role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

November 24, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L110 - Thu 24 Nov 1988 / Jeu 24 nov 1988

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

NONGOVERNMENTAL VOLUNTARY AGENCIES

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

NONGOVERNMENTAL VOLUNTARY AGENCIES

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY

ESTONIA, LATVIA AND LITHUANIA

LIMITATIONS ACT

ADVOCACY

CONTROL OF SMOKING

MISSISSAUGA YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM

MINING SAFETY

RESPONSES

MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM

MINING SAFETY

MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM

ATTENDANCE OF PREMIER

ORAL QUESTIONS

SUICIDE PREVENTION

MULTICULTURAL POLICING

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

MULTICULTURALISM

COURT FACILITIES

RETAIL SALES TAX

WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

INTERVAL AND TRANSITION HOUSES

SCHOOL FUNDING

GOVERNMENT LAND

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ATTENDANCE OF OPPOSITION MEMBERS

MINING INDUSTRY

FEDERAL BROADCASTING LEGISLATION

ELECTION FINANCES

PETITION

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

GEORGE A. MCNAMARA MEMORIAL FOUNDATION ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT / LOI MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

NONGOVERNMENTAL VOLUNTARY AGENCIES

Mr McClelland moved resolution 51:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should establish a framework within which a working partnership can be initiated and maintained on an ongoing basis with nongovernmental voluntary agencies involved in international relief and development.

The Deputy Speaker: The member has up to 20 minutes to make his presentation and may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Mr McClelland: I want at the outset to put my resolution in somewhat of a context that may be helpful for my colleagues in this House, and indeed, for the people of Ontario.

Our government has recognized that we have an important role to play in international relations, particularly in the area of Third World and developing nations. Our Premier (Mr. Peterson) has initiated an inventory, a comprehensive review of what we are doing on the international scene with a view to having a holistic approach and analysis of the involvement of this government on the international scene as it pertains to Third World countries and our involvement therein.

Ontario is, in my opinion and, I think, the opinion of my colleagues in this House, among the finest places in the world to live. We enjoy one of the highest standards of living in this world and we are a very privileged people. We also have a proud history of being involved in a compassionate sense in responding to crisis situations around the world. It is on that foundation that this resolution is presented this morning.

Not only do we have a history of assisting our friends internationally in being a significant player on the international scene, but Ontario also has a historic and a current significant involvement in promoting international trade and involvement with Third World countries. I made reference a moment ago to our government’s involvement in the area of relief, particularly in situations of disaster. Two current ones that come to my mind, and certainly to the minds of my colleagues in this House, are recent initiatives and contributions in response to the devastation of hurricane Gilbert and, more recently, the devastation of hurricane Joan in Central America.

We have generously responded in situations like that as a government and, I think more important, as a people in this province. We have donated funds. We have donated goods in kind and seen to their distribution in those areas that have been adversely affected by international disaster.

One of the concerns I have is that our involvement is often done in a crisis response; if you will -- that we do it for the most part on an ad hoc basis. We have a policy of looking at international situations that require assistance, making an evaluation of the appropriateness of our contribution and responding. And, as I said earlier, we generally respond very generously.

My intention for this resolution, I think, is fairly clear. What I would hope is that our government would begin to move on completion of the inventory and the overview that is being taken now with respect to our involvement in international relief and development to establish an ongoing relationship with nongovernmental agencies.

I want to address at the outset some concerns that have been raised, I think genuine concerns, by some of my colleagues in this House. I have been asked if it would in fact create just another level of bureaucracy. Would we effectively be just setting up another arm of government that is not necessary?

I want to say very clearly in my opinion that what we would be doing by setting up an ongoing working relationship with nongovernmental organizations is in fact maximizing the utilization of the resources that we currently distribute to Third World and developing nations. It seems to me that those people who are involved on a continuing basis, those involved in agencies working around the world, have a much better sense of the immediate needs in communities and in the situations in those countries. They have, effectively, their fingers on the pulse of those communities.

More important, and I do not say this in any offhanded sense, rather than just plug money into a situation, those agencies and those involved in Third World relief and development, NGOs, on an ongoing basis are there for the long term. They are there to make sure we are not just doing Band-Aid work but trying to build a foundation and establish long-term relief and development.

I think the thrust of this government can be one of promoting and really looking at our involvement for long-term, sustainable development in those countries that need it.

We, as a government, provide generously in terms of expertise, employees to nations that request our assistance. We have been quick to second staff in projects, lending our expertise from the Ministry of Health, for example. My colleague the member for Guelph (Mr. Ferraro), the parliamentary assistant for the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, is very much aware of our involvement in Third World countries with respect to the development of our trading relationship and really using our international profile in developing a network of international monetary exchange with countries that are in the early stages of developing their economy.

We share our expertise, we share our money and we respond in, I think, a very positive way, and it is within that context that the Premier has directed a review of what our government has been doing to date. Upon completion of that review, I would hope that, in response to this resolution, we would be prepared, as a government, to say, “Yes, we have a formal role to play in the world.”

Not only has our government been involved. I think that, as representatives of the people of Ontario, we should look at what the people have been doing. Many of Ontario’s residents give extremely generously in terms of their time and money to nongovernmental agencies and international voluntary development organizations. In 1985, approximately $35 million was distributed by the people of this province to international relief and development. I am told that this year we can expect somewhere in the order of $50 million from the people of this province. I think that speaks very well for the generosity and spirit of the people of our province.

I think it is also noteworthy that many of Ontario’s residents come from developing nations around the world, and they are providing the economic prosperity of this province. As they do that, we have the opportunity to enhance our linkage with the nations they represent.

Because of our blessed -- and I use that word advisedly -- situation in the world, I think we have a corresponding responsibility. In the light of that responsibility, I hope that we will look at what we can do on a long-term basis. We have a role of leadership to play internationally and certainly in this country. Other provinces in this country have formalized their involvement and commitment to the intent of the resolution we have before us this morning. Ontario, as the strongest economic component of this great country, ought to be in a position of leadership.

Many of us know that Ontario, if it stood alone as a country, would be approximately the 11th-largest economy in the world. Clearly we have an international role and we are to be considered on the international stage as a very significant player.

Our businesses in this country as well benefit very much from our role and our corresponding role with respect to international development.

As we benefit as a country, as a nation and as a people, I would say we also have a responsibility to address the environmental concerns we espouse in this country and in this province. We have shown leadership in our province, I believe, in the area of environmental concerns, but we also live in a global scene. We live in a shrinking world. The pressures that we are facing environmentally on the global scene are most significant.

Part of the reason for the difficulties we are facing internationally is the pressures that are brought to bear on people in developing nations. We often lament, for example, the quick destruction of the rain forests in Brazil, yet it is virtually impossible for us to speak with any sense of optimism that the problem can be addressed and stopped until the people of that country are in a position where they do not have to strip the forests for simple survival.

I think what we can do by assisting international relief and development -- and the key word is long-term development -- is to assist them in developing an economy and a structure that are sustainable in an environmentally and economically sound fashion. Our businesses benefit. We draw a lot of money from Third World countries. Our people benefit.

We have a history that I think has laid the foundation very clearly for our government’s involvement. I hope my colleagues in this House will join in supporting this resolution.

I am very concerned about our role as a government. I believe, as I have said many times this morning, that we have a tremendous opportunity to play a major role in helping people, helping our fellow man and mankind worldwide, and doing that in a significant, long-term way. One of the ways we can do that is by utilizing the existing agencies that are doing outstanding work and contributing to them in a meaningful way. I would be pleased if the resolution passed and set the framework upon which our government would move to establishing an ongoing relationship.

A colleague from our caucus will be speaking shortly, and any time that is left over I would like to reserve to address some of the comments by my friends opposite.

Mr. Wildman: I rise in support of the resolution presented by the member for Brampton North (Mr. McClelland). I must say that the resolution is worded somewhat vaguely. I was hoping that in the member’s comments he might have been a little more specific as to what kind of framework he envisaged to allow for ongoing aid involving the nongovernmental agencies with the government of Ontario for Third World assistance.

I support the member’s sentiments and congratulate him for his sincerity in presenting the resolution. I would agree with him in what I think is his view that this aid should be humanitarian in the first sense and should not be ideologically driven or economically driven from our point of view; that it should not just be Band-Aids, and that it should respond to the ongoing need of assistance for economic and social development in the Third World.

As the member indicated, we have a commendable record in this House of responding to disasters. We have had recently the example of the relief effort on behalf of Ontario in response to the hurricane that devastated Jamaica. I think that is a good example of how we do respond to disasters, but then the question arises as to what happens afterward for the ongoing economic development of the community involved, and I agree with the member.

I must say, though, that I was disappointed at the length of time it took for this House and the government of Ontario to respond to a similar disaster in Nicaragua. I suspect that the length of time it took had something to do with the ideology of that government as opposed to that of the Jamaican government. I think that is most unfortunate. I am glad that we have finally responded, and responded in a significant way, to the hurricane disaster in Nicaragua.

In that particular case, if I were to use that as an example, I understand there was something in the neighbourhood of $800 million in damage done to an economy that is very fragile in the first place, damage to buildings, homes, many people left homeless, communities that were completely obliterated by an enormous natural disaster.

I heard this morning on the radio on my way to the House that the disaster has been shown to have been even worse than was first suspected. Apparently, a tropical rain forest in Nicaragua of over 10,000 square kilometres was completely flattened, and it is only recently that this has become known, because the area is so remote and inaccessible. This area is larger than Prince Edward Island. There has been an enormous loss.

That $800 million I mentioned before does not include the loss related to the destruction of this rain forest -- a tremendous economic loss with enormous ancient mahogany trees that have been blown over and completely flattened. Unless this timber is salvaged immediately, it will rot and there will be millions of dollars lost.

Also, of course, with the destruction of this kind of forest, we are going to see meteorological changes in Nicaragua in the future. A large number of endangered species, such as jaguars, have been killed by this destruction, and those that survived have left the area and will not return because there is no habitat surviving for them to live in.

I would prefer if we could be a little more specific in the House this morning. I would like the members of this House to express the view that we should respond immediately in Canada, since we have the expertise for road building in the wilderness and we certainly have the expertise for harvesting the forest, so that we could mount an immediate salvage operation in co-operation with our Nicaraguan friends so that the enormous economic value of the mahogany and the other timber that has been destroyed could be salvaged.

