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

October 31, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L118 - Thu 31 Oct 1996 / Jeu 31 Oct 1996

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

WELFARE-TO-WORK PROGRAMS

ONTARIO HYDRO

WELFARE-TO-WORK PROGRAMS

ONTARIO HYDRO

WELFARE-TO-WORK PROGRAMS

ONTARIO HYDRO

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY 17

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

MARYANNE SHOLDRA

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

HIGHWAY 11

PARTNERSHIPS IN EDUCATION

HALLOWEEN

PROVISION OF WATER SERVICES

BLOCK PARENT PROGRAM

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

COMMUNITY SAFETY

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTER OF HEALTH

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING (TORONTO)

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION FINANCING

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

ONTARIO-QUEBEC AGRICULTURAL ISSUES

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

ABORTION

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS FOR SENIORS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION FINANCING

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF HAMILTON AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA LOI INTITULÉE CITY OF HAMILTON ACT, 1985

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONSULTATION IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 AMÉLIORANT LE PROCESSUS D'ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE ET DE CONSULTATION PUBLIQUE

ROYAL ASSENT SANCTION ROYALE

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONSULTATION IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 AMÉLIORANT LE PROCESSUS D'ÉVALUATION ENVIRONNEMENTALE ET DE CONSULTATION PUBLIQUE (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

The House met at 1004.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

WELFARE-TO-WORK PROGRAMS

Mr Kormos moved private member's notice of motion number 32:

That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should abandon its mandatory workfare program, including mandatory community placements, and introduce locally managed welfare-to-work programs that:

(

a) are voluntary;

(

b) respect the dignity and human rights of the individual;

(

c) provide the kind of training and support that help people get marketable skills for real jobs;

(

d) pay fair wages for the work experience and training;

(

e) do not displace other workers from their jobs; and

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Speaker, I've got to tell you, and I've told you this before, down where I come from in Welland-Thorold, the concept of workfare is not new.

In fact, I remember campaigning in the last provincial election and talking with some of the older folks, those from Crowland and elsewhere in the community, who recalled the 1930s, who recalled themselves or their families, in some cases their fathers, their neighbours, being what were called "relief workers." You see, the government of that day didn't take too kindly to the fact that people were unemployed and that their children were hungry either. Rather than providing them with real jobs or doing the things that were necessary to create real jobs in this province, the government of that day imposed workfare.

So we had the relief workers in Crowland digging sewers by hand.

I've received some calls that this is a relatively modest request of the government. Quite frankly, at the end of the day, the real issue is the fact that there aren't jobs in this province for a whole lot of hardworking people who want to be employed. This government made promises. We know what the promises were. This government promised, in the course of its election campaign, 725,000 jobs. I won't dispute the fact that more Tories were elected to Queen's Park than were Liberals or New Democrats. Clearly a whole lot of Ontarians took them at their word. But what do we have a year and a couple of months later?

We've got higher unemployment now in the province of Ontario than existed in June 1995. We haven't seen but one of those promised jobs and we've seen yet more working women and men forced on to the dole.

I know the mythology; all of us do. Quite frankly, people simply don't believe Ms Ecker any more, Mr Harris. I know the mythology that was generated by the Tories during the last election. It crept its way in the most mean-spirited of ways through every community in this province. But I tell you, Speaker, that unlike, I suspect, most of the Tory members, I've spoken to those people and I know those people who have been forced on to the welfare rolls. I've been in their homes, know their families.

I tell you that, contrary to the mythology that this government, that Harris and the Tories, would try to perpetuate, people want to work. People want to have jobs. People on welfare assistance don't want to be on welfare assistance. People on welfare assistance want real training so they can entertain the prospect of assuming real work.

We need in this province work and jobs, not workfare and the indignity of being forced into programs that are deadend, because that's what workfare is all about. There's nothing meaningful about the job training component. There's nothing meaningful about it at all; it's about punishing the unemployed for the crisis that this government maintains in this province of joblessness.

We know, and quite frankly this government knows, that social assistance recipients are already doing everything they possibly can to get off welfare and into real employment. We know that welfare-to-work programs are irrelevant. Welfare-to-work programs of any ilk are irrelevant when there are no jobs for those people to go to after the program is completed. This government, I'm convinced, quite purposefully misses the mark. It's reneged, it's breached its promise to create jobs: 725,000 -- not one. There is higher unemployment now in the province of Ontario than there was in June 1995 when Harris and his gang were elected.

Quite frankly, this province is having a hard time putting the whole system together. It's unable to find hosts or partners, if you will, for this insidious proposal. Communities and agencies recognize how shallow and how meaningless Mike Harris's Tory workfare program really is.

This government is speedy and fast to criticize, for instance, Jobs Ontario. Were there faults that had to be corrected? Of course there were, but in itself as a new program it took people off the welfare rolls and provided them real training under conditions that promoted dignity and pride and got them into real jobs. Workfare doesn't come close.

The proposal before the Legislature today is, as I say, a modest one. Surely participation in any welfare-to-work program should be voluntary: voluntary certainly on the part of any partner or host that's involved in the training and voluntary on the part of the participant. Otherwise, it becomes oh, so meaningless.

It's imperative as well that this government not simply be creating pools of scabs or free labour for the private sector. I submit to you that no participant in a welfare-to-work program should perform duties that are performed by a paid employee or that have been performed by paid employees of a municipality or region, or even in the private sector, and that no placement should ever be permitted in work sites that are involved in labour disputes.

This government has already done enough damage to the workplace in Ontario with its revocation of Bill 40, and for it to use its workfare proposal to provide scabs for employers who are unwilling to negotiate collective bargaining agreements is unconscionable.

There has to be a guarantee that participants in these programs are paid a fair wage for their training and their work experience. It's imperative to any successful transition. It's equally imperative that child care be guaranteed, be compulsory for each and every woman -- or male single parent, for that matter -- to enable them to participate in these sorts of programs. It's imperative as well that any program that it's embarked on be monitored effectively and thoroughly so that the effectiveness of that program can be evaluated.

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired.

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak to Mr Kormos's resolution today. I want to say that on the surface, when you look at the "whereases" he's got in the resolution, there's not a great deal of difference between our viewpoints.

If we look, for example, at the beginning, it says, "Whereas all Ontarians are concerned about the number of people on welfare...." Of course, on this side of the House we're very concerned about the number of people on welfare, and I can tell you as well that we believe most Ontarians are.

Then it goes on to say, "Whereas people on welfare want to work...." We know and believe firmly that the people on social assistance in the province of Ontario don't want to be there.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I agree.

Mr Ron Johnson: I see the member for Nepean agreeing with my comments. On the government side, we firmly believe that the people on social assistance want opportunity and they want to get into the workforce.

He then says, "Whereas job creation, employment training and programs building job skills are critical to helping people become more independent and self-supporting...." Again, there is no disagreement on this side of the House. But I'm afraid that's where we

part company.

We look then at what Mr Kormos goes on to say, and he talks about making it voluntary, he talks about scrapping our workfare plan. It's evident that we can identify with the problem; that's not the issue here. But what we have to determine, of course, is the solution. No matter how you cut it, the New Democrats don't have a solution, they've never had a solution, and we do.

I think you have to look as well at the fact that if the New Democrats had their way, and I know Mr Kormos mentioned it in his opening remarks, they would bring in what they called at that time Jobs Ontario Training. We know the kind of farce that Jobs Ontario was, don't we, the member for Welland-Thorold? We know the wasted thousands of dollars that were flushed down the drain through the Jobs Ontario Training program. In fact, the Provincial Auditor was very clear in his criticism of that particular program. So that's not what we're about, and we're certainly not going to do that again.

What we really want to do is develop a plan that is going to give people on social assistance opportunity and self-esteem. We believe that our workfare plan has been one small part of welfare reform. Our workfare plan is going to do just that.

I think it's important to note that when people got on to the social assistance plan in the past they've really been trapped in this cycle of dependency, and of course that has created a real generational problem, if you will, with respect to some families in the province. Workfare is going to address that very concern.

I think we have to look at the fact that it's working. If you look at our welfare reforms to date, we're seeing very clearly that our plan is working. There are 180,000 fewer people today on social assistance than were on social assistance when we took office a year and a half ago. I think, quite frankly, that's a number that we can be very proud of, and I think it's a number the New Democrats and the Liberals alike have a very difficult time refuting.

I find it somewhat ironic that we're listening to the member for Welland-Thorold, who belonged to a government that put more women and more children on social assistance than any government in the history of this province. I think it's somewhat ironic that he would bring this motion forward when, when he was in office, they struggled immensely with the social assistance plan and with the number of people going on to social assistance.

I think we have to look at what we are doing as a government, what we are doing to address the problems that, in large part, we inherited from the New Democrats and the Liberals before them.

Mr Kormos: How come unemployment has gone up since you were elected, counsellor?

Mr Ron Johnson: He'll blame the recession; I hear him heckling over there. I hear the member for Welland-Thorold talking about a recession from 1990 to 1995 that caused thousands of people to fall back on the social assistance plan. There's absolutely no doubt that there was a recession. I think we would be remiss if we didn't acknowledge that.

Let's look at how they dealt with that recession and let's look at the policies that government put in place to deal with the recession. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind, and I would argue the minds of most Ontarians, that the policies Mr Kormos and his government put in place simply accelerated the recession here in Ontario, that the policies he put in place didn't help one bit but in fact amplified the problem.

Whereas Ontario had always been the engine that drove the economy in Canada, in this case, under the New Democrats, it was the last province to recover from the recession, and that was simply because of the policies his government put in place.

As a result, as I said before, that gentleman and his party put more people on social assistance than any government in the history of this country. Let's understand the facts, and the facts are very, very clear.

The member also talks about how somehow we have driven a wedge between those who are affluent -- his party says it all the time: the haves and the have-nots. Well, that wedge was already there and that wedge had been there because of the policies his government put in place. The very reason we're going through the economic reform that we're going through now is to eliminate those barriers, to eliminate that wedge so that all Ontarians can have the dignity of a job and so that all Ontarians can have the dignity of working for a living and not have to fall back on the social assistance plan.

He also referred to job creation and he talked about the number of people on social assistance today. I can tell you that 180,000 fewer is a very significant number.

I look at my riding of Brantford. I've got to tell the member for Welland-Thorold that in Brantford they have embraced the workfare plan. I was fortunate in my riding to have the minister down at that time, the Honourable Dave Tsubouchi. He came down to Brantford and toured what we call there St Leonards Pallet Co. I'll tell you, my community in Brantford embraced workfare. In fact, we are one of the 20 communities across the province that are now part of the workfare plan. I can tell you, it's greeted with tremendous enthusiasm.

It's something the people of Brantford are behind 100% and it's certainly something that I know the bureaucrats and the hardworking people with the ministry are supporting 100% in my community.

