at cost very succinctly and very clearly. Even the government should understand it.

"The principle of power at cost states that the people of Ontario should pay for the cost of generating and delivering electricity, and only those costs. Ontario has enjoyed the benefits of economic electrical energy since 1906, when Ontario Hydro was formed in response to the demand for public power at cost championed by 14 municipalities. This principle has significantly contributed to Ontario's economic growth. Electricity rates cover only the cost of operating the municipal utility.

"The principle of power at cost has been instrumental in attracting and retaining industry within this province. It has contributed to our quality of life and an economic standard of living that is hard to surpass."

That is from the backgrounder provided by Municipal Electric Association, which I think was very clear in explaining the power-at-cost principle.

This strong-arming bill is proof positive that this government wants to make Ontario Hydro an active agent of its socialist policies. Hydro has become the major financier for NDP policy in northern Ontario, and in particular Elliot Lake.

Also from the Municipal Electric Association, I want to quote what it has to say about the Elliot Lake community assistance package, which so many members in this House have mentioned in their remarks:

"On June 17, 1991, Ontario Hydro announced that it had renegotiated its uranium supply contracts with Rio Algom Ltd in Elliot Lake. As part of the renegotiated package, Ontario Hydro agreed to provide $65 million to the northern Ontario heritage fund" -- hardly anything to do with Ontario Hydro's mandate -- "in order to fund economic diversification within the community and to assist the communities of Elliot Lake and Blind River in retiring their municipal debt.

"Clearly, this initiative goes beyond Ontario Hydro's role of providing safe, reliable electricity at cost. The provincial government is using Ontario Hydro as a social and economic instrument, and is passing the hidden costs on to Ontario's electricity consumers." That is you and I, Mr Speaker. "The Elliot Lake assistance package which precedes the final passage of Bill 118 indicates the provincial government is intent on using our electricity rates as a new source of taxation in order to fund social assistance and regional development programs."

So you see, Mr Speaker, it is not just members of the opposition, it is the thousands of members and good people who make up the Municipal Electric Association in Ontario. These are people who know a lot about producing electricity and know a great deal about PUCs and Ontario Hydro. They are people who should be listened to. They are people who know better than this government does what is the proper role for Ontario Hydro and that Ontario Hydro should not be used as a socialist arm of this socialist government.

I would urge this government to look beyond its short-term political gains and begin to examine more closely the crisis that confronts Ontario Hydro. Hydro is faced with the imposing problem of a massive debt at a time when the utility is having serious trouble with supply. In fact, Ontario Hydro may soon be crippled by its astounding debt, which stands at $35 billion. Hydro is likely to fall short of the debt coverage ratio recommended by the Ontario Energy Board. It is not just the utility that should be frightened by this debt. As the Financial Post of July 16, 1991, points out, "Achievement of these targets is of primary importance to the financial community in Ontario."

Eradication of this debt seems to be the furthest thing from this government's mind, because it has been Hydro that has been forced to rescue Elliot Lake and Blind River. These multimillion-dollar settlements will be borne on the backs of hydro users, both residential and commercial. That is certainly worth repeating, because that is the point.

The point is that this government does not have the courage to bail out Elliot Lake, Blind River and Kapuskasing from its own budget, from general revenue, because it has a $9.7-billion deficit that the Treasurer admits over the last couple of days is soaring way out of control. There is no way he can bail out those communities through the general revenue fund, so he has to do it through the back door, through future hidden taxation that will be picked up in the hydro bills of the consumers of this province. That is the point.

When the government retroactively directs Ontario Hydro -- and now it is asking for the legislative authority retroactively to do that, which is sinful in itself -- to provide social assistance programs, job maintenance programs and job development programs, then it has gutted its mandate. It has missed the boat on what Ontario Hydro is supposed to do and has not been honest with the taxpayers of this province. How many lectures have we had from the Premier about honesty, open government and integrity? Well, they are failing the test miserably and Bill 118 is a prime example of an F they deserve on economic policy and the way they try to implement social policy through the back door.