Then we could move from there, in co-operation with the nongovernmental agencies and with the Canadian government as well as other governments in the hemisphere and in Europe, using our expertise for a regeneration effort in the area that has been destroyed. We have the expertise. In most cases in the Third World they have the manpower and, if given the training and the technological assistance, they can do a great deal for themselves.

I am fully in support of the resolution. I do reiterate that I would prefer for it to be a little more specific. To say that we are in favour of a framework does not really say a great deal. How is this framework to work? How are we, as a provincial government, to be able to co-operate with the federal government, the federal government’s international agencies, the nongovernmental agencies both in our own province and in our own country, and the international agencies such as the international Red Cross, the economic development agencies at the United Nations and the World Council of Churches and other charitable organizations such as that?

How would this framework work? I would hope that we would get some indication during the debate. I am not suggesting that we will know definitively, but I would like to know how it might work. I would reiterate as well that I believe the news that we heard this morning about the devastation in Central America gives us an opportunity once again to show how generous the people of Ontario can be in assisting people who have experienced enormous dislocation and devastation.

I call on the provincial government to respond positively and swiftly to the news that the rain forest has been destroyed and to try to provide not only the expertise and the technological assistance but also the equipment that would be needed to build the roads into an inaccessible area to harvest the mahogany and the other timber, and then to move on from there to ensure that there is a proper regeneration effort for replanting in that area. I think we can do it. I think that would be a concrete way of demonstrating what I think is the sentiment of all members of the House in favour of this resolution.

I would like to move beyond just expressing goodwill and desire to do something to actually doing something; and I think not only do we have the money and the capital, we have the knowledge, the technology and the ability, if we wish, to help the Nicaraguans meet this terrible crisis.

Mr. Runciman: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. I came here this morning really uncertain about what position I might take, and our caucus has not taken a formal position on the member’s resolution. I was hoping that his leadoff comments would convince me that this was the appropriate thing for this Legislature to be doing, and I must say that, up to this point, I have not been convinced.

It is kind of a motherhood issue, and it is difficult. I even see a group of people supporting it in my own church, the Presbyterian church. I am going to have difficulty voting against my own church, but I am prepared to do that if I do not feel comfortable, and I hope the member can give me a higher comfort level than he has to this point.

The member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) was talking about specifics, and I think that is a very valid concern. There is really nothing in this, and certainly nothing in terms of the comments of the member who opened the debate, other than saying something about Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, but not really giving specifics of how he thinks this sort of thing might operate.

I guess a bit of confusion enters my mind in respect to my period as Minister of Government Services. I know, going back a number of years, the Ministry of Government Services has been very much involved in providing aid, especially in the Caribbean basin. This was initiated a number of years ago, primarily with the very energetic support of Clare Westcott in Premier Davis’s office.

I know that the ministry, on a regular basis, was supplying surplus goods and medical supplies to a host of Caribbean countries, and it has not been exclusively to the Caribbean. I know there are other instances where Third World countries have also been the beneficiaries of assistance from the Ontario government funnelled through the Ministry of Government Services.

Perhaps that framework is already in existence and it needs some refining, some modification, some enhancement, perhaps some modest enlargement, I am not sure. Perhaps the member himself is not aware of that activity of that ministry. It is certainly something that does not receive and has not received a great deal of publicity over the past 10 or 15 years.

I am not sure if the ministry currently is as actively involved as it has been in the past. I know from my own experience that the driving force, and the member of the administration who made sure that it continued to play an active role, was Clare Westcott, who was constantly at the ear of the Minister of Government Services to make sure that surplus goods, etc., were supplied to countries in need in the Caribbean especially.

Mr. Wildman: It certainly was nonideological, as I suggested.

Mr. Runciman: Very much so, and one of my regrets in leaving the ministry was that one of the opportunities that ministers of government services consistently had over the years was to travel to the Caribbean to visit the various countries, accompanying the delivery of surplus goods. I know from talking to some of my colleagues who served in that role in the past that it was a very enjoyable, worthwhile learning experience for them, and the recipients of the assistance from Ontario were always most grateful.

As the members have said, especially in the Caribbean, Ontario and Canada have a real sense of good feelings. There is a well of good feelings in the Caribbean towards this country and towards the province.

I want to talk about a couple of other things, since I have the opportunity in respect to this bill, and those are the priorities of the government.

The member has talked about assistance to Third World countries, and there is no question that we want to be involved in providing that kind of assistance. But at the same time, we can talk about agencies or groups in this province who are requiring assistance and are certainly not being totally ignored but are not being given the audience that is, in my view, justified.

I want to zero in on one specific group which I think relates in some respect to this resolution. That is the volunteer bureaus in this province.

I think there are something like 37 of them. I know one in my own community has been in operation for a great many years and has been dealing with the provincial government. We have no ministry in the provincial government that wants even to acknowledge their presence, let alone accept any responsibility for assistance. We can take a look at the fight that has been going on for the past two or three years between the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture. We have the minister of that portfolio here today.

They have been looking for some modest core funding to allow the volunteer bureaus to continue to operate in this province. Without any core funding assistance, the volunteer bureau in my area is probably going to disappear early in the new year. They provide assistance to the most needy in our communities, people who simply do not have the resources. If there is an illness in the family, for example, those suffering from cancer who have to travel to Kingston 50 or 60 miles away, they provide transportation for them. They provide services for families, a whole range of important services that are provided on a volunteer basis. I want to emphasize that.

I see what he is getting at in terms of having some sort of ongoing framework, but I think, as I have already emphasized on a number of occasions, that is already in place and perhaps needs some refinement, but it is there. A concern of mine, and the member attempted to address it, is the question of bureaucracy. He assures us that the establishment of something like this, apparently separate from the Ministry of Government Services, is not going to result in the growth of a new government bureaucracy. I have some trouble with that. I know these empires tend to start small.

Once a bureaucrat gets an office and a secretary, there is always the pressure, in most instances, to want to enhance his or her own importance and salary. That results in the gradual growth of his or her responsibilities and the consequent parallel growth in the cost to government and the taxpayers of this province.

He talked about no funding. Sure, no funding at the start. I guess we could look at this as a carrot in this instance. He is frowning. Maybe I misinterpreted what he was saying in respect to funding. He will have an opportunity to address these concerns later on. Again, I think history proves me correct with regard to any assistance, any framework like this that starts with no funding or providing assurances of no funding. Once established, pressures will begin to grow in respect to additional needs that will be found, and demands and pressure, etc., will continue to grow in respect to funding eventually being provided.

If indeed he is saying that no funding will be required, I think whenever this sort of framework is put in place it also has to include some sort of binding requirement that indeed we are not going to be giving any serious consideration to future funding requests that may be generated after the establishment of the framework and the individuals who will be serving within that framework.

I took a look at the list of sponsors again, and by and large they are very credible and worthwhile agencies. There are a number in there -- I will not get into specifics -- that do cause me some concern. Making an exception to that, I will mention one, and that is Canadian University Service Overseas. I think that when we take a look at what is happening in respect to all of these agencies working throughout a framework, I think it is valuable, but we have to take a look at some of the positions they take that may be very much in violation of the way most Canadians and Ontarians feel.

Mrs. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I would ask that I be allowed to speak to this motion. I think the member for Brampton North would allow me a few minutes of his time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): The next speaker we have is the member for York North (Mr. Beer). We are going in rotation according to the allotted time, and if there is sufficient time, the member will be able to speak in due course. For now, the member for York North.

Mr. Beer: I rise in support of the resolution. In my remarks I would like to address some of the comments that have been raised about the framework and about the nature of that framework, because I think there are some models that we can look at which would meet some of the concerns that were raised by my colleague the member for Algoma.

I would like to say at the outset as a former volunteer with CUSO that I think it is an excellent organization that does extremely fine and good work in many parts of the world. Indeed, when one looks at the organizations in Ontario that are members of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, and thereby of the Ontario group, there are some 67. It is really a remarkable collection of all of the major churches and major voluntary organizations that exist within our country here in our province. I think the kind of work they are doing in the area of international development and relief work is first-rate.

As perhaps some members are aware, there are a number of provinces that are already involved in this kind of work and have created the means of carrying it out. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec are ones where I know they have established programs. They are not all operated in a similar fashion, although in the case of Saskatchewan and Manitoba I know that what they do there is that those governments, in effect, provide a percentage of funding to an umbrella organization that brings together all of the different Saskatchewan or Manitoba organizations involved in international relief and development.

In Alberta, essentially the way it works is that for every dollar the various groups raise within Alberta, the Alberta government matches that with a dollar and, if my understanding is correct, the Canadian International Development Agency then matches that, so in effect you have $1 that comes from the community that drives another $3 that come in and that produces the funding they have. In Alberta, as in the other provinces, they have laid out pretty clear criteria in terms of which nongovernmental organizations can participate. There is certainly solid protection in terms of the taxpayers’ dollar.

The interesting thing here, and I think what is particularly creative and compelling for me in terms of Ontario following this route, is that the other element of all of this, beyond the help we are then able to give to people in other countries on specific projects, is that by working with the nongovernmental sector, by working with the voluntary sector, we are then bringing back to our own country knowledge, understanding and awareness of the problems in developing countries; and those people who are, of course, residents of Ontario, citizens of Canada, increasingly play a role and affect the way we look on the kinds of projects and programs that we want to be dealing with in the developing countries.

The member for Algoma mentioned -- and it was a good example -- India’s progress over the last 25 years with respect to the green revolution. A great many people have been involved in that, but one of the groups, if you like, that has been very involved is the nongovernmental sector.

Canada participated in this in terms of various groups that have worked in that area. Of course, the fact that they are not always government agencies that are doing it also means that there is less a sense that this is being done by huge entities or that there are all sorts of strings that are necessarily attached. It really is much more people working with people. Particularly in the agricultural and educational areas in Canada, I think we can look with some pride at what we have been able to accomplish through a number of nongovernmental groups.

The member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) mentioned some of the things which Clare Westcott was involved with a number of years ago in the educational area. I can remember at the time being in some respects linked in a little way to that. Basically, what we did was find out when a C-130 was leaving Trenton and going down to the West Indies. It would be a training flight and we would load it up with desks. There was an eyeglass program that was going on. There were a number of very innovative projects -- low-key, if you like; not necessarily multibillion-dollar, but ones which had a real impact and a real people-to-people thrust.

Why then should -- and it is a legitimate question -- Ontario organize a specific framework in which to do this? I think it meets a couple of needs that we have. One is that as a province we do have expertise in certain areas.