And it's working too. If you look at our reforms, in Brantford alone -- these numbers are staggering. He won't talk about the successes, but let's talk about the success in Brantford. In Brantford alone, we are one third the way there of completely eliminating people on social assistance. One third of the people in my community who were on social assistance before are no longer on social assistance. That is success.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Hamilton Centre, your voice carries so much. I would ask you just to tone it down a bit.

Mr Ron Johnson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. They get all excited when you start throwing facts at them, because of course they have absolutely no argument when they're confronted with the facts.

Let me just say in conclusion, because I know my colleague from Dufferin-Peel would like to continue, that I believe, as do the people of my community, that workfare is a good plan. It's a plan that's going to create some self-esteem within the workforce and within people on social assistance.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Hamilton Centre, I won't have to repeat it too often.

Mr Ron Johnson: It's a crying shame when they're confronted with facts and they start jumping around in their seats because they can't combat the facts.

I want to say in conclusion that the member for Welland-Thorold has no idea about job creation. He doesn't understand job training. He doesn't understand job skills. He doesn't understand job markets. The bottom line is that he has no idea about jobs.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise in support of the resolution of the member for Welland-Thorold. I don't think any of us in this House disagree with the concept of meaningful job training, meaningful programs that help people get off welfare, meaningful programs that will help break the cycle, that will help people get on with their lives and get off this miserable existence known as welfare in this province.

Unlike my friends across the floor, I don't believe that people choose to be on welfare. I don't believe that people choose the luxurious lifestyle of living on $500 a month, I'm sure living the life of the rich and famous on that wonderful, large income that is given to these individuals.

Interjections.

Mr Agostino: My friends across the floor "ah" and "ah," on and on.

What this program is all about is a chest-pounding, feel-good, bumper-sticker solution to the real problem in Ontario. There are many people on welfare who voted for the Tories, and they voted for the Tories because they believed that workfare was going to mean a job for them. They didn't believe that what the Tories were talking about was, as the minister said, fix the fireplace at firemen's park. They didn't believe workfare was painting swings or building baseball diamonds. They didn't believe that this was the meaningful retraining and upgrading programs that this government was talking about.

But you know what? Workfare sells, politically. This government knows that. This government knows that the get-tough, chest-pounding approach works. Frankly, that is the only reason this program was implemented. When this government outlined workfare in their Comic Book Revolution, they did not have a clue how the program would work. A year and a half later, they don't have a clue how this program works. They talk about 20 communities. Most of those communities have not started the programs because the agencies are smarter and have more principle and integrity than the program; the agencies refuse to become involved.

In my own community of Hamilton-Wentworth, they're having a hell of a tough time trying to find agencies that want to participate in workfare because their own integrity and their own mission in helping the poor drives them to refuse to participate in a program that exploits the poor in this province.

I don't buy the concept that the laid-off steelworker in my riding or the laid-off labourer who's been forced on to welfare needs to be forced into picking up rocks in a park or painting swings to make this government feel good. The laid-off steelworker or the laid-off labourer in my riding needs a job, needs the opportunity for a real job, not feel-good, chest-thumping, 17-hours-a-week volunteer work to continue to feed the egos and the public opinion polls of this government.

It is an expensive program. It is part of the ongoing division in this province that my colleague referred to earlier. This government loves to divide and exploit people. And we're not just seeing rich and poor any more. We're seeing those on welfare and those who are not on welfare; those who have jobs and those who don't have jobs; those who need health care and those who don't think they can afford it and get by otherwise; those who have children in day care and those who don't; those who have children in school and those who don't.

This is the ongoing politics of division, the nasty and mean politics of division, the politics that believe you can add by subtracting: "You know what? If we lose a few hundred thousand votes among those welfare recipients, think how many votes we gain on the other side." That is the ultimate nastiness of the politics we're seeing over workfare. It is the politics of Michigan, it is the politics of Mississippi, it is the politics in New Jersey. It should not be the politics of Ontario.

This government likes to talk about the impact of their policies and how well they've worked. If they believe that forcing 400,000 children in Ontario to have less to eat, to force 400,000 children to go without shoes or jackets is successful, that is not the Ontario I believe in. When they came to office and their first move was to decide they were going to cut welfare benefits by 22%, they failed to realize that 400,000 kids in this province rely on welfare assistance.

Why are they being victimized by this government? Why do you feel you need to punish 400,000 kids who rely on that welfare assistance to get by? How do we win? How does this province become a better province by that? It is an ideological attack on the poor and the needy in Ontario.

This is not new. This has been tried and has failed miserably in every jurisdiction across North America. My friends like to say, "Well, it has worked in Michigan, it has worked in New Jersey. The Republic governors, Newt Gingrich's friends, have made this thing work." What they fail to realize is that the reason welfare numbers have dropped in Michigan or have dropped in New Jersey is because unemployment in those states ranges in the 4% to 5% range, not in the 9% to 10% range as in Ontario. There's a clear correlation between unemployment drop and welfare drop in those jurisdictions.

There's no clear correlation, in any jurisdiction across North America, between workfare programs and welfare numbers dropping.

What workfare does is take away human dignity. It takes away freedom of choice from people. People should be able to choose the types of meaningful programs they want to get into. There are many programs that work and have worked across this province.

In my community of Hamilton-Wentworth, we have programs like Helping Hands, that took hard-to-employ individuals, often who had disabilities, often who had difficulties, drug and alcohol addiction, and put them through some very extensive, meaningful retraining programs that included classroom education, that included literacy upgrading, that included work in the community, and they had a 60% or 70% to 80% success rate. That is a tremendous achievement.

What this government should be doing is helping communities enhance those programs that work, allow the case workers, allow the administrators, allow the welfare recipients to choose the programs that best suit their needs and to let them get on with their lives, not to continue to attack and beat up on and exploit these individuals.

The message you're sending out is that welfare recipients are lazy, that welfare recipients don't want to work, and that the only way you're going to get them is by forcing them to do it, and you're going to give them a swift kick in the butt and say, "Do this or we're going to throw you on the street," because the alternative, frankly, is no benefits, no home, no food, no clothes.

I don't think that is the way you deal with a serious economic problem. Welfare is not a social problem in Ontario; it's an economic problem. Let's stop treating it as a social problem. People do not go on to welfare because they choose to do so. People are forced on to welfare. We've seen statistics in the last few days that talk about the patterns over the last two or three years, where we've seen many university-educated professionals, many individuals who have graduated from high school, many people who have post-secondary education, being forced on to the welfare rolls.

These people didn't all of a sudden become lazy. Nothing got into the drinking water five years ago that has made all these people lazy in the last five years. These people are forced on there because of economic circumstances and difficulties.

When you look at the programs today and the communities, I find it interesting that the community of the Minister of Community and Social Services has as yet not started and is still very much debating whether to become involved in workfare. The good people of Oshawa and Durham are raising some very serious questions as to whether this program should go ahead. Hopefully, the good people of Oshawa and Durham will determine that their community will not participate in exploiting the needy and the poor in Ontario; they'll determine that there are better ways of doing it.

I ask members across the floor to give us some idea of how many placements will occur. We keep hearing that workfare is going to put all these people -- there are about 400,000 or 500,000 eligible people, and they're all going to be doing 17 hours of community work somewhere in this community. Somehow 500,000 placements are going to magically appear and are going to be there for people to do.

The best estimates from surveys done with those municipalities that are going to be involved is that at the end of the first year there will be 5,000 placements at a cost of $120 million -- 5,000 placements at $120 million. That works out to be the most expensive volunteer program in the history of this province. We're talking about an average of $22,000 per placement, we're talking an average of $27 per hour per placement on top of the welfare benefits, and we're talking about a placement that at the end of the day doesn't lead to a job.

This government can't tell us what the projections are. No one on the other side of the House will stand up today and tell us how many individuals who are on welfare will be working as a result of workfare at the end of the program.

So we put people in a program and we say, "Go play nice in a park, go pick up some rocks in a park for 17 hours a week, go paint the swings, and you'll do that for three months." What happens to that individual at the end of three months? He has picked up some rocks in a park, he has painted some swings, he has boosted the ego of the government members, he may have boosted the public opinion polls for the government, but what happens to that individual? Is he or she any better off? Are there any more marketable skills there? What job does that person go to at the end of that 17-hour-a-week volunteer work that they're going to be forced to do?

We have today in Ontario 57,000 more people out of work than there were a year ago. This is not job creation that is working. We have approximately half a million people unemployed who are not on welfare, and then you throw into that mix about 400,000 or so who can work and who are on welfare, and you have almost a million people in this province looking for work today. Does this government not understand that that is the root of the problem? Does this government not understand that there should be a greater priority on ensuring that we have the type of climate to create jobs in Ontario?

How do you create jobs by forcing thousands of layoffs in the public service? How do you create jobs by creating a climate of labour instability that will probably be the worst in the history of this province as a result of your continuous attack on labour, on working men and women in this province? How do you create a climate where you set up a tax cut for the richest and the wealthiest friends of yours in this province at the expense of the poorest and neediest in Ontario?

How do you set up a climate where you make commitments during an election campaign that you're not going to cut health care but you go and start bulldozing through communities and closing hospitals right across this province? How do you create a climate where you run during the campaign and you promise not to impose user fees on senior citizens and then you turn around and impose user fees on those same people you vowed to protect? Or copayments, as you call them, copayments; they're not really user fees.

A senior citizen feels much better because you tell them it's a copayment, not a user fee that you promised not to bring in. How do you create a better climate when you promise not to hurt seniors and disabled across Ontario and then you eliminate programs that help seniors and disabled? You have left 16,000 seniors and disabled on welfare at a benefit reduction of 22% for over a year and a half now. How does that create a better climate for the province of Ontario?

What workfare is all about is an ongoing ideological attack on the neediest and punishing people because they're poor and out of work in Ontario. You're punishing people because they're in unfortunate circumstances. You're punishing people because they don't have access to your boardrooms and to your $250-a-plate fund-raisers, and they don't have access to your wealthy friends and to your government contracts. As a result of that, you are going to continue to punish them; this government will continue to punish them. This will be a continuous attack, an attack that will continue as long as the public opinion polls tell the government that it's politically popular to attack the neediest.

But I ask members across the floor to look at their own community. Get out of your seats at Queen's Park and go into the communities, go into the welfare offices across this province, go into the food banks across this province. Look some of those kids in the eyes and tell them that what you're doing is good for them. Look at some of those single moms who are struggling to get by and tell them that what you're doing is good for them. Look at those unemployed, laid-off steelworkers or labourers in my riding and my community and tell them that picking up rocks in the park is going to help them get off welfare.

Don't sit here in your ivory tower and pass judgement on hundreds of thousands of Ontarians who need your help rather than the back of your hand.