1740

As I said, these multimillion-dollar settlements will be borne on the backs of residential and commercial hydro users. By now all members have heard of the anticipated double-digit rate increases for hydro users for the next three years. In fact, one of my local public utilities commissions in the town of Collingwood points out to me that compounded over the next three years the hydro rate increases for consumers, for members and me, people of Ontario, will probably be in the order of 35%, a 35% increase because Hydro is being asked to do things it should not be asked to do. The message this badly flawed piece of legislation sends is that the principle of power at cost for business and industry is a thing of the past.

I quote from a letter from the hydroelectric commission from the newly amalgamated town of Alliston, Beeton, Tecumseth and Tottenham, which has grave reservations regarding the impact of Bill 118:

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

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

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

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

The government should bear in mind that the best form of social assistance is to make decisions and create a climate where social assistance becomes unnecessary, though if Bill 118 is allowed to pass as is, I assure the members we will be opening the pages of a newspaper to learn of yet another industry that has closed shop in Ontario and moved south.

It is critical for our industrial strategy and for the industrial strategy of the government, which I do not think has one, by the way. If it did have an industrial strategy, a critical component would be that power be provided at cost for industrial and residential consumers. Hence the current mandate of Ontario Hydro, which they are wishing to change.

This government seems more concerned with crossing wires with Ontario Hydro than plugging in the private sector to expand and grow in this province. The concerns I raise regarding Bill 118 are not just mine alone. They are shared by other members in business and industry, Ontario Hydro, the Municipal Electric Association and every community and person in this province that has suffered through this recession, been laid off and is burdened in the highest-taxed province and jurisdiction in North America.

The town of Collingwood is one such community. I have the distinguished pleasure to represent Collingwood in the riding of Simcoe West in this Legislature. That community understands completely the implications of Bill 118. This bill will short out the fuse of hope held by communities such as Collingwood which are desperately trying to dig themselves out from this recession.

Recently I met in Collingwood with the PUC manager, Mr Ed Houghton, and he outlined to me his deep misgivings concerning Bill 118. I quote from a resolution passed by the PUC for the town of Collingwood on September 10 of this year, referring to Bill 118:

"Whereas Ontario Hydro has been recently forced to make an unnecessary $250-million expenditure associated with the renegotiation of uranium contracts and the associated community assistance package for Elliot Lake; and

"Whereas this is a growing concern that Ontario Hydro is becoming an instrument for the provincial government's social policies instead of being the provider of safe, reliable, sufficient electricity at cost; and

"Whereas municipal electric utility consumers should not be financing the government's social assistance programs in their cost of power as a form of hidden taxation;

"Be it resolved that the public utilities commission of the town of Collingwood requests the province of Ontario to withdraw this section of Bill 118, dealing with policy directives, that would change the mandate of Ontario Hydro and force electricity customers to bear the costs of these directives in their rates; and

"Be it further resolved that the public utilities commission of the town of Collingwood requests the government of Ontario and Ontario Hydro to not finance social assistance programs, and other government initiatives unrelated to Ontario Hydro's mandate, through the cost of power."

It is worth noting that this resolution was also passed by the hydroelectric commission for the town of Innisfil, and similar concerns were expressed to me by the manager of the PUC in the town of Wasaga Beach.

I am sure that if all citizens of Ontario fully understood the intent of this legislation, which is simply to wrest control of Ontario Hydro, change its mandate and have Hydro implement social assistance programs in the name of the government, and that they as hydro users will be paying for this social assistance, I know they would cry foul en masse. The problem is, few are aware of the NDP plans to use Ontario Hydro as a tool to advance its own agenda while billing hydro users. That is the purpose of this debate and the purpose of driving home these points.

We all have better things to do than to drive these points home to the government, but to date it has not been listening. We are wasting a lot of hydro in this building and certainly a lot of hot air in trying to drive these points home. But it is important that the people of this province understand what the government is up to.

As I said, the problem is that few are aware of the NDP hidden agenda here. It is nothing short of indirect taxation and smells of the type of hidden political agenda the people of Ontario, when they are aware of it, will not tolerate. By passing Bill 118, this government will drive the final stake into the hearts of industry. I truly believe we are getting near the end of the slippery slope. We have had just about over a year of nonsense from this government, a total lack of understanding of the needs of business and of how wealth is generated in this province, who generates the wealth and who benefits. All the people benefit when wealth is generated in this province.