Yet, by dealing with it on a kind of ad hoc basis as we do now, I do not think we get the bang for the buck or bang for the program that we want to have and that we could have if we set out some criteria and worked with the Canadian Council for International Co-operation to set up a program whereby we would match dollars that were raised within Ontario by the various Ontario nongovernmental organizations. In that way, we could set out criteria. We could take advantage of the expertise which those nongovernmental bodies have and make sure that we do have some impact.

In a proposal that was put forward by the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, it not only has suggested how a framework might work but has even indicated dollars and percentages of government dollars that would go with private donations. So whether we are looking at it on a dollar-for-dollar match or a percentage match, we are looking at several millions of dollars, perhaps upwards, ultimately, in the $20-million to $30-million range, where we could be assisting nongovernmental groups with specific projects in developing countries.

If we work and if the framework is to work with the nongovernmental sector and really have it administering the program, then we would avoid the problem of setting up a large bureaucracy, which is really not what we want to get into and, indeed, not what the nongovernmental organizations want to get into. I think if you look at most of the major nongovernmental groups, particularly the ones that participate in the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, they are very concerned about getting the money out into the project. They try to keep their administrative costs very low.

I know Oxfam, which a number of members may have had some connection with, is very, very good at cutting down on its administrative costs and ensuring that the dollars that it spends are spent for the purposes it was set up for.

It is that kind of a co-operative mould, if you will, that I think will work. It will also mean -- and I think, again, in terms of the member for Algoma’s concerns about how we react to crises such as that in Nicaragua -- that we have a better focus. When something like that happens, while this nongovernmental group can be dealing on an ongoing and long-term basis with specific projects, it can also help us in reacting to the kinds of problems that are caused by disasters, where we need to come together quickly with the Red Cross and with other organizations that are at work in these countries.

I see a net benefit in terms of how we organize and how we expend our funds for development work; I see a net benefit in helping the nongovernmental organizations which, of course, are made up of Ontario residents, Canadian citizens, and I see a net benefit for our province and for our country in that the skills and the expertise which our people are both taking out to other countries and bringing back makes us, as a nation, a much stronger one as we try to come to grips with this world that grows ever smaller and where we have a responsibility to participate and work with our fellow men and our fellow women in the developing countries.

Mrs. Cunningham: I am pleased to rise in the House today and speak on the resolution of the member for Brampton North. The Ontario government has recently demonstrated its commitment to assisting people in Third World countries, providing emergency assistance to hurricane victims in Jamaica, Nicaragua and Bangladesh. I am proud to see that Ontario can be counted on and is committed to international development and assistance.

The government currently provides support to relief funding on an ad hoc basis. This resolution would establish a formal working partnership between nongovernmental voluntary agencies involved in international relief and development and the Ontario government. I am speaking in support of this motion with some reservations which I will share with the House at this time. Other provinces have taken the initiative to establish such working relationships. In trying to find out just how they did operate, we discovered that the Alberta government has an office of international aid and distributes just over $3 million to nongovernmental organizations.

Saskatchewan and Manitoba operate on a smaller scale and provide just under $1 million to these organizations. However, they do not have a specific office to administer the program. As my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville would remind us, they do not have an additional bureaucracy and that is something we are all concerned about as we have spoken this morning. Instead, the nongovernmental organizations have committees which brief cabinet regularly. I think this is a very good model.

At the beginning of each year, the government commits a budget in support of relief funding and education -- education in this instance refers to agencies which provide seminars and workshops to those interested in international debt and Third World countries -- and the committee then submits a plan which frustrates the way in which the money is to be spent; a model worth looking at. I would like to stress that although Alberta seems to have an effective system in place, we should be striving for this model of Saskatchewan and Manitoba which I have just referred to. We do not need a larger bureaucracy. The one we have is already far too large.

The member for Brampton North should reassure us that his intent is to make certain that the committed dollars are to be spent on people and programs and not on administration. The London Cross Cultural Learner Centre is one of the 60 voluntary agencies involved in international development and education. It makes a wonderful contribution to our city and a wonderful contribution to world needs. It provides many services to the London community, including a newcomer and refugee resettlement program, temporary accommodation for refugees who are without a home, an interpreting service and many, many more support services.

These nongovernmental organizations are experts in their field, and I underline “experts.” We should be seeking their advice and supporting their extraordinary work. We should establish a committee to regularly brief our government, offering expert information and advice. We should work with these agencies, including the Red Cross, as well as all of the agencies represented through the Ontario region of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, to make certain that we are spending funds wisely and -- underlined -- efficiently. I am certain that there must be more administrative costs without the efficient framework that we are striving for today.

Again, I commend the government for its ongoing practice of making funds available for emergency relief assistance and for our role in international development and education. However, in supporting a formal working partnership with nongovernmental voluntary agencies, my intent would be to clarify Ontario’s involvement in international activities, clearly understand our commitment, distribute our funds more efficiently and effectively and, above all, give recognized support through a formal working partnership to the many nongovernmental volunteer agencies for their expertise and tireless efforts in support of international development.

We would expect the member for Brampton North to formalize in writing the structure of this partnership and the objectives of the advisory committee so that as elected members of this parliament we will be accountable and able to explain to our citizens, the people we represent, just precisely our formalized working relationship and the functions of any committee we may be supporting.

I would like to thank the member for Brampton North for his resolution and for his intent and offer him my support in accomplishing this very worthwhile formalized working relationship with the many voluntary agencies in our province.

Mr. McClelland: At the outset, I want to thank my colleagues and honourable members of this House who have spoken this morning for the thoughtful concerns they have raised and certainly for their support of the sentiment and intent of the resolution.

I hope that some of the concerns that were initially raised may have been touched on by my colleague the member for York North. I want to thank him as well. I recognize that my colleague the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) also made some reference to the possible type of framework within which we might operate.

The member for Algoma asked that question at the outset, what type of framework we are talking about and exactly what I mean. I would say to him that one of the concerns I have, quite frankly, is that I do not see there is a great deal of merit in duplicating something that already exists. I too share the concerns of the member for Leeds-Grenville and the member for London North that there is no merit in reinventing the wheel. In wording my resolution, I did so with that in mind.

I would say quite candidly to my friend the member for Algoma that I cannot tell him with any absolute precision the type of structure that I would envisage. There are certain elements that I would like to address, one being the issue of duplication. The other is to recognize that the expertise that has been referred to by the member for London North and other members is already in place. In short, I see a linkage, if you will, and a co-ordinated effort that we can pull together. The member for Leeds-Grenville mentioned that we already do have an ongoing involvement in a significant way.

In fact, that is the case. I understand there are at least 17 Ontario government ministries that are involved in one way or another in what may be either directly or loosely referred to as Third World relief and development.

It is with that in mind that I see the framework that I am talking about in this resolution as one of a co-ordinating office. Whether it be an office or an individual of the government, I think it is important to wait and see the results of the current comprehensive review that is being undertaken at the present time. A principle that would guide me in that framework is not to duplicate what already exists to maximize the delivery of those funds and those dollars that we do currently distribute in disasters.

The member for Leeds-Grenville mentioned that we do respond very well to international disasters and said that was entirely appropriate. I agree wholeheartedly. At the same time, my friend from Algoma mentioned that there are times when the timeliness of that response raises some very significant questions. It is with that in mind that I would hope we could establish some sort of formal ongoing relationship so that we are plugged in to those people who are in the field delivering service and that we can effectively and in a timely fashion utilize those funds.

I am not here to criticize the distribution of funds that our government recently sent to Jamaica. I am told by some people who perhaps should know better than I that much of the funds was used effectively in setting up an administrative process that was already in place. That is one of the concerns that I have, that if we respond to international disasters on an ad hoc basis without an ongoing structure, we in fact use resources that could be used much more wisely.

The working relationship that my friend the member for London North spoke about is essential. We have made reference to the commitment. Each of the members who have spoken today has said that the principles set out in the resolution are laudable.

I do not presume to stand here and say that I have all the answers as to how we would set it up. I think the way it has to be set up is with a view to maximizing what we are doing, to linking the efforts that this government and the people of this province have already undertaken and demonstrated their commitment to.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to present this resolution, and recognizing that perhaps it is not perfect in its wording, I want to talk to the intent of it and say that I think we have a responsibility as a people and as a government to be involved and to demonstrate the commitment of our involvement in the area of international relief and development.

I do believe, and it sounds almost trite to say, that as our world shrinks, we not only have an obligation but also a tremendous opportunity to show leadership in a compassionate, sensitive, wise and prudent way. Accordingly, I would ask the members of this House to support the resolution this morning.

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Charlton moved second reading of Bill 184,

An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): The member has 20 minutes for his presentation and he may reserve any portion thereof.

Mr Charlton: It is always a pleasure to participate in the private members’ portion of the operations of this Legislature. On the other hand, in introducing Bill 184 here in the House for the second year in a row -- although it was not Bill 184 last year, but was essentially the same bill -- it reflects on a problem that we have had in this institution for far too long.

Bill 184 is essentially a piece of legislation which would give to the Ontario Energy Board the authority, on the one hand, to regulate the rates that are charged by Ontario Hydro and, on the other hand, to have the authority to investigate a number of matters that are parts of the operation and planning process of Ontario Hydro -- matters of capacity, price and source of supply.

These are issues that have been controversial in Ontario for some 20 years now. When this government was elected, we heard a lot of talk about serious reform of the structures in which Ontario Hydro operates, around questions of accountability and regulation.

I think it would be fair to say that five or six years ago the issues dealt with in this bill could have been viewed as somewhat partisan in nature. They were opposed by the government of the day. They were supported by this party and have been for a long time. Parts of what is in this bill were, in fact, supported at that time by the present government, then in opposition.

It is also fair to say that the issues that are dealt with in this piece of legislation are no longer partisan issues. Each and every one of the items set out in this bill is based on the recommendations of the select committee on energy tabled in this House in July 1986 and supported by the members of that committee from all three parties.

I brought this bill forward last year because there was nothing forthcoming from the government. I brought it forward again this year because there is still nothing forthcoming from the government.

I would like to start out by dealing with the issue of regulating hydro rates. In spite of what some of the public think in terms of the fairness or unfairness of hydro rates in Ontario, it becomes a very complex issue that does not deal just with what Ontario Hydro’s costs are this year. The rate structure at Ontario Hydro is a rate structure that has evolved over 70 years. It is also a rate structure that is very complex internally and is substantially affected by decisions that were made 20 years ago, which are obviously far beyond our control at this stage.