I urge this government to get on with some real, meaningful welfare reform, to drop this absurd and continuous attack on the poor and to stop the myth that's out there, the myth this government has taken pride in perpetuating, that people on welfare are lazy and don't want to work. I challenge this government to create the jobs, and the welfare numbers will drop. I ask the members of the government to get on with some real reform and drop the charade. Help the people of Ontario.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I appreciate the opportunity to join the debate. I want first of all to make note for the record that the previous speaker, the member for Hamilton East, I think is someone who believes very firmly in what he said here today, but let's not forget that that was the party of "mandatory opportunities," which was somehow different from what the Tories are proposing. It's interesting that they had to send in the new crop of Liberals in an attempt to try to put their recent history record behind them.

I just want to lay that out for the record, that there's not much difference between what the Tories are now doing and some idiotic concept called mandatory opportunity.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Members, I would ask you to remain calm, serene, listening attentively.

Mr Christopherson: I assume, Speaker, you're trying to help me and I appreciate that, but with the limited time I have, let them roar on, please, sir.

I also want to make it very clear that I'm solidly behind the position of my colleague from Welland-Thorold. I think this is someone who has a record of caring very deeply for and focusing all his energy on those who are the most vulnerable in our society, those who have the least, and certainly under this government are the ones who pay the price for the benefit the very wealthy are getting from the policies they've put forward.

I also want to acknowledge that this is not anything new. The whole concept of workfare, as previous speakers have mentioned, is not something new that the Tories have come out with. The member for Brantford talks about the opposition not wanting to respond to facts. The facts are, as Susan West, who's a planner with the Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton-Wentworth pointed out in an April

article in the Hamilton Spectator of this year, this is something that's been tried before. That's the fact. Further to the fact, it failed. One of the most recent times it was brought forward was during the last Depression in the 1930s.

So there's a similarity here. Given the fact that the recession of the early 1990s was the deepest and strongest we've had since the Depression, it's pretty easy to realize that the right-wingers among us, namely, the Reform-a-tories led by Mike Harris, believe that the policies that took place during the Depression times are the ones that are needed now. At that time it meant to go after the poor, to blame them for their own situation.

In the case of what's going on now, which is so disgusting, we even see a further transfer, a deliberate transfer of what meagre money the poor have to the richest in our society. That's what you've done. One of the first things this government did when it took office was to cut the income of the poorest of the poor by 22%. I have no doubt in my mind that the history books will reflect that was one of the meanest, most vicious attacks on the poor that we've ever seen, and these will be seen as the recessionary dark times when a certain political party took the opportunity of a recession to implement the most right-wing ideological policies imaginable.

Those also, I believe, are the facts. Certainly history, I have no doubt, will prove that the facts are that you took us back decades, but in the meantime there are real people and real children who are being hurt by what you're doing.

The member from Brantford got into quite a little rant. At one point he almost made a big mistake. He almost said "and this policy will create -- " Anybody who watches the videotapes will realize that he paused. You could see the light go on in his head as he realized, "I can't say jobs, because these aren't real jobs." Then he changed it into something else. He stopped short of saying you're going to create jobs, because the truth is you aren't. You're not giving anybody any jobs. If anything, you're going to take away jobs -- jobs in the public sector.

If there's decent work out there, then I say pay people a decent wage to do it. It's not only the most humane thing to do; it happens to make great economic sense.

You're going to spend half a billion dollars monitoring forced labour that threatens current public sector jobs, that threatens the volunteer sector you profess to care about. You're going to threaten the ability of judges to continue to give community placement orders in lieu of incarceration, because there's already a backlog there. All these things are threatened, and you're going to spend half a billion dollars to do it, all because you pushed a political hot button in the last election that got you a lot of votes. That did happen. I don't think it's something that we collectively, as a people in Ontario, should be very proud of, but you did that.

There's no way you can make workfare into fair work, because it's not. At the end of the day what you're going to do is try to show, through statistical manipulation in the last election, that somehow this program helped people. You need the luck of larger economic indicators in your favour and I don't know whether that will happen or not, but certainly there's nothing in workfare that helps people, particularly the poor, the most vulnerable. There's nothing that helps communities. There's nothing that helps build the economic base that we need in all our communities, like Hamilton-Wentworth, my home town.

There's nothing in this that's going to provide real training for real jobs. All this is going to do is provide those who want an answer why there are so many bad things happening around us with an easy answer, and that is, blame the poor. Obviously it's their fault.

Yet when we look at the facts, the facts of the matter are that over 50% of the people who are in poverty are kids, and the vast majority of those families are headed by women who are single parents. That's who's in poverty. They're struggling to get out. What do you provide them with? A boot. A boot that says, "Go out there and perform the most menial tasks we can think of and somehow magically that's going to give you a job."

What they want is education, what they want is training, what they want is opportunities. Workfare doesn't do that. It didn't do it in the 1930s and it didn't do it during the Industrial Revolution. It will not do it. You can't treat people that way and expect that somehow something positive is going to come out of it.

I want to end my comments today by saying to each of you, as members of the government back bench: Think about your place in history, because you do have a historical role. Ask yourself if you really want your children and your grandchildren and your great-grandchildren to have to live down the legacy that one of their predecessors sat in a government that viciously attacked the poor the way you're doing and through workfare brought back forced labour into this province.

Live with that, and maybe if you think about it that way, some of you will start to back off a little bit and maybe that will creep into the decision-makers of your government, because God knows, nothing else seems to be getting through.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to speak to the resolution from the member for Welland-Thorold. This resolution appears to be almost a carbon copy of the position and memo that came from a press conference, I believe it was last week, by the social planning council, so I understand why he's brought this resolution at this particular time.

I sat in opposition when the member for Welland-Thorold was in cabinet and when he was in government. The member for Dovercourt, I believe, was the minister at the time. We kept waiting and waiting for the New Democratic government to come forward with some philosophy, with some statement, with some change to the welfare system. Both the member for Dovercourt, when he was the minister, and the former Premier of the province of Ontario all said, "The system is broken; we have to fix welfare," and nothing ever happened. They had four years to fix it. Now they come with this resolution criticizing an attempt made by our government to fix the system.

I believe and I hope this system will be fixed. You've got to remember that Ontario had paid the highest welfare benefits, not only in Canada but in North America in the last decade. This was during good times and bad times, and at a time when welfare payments had grown from $930 million to a staggering $6.3 billion in just 12 years; an astounding increase in the cost of welfare and at a time when welfare had tripled to 1.3 million, a figure that had continued to rise, as I say, through both good times and bad times.

I hope all the members of the New Democratic caucus are going to read Mr Rae's book. It will make a wonderful Christmas present for your friends. In this book he talked about what you did during the time you were in power. I refer the member for Welland-Thorold to page 193, where he says:

"We deliberately raised welfare rates that winter" -- this is the winter of 1990-91 -- "to soften the blow. One cabinet official said our decision was the first time she had ever heard a cabinet decide to give the Minister of Community and Social Services more than she was asking for to help stimulate the economy and maintain living standards in a recession. It turned out to be an unpopular decision once the recession began to recede." That's the problem. You threw out money you didn't have.

A government is supposed to help people. There's no question a government's supposed to help people. A government is supposed to educate people. But a government isn't supposed to give away money. You just don't give it away. You try to help people. You try to educate people. You just don't give away money.

Mr Christopherson: What about the 30% tax cut for the rich? You're giving $5 billion to the rich.

Mr Kormos: Take about giveaways.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order, please. Order, the member for Welland-Thorold. The member for Hamilton Centre, come to order.

Mr Tilson: I don't mind them heckling, except they're taking up my time.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Dufferin-Peel take his seat for a moment. Members, please come to order.

Mr Tilson: The problem is that welfare became a permanent way of life to many people.

Mr Kormos: Oh, please.

Mr Tilson: Well, I'm sorry; it did. You say, "Oh, please." The fact of the matter is, it kept increasing and increasing.

Mr Kormos: Well, yes, when you don't create jobs. Where are the jobs you promised?

The Acting Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr Tilson: The member for Welland-Thorold is heckling away at me. Some members say he's a man who cares. This is what the former Premier of Ontario said about the member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Read it in. Make him listen to it.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Ottawa-Rideau.

Mr Tilson: "Trouble started almost as soon as we began. The first was Kormos himself. He was an impossible colleague, and an even more difficult minister. He missed meetings, threw tantrums, belittled his colleagues in cabinet committee. I asked him to get his act together but it was clear I was just Big Nurse to him" -- this is the Premier of Ontario -- "yet another authority figure whose nose he could find a way to tweak. And tweak he did, and not just on car insurance.

"On his own he decided to declare war on the beer companies and their advertising, asserting that what they put on TV was too sexy and exploitative. This became a silly sideshow. Then, totally inconsistently, he decided to pose as the Toronto Sun's Sunshine Boy. This was a soap opera that could only run until I had pulled the plug.

"I fired him from the cabinet on March 18, 1991, just before the House came back from spring break. The press story was that I had fired him for `appearing fully clothed in the Toronto Sun.' Not true. I fired him because he was a royal pain. I knew I had enough support in the party and caucus to get away with it. I lost no sleep over this decision."

So much for the member who cares about the people of this province.

Our party cares about the people of this province. We intend to get people who are dependent on the system off the system that you've created and get them working again. The members over there talk about how we're cruel, how degrading are our policies. Since when, when you're trying to get people working, is that degrading and cruel? We're going to get them working again. Not you. All you're going to do is write cheques. I can tell you, we're not going to do that. We're going to get people off the welfare rolls and working.

There's a statistic that came out and said we've got more people off welfare and working. There was a poll taken. Now, I know the members over there say, oh well, they don't have phones and there were all kinds -- Mr Walkom, I think, made a report in the Toronto Star talking about how fallacious that poll was. But the fact of the matter is, people have been getting off welfare because of our policies, have been getting off welfare and on to the working rolls of this province. That's our aim. Common sense is asking people who can work for something in return for their welfare cheques. It's just helping clean up the mess that you and the Liberals created for the last 10 years.

I hope that you reconsider, particularly that the former Solicitor General reconsiders his position, because we intend to make this work. It will indeed work, and we're going to get this province working again.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I want to thank the member for Welland-Thorold for providing us this morning this wonderful opportunity to speak on a subject that is close to the hearts of many certainly in the New Democratic caucus, and anybody out there in Ontario, in the communities and cities that we all represent, who has any interest at all in the welfare and wellbeing of families and children and of communities.

What we have coming at us in this province under the guise of workfare is simply another part of the Ontario Tory agenda which is, as has been described here this morning already by so many so eloquently, small-minded, narrow, mean-spirited and nothing but an effort to take money out of the pockets of the poorest, of the ordinary working person, and give it to those who already have more than they need.

We in the Ontario New Democratic caucus and party believe that Ontario is a healthy jurisdiction in every sense of that word and should not have to resort to the kind of tactics that this government is falling to to in their estimation right-side the economy and the financial situation of this government and the so many other things that they present as the real agenda of their party and of their government.

Ontario has an abundance of resources. Ontario is one of the richest jurisdictions in all of the world, and if that resource is managed properly, is mined properly, it will generate the kind of wealth that can then be redistributed in a way that guarantees that everybody who lives in Ontario has a decent, adequate and dignified standard of living.