I can remember so well -- it is like a bad nightmare -- when the NDP candidate in the riding of Simcoe West used to get up and scream about corporate welfare bums. He screamed about people and corporations that did not pay taxes in this province. Because he did not have any idea whatsoever what he was talking about, I had to point out to him that corporations are made up of people. They are not buildings. They are not just the steel structure people picket in front of from time to time. They are made up of people in my riding, and in particular senior citizens who invest their money in corporations so that they can get a good return on their dollar. Otherwise they would invest the money in the bank on the corner.

Until this government came to office there was a level of confidence out there, and until the Liberals started to tax the heck out of Ontarians there was a level of confidence out there and people were investing in corporations in Ontario and in Canada and creating jobs in this province. The statistics show it. Sure they were making money. You have to make a profit to pay taxes to government. We have been a long time in explaining this to the government and having it come around to understanding this principle. In recent days the Treasurer does seem to understand that principle, although he really is not doing anything about correcting his errors of the past.

1750

The speeches in this Legislature, and fortunately ours on this side, have not really changed much either, because the government members, the NDP members -- Bill 118 is a very good example of this -- seem to believe their own socialist rhetoric. Maybe they were weaned on it or something; I do not know. But it does not reflect reality in this province. It is doing damage to the very people who at one time created jobs. Those people are telling me and my caucus colleagues in the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party that they very much want to leave the province. I have been told by more than one person, by more than a dozen people and by more than two dozen people with whom I have met concerning Bill 118 that they very much feel this may be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

They cannot really imagine in their heart of hearts, in their mind of minds, what other steps this government could possibly take to further drive business out of this province. The government has almost exhausted the list. Its imagination must be running out. At least I would like to believe that.

We ask it to listen to our comments and to accept the common sense we are bringing forward. It would be foolish for any of us to think that industry would want to locate in a jurisdiction that not only taxes initiatives into the ground, but cannot supply the lifeblood of industry, which is hydroelectric power at cost.

Bill 118 will reduce the quality of life for all of us in Ontario by diminishing any hope for industrial growth in Ontario. Hydro's debt and the NDP government's insistence that it fund the government's socialist agenda will contribute to ever-escalating hydro rates and will continue to make Ontario an unattractive place to do business. In fact, for consumers alone -- these are not the large consumers; these are you and I, Mr Speaker, the people of Ontario who rent an apartment or own a house -- we are expecting that our hydro bills will, on a compounded basis, rise by as much as 35% over the next three years.

By using Hydro as an agent of socialist policy, the Premier and his merry band will prevent the utility from addressing the major problem of supply in this province. Our current supply barely covers the current demand. The Premier will do so by the back door, by enabling the Minister of Energy to circumvent the Legislative Assembly, to issue policy directives, and in the process, silence the taxpayers of this province.

How can we expand our industrial and commercial base without the power to supply new industry or industries wishing to expand? We know how we can cut down on the need for future generation demand, because they are driving business out of the province. Frankly they may get away with their hidden agenda over the next three years, because the brownouts probably will not occur until another government comes in and starts to attract industry back.

Some of the primary questions will be: "Can we plug in our machines? Do you have reliable power at cost? Are you competitive with other jurisdictions?" Those are primary questions that certainly industry asks. I have a plant, the Lemmerz-Magna Industries plant -- it is now owned by Reynolds -- in Collingwood. It uses a tremendous amount of electricity and it is very worried. It makes aluminum wheel rims. I am told by local PUC officials that we have already had brownouts in the Collingwood area. I am told that Magna would like to expand, or at least up until a few months ago it was thinking of expanding, but it is very worried about whether it can be assured of a secure, reliable, relatively inexpensive source of power.

By having Ontario Hydro spend some $65 million towards the northern Ontario heritage fund and some $250 million in paying outrageous uranium prices in Elliot Lake, the government has taken money and created unemployment in our local areas.