The process starts with the way in which a utility -- Ontario Hydro in this case -- approaches the whole question of system planning and the mandate that is set out for it in legislation. Currently, under the power commission legislation in this province, Ontario Hydro is mandated to provide power to the people of Ontario at cost, and technically it accomplishes that goal. However, they do that by charging some people more than cost and others less than cost, so that the average price Hydro charges reflects the cost of producing that energy.

We have a rate structure that some of the Liberal members will recall one of their colleagues pursued with vehemence over the years. The former member for Grey-Bruce, Eddie Sargent, a friend of many of us, for many years pursued the issue of the declining rate structure. The declining rate structure is a structure that allows Ontario Hydro to charge those who use the least power in this province the highest rate for each kilowatt-hour they consume, while those who consume the most pay the least per kilowatt-hour.

I think you understand, Mr. Speaker, that inevitably that means those in this province who are conscientious enough to spend money on conservation pay more as a result. Those in this province who use less power because they are poor and therefore shut their lights off regularly, use their stove as little as possible, keep their hot-water heater set low and whatever else pay more per kilowatt-hour as a result.

Then there are those who, because they can get the power so cheap, have no incentive to conserve and be efficient in their use of power. Yes, those huge industries rely on power, and yes, to be competitive they need to have power that is cheaper than our competing jurisdictions in the United States and elsewhere in Canada, but because it is so cheap they become inefficient in their use of power.

The householders in this province who pay the highest rates subsidize the inefficiencies of the rest of this society -- the institutional, commercial and industrial sectors, with the industrial sector being the worst offender. It is also true that the declining rate structure is an overall disincentive to conservation.

Many members will recall that we have had an ongoing debate for some 15 years now about where we are going with our energy future and whether we want to build more nuclear plants in this province. We have heard from the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) on many occasions in this House, both when he was the Leader of the Opposition and even more recently as Premier, that he does not particularly want to see the construction of any more nuclear plants in this province.

When we are in a system that is designed to promote consumption, if we are not prepared to change that system to build in the incentives for conservation, then we are going to be in a position of doing things that none of us want to have to do. That does not seem to me to make a lot of sense.

This bill would pass to the Ontario Energy Board the authority to regulate hydro rates, to set those rates after a hearing. I would like to refer members to this report. Although they probably do not have it with them, they can perhaps jot down a note and take the time to read through some sections of the select committee report from July 1986, because I am going to read a couple of sections that refer specifically to the matters around rate-setting.

Recommendation 13 of that select committee: “The Minister of Energy should request the Ontario Energy Board to hold a public hearing to determine the price which best reflects the value of parallel generation to the system, and to determine the desirable amount of parallel generation that could be added to the system within the current planning horizon.” The current planning horizon is the next 20 years.

The problem we have right now is that Ontario Hydro sets the rate it will pay to those who have gone out into the real world and developed small hydraulic sites that Ontario Hydro feels are too small and that it cannot be bothered operating. Hydro operated some of them in the past and shut them down. Others, they never bothered to operate.

We have small entrepreneurs in this province out there operating those very efficient and substantially environmentally safe small hydraulic sites. But Hydro pays those producers far less than what it would cost Hydro to build another major generation facility in this province. Hydro in fact pays those generators far less than the average cost on the system presently, because essentially it is in Hydro’s best interest, and not necessarily in the province’s best interest, to do so.

The decision-making around questions like parallel generation and industrial cogeneration, and what value that power has to the Ontario economy and to the Ontario electrical system has to be taken out of the hands of Ontario Hydro. The select committee was unanimous in making that recommendation.

Recommendation 16: “The Ontario Energy bard should be empowered to hold biannual public reviews of Ontario Hydro’s resource development plan, and publish a public report with recommendations to cabinet.”

That is the 16th recommendation of the select committee, 1986. It deals with an area where there presently is no formal process of review or regulation at all. The entire information process around Hydro’s long-range planning, its 20-year planning, is completely contained within the Hydro corporate structure. The Ministry of Energy presently has no significant ability to either do studies that check Ontario Hydro’s data or to substantially challenge the results Hydro finds. Neither does any other organization or institution in this province.

There are lots of organizations, institutions, consulting firms and so on that have the capability, given the opportunity, to do the job, but there are presently none that do that job.

When Hydro presents its resource plan for the future to the government, we have made in the past what have been obviously very ineffective efforts to challenge parts of that, but there is no substantial ability to do that because there is no information base outside Ontario Hydro.

This recommendation is a recommendation that was intended to start to change that process, to bring the information out into the public domain so that in fact we would have a body of expertise outside of and independent of Ontario Hydro that could question and challenge the assertions being made by Ontario Hydro in terms of our future direction and the impacts that will have on us as individual consumers in this province and on our economy as a whole for the future.

Again, recommendation 16 was unanimously endorsed by all members of the select committee from all parties.

Recommendation 17: “The Ontario Energy Board should conduct a public review of the results of Ontario Hydro’s demand and supply options study.”

Unfortunately, that was another reference to the Ontario Energy Board that the government failed to accede to. We had a review again in a select committee earlier this year, in August and September. That committee hopefully will be reporting before Christmas, but again, although the select committee was able to acquire expertise in the form of consultants from outside of this place, we ended up with six weeks in which to do a job that probably requires six months of full-time work in terms of a hearing process.

Although I think that committee will come out with some good recommendations, the recommendations will be limited by the amount of time we had in the six weeks to look at a planning process that took Ontario Hydro three years to develop.

Recommendation 22 is the last recommendation I want to refer to from the select committee report and that is the recommendation that basically says, “The Ontario Energy Board Act should be amended to give the board the powers to regulate electricity rates.” That is the very specific ability to deal not only with such questions as what the average hydro rate in this province should be, but also with such questions as whether the declining rate structure, which rewards the inefficient and penalizes the efficient, is an appropriate rate structure, or whether we should have a flat rate structure in this province with everybody paying the same rate, or whether we might even want to move, over time, to an inclining rate structure where those who are the most efficient are rewarded and those who are the least efficient are penalized.

Those are all questions I do not have answers to. I do not know what would be best in the long run for the Ontario economy and for the people of Ontario, but we need a structure that can look at those options, that can weigh those options and that can apply some expertise and understanding to those options, so that we are making the right decisions for the future of Ontario and not necessarily for the future of Ontario Hydro and its ledger books in terms of its revenue versus its debt.

We have a situation where everybody in this province has been talking about making Ontario Hydro accountable, bringing Ontario Hydro under control and regulating Ontario Hydro in a fashion that is in the best interests of the people of Ontario.

The governing party, when in opposition, took firm positions on these issues. This government, since attaining power in 1985, has said it is going to be the government to do exactly that: to make Ontario Hydro accountable and more publicly accessible in terms of those issues that are most important to our future. The current Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) has said openly to the press that he is going to be the minister who brings Ontario Hydro under control, and yet we spend roughly $1 million on a select committee study and it gets put on a shelf and nothing happens.

We do not need to study the studies; we have already done the studies. It is time to proceed to do what we have not only told the people of this province we are going to do, but what we have told each other we support wholeheartedly on behalf of the people of this province.

I would like to reserve the last three minutes of my time for the end of this debate.

Mr. Cureatz: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand in my place this morning to speak in favour of my colleague’s proposed bill. I have to say from the outset that I am suffering somewhat from a mild cold, so I cannot go in full flight --

Mr. Mahoney: Sam. I’m disappointed.

Mr. Cureatz: -- as I am sure the member for Mississauga West would like me to, but I am saving my energy, because within two or three weeks I want to tell the Premier that I am against his Sunday shopping legislation. Of course, I want to save my energy so I can tell the Premier and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) that we do not want Metro’s garbage in my riding of Durham East or at the dump site.

Notwithstanding those concerns, it is interesting that we have some people in the galleries this morning who are wondering, I am sure, with great interest what this is all about. I want to give some depth, some history to this legislation. I know the people at home are busy working this morning, but many come up to me later and say, “We saw you on the rerun.” I think it is important for me to explain to everyone at home about Bill 184 and what it really means.

My colleague from the official opposition has adequately explained some of his concerns and how he has been working along these lines for a number of years. I want to tell all members of the assembly here that for the last 12 humble years that the good people of Durham East have sent me back to these hallowed chambers, I have sat on all the select committees on energy and Ontario Hydro, and what a learning experience it has been.

Goodness, I only have eight minutes left.

The interesting thing is that we did all kinds of studies and investigations in terms of the areas my colleague is centring in on. I can think of rate-setting and investigating Ontario Hydro. Looking back 12 years ago, I have to confess I probably was not sympathetic to those ideas.

As a newly elected member then and as we progressed through the various committees over the years, we had some interesting tours. Unlike going to Australia or New Zealand, we went to those glorious, fine places in Ontario like Deep River, where we investigated the Rolphton nuclear plant. We had a wonderful, full-blown session with our House leader, who was then in opposition, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), and his constituents about the concerns they had. What a hot night we had. They were all up in arms and angry as heck. It is a wonder he ever got re-elected with their concerns about that nuclear plant there.

We travelled virtually over the top of the transmission lines of Ontario Hydro by helicopter, from the Toronto airport up to the Bruce Peninsula. The Environment critic for the third party, (Mrs Grier) and I were closely strapped into this helicopter through a horrendous rainstorm. We were holding each other for dear life, thinking we would lose our lives on top of the transmission lines.

The committee toured up to Elliot Lake just recently and met with the mayor, the union and the chamber of commerce. They expressed their concerns about the mining of uranium and the troubles for the miners over the years, and I think resolved a lot of the difficulties they had expressed about the mining of uranium; and expressed their support, I might add, for Ontario Hydro and nuclear power.

This all shakes down to the problem the government is going to have to face within three years. As critic for the Ministry of Energy, I have been more than patient and I will be for another year. They have a year yet to play around with what they are going to do with the demand for electricity.

To refresh everybody’s memory, Ontario needs about 20,000 megawatts of electricity, more or less, a day; certainly at its peak. In the summer we saw that we had to have a cutdown of electricity because the demand was too great, with the heat spell and air-conditioning. In the wintertime, obviously, there are Christmas lights and the requirement for heat. In any event, we need 20,000 megawatts, of which more or less a third is produced by hydro power -- water falling into the turbines, turning the turbines and making electricity -- a third by coal and oil, and the other third by nuclear.

Right now we are meeting the requirement and we have a little bit of reserve. The question is, what do we do down the line to the year 2000? Everyone is looking into the crystal ball and some are saying we are going to be needing somewhere between 23,000 megawatts and 30,000 megawatts by the year 2000.