That's not what this government is about. That's what this government should be about.

This government should be about looking at people as the resource they are, providing them with an opportunity to participate that recognizes the skill and the ability they have and that should be in turn providing them with a decent standard of living by way of the wage they make or the money they get from government for participating in the so many ways they do in keeping this province a province that is envied by anybody I've ever talked to in so many places around this world today as a place they'd like to come and participate.

But that won't be for long, because in the short year and some months that this government has taken control in Ontario, we have seen an exercise in smoke and mirrors that would put Houdini to shame.

We've seen an attack on the poor and the most vulnerable that would put the many dictators and despots we've all read about and some perhaps have experienced in this world today, as they beat up on their own citizens and the citizens of the world out there in an attempt to impose an agenda that in every instance was neo-Conservative, narrow, mean-spirited and selfish -- that's what we're getting here in Ontario today. So this workfare proposal fits --

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I don't think it's in order for the member for Sault Ste Marie to be comparing our government to a dictatorship.

The Acting Speaker: No, you don't have a point of order. Member for Sault Ste Marie, please continue.

Mr Martin: Sometimes when the shoe fits, you've got to wear it, and sometimes the shoe pinches. It's interesting that the member from the Conservative Party would rise on that point, because I think I touched a nerve. Many of us, when we get up and say things on this side of the floor sometimes that we would prefer not to have to say, touch nerves and we get that kind of response.

Anyway, back to my point. This workfare initiative is just another part of this government's smoke-and-mirrors approach to doing business in Ontario and it's part of their very wicked attack on the most vulnerable among us in all of the communities and villages that we live in and represent here in this House.

I want to say that I agree wholeheartedly with the statement made by Workfare Watch in June of this year when they said: "Workfare is unnecessary. Workfare is unnecessary because people who are on assistance in this province are already out there looking for work, are already out there beating the bushes trying to find a way to earn a living so that they can pay the rent and put food on the table for them and their children. We don't need to be beating people up in this way."

They say, "Workfare doesn't work." They have done the research and they have looked at areas and jurisdictions in Canada, North America and around the world where workfare has been tried, and they've found that it doesn't work. They say, "Workfare is expensive and bureaucratic," and I agree. "Workfare always displaces paid employment. Workfare will divert resources away from genuine training."

I suggest to you, in closing, that workfare --

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please, member for Nepean. The member for Welland-Thorold has two minutes to sum up.

Mr Kormos: I appreciate the participation of my friends in this discussion, in this debate. Indeed, we heard in the Legislature after some lengthy silence from -- who was he? -- the member for Dufferin-Peel. I haven't seen him here for a good chunk of time. I recall that he was a candidate in the Speaker's race. He was first off the ballot in a field of seven, and perhaps that reflects the esteem in which he's held even by his own colleagues.

We've dealt here with a government that has as its sole objective the fulfilment of its commitment to the very wealthiest in this province, and that's to give them a tax break they hadn't dared even dream of, a 30% tax break to the richest and a complete denial of the fact that this government's policies, and indeed so often lack of them, have generated more joblessness, more unemployment in the fall of 1996 than existed at the time of their election in June 1995.

Mr Baird: Wrong, wrong, wrong. Your majesty's wrong.

Mr Kormos: They can squeal and howl and carry on, but they can't change the facts. The reality is that there's less work available to working people in this province now than there was when the Tories got elected. The fact is that with their wacko workfare scheme, one that is oh so very American in its nature, they are attempting to blame the poor and the unemployed for joblessness in this province. They're attempting to punish the poorest in our society for their poverty. They're telling us that there's no room in Mike Harris's Ontario for single mothers and for the jobless and the unemployed.

I say this government had better put its house in order because, by God, the voters of this province will put them in order in two and a half or three more years.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mrs Fisher moved private member's notice of motion number 29:

That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario, in making a decision regarding the restructuring of Ontario Hydro, should take into consideration the following: the historic and economic value of Ontario Hydro to the people of Ontario; Ontario Hydro as a major resource to the province, especially the significant role played by the nuclear generating sites; the importance of creating a long-term vision to address the global competitiveness of energy production, transmission and sales; value-added projects, such as the Bruce Energy Centre, resulting in economic growth and job creation for Ontario; and the commitment made in the Common Sense Revolution to work with the chairman of Ontario Hydro and others to bring Hydro back to its proper role, providing reliable and affordable electrical power to Ontario, which may mean more changes at Hydro, including some moves towards privatization of non-nuclear assets.

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): The resolution before the Legislature today is designed to bring into focus the considerations faced by the Harris government in the management of a debt-ridden Ontario Hydro and the need to establish an Ontario electricity system as a part of an energy system that would serve the Ontario economy.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): "I'm sorry. Please vote for me again."

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order. The member for Hamilton Centre, come to order.

Mrs Fisher: It is important to note that any so-called privatization could only be conceived of if and when it is viewed to be in the best interests of the people of Ontario. It is for that reason that I have brought this resolution to the House: so that we may discuss what is best for Ontario Hydro and best for the people of this province as we move into an era of competition in the electricity industry.

Ontario Hydro holds both a historic and an economic value to the people of Ontario. From its inception in 1906, Ontario Hydro has played a crucial role in the development of our province. Once a small power grid that served a handful of municipalities in southwestern Ontario, transmission lines now extend to every corner of the province, providing millions of customers with reliable electricity. For 90 years now, electricity has played a major role in building Ontario's economy and in raising our standard of living.

Ontario Hydro represents a major resource to our province, especially important because we do not have abundant natural gas and oil. Nuclear generating sites play a significant role in support of our resource. Across its system, Hydro has the capacity to generate 34,000 megawatts of power. Nuclear stations represent over 60% of that capacity, and nuclear production supplies most of the base load of the electricity system.

The Bruce nuclear power development site has contributed greatly to that 60% generation, largely as a result of a committed workforce that has achieved world records. In 1980, for example, Ontario Hydro's reactors occupied the top four positions in the 1980 world performance rankings, which compared 114 reactors with greater than 500 megawatts of production. This achievement was made possible by the performance of the Bruce A generating station, whose reactor units 2, 3 and 1 took first, third and fourth places respectively.

Of extreme significance, the Bruce nuclear power development site benefits my community by employing approximately 4,500 employees.

It should also be noted that neither Ontario Hydro's nuclear nor its hydraulic generators produce greenhouse gases. The challenge for the Ontario government is to determine how best to exploit Ontario's unique situation in this increasingly important environmental regard.

I should mention and commend the Harris government's continued support for the international thermonuclear experimental reactor project, known as ITER, for which two siting options are Bruce and Darlington. We are hopeful that the federal government will, in its wisdom, offer support for bringing this prestigious project to Canada and to Ontario.

In addition, I would like to highlight my continued support for the mixed oxide fuel project, known as MOX, for which the next steps include environmental assessment approvals and public input towards locating the MOX project at Bruce.

It is also imperative that we recognize the importance of creating a long-term vision to address the global competitiveness of energy production, transmission and sales. It is understandable that workers at Ontario Hydro's many locations are discouraged, frustrated and wary of change. I was a proud Ontario Hydro worker at a time when our nuclear plants were known worldwide for their nuclear excellence. Today we must help the employees of Ontario Hydro re-establish that same pride. That means restructuring should encourage the spirit of competitiveness within Ontario Hydro as well as outside of it.

It means that, like any other business, Ontario Hydro can no longer allow waste, duplication and unnecessary spending as it addresses its $32-billion debt.

That being said, no one should confuse the fact that, because of outside forces, competition is upon us. If you were to plot current industrial electricity rates on a map of North America, you would see that we are surrounded by low and decreasing energy prices. From our neighbours in Manitoba at 2.5 US cents per kilowatt-hour to Quebec at 3.1 US cents per kilowatt-hour, some of the US states at as low as 2.7 cents and gas companies from the eastern and western United States at as low as 2 to 3 cents, Ontario's 4.3 US cents per kilowatt-hour is hardly, at best, a contender.

For Ontario Hydro to survive the effects of outside influences, we must address, through restructuring, the need to be competitive. There exist many possibilities of how competitive Ontario Hydro would look and as many ways to achieve that competitiveness. We are fortunate to be able to look at other jurisdictions that have privatized their electricity systems and learn from their mistakes.

In so doing, we can look at Britain and Nova Scotia. We can also measure our progress against other areas engaged in similar debates, such as British Columbia where, like Ontario, one of the key aspects of electricity generation is the ownership of generation, transmission and distribution by a crown corporation.

The entire world is examining the organization of electricity markets. Privatization, deregulation and competition are becoming the norm. The United States, for example, in order to compete within itself and with Canada, is currently undergoing major restructuring and precipitating industrial amalgamations. As one of the largest public utilities in the world, Ontario Hydro should be setting the international agenda on electricity, not following it or falling behind.

Ontario's long-term vision to remain competitive requires an appreciation for allowing Ontario's electricity system to become a part of a comprehensive energy system by attracting joint venture enterprise to combine its skills, creativity and capital within the current management and ownership regime.

Value added projects, such as the Bruce Energy Centre, will result in economic growth and job creation for Ontario. Activities such as industrial ecoparks must be encouraged by offering competitive electricity and heat energy rates, reflecting a true discount for not incurring transmission losses and costs.

This will allow Ontario's large central generating stations to compete when open access does occur, to stimulate major job creation and industrial development, to encourage emerging technological advancements, and to minimize the mistaken attitude that competition between natural gas and the electricity interests hurts the economy of Ontario. This mindset has restricted the evolution of mutual benefits of both business interests and the Ontario consumer to date.

The commitment made in the Common Sense Revolution is to work with the chairman of Ontario Hydro and others to bring Hydro back to its proper role, providing reliable, affordable electrical power to Ontario. This may mean changes at Hydro, including moves towards the privatization of non-nuclear assets. A move to a more effective, more affordable and more competitive Hydro means that the low-cost energy should not be sold by Ontario Hydro through a US subsidiary while Ontario consumers are required to pay higher prices because of a preserved monopoly.

The Power Corporation Act must be amended to allow Hydro to be competitive, both internationally and within itself, and to provide economic development rates that will attract business to Ontario. The Ontario Energy Board Act must be opened and consideration given to, at minimum, providing the OEB with decision-making authority in place of its current role as an advisory body to the Ontario Hydro board of directors.

A third piece of legislation to be considered is the Public Utilities Act, in which the role of municipal electric utilities and public utility commissions must be reviewed. The mandate and purpose of Hydro technologies and Ontario Hydro International must be reviewed to determine the relevance as we move forward with the restructuring agenda. And we must re-establish a high reputation through controlled spending, appropriate staffing levels and local decision-making. Ontario Hydro has historically been the primary driver of Ontario's economy. It needs to be recognized as a resource, not just an industry to be torn apart.