I have two contractors located in my riding who for the last 10 years have been working on contracts that they tender for each year, upgrading the lines from Orangeville up through to Collingwood. We are badly in need of power in that part of the province. Ontario Hydro's long-range plan addresses that, but it is being thrown off track, and this year, what is the answer I get? Our local region had to give up. Ontario Hydro had to take $16 million out of a little region like the one I live in because head office said, "We have to pay $250 million to Elliot Lake and the northern Ontario heritage fund. We cannot let out the contracts this year." New contractors are out of work, because these people had specialized in upgrading hydro lines. They had been doing it for years. The contractors are out of work so that the members opposite can play political shenanigans in the north, so that they can spend $250 million saving 600 jobs. Meanwhile, they are putting people in my riding out of work.

I dare any one of the members opposite to come down and explain to contractors in my riding why they have to be out of work because the government has decided to use Ontario Hydro as an instrument of social policy.

Every year, and in fact I am told in about four weeks, a very large portable generator has to go up Airport Road and park at the side of the road -- they put a fence around it -- just so we can have enough power in the Collingwood area and up through to Owen Sound to get through the winter without brownouts. Every year they have to bring in this big portable generator, which is an ungodly sight, at tremendous cost, to get us through the winter up there, so that industries can continue to have power and so that I and the folks at home can continue to turn on our lights and heat our homes.

That would still be necessary this year. I will be honest about this. But it would not be necessary in the next few years if the government had allowed our region to continue to upgrade its lines.

Interjections.

Mr J. Wilson: But no. Without any consultation whatsoever, and now with a retroactive piece of legislation, they change Ontario Hydro's mandate.

Mr B. Murdoch: Don't be calling anybody a birdbrain. If anybody is a birdbrain, you are.

Mr J. Wilson: The government stops the good work Hydro was doing because it has a suspicion of professionals and a suspicion of large corporations, even if it is one that is accountable to the government of Ontario.

Mr B. Murdoch: Have you ever been out in the country? You ever been outside of Toronto, Charlton? You call somebody a birdbrain. You're the only birdbrain over there.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Grey.

Mr B. Murdoch: What an ass. Call people birdbrain. You ever been out in the country? They don't happen to have gas through the country. What kind of a birdbrain --

The Speaker: Order.

Mr B. Murdoch: Well, tell him to keep his mouth shut, then.

The Speaker: The member for Grey would please withdraw that remark. It is unparliamentary language.

Mr B. Murdoch: What remark? He said "birdbrain," not me.

The Speaker: I asked the member if he would not use that vocabulary.

Mr B. Murdoch: He said "birdbrain," not I.

The Speaker: What I heard was the member for Grey use that --

Mr B. Murdoch: I will withdraw mine if he withdraws his.

The Speaker: The member for Grey, just relax. I did not hear the remark by the member to whom you were referring. If the member indeed said what has been suggested, perhaps the member would graciously remove the offending comment.

Hon Mr Charlton: If I have offended the member for Grey, I withdraw the comment.

Mr B. Murdoch: Same thing. If that is the case, I will withdraw my remark.

The Speaker: To the member for Simcoe West, perhaps this would be an appropriate place for him to break with his remarks. He of course will have the floor when we next resume debate on this matter.

The government House leader with the business for next week.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Mr Cooke: Pursuant to standing order 53, I would like to indicate the business of the House for next week.

On Monday, October 7, we will resume committee of the whole consideration of Bill 70, the Employment Standards Amendment Act, and we will continue with that on Tuesday, October 8. If we complete work on Bill 70, we will move to Bill 118, the act we are discussing now.

On Wednesday, October 9, we will continue with unfinished business from the day before, and if we are lucky and finish Bills 70 and 118 we will go on to the Bill 83, the Income Tax Amendment Act, and Bills 84, 85, 86 and 130.

On Thursday, October 10, in the morning we will deal with private members' business, ballot item 35 standing in the name of Mr Mancini, and item 36 standing in the name of Mr Wilson, Simcoe West.

In the afternoon, we will continue with the same business we were working on the day before, unless it is all completed, and then we will go on to the tax bills.

The House adjourned at 1801.