The recent select committee, over the past summertime and into the fall, had various witnesses come before it. I will tell members that we are going to be on the horns of a dilemma, if I can use that trite phrase, the reason being that we have concern about the production of electricity by fossil fuels. We all know why; and just to remind members, up the stack goes the smoke to cause acid rain.

We are only now getting to grips at the federal level, both the United States and Canada, with how to handle that problem. With all due credit to the Minister of the Environment, of whom I have been critical from time to time, he has certainly centred in on the area of acid rain as a banner-carrying concern of the government. Hydro has to consider what it is going to do abut that aspect of it.

If the greenhouse effect continues, there is a possibility of lowering of water in the Great Lakes. That means the turbines will not be able to turn as fast. That means we will not be able to produce as much electricity as we are now, one third of it, by hydro power. Do members know what that means? That means we are going to have to look to nuclear. I know my colleague and his party are not supportive of that. Our party has always been supportive. It is going to be very interesting to see where the Liberal Party is going to come from. I give them a year because that is all they have got.

Then, two years after that, before the election, they are going to have to decide which manner they are going to make available for the production of more electricity. To my way of thinking, it is going to have to be nuclear.

Indeed, there has been a great amount of concern that there can be conservation, and I give credit to Hydro. Over the last 12 years I have seen them move ever so slowly from their steadfast position. Now they are talking a little bit about conservation and a wee little tiny bit about cogeneration and allowing entrepreneurs the opportunity of harnessing some smaller rivers in Ontario for the production of electricity. But I do not think that harnessing will give us more than maybe 1,000 megawatts; at the most 1,000 megawatts from those small lakes, rivers and streams.

I only have two minutes left, but I have seen over the last 12 years something interesting about Hydro. Even I cannot believe I am now standing in my place and saying it, but I am now feeling a little uncomfortable about Hydro. It brings back to mind Julian Reed, who was a Liberal member in opposition for years, who used to say, “Ontario Hydro is out of control,” and I thought he was a little exaggerated about it.

Now what does “out of control” mean? It does not mean that the people are whackos over at Hydro, as Frank Drea used to say. They are concerned, dedicated people, looking after probably the best electrical system in the world. What it does mean in terms of out of control is that they are answerable basically to the various departments within their own institution. After the 12 years, who did I see come before the committee again? Basically the same old gang from Ontario Hydro, talking basically the same old story with some movement, only I would think in some cases in recognition of -- yes, I would have to admit -- a change in government and maybe a new direction.

But governments change, as I found out. Ontario Hydro is still going to be there when these guys leave. There will come a time, mark my words --

Mr. Mahoney: I’ll be here.

Mr. Cureatz: Steve, you are gone after the next election.

Now when these guys go, all of us have to make sure that there is a body that is going to be in existence to monitor what is taking place at Ontario Hydro, be it, as my colleague’s explanatory note says, “to investigate matters such as capacity, price and source of supply.”

That is why I am now supporting my colleague’s legislation. I think it is time that we did. Goodness knows, we do not need another board or commission, but I think it is about time we did, to have a consistency of monitoring the concerns that we have about the method by which Ontario is going to be producing its electricity.

Mr. South: I would first like to thank the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) for bringing this bill forward. I recognize that as the New Democratic Party’s Energy critic, the member has taken a keen interest in energy matters for a number of years and as a member of the recent select committee he has made some very worthy contributions to our discussions about energy concerns. That is why the government appreciates his interest in the issues he brings forward with his bill.

We are always interested in hearing from the member for Hamilton Mountain and, for that matter, from all members on energy matters. I think we would all have to agree that the access to reasonably inexpensive electrical energy has been one of the keystones to the great success of Ontario Hydro as much of the industrial engine of Ontario.

This is why this government has initiated such an extensive process for reviewing and opening up the whole Ontario Hydro planning process. We want to be sure that all opinion is taken into consideration as we work to open up the Ontario Hydro planning process and make Hydro more responsive to the concerns of the public and this government.

That being said, to support this bill now would be to deal only with certain specific, although high profile, aspects of Ontario Hydro and the Ontario Energy Board. There are many other aspects in this complex Ontario Hydro that have to be considered. This government does not want to deal with these specific items in isolation. This government plans to deal with the electrical issues addressed in Bill 184 in the context of its methodical approach to making Ontario Hydro more responsive to the concerns of the public and of the government and to opening up the Ontario Hydro planning process.

Part of the planned approach are comprehensive reviews of and amendments to the Power Corporation Act and the Ontario Energy Board Act, but before I delve into the process that we have undertaken, I want to talk about the current situation. I would like to describe how electricity rates are set.

At present, the Ontario Energy Board conducts independent public hearings into any proposed changes in Ontario Hydro’s bulk power rates to municipal utilities and direct industrial customers. These hearings take place at the direction of the minister and have historically taken place on an annual basis. These hearings are an essential element of the process in that they do provide a forum for the public to challenge Ontario Hydro. While the rate review process is complex, some consumer groups have developed expertise in it and they make worthy representation before the board on these Hydro hearings.

Interveners, such as Energy Probe, the Consumers’ Association of Canada, major power users and municipal utilities, as well as board staff, look after the public interest.

While the Ontario Energy Board’s recommendations on electricity rates are advisory, Hydro’s board of directors does take them into careful consideration. It is important to point out at this stage that there is further public input. Hydro’s board of directors is a publicly appointed board.

I would like to now address the methodical review process that this government and the Ministry of Energy began last year. I will outline the steps that we have taken so far and those we plan to take. These are steps that will lead to a more open electricity planning process and a more responsive Hydro.

First, the Power Corporation Act review: In response to the final report and recommendations in 1986 of the select committee on energy, which has been referred to by the member for Hamilton Mountain, the Ministry of Energy began a major review of the Power Corporation Act last year. It is the intention of the Minister of Energy to soon introduce a bill in this Legislature to amend the Power Corporation Act. I want to assure the members that the goal of these amendments is to make Hydro more responsive to government policies and to public priorities.

Second, with regard to Ontario Hydro’s draft demand/supply planning strategy, last year the ministry also began reviews of that strategy, commonly known as the DSPS. One of these reviews was conducted by a dozen government ministries and another by an independent technical advisory panel. They looked at a number of factors that are high on the government’s and the public’s list of concerns. Among other things, they examined the issues of environmentally sound planning, conservation and efficiency, the maintenance of the Candu nuclear energy option and linkages with provincial economic development objectives.

The results of both reviews were submitted to the select committee on energy, which had determined that its first priority was to examine Hydro’s DSPS. This is the first time that a plan of Ontario Hydro has been put before such intensive cross-examination by some of the finest minds available, including those of the public. To further encourage this in-depth examination of Hydro’s DSPS, we have acted to provide the examiners with every piece of information possible. For example, the Electricity Planning Technical Advisory Panel to the Minister of Energy recommended a thorough inquiry into Candu nuclear costs before any new commitment is made to the nuclear option.

This review of Candu costs is now under way. It will carefully examine Hydro’s nuclear cost projections against other key electricity supply alternatives, such as fossil fuel or hydroelectric generation. It will also address the public concern about costs associated with decommissioning nuclear reactors and nuclear waste disposal. We are planning a study which will examine the social and environmental aspects of the Candu nuclear program and key alternatives.

Once all the reviews, including the review by the select committee, are complete, Ontario Hydro will be asked to submit alternative system development plans. This submission will include Hydro’s preferred plan. These plans will reflect not only Ontario Hydro’s

interpretation of the reviews of the DSPS, but also guidance given Ontario Hydro by the government. This guidance, in turn, will be based on the present three reviews of DSPS and on past reviews and independent analysis conducted for and by the Ministry of Energy.

I would like to point out that Ontario Hydro already does many things right and, in the areas where the government wants change, is beginning to make change. This government would like to see more. Hydro can be an important tool for economic development for Ontario, a fact noted by the Premier’s Council in its report on Hydro. In recent years, Hydro’s purchasing people have begun to target key areas in which their procurement decisions can encourage opportunities for Ontario manufacturing. This is one of the most powerful economic tools at Hydro’s disposal.

This government wants Hydro to go further than it has indicated. To support this bill now, though, would be to thwart the extensive, methodical process this government has set in place. We would like the Legislature to review the comprehensive package that we will be bringing forward in the very near future. The goal of this package is to enshrine structural changes in Hydro’s planning process and to make Hydro more receptive to government and to public concerns.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to be able to speak to Bill 184, the bill that my colleague the member for Hamilton Mountain has presented to the Legislature. Certainly private members’ business is a very important part of the Legislature, one which does not get the attention it should, particularly from the government we have been facing over the last year since the Liberals won their majority government.

In fact, I think it is an abuse of that governmental power when we have a parliamentary assistant stand up and make an address on a bill like this and speak not for himself as a private member, as is supposed to be happening on this bill, but instead come to a conclusion which is a government conclusion and state that the government feels this and that in terms of this bill.

This is supposed to be private members’ business and this member should be dealing with what he feels about this bill and whether it is a good bill or a bad bill and what should be done about it. He should not be a spokesman for cabinet in terms of a government position, on which he then dictates to the other private members in the government party on this particular bill. I think that is an affront to this Legislature; an affront to the whole principle of private members’ business.

This bill in fact is quite a simple bill. It proposes to make four changes which had been endorsed not only by members of our party but by members of all parties in a select committee report on energy in this province that was completed in July 1986. That committee arose out of an accord item when the Liberals took power from the previous Conservative government in the minority government of 1985.

The select committee on energy at that time looked extensively at a wide range of areas of concern in terms of energy generation in Ontario and the role that Ontario Hydro was playing in terms of energy and in terms of the economy of the province as a whole. The recommendations of that committee were extensive, and this particular bill primarily deals with four recommendations in the final report, July 1986 recommendations that were agreed to by every member of that committee. These recommendations were unanimous, agreed to by the Liberal members of that committee at that time.

I would just like to look at what some of those recommendations were. We are not asking for an endorsement of every one of the recommendations through this. This is an attempt to get some of the substantive items out of that report passed by this Legislature so that we can have some say in what Ontario Hydro is doing and ensure that Ontario Hydro’s activities are going to be to the benefit of the people of Ontario.

The first recommendation, number 13 from the compendium of recommendations, reads as follows: “The Minister of Energy should request the Ontario Energy Board to hold a public hearing to determine the price which best reflects the value of parallel generation to the system, and to determine the desirable amount of parallel generation that could be added to the system within the current planning horizon.”