Bringing Ontario Hydro back to its proper role can be best accomplished by restructuring Ontario's electricity system into fully accountable and competitive units, each competing with each other and with any other producer of electricity in an open market.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to join in the debate in connection with the resolution standing in the name of the member for Bruce. I want to commend her for bringing the subject to the assembly. I think any fairminded member of the House would have to be sympathetic and sensitive to any member who represents Bruce county, since we all know that the current member, like her predecessors over the last 30 years, represents an area with a very substantial Ontario Hydro presence. I know from people like Murray Elston and, dare I say it, Eddie Sargent, that it has always been an issue before people in Bruce county, and it's quite properly an issue before the province as a whole.

It's hard in some respects to take issue with a lot of what the resolution suggests. It asks that the government, as it sets new Hydro policy, take into consideration the historic and economic value of Ontario Hydro. I think that's almost a bromide with which no fairminded person could quarrel; I see my friend from Lanark nods approvingly. It asks that Ontario Hydro be recognized as a major resource in the province, especially in terms of its nuclear division. That might be a little less unanimous in its acceptance, but certainly none the less important. And on the resolution goes.

It talks about the first-order importance of providing reliable and affordable electricity, and surely there's no one who is going to contest that claim.

But I do want to take the opportunity today, Madam Speaker, to say to you and to the member for Bruce and anyone else who's listening that it is time, I think, that we had a better sense of where the government is in respect of Ontario Hydro policy. It's all well and good, and I commend the member for Bruce for doing her duty, as the member from an area with a very large Hydro presence, in bringing forward her perspective and her concerns. But I think it is only fair that one of these days we get a much clearer sense from the treasury bench, from the government, as to what kind of Hydro policy it's going to pursue.

We have reports in the Toronto media -- the Globe and Mail comes to mind, October 14, 1996, where the new Minister of Energy, Mr Sterling, is quoted as saying: "The decision on whether to privatize and what parts you would privatize," meaning privatizing Ontario Hydro, "I think it's a couple, three, four years out." Fair ball. That's the current minister's view. There will no major decision on privatization for at least two to four years. That I understand. I think some of my enthusiastic friends in the government say it's a second-mandate issue. That's got an interesting ring to it, but that then begs the question, what's Ontario Hydro doing in the interval?

I can tell you that no one, no organization of which I have acquaintance, likes a vacuum more than Ontario Hydro. And they are not static, they are a very active player these days.

We have, for example, a report in a Hydro publication of this past summer; just a few weeks after the Macdonald commission's A Framework for Competition in Ontario Hydro was released in early June, we have the president of Ontario Hydro, quite a formidable executive and someone for whom I have a high regard, Dr Allan Kupcis, saying to Ontario Hydro employees in an internal publication that early in July, the Hydro board met and they made two major decisions about policy directions that they are going to be pursuing in the coming months and years.

I want the House to listen carefully to what Dr Kupcis, the president of Ontario Hydro, announced as corporate policy, decided and reinforced this past summer. Reading from the Hydro document:

"In broad strokes, the strategy adopted and confirmed at the July board meeting suggests that Ontario Hydro plan for growth in each of the three signature businesses of generation, transmission and retail distribution."

We have a clear statement of intent from the president of Ontario Hydro that notwithstanding what the minister may be saying, the new minister or the former minister, the member for Guelph, we have the president of Ontario Hydro stating in July of this year that a recent board decision confirmed that there would be an active expansion of Ontario Hydro's activities in the three signature businesses of generation, transmission and retail distribution. That is a very important statement from the president of this crown corporation.

I want to know, is that government policy? It's clearly not what Mr Macdonald is recommending. I have not heard the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Energy or the real minister of hydro in this government or any other, the first minister, pronounce as to whether or not they endorse what Mr Kupcis has in fact announced as corporate policy.

Now, you might say, "Well, that's just one reference." A very fine former member of this assembly, a good Conservative, a former Minister of Health and Minister of Energy, Phil Andrewes -- some of you will know Phil; he's a very fine fellow -- he happens to be presently the chairperson of the Lincoln Hydro-Electric Commission. I raised this issue the other day, because here we have proof that notwithstanding what the minister is saying or not saying, Ontario Hydro is doing its thing in the marketplace.

Two and a half years ago -- the member for Algoma will remember well -- this Legislature unanimously, as I believe, endorsed Bill 185. That bill essentially gave municipal utilities the right to expand to fulfil their municipal mandate. Many of them currently just supply a portion of their municipal mandate. In this case, Lincoln was the first out of the gate after Bill 185, and Ontario Hydro was actively involved in that.

Now we find that Ontario Hydro is participating in a not very helpful way in holding up what we all thought was a good thing. Putting it very bluntly, Ontario Hydro is down in the Niagara Peninsula actively frustrating a significant, well-intentioned local utility from fulfilling its retail mandate, in a way that we all thought was a good thing if you were concerned about efficiency and getting at duplication, because we've got in Lincoln what we've got in many other situations.

We've got a local utility supplying some of the market, that is, on the retail side, and we've got Ontario Hydro in the same marketplace. I think most of us here would agree, and that was the basis of the debate around Bill 185, let there be one supplier, at the retail end at least, if it can be shown to be an efficient and sensible thing. So Ontario Hydro is down there, and that's just one place, actively frustrating a local utility from doing what most people think is a right, sensible, cost-effective activity.

Up in my area, Ontario Hydro intervened a few months ago, telling Pembroke Hydro that its 90-year-old agreement with a private supplier, a deal that predates the creation of Ontario Hydro itself, a deal that supplies very cost-effective alternate power to the electrical consumers in the city of Pembroke, a deal that's been in place since before Ontario Hydro was created, Hydro decides to exercise a right that it's had to --

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): They have the right.

Mr Conway: That's right. The member from Lanark is right. But they go in and exercise that right and say, "That deal must end." I thought we were all interested in more affordable, more efficient delivery of this vital resource. We have in Lincoln and in Pembroke clear evidence in recent weeks that the utility is pursuing, and pursuing aggressively, a policy that certainly seems to be at variance with what many in the government say they want and certainly what the honourable member for Bruce would be recommending in at least part of this resolution.

I repeat, if Hoover makes vacuum cleaners, Ontario Hydro is in the business of filling vacuums. Let me tell you, they're out there now very much filling a vacuum. I say to my friend from Bruce, whose intentions are good and honourable, that it is important that one of these days we hear publicly from the government as to what its policy is going to be. I will probably debate with some, perhaps even in my own caucus, about how far privatization should go.

We have, all of us, I can say as a relatively senior member of this place -- Tories, Liberals and New Democrats -- accepted that there ought to be some significant reliance on privately generated electricity. That policy decision we made a decade ago. I don't sense that decision is about to be reversed by Liberals, New Democrats or Tories.

I believe and my colleagues believe that there are -- and here I agree with that part of the resolution that stands in the name of Mrs Fisher -- vital public interests in this electricity debate that we must as a Legislature and as a government and as a community defend, vital economic and social interests that governments of all kinds in the 20th century have stood up to protect.

I am deeply concerned about Bill Farlinger's concept of the public good in this electricity business. When I talk to people on Bay Street, I've got to tell you, their sense of public interest in the electricity business is not my sense. I do not believe there ought to be a significant sale of public assets that have served the public well.

I can imagine we have done certain things involving the private sector and we ought to do more. I think one of the most contentious areas of rationalization is going to come in this business of retail and distribution, where you've got two parts of the public sector: the public sector that is represented by Ontario Hydro, and yes, I say to my friend from Algoma, John Murphy and the Power Workers' Union; and you've got the local public interest as represented by Lincoln Hydro, Ottawa Hydro, Nepean Hydro, Smiths Falls Hydro or whatever.

I'm under no illusions about how difficult it's going to be to rationalize those two competing interests in the public sector, but we have to do that. The customers, whether they're in St Catharines, Pembroke, Ottawa or northern Ontario, expect -- here the member is right -- reliable, efficient electricity at affordable rates and they like competition. I'm under no illusion. They like it and they want it. But I don't think that gives any of us a licence to simply sell out Ontario Hydro.

I think Don MacDonald has some good ideas; I think he has a very bad concept for the Ontario Hydro that would be remaining after this report was to be implemented. In my vision of Ontario Hydro after the reforms and changes, and change there must be -- the continental marketplace that is North America will not give us the luxury of sitting still in the comfortable pew of the status quo. I think we have to recognize that. But I believe there is a very significant role for a public utility that provides reliable and attractively priced electricity.

I'm not about to endorse selling off most of what is Ontario Hydro. Quite frankly, even if we wanted to do some of that -- I've talked to my friend from Lanark, who might want to get into this debate -- I live on the Quebec border and we've got a number of very significant hydroelectric assets that are anchored partly in Ontario and partly in Quebec. I look at those hydro dams in places like Rapides-des-Joachims and elsewhere and I have a feeling that Quebec City will have an interest. Even if you wanted to sell off those assets I have a feeling that M. Landry, M. Bouchard, M. Parizeau or M.

Bertrand -- you name the Premier of Quebec. Anybody who thinks you're going to sell off those substantial hydroelectric resources, dams, on the Ottawa River and not invite the very keen interest of the Quebec government -- I might be wrong, but I suspect I'm not.

My point is that there are vital public interests. Those interests attach to the values of reliable, available and competitively priced electricity; an important, significant role for Ontario Hydro. I'm not surprised Don MacDonald said, "Keep the nuclear assets in the public domain." There is no alternative. But we shouldn't be keeping just those assets for which there is no alternative and selling off everything else to the private sector. That simply would not be in the public interest. By the way, Ontario is not southern California and it's not the United Kingdom. This is a big, empty province in many respects and it's awfully cold six months of the year.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I want to congratulate my friend from Bruce for bringing this resolution before the House for debate. As my friend from Renfrew North indicated, we have been experiencing some considerable vacuum in terms of government direction with regard to the future of Ontario Hydro, a very important asset, as the member for Bruce says in the resolution.

Ontario Hydro has a history of importance in terms of economic development in the province. There has been and will be change. The energy markets in North America are changing substantially and have been changing very rapidly. This will mean that there will be continued change, but my experience in this place over the same length of time as my friend from Renfrew North is that governments that do not actively provide some important and ongoing direction to Ontario Hydro find that this crown asset and the staff at this crown asset find their own direction.

My suggestion to the member for Bruce is that there are parts of her resolution we could agree with wholeheartedly. There are other parts with which we find serious problems.

First, I really would like to find out what has happened to the member for Bruce. I first met her when I was in another guise in this place as the Minister of Environment and Energy.

I met the member for Bruce who was then a very active and serious spokesperson for the people of her area, particularly for the municipal people and the business community and, I suspect, for the workers at Ontario Hydro, who was very concerned about an attempt made by our government to restructure that corporation so that it could be competitive, who was very concerned about the fact that there was going to be significant downsizing at Ontario Hydro, and who complained and raised very serious concerns, I think genuine concerns, on behalf of the communities in her area about what it would mean if there were fewer jobs at Ontario Hydro and what on earth would happen to the Bruce Peninsula if there were fewer jobs at Ontario Hydro.

I give her credit, significant credit, that she raised the importance of the Bruce Energy Centre as a way of trying to generate jobs and economic development in her area. I commend her for including that in the resolution. But to suggest that she is not here now defending, with the same vociferous approach, the interests of the workers at Ontario Hydro and the communities where they live is very disappointing; it is most disappointing.

I can't understand why she would not be standing up for the people who work at Ontario Hydro and make it such an important asset to Ontario, why she isn't standing here saying to the government: "You've got to provide direction. You've got to protect this important resource. You've got to ensure that it restructures, that it is competitive, and not to sell it off."

She loses me at the very end here where she says in this resolution "the commitment made in the Common Sense Revolution, to work with the chairman of Ontario Hydro and others to bring Hydro back to its proper role, providing reliable and affordable electrical power to Ontario, which may mean more changes at" Ontario Hydro. We're with her right to that point. And then it says "including some moves," whatever that means, "towards privatization of non-nuclear assets."

In other words, what she is proposing is that all those potential money-makers at Ontario Hydro, all those parts of Ontario Hydro that potentially can provide a return to the people of this province and to the consumers of electricity in the province should be privatized, perhaps, but those very important sections which generate, as she said, about 60% or more of the electricity that is used in the province, the nuclear plants, should be kept in public hands.

Keep in mind the enormous costs that are associated with decommissioning at some point, the exact amount we know not, and the enormous costs of retrofitting those operations that we've gone through and are going through. Those should remain in public hands. In other words, we keep in public hands the costly part and we privatize the money-making parts for the benefit of the corporate sector.

That really says in a nutshell what this government is about: Anything that makes a profit for the people of Ontario better be in the private sector, and anything that may cost the people of Ontario and provide a service to the people of Ontario, a much-needed service but costs money, must remain in the public sector. In other words, you privatize the profit and you socialize the costs. That's what this resolution is about. That's what this is about.

We're facing a very serious ongoing change in the electrical energy system in North America. We have proposals for wheeling that are going to have to be dealt with by the government and Ontario Hydro. We have significant proposals for natural gas generation of electricity in the province which I believe we should be responding to. I know there are many who work for Ontario Hydro who don't think we should, or if we are, they believe that Ontario Hydro alone, perhaps, should provide for those kinds of developments. I don't think that's true. I think that we all, as the member for Renfrew North said, all three parties in government, have recognized the need for diversification and competition.

All of us have recognized the need to bring Ontario Hydro under the control of the public sector; I say that recognizing that it's been owned by the public sector ever since its creation. We went through a major restructuring, which downsized substantially, made Ontario Hydro more businesslike, divided it up into sectors and units that could compete and will compete, but unless they are given direction by the government, they will compete in a way that may make it impossible for those private sector developments that could also generate power in the province to be able to do so in a way that is competitive with Ontario Hydro.

We froze rates, and I commend this government for continuing that freeze.

Mrs Fisher: You laid off 10,000 workers.

Mr Wildman: The member for Bruce says we laid off 10,000 workers. That's quite correct. That is quite correct.

Mr Conway: We shut down a construction company; that's what we did.

Mrs Fisher: No, you didn't.

Mr Conway: That's what we did.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Address the Chair. The member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: She knows she's not correct when she says we laid off 10,000 workers. A number of workers took early retirement, there was restructuring and so on, but there are 10,000 fewer employees at Ontario Hydro; that's correct.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): You didn't give your wealthy friends a tax break; that's the next line.

Mr Wildman: That's correct. We didn't give our wealthy friends a tax break; that's correct. This government is indeed giving its wealthy friends a tax break, and we didn't do that; that's true. But we did downsize Ontario Hydro substantially and that's where I first met the member for Bruce before her election.

Mr Conway: I hope people remember Darlington was completed, you know. We need to keep the pre-Darlington --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Renfrew North, come to order.

Mr Wildman: We went through a serious problem. We had a surplus. There was a depression, a recession in the province. The demand was down and there was a surplus of generation. We had, as many of us had predicted back in 1975, constructed Darlington, and Darlington, frankly, wasn't needed. So we had an enormous surplus and it produced an enormous debt which didn't come folded into the rates until Darlington was completed, because that's the way Ontario Hydro does its accounting. We had to deal with all of that and we did.

I suspect that if the member for Bruce were very straight with her constituents, which I know she must be, she would say that there probably is going to be more downsizing at Ontario Hydro.

Interjection.

Mr Wildman: She says she's suggesting that somehow the competition on the open market that she's proposing will mean there won't be downsizing at Ontario Hydro. That's interesting.

I can tell you that if you privatize profit-making parts of Ontario Hydro, there are people on Bay Street who are salivating about the commissions they'll make on those shares. A modest estimate of what can be made on that market for those paper pushers on Bay Street is $2 billion. Can you imagine what those commissions will mean?

This isn't just a tax break for your wealthy friends; this is a gift to your wealthy friends, a gift at the expense of the people who live in the Bruce Peninsula, at the direct expense of the people this member represents, and frankly, not only at the expense of the people who work for Ontario Hydro, but at the expense of the consumers of electricity in the province.

We have to deal with the proposals for wheeling. We have to deal with the proposals for private generation. I think we can. I think Ontario Hydro can. But I don't think that means we must sell off Ontario Hydro. It says in here, "including some moves towards privatization of non-nuclear assets." I know these words are couched in qualifications -- "some moves towards privatization" -- but the basic word there is "privatization," unless the member is attempting to say, "Privatization if necessary, but not necessarily privatization." This resolution is sort of a Mackenzie King approach to Ontario Hydro, is it?

"Perhaps we can have conscription or maybe we won't have conscription." "Whatever we can do to make it look like I'm speaking on behalf of the people of Bruce Peninsula, in order to try to get re-elected, then if the province were to sell off Ontario Hydro at the expense of the people of Bruce Peninsula, at least I spoke out."

I don't think this is the case. I think the member is genuine in her commitment to the people of her constituency. I think she's quite genuine in recognizing the historic and economic value of Ontario Hydro; I commend her for including that in the resolution. I commend her for saying that Ontario Hydro is a major resource for the province. I commend her for saying that it must be competitive. I commend her for saying that the Bruce Energy Centre is a way of generating economic growth and jobs in her region.

I commend her for saying that we must provide reliable, affordable electrical power in Ontario; that's what Ontario Hydro is about, that's what it should remain about, that is the purpose of this major component of our economic system.

But what does this mean? Perhaps the member, in her response, can tell us what she means. If she doesn't mean privatization, what does "including some moves towards privatization of non-nuclear assets" actually mean?

What we need is direction for Ontario Hydro. We need to have Mr Farlinger, on behalf of Ontario Hydro, and the Minister of Environment and Energy, on behalf of the government, make clear what the vision is for the future of Ontario Hydro in a competitive, difficult marketplace in North America. Is it only privatization? Is it partial privatization? Is it privatization of the profit-making parts of Ontario Hydro and maintaining the costly parts in the public sector? What is the government's position with regard to the future of Ontario Hydro?

Mr Guzzo: I'm particularly pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the member for Bruce's resolution this morning because she has dealt with the issue of nuclear energy as part of the government's vision for Ontario Hydro in the years to come. In my remarks I want to take that point a step further, outlining the future possibilities for nuclear technology, which is really in its infancy stage.

But I'd be remiss if I didn't make a couple of comments in response to the last two speakers. I've always been fascinated with the member for Algoma and the slant he is capable of putting on different issues, but it's really the member for Renfrew North who fascinates me. I particularly enjoy listening to him here in the House, but I'm very thankful that he's not a history professor or a history teacher in one of our high schools because I find he has a fascinating ability to rewrite historical facts and bring down a very interesting attitude or slant.

When I say that nuclear energy is in its infancy stage, it's true that nuclear power is scarcely three decades old. If you look around the world at the number of nuclear reactors, about 400-plus, in the world today, you'll find that many of them are first-of-a-kind designs or copies. This should tell you that we are witnessing a development of an emerging technology. Currently, in the phase we're at today, we're seeing that proper designs are being improved, redeveloped and that the less capable or acceptable reactors are being replaced.

Here in Canada proof is everywhere that nuclear power is constantly improving and becoming the safest, the cheapest and the most reliable form of energy. Here in Ontario we're particularly proud that we're developing protective measures under a system called passive safety, which is making us a world leader in preventive care. Passive and other safety features will solve the problems we've experienced in the past, even before they occur. That program is something that needs our attention and needs to be commended as we move into the careful and profitable use of nuclear power.

Along with those progressions, nuclear power is also becoming one of the more cost-effective forms of energy. Looking at the Darlington situation as an example, where we sell power at about eight cents per kilowatt-hour, the entire operation of the plant, or the marginal cash costs, accounts for about one cent per kilowatt-hour. The operation is inexpensive.

Mr Wildman: The debt's very large.

Mr Guzzo: That's the problem, isn't it?

Mr Wildman: Who decided to impose that debt on us? Bill Davis.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Guzzo: Who would know better than the member for Algoma?

Mr Wildman: Bill Davis imposed that debt on us.

The Acting Speaker: Order, the member for Algoma.

Mr Guzzo: In the case of Darlington, we had a problem other than the construction cost. We had a little matter of politics, if you recall, remembering that there was a coalition government of the two opposition parties at that time, a government that I believe put a moratorium on nuclear development that led to long delays and tremendous cost overruns in the mid-1980s. I know the opposition points with pride to that contribution, not with the same amount of pride as to tripling the debt of this province in the years 1985 to 1995, but --

Mr Conway: I want to hear Garry on the subject of debt. I would like to hear a full discourse. I would like to hear it all. You're failing this history course so far. Go back to the 1970s and look at the election campaign.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Renfrew North, please come to order.

Mr Guzzo: I'm getting around to it. The member for Renfrew North, just relax because --

Mr Conway: You're failing this history course.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Guzzo: Well, a history course --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Ottawa-Rideau, address your remarks to the Chair, please.

Mr Guzzo: I'm doing my best, but the distractions are many, Madam Speaker.

I shouldn't be too critical because I have to tell you that I heard the member for Renfrew North deal with the issue of the joint assets on the Ottawa River, and I commend him for that. He's the first member of the Liberal Party, federally or provincially, to even acknowledge the existence of those problems. The federal cousins buried their heads in the sand, leading up to this date a year ago, and continue to do so without any appreciation of some of the matters that have been raised. But if only one member of that party is aware of it, it speaks volumes.

Politics aside, our nuclear industry is making tremendous headway at reducing costs. They're doing that by a number of innovative methods: modular designs of the nuclear reactor components that we manufacture and, at the present time, the calandria preconstructed unit, which is housing the fuel bundles, is probably the best example. It allows for less assembly, less construction time and much greater quality control.