Certainly we all know the concerns in terms of our energy future, the concerns about the possibility of having to go with future major installations of nuclear- or coal-powered generation, and the fact that much cheaper sources of energy could be found if we promoted the possibilities of cogeneration and of private, independent generation of power across Ontario.

It is the low-cost alternative and we should not be in a situation where Ontario Hydro is discriminating and paying less than its own cost of energy for other sources that potentially are there in terms of cogeneration and independent generation of power. Ontario Hydro should have a mandate to provide power in the most efficient, effective way possible across this province. This recommendation, which was endorsed by all members of the committee, is one which we expect that all members, in addressing this bill today, would come to agree with.

This bill also would ensure that adequate public reviews of Ontario Hydro do take place, endorsing again recommendations 16 and 17 from the compendium of recommendations that the Ontario Energy Board should be empowered to hold biannual public reviews of Hydro’s resource development plan. The other one is that the Ontario Energy Board should conduct a public review of the results of Hydro’s Demand-Supply Options Study. Certainly the Ontario Energy Board should be the one conducting a serious, extensive review of the direction in which Hydro is planning to take this province.

The concept of Hydro being totally independent of any public responsibility is one which we cannot continue to live with.

The final recommendation, and perhaps the most significant one that would be endorsed by the passage of this bill, is recommendation 22 from the select committee report. It reads, “The Ontario Energy Board Act should be amended to give the board the powers to regulate electricity rates.” Certainly we know the kinds of problems that have been created by Hydro. We have situations of discriminatory rates, where rural rates are much higher than urban rates, where rates in the north are higher than rates in southern Ontario, where rates to small customers are higher than rates to large customers.

When we have customers or firms or individual households that are conserving energy and keeping their amounts of energy down, they are penalized with a higher rate than the massive users which are using the vastly greatest amounts of energy across the province.

The ability to regulate electricity rates is particularly important if we, in fact, are going to use Hydro as a tool for economic development in this province. Certainly why should we not? We as a province, as a people, own and control Hydro. Why would we not use that for the best interests of the province as a whole? There is much that could be done in terms of stimulating economic activity in various areas of this province -- I would refer particularly to northern Ontario -- that would be of benefit to regions that do not have the kinds of diversified economy, that do not have the balanced economy, that do not have the low rates of unemployment that we have here in Metropolitan Toronto.

Hydro should be used as a tool for economic development. In areas like northern Ontario, we pay a tremendous penalty for the geography of the region, for the distances that are involved, for the climate that results in higher energy costs through the winter months. Energy, being a major component of the cost of doing business, is one of the real disadvantages and really discouraging factors that results in less economic activity occurring in the north than might take place if we had an aggressive government policy that did stimulate economic activity in that area.

One of the key areas that can be easily put within the realm of control of this province is energy pricing. We should be doing that through the tool of controlling the prices that Hydro is charging and using that as a major economic development tool.

I would ask that all members of this Legislature respect this proceeding as private members’ business and do what is best for the people of this province, not what is the perspective of just the cabinet minister responsible, and endorse this bill.

Mr. Runciman: The member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz), our party’s critic for the Ministry of Energy -- and he is full of energy, as we all know -- indicated that we are going to be supporting the legislation. We do not necessarily agree with all of the positions of the official opposition in respect to Ontario Hydro and the generation options available to the province, but indeed, with this particular piece of legislation, we find that we can very much support it.

I have to share the official opposition’s regret in respect to the contribution made to this debate up to this point by the government representative, the parliamentary assistant for the Minister of Energy. I was hoping that the debate would be a harbinger of things to come in respect to the select committee’s report, which we will begin to debate starting next Monday I believe, and that we would have an indication of just where the government would be coming from. If the parliamentary assistant’s comments are an indication, it is going to be a very difficult time indeed with respect to coming to any unanimity in the committee in terms of meeting the future energy demands of this province.

Talking about the bill specifically, I think the select committee in 1986 clearly supported the recommendations that the member has incorporated in his bill. I want to say that giving the energy board the power to set the rates would be an effective mechanism to establish public control over Ontario Hydro, as it would, and will quote the report, “Establish control over Ontario Hydro’s costs; provide a check against the power of Ontario Hydro’s board of directors to establish capital budgets; and to co-ordinate the planning and decision-making, linking the critical functions of planning and rate review.”

There is no question that something is needed with respect to Ontario Hydro. It is a very large bureaucracy and the government seems to be having a very difficult time in coming to grips with the operation. In some respects that is understandable. I want to take a look at the lack of responsiveness on the part of the Ontario Hydro, and I will use as an example the Cresap study that was released some months ago, which pointed out in taking a look at only one aspect of Ontario Hydro’s operations, that Ontario Hydro in that particular branch of the operation had over 2,000 redundant managers.

What was Ontario Hydro’s response to that? They are simply going to keep these people on. They are going to look at, over a period of time and through attrition and what have you, being able to reassign these individuals with new responsibilities, and they think that is going to be adequate.

In the face of that report from Cresap, the consulting firm, they went ahead and made an announcement that they are going to construct a new edifice in honour of Ontario Hydro in North York, which is going to house approximately the same number of people that have been found to be redundant, a $200-million-plus building in North York to house redundant managers.

Of course, the real difficulty with that is not simply top management’s response to the Cresap study but also the fact that when you get out into the field in Ontario Hydro, especially going by the responses I am getting in eastern Ontario, they are facing manpower shortages and are not able to meet the demands that are placed upon them; but at the same time, we have redundant managers flooding the operation. Ontario Hydro seems to be simply unwilling to respond to those kinds of problems.

Another example is debt management. Approximately 50 per cent of Ontario Hydro’s revenues are now going to service debt, but that is no problem as far as the management is concerned. It is certainly no problem in terms of the impact on the province’s credit rating obviously, simply because they are guaranteed payment, because the Hydro debt is guaranteed by the provincial government. I think that is wrong. I think that is something that we as a select committee will be taking a look at, and we have to have a much more responsive approach on the part of Ontario Hydro with respect to the very significant debt.

We talk about ways of reducing that debt. I suggested one in this House a number of months ago based on recommendations from North York Hydro. The fact is that the crown corporation has a United States debt of about $9.5 billion. Payment of that debt is based on the projection that the Canadian dollar, over this fiscal year, was going to be valued at about 75 cents in relation to the United States dollar. Well, as we all know, the Canadian dollar has been in the 80-cent-plus range for most of this year and obviously, on the basis of the election, is going to stay in that range for the remainder of this fiscal year.

What does that mean to Ontario Hydro? It means a significant windfall to Ontario Hydro of well over $100 million. The suggestion was, “Well, let’s apply that one-time windfall to a significant reduction in their debt,” but they are not even prepared to do that.

There is simply no recognition, no concern over there with respect to what is happening with the capital debt of Ontario Hydro. I think by accepting the member’s proposal with Bill 184 and previous select committees’ recommendations with respect to this, perhaps we are going to start to get some control over the operations of that crown corporation.

I personally have no real difficulty with this versus the government position and the seeming reluctance to transfer these kinds of responsibilities to the Ontario Energy Board; and that is difficult to understand when you take a look at what the government did in the last year with the auto insurance industry in this province. They had no reservations whatsoever about a massive intervention into the private sector in the auto industry and establishing the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board, which is doing what this member and the select committees of the past have suggested be done with the monopoly situation involving a crown corporation, but they have been reluctant to do it.

When you talk about the private sector, we have no trouble getting in there. The quasi-socialist bunch across the road is an antibusiness government and the business community knows it. They are going to feel it in the next provincial election as well. They are starting to recognize it.

The business community said in the past, “Well, this is an antibusiness government simply because of its reliance on the support of the New Democratic Party.” Now it has been in office with a majority for 14 months and it is still an antibusiness government. They cannot blame it on the NDP any longer. That message is getting out there, and they are going to pay the penalty in the months and years to come. They have no trouble at all with massive intervention into the private sector in the auto insurance field, but when it comes to a crown corporation with a monopoly, “Well, we’ve got to be very sensitive about this.”

Of course, the reality is that Ontario Hydro is such a powerful behemoth in this province that the government is obviously very reluctant to grapple with that power. Well, I think it has to start to grapple, and we have to deal with situations like breaking up that monopoly.

Let’s talk about the question of privatization. Even the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. South) has raised this, even though he made a Milquetoast speech in here today, really saying nothing. I know he has some personal views with respect to this which apparently the whip has convinced him not to express here today. We can understand that, but I think this government and this Legislature should be grappling with some of the very difficult issues facing this province with respect to energy generation and energy supply in the next 20 to 30 years.

One of the things we should be looking at is the possibility -- just the possibility; let’s consider it -- of privatization, breaking up Ontario Hydro in respect to its generation capability and transmission capability. Perhaps we should indeed be looking at the question of privatization of the generating arm of Ontario Hydro. Let’s get this organization, this crown corporation, down to manageable size. Right now it currently is not at manageable size, and this government and governments of the past have really not had a handle on its operation or any effective control over its operation.

I have said quite clearly that past governments have had this problem as well. I think we are facing some very significant questions now.

The member’s bill also talks about authorizing the board to regulate the supply and prices to be paid to nonutility producers. This is a major problem. I can talk about a situation in my own riding where a company called Nitrochem, a producer of explosives and chemical fertilizers, has been attempting with Dupont to establish a cogeneration facility with the use of excess steam generated and gas in operations in their Maitland complexes. They have had virtually no co-operation from Ontario Hydro. Ontario Hydro has effectively killed that proposal.

Mr. Fleet: I am pleased to have an opportunity to address this resolution. There are a number of problems with the resolution, but one of the things I would like to touch upon is what is not dealt with. The government wants to encourage Hydro to act as a powerful force for the economic good of Ontario. One of the key government priorities has been to encourage the people of Ontario to use electricity far more efficiently and to conserve electric power.

As a result of the Liberal initiatives, Hydro’s attitude towards conservation has thawed. If the members do not believe me, I propose they should look at the refrigerator thermometer program to see just how much we have thawed.

On a larger scale, last year the Minister of Energy instructed Hydro to prepare a plan for energy conservation and efficiency. As a result, Hydro set targets to conserve 35,000 megawatts of electric power by the turn of the century. That is a particularly encouraging step because energy conservation and efficiency is going to play an increasingly important role as we meet our energy needs over the next 15-year period. We all know that conservation plays a key role in providing a safeguard for the environment.

Frankly, quite a bit more needs to be done. One of the problems with the matter that is before us today is that it is far too limited. It does not have the comprehensive scope that we know the government is considering. The member for Frontenac-Addington mentioned quite a number of the steps that are taking place as a broad review, but the important thing is that the government acknowledges that more needs to be done in respect of conserving electric power and that is what we are moving to do.

On another front, for instance, we find there are a greater number of independent electricity generators being supplied more and more to the grid. One step was an increase in the buyback rate, implemented by Hydro.

Mr. Charlton: I start out my windup comments by saying to the member for Leeds-Grenville and the member for Durham East that I thank them both for their support of this piece of legislation today. They are both correct that the three of us do not agree on what direction Hydro should take for the future or what methods or facilities Hydro should be using to accommodate that future. What we do agree on is setting up a mechanism to carefully review those questions so that perhaps we have the best possible opportunity to make the right decisions for Ontario’s future, whether they be nuclear or conservation and cogeneration.

To the member for Frontenac-Addington and the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet), I want to emphasize what I have just said. This bill is about setting up a review mechanism to pull the information process outside of Hydro into the public domain so that we can more carefully look at the decisions that are made for a very important future.

This bill does not affect the review of the Power Corporation Act that the member for Frontenac-Addington referred to. This legislation in place would not affect the government’s ability to set energy policy for Ontario and to direct both Ontario Hydro and the Ontario Energy Board to take account of that energy policy and its decision-making process.

This legislation merely sets up the mechanism to ensure that the public review occurs. There is no mechanism in place now, and I go back to what the member for Durham East said during his comments on this piece of legislation. We are running out of time in Ontario. The major decisions that will affect this province for the next 20 or 25 years around Ontario Hydro have to be made within the next year to 18 months and the government is still in the middle of a massive review and not prepared to proceed.

If the decisions that affect the next 25 years are made before their legislative amendments are put in place, there will have been no serious governmental or public review of those decisions at all. It is far too important to leave any longer. They have to be in place so that as Hydro comes forward with its proposals over the next 12 months, we have a mechanism to take a careful, considered and expert look at those proposals, so that the decisions we make affecting our future are the correct ones.

Mr Speaker: That completes the allotted time for discussion on ballot item 43 and ballot item 44. We will deal first with Mr. McClelland’s resolution.

NONGOVERNMENTAL VOLUNTARY AGENCIES

Mr. Speaker: Mr. McClelland has moved resolution 51.

Motion agreed to.

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

The House divided on Mr. Charlton’s motion for second reading of Bill 184, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cunningham, Cureatz, Farnan, Hampton, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Laughren, Mackenzie, Marland, McLean, Morin-Strom, Philip, E., Pollock, Rae, B., Reville, Runciman, Wildman.

Nays

Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bossy, Brown, Cleary, Collins, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Dietsch, Elliot, Epp, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Furlong, Hart, Henderson, Kanter, Keyes, Kozyra, LeBourdais, Leone, Lipsett, Lupusella, MacDonald, Mahoney, Mancini, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuigan, Miclash, Miller, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Oddie Munro, Patten, Reycraft, Smith, D. W., Sola, South, Stoner, Sullivan, Tatham, Wilson.

Ayes 21; nays 45.

The House recessed at 12:08 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY

Mr Mackenzie: The accident that killed 19-year-old John Ramos at 10 a.m. yesterday morning should not have happened. If there is any truth to newspaper stories beginning to emerge, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) has a lot to answer for.

The minister has stalled, for over a year, action on health and safety amendments and mandatory safety committees on construction sites, which were promised in this province. For over a year, in spite of promised action, he and his government have done absolutely nothing in this particular area. People are beginning to realize that there is a lot of talk but no action, and that seems to have become the trademark of this Minister of Labour.

A safety and health committee on the site would probably have corrected the elevator fault. This minister and his government had better start understanding that they are not going to escape some personal responsibility for literal slaughter in the workplace when it is because of, at least to a degree, inaction in areas that they themselves have admitted are overdue.

There should have been action on the safety and health amendments. There should have been action on mandatory safety and health committees on construction sites. It has been promised for more than a year and it is continually delayed. That is one of the reasons that John Ramos is dead today.

ESTONIA, LATVIA AND LITHUANIA

Mr. Jackson: While we in Ontario often take for granted our democratic freedoms, at this very moment in the centre of Europe, nations are struggling to regain the freedom stolen from them by two of modern history’s most evil men. Stalin and Hitler lulled the west into accepting the Soviet takeover of the countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. This great deception is now known to the world and openly admitted to by the Kremlin with the publication of the Molotov-von Ribbentrop pact, which carved up Europe with the mere stroke of a pen.

Long ignored, the Baltic nations have now captured the attention of the world as the result of actions taken in Estonia, where practically half of the country’s citizens recently joined in a mass, peaceful demonstration to demand their inalienable right for freedom and self-determination.

Edmund Burke once wrote: “All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” The west can no longer ignore the plight of the Baltic nations at this critical moment in their history. Canada must now encourage the Soviet Union to resolve one of the most terrible injustices of this century by for ever renouncing her sovereign rights over Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, as it solemnly agreed to in peace treaties with these most deserving nations.

LIMITATIONS ACT

Mr. D. R. Cooke: One year ago this month, I first asked the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to consider the legitimate concerns of a Kitchener-based incest survivors group, Survivors and Supporters Against Sexual Abuse. As members no doubt will recall, the SSASA decided to call for changes to the Limitations Act after Mr. Justice Maloney determined that a jury award of $50,000 for pain and suffering and punitive damages could not be collected by the plaintiff because of the four-year limitation period for assault. The plaintiff in this case was sexually abused by her father from age 8 to 16.

The Attorney General has indicated that a comprehensive review of the Limitations Act is taking into account the special concerns of these victims.

I want to share with this House that which I have learned through my involvement with SSASA’s cause. As many as one in four girls and one in seven boys are sexually abused as children. Victims of incest are known to experience significant and unique damages resulting from abuse which prevent or contribute to the delay of court action by the victim. Labelled by one expert as a child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome, typical reactions of the victim include repressed memory of sexual abuse, a sense of guilt, helplessness and/or shame and low self-esteem. Of course, physical damages also can occur, including reproductive and digestive system damages.

I want to thank the Attorney General for taking this into account in his review of the Limitations Act.

ADVOCACY

Mr. Reville: Mr. and Mrs. Danielsen were old and confused and sick, and Mrs. Danielsen bled to death in her home in Peel region last year.

This was a situation that should not have been allowed to happen and must not be allowed to happen again. It was not as though authorities did not know that the Danielsens were in need of help; it was that they were powerless to do anything because of the government’s delay in dealing with the recommendations of the Fram report.

In fact, the coroner urged the government to immediately set up an office of the public guardian which would provide substitute decision-making to make decisions for mentally incompetent persons and that the government immediately release the Fram report and act on its recommendations.

Mr. and Mrs. Danielsen are not the only elderly, confused and sick people living among us. I knew of five such cases in my own ward, when I was an alderman, of people who were virtually urban hermits, who were sick, who were not well cared for and who in fact had various health problems, some of which led to death, because of the gap in terms of substitute decision-making. This is a gap that must be plugged immediately.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. Sterling: Tomorrow morning the Student Movement Aimed at Restricting Tobacco, a University of Toronto faculty of law student group, will be holding a press conference here at Queen’s Park. The group will be comprised of the president of SMART, who is in the gallery today, and the presidents of the provincial young Liberal, Conservative and New Democratic parties.

Their primary concern is to restrict the sale to and subsequently the use of tobacco by minors. This is a very laudable goal, and it is refreshing to see that our youth can see beyond partisan lines to come together as one to voice their concerns on a very serious health question, unlike us in this Legislature.

How long must we debate the hazards of tobacco before we implement even minor restrictions? Under our present provincial law, tobacco cannot be sold to those under 18 years and those guilty of selling to people under 18 years face a fine of not less than $2 and not more than $50. Now, does that sanction strike fear into the retailer’s heart?

This government should take its lead from the youth of this province. They see the addictive threat of tobacco and the personal and financial costs involved. It is unfortunate that this government does not have their vision on this issue.

MISSISSAUGA YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION

Mr. Offer: I am pleased to rise today in order to recognize the special contribution made by the Young Men’s Christian Association volunteers in Mississauga.

Last Friday marked the sixth annual celebration and volunteer appreciation night for the YMCA. We are proud in Mississauga to be in the midst of constructing our first Y for the city.

During the evening, the many services provided by the Y were illustrated. It became clear that the Y is not just a place of gymnasiums and pools, but rather provides a large amount of other services; and these services are largely provided by volunteers who freely give their time for others.

I am pleased to indicate that Daryl Cook and Jack Doney have recently been honoured as volunteers of the year.

Daryl Cook was singled out for her distinguished role in securing the Peel Board of Education fee for service for the Youth Employment Service program. YES is a program run by the Y and supported by the government that allows councillors to give pre-employment training and job placement to unemployed youths between the ages of 16 and 24.

Jack Doney has been active with the Y since 1982 and has served on the YMCA Mississauga regional council for five years. A major accomplishment is his work with the annual community fund drive.

Volunteers play a very important role in every community, and I am particularly proud to recognize and congratulate these individuals from Mississauga.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Premier (Mr. Peterson). He is not here today, but a large number of taxpayers in my riding of Simcoe East were dismayed to learn recently that they can no longer find out exactly how much senior provincial officials are paid by his government. The latest edition of the Public Accounts of Ontario, a register of his government’s spending and revenue, has undergone a discreet form of censorship.

In the past, the accounts included a list of all government officials paid more than $50,000 annually and listed exactly how much each made, but those lists have been quietly dropped from the latest revision, covering the 1987-88 fiscal year. Instead, the accounts give salary ranges for deputy ministers and the top four executive levels below deputies. The censorship has not gone unnoticed by many of my constituents, and the backbencher’s salary is far less than those of a lot of the deputy ministers and senior civil servants.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Wong: Members may recall that in the most recent speech from the throne the government stated its intention to encourage greater municipal involvement in energy conservation. Today I am introducing a new $3-million energy efficiency program that will help the province’s municipalities to continue their involvement in energy efficiency and reduce their energy costs by millions of dollars every year.

Beginning in January 1989, the municipal buildings energy efficiency program will offer grants to improve the energy efficiency of municipal buildings and encourage energy-efficient operating practices. Through its new programs, the government hopes to help create the market forces that steer society towards environmentally responsible use of energy.

In reducing growth in demand by increasing energy efficiency, economic growth continues with less environmental damage. The government also recognizes that energy efficiency is extremely important in relation to competitiveness. Most other developed countries are far more efficient than we are. In fact, we lag behind our main competitors, including France, Japan, Italy, West Germany, Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United States.