In Canada, technology has come a long way in terms of streamlining the costs and the advancements being made have been exported to places like Korea, where Candu 9 reactors are employing that same modular design concept. If strongly emerging economies can recognize the value of Canadian technology, built and tested here at Ontario Hydro, perhaps our restructuring plans must also recognize that value as we plan to meet the future demand.

This resolution speaks to the need for long-term vision in the context of global competitiveness. Our neighbours in the state of New York and in the province of Quebec are moving towards competition and they have systems so that pressure remains on Ontario Hydro to keep our rates attractive for investments and jobs. To be competitive we need a utility that's lean, but large enough to take on the giant utilities that are forming on the North American continent. I think we have to be cognizant of what the opposition is doing. They're merging, they're getting bigger to compete with us.

It has to work on a scale large enough to keep interest rates down and we'll certainly need the nuclear division to keep the prices down now and through scientific breakthroughs down the road.

Historically, back to the federal governments of the 1940s and the 1950s, Canada became involved in nuclear energy to meet needs that would allow us to be independent and not rely on our neighbour's coal and fossil fuel. During that crushing year of 1993 we had an example of how Ontario was better able to deal with rising fossil fuel costs because of our self-reliance and because of the developing nuclear network. I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to partake in the debate.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I wish today to speak in support of ballot item 46, the member for Bruce, Mrs Fisher. I guess I should respect the opportunity because I represent Durham East where indeed the Darlington nuclear station is located. You have to recognize that Darlington nuclear station plays an important

part in the local economy of my riding and indeed, of all of Ontario. It lies 70 miles east of Toronto and has capabilities of serving 20% of the power needs of the province of Ontario. Its costs are world competitive. Looking at about five or six cents per kilowatt hour, it's highly positioned to provide reliable, safe and affordable power for the province of Ontario. Our government was elected on the platform of jobs, so there's no intention to undermine the importance of Hydro's contribution to both the local and the provincial economy.

That being said, I've listened very intently to the comments of the member for Renfrew North, Mr Conway, and he went on at great length. I have great respect for his comments, but he did come down to synthesizing it down to a need for change. He was clear on that and I think really that's what the MacDonald commission said as well. Mr Wildman, a previous minister, also suggested that there was a recognition for a need for diversity. I support those observations as I believe every member in this House should, when you think through the problem.

We're trying to provide cost-effective, affordable, reliable -- and I must underline the importance of safety. In that we all know that the MacDonald report recognized the nuclear component would remain within the province's purview. In fact, most of the regulatory part of nuclear is under federal regulation and indeed, that's probably where it should remain.

I'm going to remain on topic here because I want to share the remaining part with the member for Niagara Falls who can talk about the hydro-generated water power.

This government has committed itself to examining the fair competitive delivery of affordable power, and I believe it's not in any way taking away from the important contributions Ontario Hydro makes to the community and, indeed, to the province. But they have to get competitive, they have to be global, and I think we have to work with them and the power workers, as well as the large-user component and the smaller utilities. I'm not sure the distribution system is the proper purview for Ontario Hydro, but I'm sure the argument will see us through.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): It's my pleasure to rise to add a little bit to this debate on Hydro.

I want to congratulate the member for Bruce and say that the member for Algoma's comments are I think patently unfair because I know first hand how much she cares about Ontario Hydro and the people in her riding. I've spent countless hours with the member for Bruce debating the future direction that Ontario Hydro should take in this province and there are problems --

Mr Wildman: I didn't mean to be unfair; I was just asking what her position was.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Algoma.

Mr Maves: -- with the hydro sector and with Ontario Hydro in this province. The member for Bruce acknowledges that, and she's to be commended for that. She doesn't bury her head in the sand and say we don't need change. She doesn't ignore the problems nor does she ignore the world around us. The electricity industry is changing very rapidly around us and we're in danger of being left behind. Instead she says, "It's important to create a long-term vision to address the global competitiveness of energy production, transmission and sales," and for that she deserves to be commended, not mocked.

The member for Renfrew North spoke of the public interest. In my view, the public interest is safe, reliable supply of energy at lower rates. Do we just stick our head in the sand and say since 1914 HEPCO has run Hydro in this province and therefore that's the way it's always been historically, and that's the way it should remain; or do we look at other options and say we're bringing competition into the sector, maybe bringing some private equity into the sector? Will that lower rates and let us keep our safe supply and reliability?

If so, we owe it to our constituents, we owe it to our businesses, we owe it to the folks who have those hydro bills every month to look into these different options.

Niagara Falls over the years not only has an historic place in the history of Hydro, but Niagara Falls businesses have an historic place. Several abrasive plants are in Niagara Falls. They've been there from the beginning, in the early 1900s, because they could get cheap power. Their future depends on the continued availability of cheap power in Ontario.

From 1990-94, however, with the CPI increasing on average 2% a year, electricity rates in this province increased more than 40%. That's inefficient and that's dangerous for our businesses and that's dangerous for people in my riding and throughout Ontario for their livelihoods.

If we look at the 1995 average industrial electricity rates measured in US cents per kilowatt-hour, we see Manitoba at 2.5 cents, Missouri at 2.7, Quebec 3.1, Maryland 3.6, Virginia 3.6, Kentucky 3.7, and on and on. Ontario Hydro's at 4.3 cents. We have to look at the system and we have to decide how we make our rates competitive again with the rest of the world.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Maves: The world around us is not going to stand still. They're moving to increase competition --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Come to order, please.

Mr Maves: -- and they're doing it better than we're doing it. So I commend the member for Bruce for recognizing that we still have problems, for recognizing that we have to look at different options, and definitely competition is needed, perhaps private equity is needed, but congratulations to the member for Bruce. I'll support your resolution. You're right on for the need for competition and a competitive strategy for us in the future for Hydro.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? Seeing none, the mover of the motion has two minutes to sum up. You can take this time too actually.

Mrs Fisher: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to thank my colleagues the members for Ottawa-Rideau, Niagara Falls and Durham East for their contributions today, and those for Renfrew North and from Algoma. I think it's important to reiterate at this point that where Ontario Hydro is involved the status quo is not an option.

I can assure you, Mr Wildman, that I am working for the people of Bruce. I am amazed that you, as the past NDP energy and environment minister, could suggest differently. You had the opportunity to help and you failed.

He cut 10,000 workers. He shut down unit 2. He lost the support of our PW workers, and he still hasn't learned the difference between restructuring and privatization. It was myself and other community leaders who begged him to listen and to help. What did we get? Closed doors. One of the major reasons I am an elected member today is that at least I have the courage to address the issue and assist through the necessary restructuring.

As I have said, there are a number of factors increasing the pressure on Ontario Hydro to restructure. These include the open access and competition initiatives being taken by the United States, the converging of natural gas and other electricity investment interests, the aggregation of smaller US electricity units and the rapid advancement of technology.

This government has a responsibility to attract investment, create jobs and ensure that Ontario can compete globally in the face of economic and technological change by providing accessible electricity at affordable prices. We must restructure Ontario Hydro to make it competitive and a leader in the international market. I firmly believe that Ontario Hydro, and particularly our nuclear assets, can achieve excellence once again, and I look forward to participating in that process.

The Acting Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

WELFARE-TO-WORK PROGRAMS

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): We will deal first with Mr Kormos's private member's resolution 45. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, they will please rise.

All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."

Those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

ONTARIO HYDRO

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): We'll deal next with ballot item 46, standing in the name of Mrs Fisher. If any members are opposed to a vote on this, they will please rise.

All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."

Those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. A five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1203 to 1208.

WELFARE-TO-WORK PROGRAMS

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): We will now vote on Mr Kormos's private member's resolution, ballot item number 45. May I remind the members that before we move to the second ballot, I will cause the doors to open for 30 seconds so members can come and go.

All those in favour of Mr Kormos's motion will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Crozier, Bruce

Martin, Tony

Boyd, Marion

Kennedy, Gerard

Ruprecht, Tony

Caplan, Elinor

Kormos, Peter

Silipo, Tony

Christopherson, David

Kwinter, Monte

Wildman, Bud

Conway, Sean G.

Lankin, Frances

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Gilchrist, Steve

Pettit, Trevor

Baird, John R.

Grimmett, Bill

Preston, Peter

Barrett, Toby

Guzzo, Garry J.

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Bassett, Isabel

Hardeman, Ernie

Ross, Lillian

Beaubien, Marcel

Hastings, John

Shea, Derwyn

Brown, Jim

Johnson, Bert

Sheehan, Frank

Carroll, Jack

Johnson, Ron

Skarica, Toni

Chudleigh, Ted

Jordan, W. Leo

Smith, Bruce

Danford, Harry

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Stewart, R. Gary

Doyle, Ed

Leadston, Gary L.

Tilson, David

Elliott, Brenda

Martiniuk, Gerry

Turnbull, David

Fisher, Barbara

Maves, Bart

Vankoughnet, Bill

Flaherty, Jim

Munro, Julia

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Fox, Gary

Newman, Dan

Wood, Bob

Froese, Tom

O'Toole, John

Young, Terence H.

Galt, Doug

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 14, the nays are 47.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

ONTARIO HYDRO

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): We will now deal with Mrs Fisher's motion, ballot item number 46.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Gilchrist, Steve

Preston, Peter

Baird, John R.

Grimmett, Bill

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Barrett, Toby

Guzzo, Garry J.

Ross, Lillian

Bassett, Isabel

Hardeman, Ernie

Shea, Derwyn

Beaubien, Marcel

Hastings, John

Sheehan, Frank

Brown, Jim

Johnson, Bert

Skarica, Toni

Carroll, Jack

Johnson, Ron

Smith, Bruce

Chudleigh, Ted

Jordan, W. Leo

Stewart, R. Gary

Danford, Harry

Leadston, Gary L.

Tilson, David

Doyle, Ed

Martiniuk, Gerry

Turnbull, David

Elliott, Brenda

Maves, Bart

Vankoughnet, Bill

Fisher, Barbara

Munro, Julia

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Flaherty, Jim

Newman, Dan

Wood, Bob

Fox, Gary

O'Toole, John

Young, Terence H.

Froese, Tom

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Galt, Doug

Pettit, Trevor

The Acting Speaker: All members opposed to the resolution will please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Crozier, Bruce

Martin, Tony

Boyd, Marion

Kennedy, Gerard

Ruprecht, Tony

Bradley, James J.

Kormos, Peter

Silipo, Tony

Caplan, Elinor

Kwinter, Monte

Wildman, Bud

Christopherson, David

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Conway, Sean G.

Lankin, Frances

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 46; the nays are 16.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

It now being after 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1215 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I want to take this opportunity to deal with a couple of issues that were left on the table from yesterday, particularly during members' statements. I'd appreciate the attendance of the House for a moment, the member for Etobicoke-Humber.

There were some concerns with respect to parliamentary language, and the member for Dovercourt mentioned in his comments on a point of order that he was looking for some clarification about what is in order and what is not in order in this Legislature.