A report on world resources released earlier this week ranked Canada as the most energy-intensive country in the world. That means we use more energy than any other country to produce each unit of our gross national product. We must strive to make more efficient use of our energy resources, but it is not enough for one sector to go it alone. We must all share the responsibility.

Governments at all levels must set the example that all sectors will ultimately have to follow. I know our efforts will pay off. A 20 per cent improvement in energy efficiency across the board could result in savings of between $3 billion and $4 billion on our energy bill every year.

The program I am introducing today has been designed specifically to assist Ontario’s smaller communities. It follows the government’s successful municipal oil conversion and energy conservation program. Under MOCECP, over 400 municipalities implemented more than 1,400 projects that have helped to save energy and reduce operating costs. Estimated annual savings from that program were $6.3 million per year.

Under the new program, municipalities with populations under 10,000 will be eligible to receive capital assistance for up to 75 per cent of the cost of retrofitting buildings. Those with populations of between 10,000 and 50,000 can qualify for 50 per cent assistance.

The ministry will also provide technical training, information and advice in co-operation with the association of municipalities of Ontario through our joint energy program. Participating municipalities will be responsible for monitoring reductions in energy usage as a result of projects funded over the program. Program registration forms will be available to municipalities early in the new year.

By decreasing demand and using energy effectively through conservation and efficiency improvements, we can improve our security of supply and lessen the burden on the environment.

Every effort to safeguard our environment must rank high on our list of public priorities. The municipal sector realizes that energy efficiency makes good business sense. Our goal over the next three years is to help them make it a part of their normal business plans. The municipal buildings energy efficiency program contributes to all of these objectives and at the same time meets the needs of municipalities by reducing their energy costs.

MINING SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: As members know, late last year and during the first part of this year, the standing committee on resources development conducted an extensive inquiry into mining safety. The result of their efforts was the tabling in July of a comprehensive report for the consideration of this Legislature. Today I am pleased to table the response of the Ministry of Labour to this document, a response which describes the specific actions being taken by my ministry to implement the report’s recommendations.

Mining safety is a difficult and complex subject. Underground mines and mining plants present special risks to the men and women who work in them. The task of providing leadership through legislation requires a specialized understanding of both the issues relating to occupational safety and the specialized conditions existing in Ontario’s mines. This is the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour’s mining health and safety branch.

But while the principal legislative responsibility for health and safety of miners rests with the Ministry of Labour, the practice of developing safety regulations and acceptable standards for mines and mining plants is a co-operative and tripartite effort. The Mining Legislative Review Committee, the body responsible for this task, brings together mining trade union representatives, both the Ontario Mining Association and the Aggregate Producers’ Association of Ontario and, of course, officials from the Ministry of Labour. It was before this body that my ministry placed the committee’s report, asking that regulations be formulated where it was considered appropriate to do so.

In addition to the consultation process, a number of specific actions are being undertaken by the Ministry of Labour to respond to the committee’s recommendations. Where the committee report suggested that reports concerning the internal responsibility system or IRS be shared more widely, the ministry is both developing an IRS evaluation system designed to include input from industry and labour, and is co-ordinating development of a training/communications package within the mining industry.

Where the committee suggested that the mining health and safety branch inspectorate enjoy greater input into the deliberations of the Mining Legislative Review Committee, the mining health and safety branch is restructuring its internal regulation review committee to provide broader input from field staff and a more expedited passing of proposed amendments.

Where the committee suggested the adoption of a more streamlined procedure for the bringing of charges against transgressors of the act, the ministry has developed a computerized tracking system designed to overcome delays associated with prosecution decisions.

Furthermore, my ministry shares the committee’s view that those resources available to the mining health and safety branch continue to be sufficient to permit it to perform effectively. This is, of course, an ongoing responsibility of the Ministry of Labour.

These recommendations are the exclusive responsibility of this ministry and are being acted upon now. Other recommendations are part of an extensive review and modernization of the legislative framework for the regulation of occupational health and safety in Ontario, including those relating to higher fines and the role of worker safety representatives. Still others will require co-operation between the Ministry of Labour and other jurisdictions, a co-operation we are committed to developing.

A detailed account of this government’s response to the mining safety recommendations of the standing committee on resources development will be found within the document I intend to table later this afternoon. I would ask that all those who are truly concerned about health and safety in Ontario’s mines and for Ontario’s miners take the time to read it, as it strongly confirms the commitment of this government to assure a safe work environment for all miners.

Finally, I would like to congratulate the members of the standing committee on resources development for the fine work that they did in preparing their recommendations.

RESPONSES

MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM

Mr. Charlton: I would like to take a few moments to respond to the statement by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong). Despite the comments he has made in his statement, the facts he has set out in terms of the potential for conservation in Ontario and the way he set out that we can both improve our security of energy supply in Ontario and reduce stress on the environment, I have to say that his announcement here today is a bit of a joke. He is correct that it is a program that works and it is a small step in the right direction. To put it in terms our children would put it, it is a pin step.

The select committee on energy two years ago set out four major recommendations on conservation initiatives in this province. None of those initiatives have been proceeded with, including three which called for fairly major demonstration projects in the residential, commercial and industrial sectors in this province.

The select committee just went through another set of hearings and what we learned during those hearings is that we have made absolutely no progress in terms of identifying the potentials and the costs of conservation in the three sectors that the select committee recommended we proceed in two years ago.

The minister has taken, as I said, a pin step in the right direction, but he set out for us what the reality that faces us is. I think his statement in itself clearly reflects the inadequacy of what it is he has announced today as a programmatic response. I refer specifically to his statement: “A report on world resources released earlier this week ranked Canada as the most energy-intensive country in the world. That means we use more energy than any other country to produce each unit of our gross national product.”

We have a horrendous situation facing us and a programmatic response that is so minute in the overall energy situation and the problem that no one will be able to identify the results.

MINING SAFETY

Mr. Laughren: I would like to respond briefly to the response by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) to the report of the standing committee on resources development on mining, health and safety.

The minister will know that the committee worked extremely hard to come up with a report that was unanimous in its recommendations. There were approximately 50 recommendations in that report. We await with great interest the tabling of the more comprehensive response by the minister. I hope that the minister, when he went through that report with his officials, took into consideration the fact that it was indeed a unanimous report.

There are a couple of ominous signs in the minister’s statement today, even though the minister shakes his head. Perhaps even shaking his head is an ominous sign.

The minister is simply looking at the question of higher fines and the role of worker safety representatives. The committee agreed that the internal responsibility system was a better system than going out and hiring an army of inspectors to inspect all the mining workplaces in Ontario. But we also felt very strongly that there should be full-time worker safety representatives on the job sites.

If the minister is still looking at that aspect and still looking at the question of higher penalties for infractions, then it does not bode well. Now, I do not want to prejudge what the minister has said in his more complicated --

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Then why are you?

Mr. Laughren: Well, because of the statement that the minister made just a few minutes ago that he is still looking at that.

I hope that when the more comprehensive response has been tabled, it will include a firm commitment to proceed with the whole matter of compulsory worker safety representatives on the various job sites and, as well, that the whole question of infractions will be looked at in a very serious way.

Finally, I hope very much that the minister took into consideration the committee’s comments on the Mines Accident Prevention Association of Ontario. I know there have been some structural changes in that organization, but they have not gone nearly far enough. I hope the minister understands what the committee was saying in regard to that particular organization.

Mr. Sterling: I would like to join in responding to the statement of the Minister of Labour today with regard to the response to the standing committee on resources development.

I too would like to add congratulations to the resources development committee, which did come up with a unanimous report. It is noted we have not had an opportunity in this Legislature to debate that report, notwithstanding that we now have a response to it.

I would not prejudge the response that the Minister of Labour is tabling this afternoon but would only remark that our party stands strong on enhancing miner safety in the future. We have noted in the past that this government is one of studies and reports. We will insist that if the response is not adequate to meet the demands of that particular committee, we will demand it in this Legislature day after day.

MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM

Mr. Cureatz: As critic to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong), I would like to congratulate him on his statement involving efficiency. On his first page he says, “I am introducing a new $3-million energy efficiency program that will help the province’s municipalities....” and, of course, I support him on that.

Indeed, as a member for 12 years in these chambers, all of which time, I say to the House, I have sat on the various select committees on energy and Ontario Hydro, I have had the opportunity of a working experience, as my New Democrat Party colleague has, in terms of the appreciation of some of the problems at Ontario Hydro.

I want to tell the minister, and I am going to be reminding him about this over the next three years before the election, that he is going to have a very difficult choice to make. As I said this morning in private members’ hour, Ontario is producing electricity in the following three basic manners: from fossil fuels, coal and oil, from nuclear power and from hydro.

We found out from the committee again this summer and fall that indeed the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has concerns about fossil fuels. Up the stack goes the smoke and we have acid rain concerns. Then we are told of the possibility of the greenhouse effect. We suffered this summer through a very intense two or three weeks of heat. That could cause a depletion of water in the Great Lakes and hence the depletion of the production of electricity by hydro power. That leaves the production of electricity by nuclear power.

The minister has started a report to investigate the costs of nuclear power, but no matter what the report comes back with, the minister is going to have to make the decision on what method he is going to be using for the production of electricity.

I say to the minister that we in Ontario can tolerate the lack of electricity in summer. Indeed, we were told that we could not meet the 20,000 megawatts that were demanded and the people across the province cut back. But we cannot tolerate a lack of electricity in winter in Ontario. The minister can play around for maybe a year talking about conservation, but these conservation methods are not going to be great enough to meet the future demands. They are talking somewhere between 23,000 megawatts and 30,000 megawatts by the turn of the century.

It is about time the minister started taking a look at banking of environmental approvals. If we need a Darlington B, he should first decide if we need the environmental approval and then get on with it. As the minister probably well knows after being here for a year, it takes some five, 10 or 15 years for the development of any kind of electrical plant, be it thermal or indeed be it nuclear. Darlington, in my riding, has taken 12 years and we do not have the first two units on stream yet, because we want to make sure that these plants are safe. By the same token, we want to make sure that Ontario will have enough electricity.

The minister has not yet come up with any kind of strategy on assuring the people of Ontario that we will have enough electricity. I give him one year to play around and have his investigations in-house with the Ministry of Energy and through Ontario Hydro, but after that, he had better come across and start telling us.

The official opposition is against nuclear power. Let’s see how much influence they are going to have on him, because he is going to have to make a very tough decision on it. We are not going to tolerate in this province being short of electricity. We are go