It seems to me that's a fair request to ask of the Speaker but somewhat difficult to fulfil. It depends quite often on how words are used, what kind of words are used, in what context and the direction of those contexts. Rarely, if ever, is a word completely out of order. It's very often that you can use a certain word in some context that wouldn't be ruled out of order one way and then in the next line could possibly be ruled out of order by a Speaker and in the third line guarantee you that it in fact would be ruled out of order.

Let me directly deal with the complaint of the member for Oriole yesterday with respect to comments that she made in her statement. Her position at the time was, and I know a number of members stood on points of order to address her issue, that she wasn't suggesting that a certain person in the Legislature was a racist, she was saying the remarks they made were racist.

The difficulty that I have as Speaker is that ultimately you could substitute any word for "racist" and simply allow any word to be used in this House if you felt that "remarks" was the caveat that got you theoretically off the hook. In effect, "lie" is a word that we will not use in this place and I'm sure everyone will agree is not tolerated, but if the suggestion is made, that if you say, "Your comments are a lie," "Your answers were a lie," "Your remarks are a lie," that can't possibly let the member off the hook from the actual charge that they're making.

It seems fairly clear to me on that point of order that we, or I specifically, have to make a ruling that is acceptable in my opinion for decorum in this House. Having said that, I reviewed the Hansard from yesterday and I would stand by the decision that I made. You can't simply insert the word "remark" or "comment" and be given carte blanche to make any comment you want.

To move on, the member for Dovercourt suggested in his comments, and testing me -- and at the time I decided I would review Hansard and report back to the House today to determine whether or not his remarks were in order. Having reviewed them, it seems fairly clear to me, and I think probably to the majority of this House if you review it, that they were not in order.

The fact of the matter is, you can't come into this place -- as they said in Erskine May, page 382, "A member is not allowed to use unparliamentary words by the device of putting them in somebody else's mouth." So in essence the member cannot come in here and suggest, "My constituents think you are a racist," or any word you want to put in there. You can't simply, by the device of putting the words in someone else's mouth, make yourself in order if you couldn't directly make the charge yourself.

I will give notice to the House that I didn't rule the member for Dovercourt out of order yesterday. I've taken the time to review the issues before us and I would suggest in future, if anyone attempts to use that device to put their words or other words into someone else's mouth, you will be ruled out of order in future.

I'd just like to put those on the record. I want to say in conclusion that it happened during our period of what we call members' statements. I would remind members that Mr Speaker Edighoffer spoke to the standing orders and members' statements a number of years ago actually and his comments during that were:

"I have paid particular attention to the new procedure during members' and ministers' statements, and I feel that in future we might run into a difficulty that has occurred in the House of Commons. I know the guidelines for members' statements there state that no statement should be used in any way as a personal attack on another member. Because we have no specific guidelines, it is left to the Speaker. I hope that in future, members' and ministers' statements will be used for the regular purpose and not in any way for personal attacks. I ask all members to continue to be honourable members."

Clearly, Speaker Edighoffer foresaw this situation. I understand that we have evolved for members' statements, but with all due respect to people in this House and the members of this House, considering the rulings I made yesterday, considering the background checks I've made on those rulings, I think all members would be better served if they abided by those particular rulings, abided by those particular decisions.

In conclusion, you must be forewarned that if you can't make the charge directly, you cannot make the charge indirectly. That's how this Legislature in fact will continue to work.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: On your comments, I don't know if you're entertaining this or if you're going to make me sit down, but as I always say, with all due respect -- we all know what that means -- you're going to sanitize this House to an extent that it's going to become sterile if these options are removed.

I will trust your good judgement. I appreciate that you're saying, as I hear it: You will make a judgement using these general parameters but you'll make individual judgements, which I think is wise because not every case is going to be the same. That's very fair. I differentiate, as I said yesterday, between saying that a person's statement is, for instance, stupid or the person is stupid. They're two different things, because a lot of very clever, excellent people can make a stupid statement. It doesn't mean the person is stupid.

The second thing I'm worried about is your saying, "You cannot personally attack another member." I would say that is wise as well, that there not be a direct attack. However, there are things other members say that members wish to call to the attention of the House in a member's statement, and I hope you would not be too confining as long as it is not a direct personal attack on that person.

The Speaker: The points you make are very valid, and I understand the arguments you make with respect to using the word "stupid" and so on and so forth. As I said at the beginning, and I want to be clear to the member for St Catharines and the House, no word exclusively can be unparliamentary. A word can be used at any time in acceptable parliamentary language. Again, it's up to the Speaker to determine the context of how the word is used and whether or not it's properly put before the Legislature.

As far as members' statements are concerned, I agree. I think it again has to be up to the Speaker, and a little decorum and parliamentary procedure is applied to that as well.

Finally, as I said yesterday, it gets to the point of splitting hairs with respect to the term "racist," whether it's putting the word in your mouth or putting it in someone else's mouth or saying the remarks were. I want to be very clear to the member for St Catharines: That's a decision the Speaker has to make. I made that decision yesterday and I stand by that decision today. I've taken into consideration your comments. I think they're appropriate and applicable in a lot of instances. Again I say no word is unparliamentary; it depends how that word is used.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: If I could comment on your remarks and on your ruling, you make the point, and I think it is a fair comment, that we do not attack another individual. But I believe that as members of this Legislature we have an obligation, when members of this Legislature act in a way that promotes sexism or racism or those isms or things that we feel so strongly and passionately about here, to stand in this House and speak out against those actions. That is not a personal attack on the individual.

It is an attack on what they have said and it is raising the consciousness of those who are listening to the fact that it is not only inappropriate but the kind of behaviour which cannot be tolerated in our society.

While I hear your ruling, I would take issue once again with the ruling you made. I don't agree in any way that I attacked the Premier personally. I did not say "he was" or "he is." I specifically quoted something he said and classified that using the only terminology I felt there was to classify it. For that I make no apologies. But I say to you, Mr Speaker, that members of this Legislature, I believe, in making a statement before this House must be free to quote, in quotations, something which another member has said and label it appropriately. If your ruling is that this is unparliamentary, so be it.

The Speaker: Then, ultimately, I say to the member for Oriole, we agree. I have to be left with the opportunity to make decisions which are parliamentary and unparliamentary and, again, your decision is whether to withdraw or not. That's exactly how the place is supposed to work.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if I could have some clarification from you around the comments that you made about the member for Dovercourt, who said that he had heard from his constituents a certain thing and that it was not appropriate. I wonder if you could explain to me whether or not, if something appears in the press or if we receive a letter that is someone else saying something, that is appropriate. It seems very difficult to me to understand why a verbal communication from a constituent could not be talked about.

But I hardly think, and I didn't get a sense from you, that you would have been trying to prevent people from actually dealing with something that was in the public domain that in fact was attributable to a particular individual.

The Speaker: I don't want to go too far into this because, as I said, it's very difficult because specific circumstances are the only way you can work it out; hypothetically, it's very difficult. I say to the House, briefly, I can only refer you to what the member for Dovercourt said. I can only suggest to the member for London Centre that you cannot, as I read earlier, by device say something that you couldn't say otherwise. So, whether it's in the newspaper, whether a constituent has said it to you or not, if you can't level the charge, you can't get around it by saying, "My sister, my brother, my constituent said you are such-and-such." That is in fact the ruling.

I will read the 21st edition of Erskine May just briefly again. Some new members are here. Erskine May, 21st edition, page 382, "A member is not allowed to use unparliamentary words by the device of putting them in somebody else's mouth." It's very clear.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): What if it's not in somebody else's mouth?

The Speaker: The member for Dovercourt, it's very clear, and the ruling has been made in the past.

Mr Silipo: Erskine May doesn't run this Legislature; you're supposed to.

The Speaker: The member for Dovercourt.

Mr Silipo: Don't rely on textbooks; rely on your good sense.

The Speaker: The member for Dovercourt, I am relying on my good sense.

Mr Silipo: Well, it isn't showing.

The Speaker: The member for Dovercourt, come to order. I took a great deal of time and a lot of effort. I read the context of what you said yesterday. I was very clear earlier in my statement. You cannot say indirectly what you can't say directly.

Mr Silipo: Then how the hell am I supposed to represent my constituents?

The Speaker: The member for Dovercourt, come to order. It's, again, my job to maintain parliamentary procedure, parliamentary debate, and allow you the opportunity of speaking your mind, but you cannot say, as I said earlier, something indirectly that you can't say directly. Thereby, you cannot, by device, put words in someone else's mouth that would not be properly before this place out of your own.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Some of the rest of us have read Erskine May as well. If I remember correctly, one of the other points that is made in several places in Erskine May is that the privilege to say in this House things which might lead to litigation outside this House is here to further free speech and further free debate.

I just want to be sure of what you're saying here. If someone very clearly takes someone's remarks as perhaps indicating a racist attitude or in the context creating a racist impact, why would we be foreclosed from bringing that to the attention of this House? It seems to me you've got to walk a very fine line here, a very fine line, because the last thing we would want to protect in this House is someone's capacity to say racist things, to promote racist attitudes and then not be called to question in this Legislature.

The Speaker: To the leader of the third party: If in this place anyone was speaking as you said they would be speaking, I would give my undertaking, if not a guarantee, to the members of the third party and the opposition and the government that that person would be called to order immediately and asked in fact to withdraw.

The argument that you make, I say to the leader of the third party, is that you bring to this place statements that are made outside the parameters of this House.

Mr Hampton: That is our job.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): It's a description of behaviour.

The Speaker: Let me finish. It cannot be possible for a Speaker to follow 130 members around and go through every written and spoken word each member makes and then be asked to rule on whether or not that specific statement is racist, sexist, on and on and on.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Let me finish, please. It is my job to maintain order and decorum in this chamber. In this chamber, anyone who would make those comments would be called to order and asked to withdraw. There would be absolutely no need for a member opposite to make that request.

I say to the leader of the third party that what I am managing is the control of the chamber, of this place. Anything that happens external to this place will happen, but I must be kept informed in this House and make decisions and rulings based on actions that take place in this Legislature.

Okay, finally now, a final point of order.

Mr Hampton: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not disagree with your attempts to maintain order and decorum in this House. That's what we elected you for and that's what we want you to do. But there are some important principles here. One is the principle of free speech, and I would say to you that if it comes to a contest between free speech and something else, you ought to err, you ought to look in each case towards erring in favour of free speech, because that is the fundamental this place is based upon.

Secondly, there are some other things that enter into this. The reality is that someone, in making a comment outside this House, may not in their own mind necessarily intend a racist impact or may not intend that those people who are subject of the remarks would perceive them that way, but it's well settled in our law now, in the law of this land, that it is not necessarily what someone intends, it is what the victim perceives.

I would say to you that you must use that in your measurement as well, that it's not acceptable for someone to make a remark oblivious to what people who may be the receptors of that remark may perceive. That's just not acceptable. Someone cannot make insensitive and potentially racist remarks outside this House and then come in this House and ask you to protect them.

The Speaker: With due respect to the leader of the third party, I want to move on and I think