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

November 9, 1976

30th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L110 - Tue 9 Nov 1976 / Mar 9 nov 1976

MUNICIPAL VOTERS’ LISTS

DOMTAR MILL CLOSING

REFORESTATION PROGRAMME

WINTER WORKS PROJECTS

UNITED ASBESTOS PLANT

LINGUISTIC RIGHTS

DEATH OF INCO WORKER

INTERMEDIATE CAPACITY TRANSPORT SYSTEM

TEXTILE EMPLOYMENT

BUS DECAL PROGRAMME

ICE STORM DAMACE

ONTARIO HYDRO SUSPENSIONS

REMOVAL OF TEXTBOOKS

UNIVERSITY ENROLMENT DATA

TOWNSEND SITE

CNR TRANSFER

OHIP DENTAL BENEFITS

COMPANY RELOCATIONS

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

SUMMER EMPLOYMENT FOR STUDENTS

RACIAL ATTACK

REPORTS

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWER TO WRITTEN QUESTION

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 8

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, just before the business of the day, I have with me some pieces of the anniversary cake on the 25th anniversary of Doctors Hospital, which we are pleased to celebrate this week. I would like to invite all the members of the assembly after question period, except for those who stay in the House, to join us in the government members’ caucus office for a piece -- there are 125 -- a piece of our 25th anniversary cake.

Mr. Nixon: Are you serving tea?

Mr. Stokes: Let them eat cake!

Mr. Breithaupt: Will there be a 26th?

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

MUNICIPAL VOTERS’ LISTS

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, during the past week a controversy has arisen concerning the accuracy of the voters’ list in Toronto’s Ward 6. Claims have been made that a fair municipal election is not now possible.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious allegation, and since the assessment division of my ministry is responsible for conducting the annual Ontario enumeration from which these voters’ lists, among other lists, are prepared, it is imperative that I assure voters in Ward 6 and elsewhere that such a charge is unfounded; and, indeed, every step available to us has been and will continue to be taken to ensure the accuracy of all final voters’ lists in the province.

As has been reported, Mr. Peter Budd, a candidate in Ward 6, has sent a telegram to me in which he requests that a new enumeration be conducted in that ward. From my investigation I have found no irregularities which would warrant a second enumeration. I am confident that provisions in The Municipal Elections Act will more than adequately ensure the integrity of the final voters’ list.

I believe it would be useful to put on record just exactly what steps are followed to create the final voters’ list.

All information relating to property ownership, school support and voter eligibility is held in the standard assessment system computer file of the assessment division of my ministry. All ownership and tenancy changes are recorded in this file each year, and in an election year municipal enumeration forms are produced from this file covering every assessable unit, prior to the enumeration period. Enumerators hired and trained specifically for this purpose, visit all residential units in order to check the accuracy of the information on file. Changes indicated by the occupant of the property are recorded and the file is updated accordingly.

If no response is obtained on the enumerator’s first call, he or she calls back at least one more time. If there is still no response, the enumeration notice is left at the door, together with a prepaid return envelope and with instructions to the occupant to verify the information on the notice and to return it to the local assessment office if any corrections are necessary.

Enumeration notices for commercial properties, both owner-occupied and rented, are mailed to the occupant with instructions to verify, and return the notice if corrections are to be made.

Prior to the production of the preliminary list of electors, a list of names in alphabetical sequence is produced for each municipality. At this time, this is checked in an effort to identify and remove any duplications. It is my ministry’s policy not to exclude names from the list which cannot be absolutely verified as being the same individual, on the basis of all information available such as age, mailing address, Christian names and initials, and school support. This assures a voter that his name is not removed simply because it is similar to someone else’s.

Throughout this whole process every effort is made by my ministry to obtain the correct information. However, as in federal and provincial elections, the final onus is on the individual to ensure that he is correctly identified and qualified. The fact that errors and omissions can occur on a preliminary voters’ list is readily acknowledged, and for this very reason provisions are made in the legislation for the clerk of the municipality to revise this list of electors.

In preparing the final list, the clerk is dependent on the public’s willingness to check their eligibility as recorded on the preliminary list of electors. In my opinion, these steps provide more than adequate safeguards in the preparation of an accurate voters’ list. In fact in a province-wide review by my ministry after the last municipal election, the volume of revisions constituted less than one per cent of the total number of voters listed. The higher rate of changes in Ward 6 can be attributed to the high density of commercial development where the onus is clearly on the occupant to respond to his enumeration notice.

If I may return to the case of Mr. Peter Budd, a candidate for alderman in Ward 6 of the city of Toronto, sufficient accurate information was not available to exclude him from the list for two commercial properties which he occupies on Yonge Street. In both cases the enumeration notices were mailed to Mr. Budd, but it appears he chose not to correct the errors on file and apparently did not return the corrected forms to the assessment office.

In light of all these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I feel that any call for a new enumeration in Ward 6 is unnecessary.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

DOMTAR MILL CLOSING

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker: Has the Minister of Labour looked into the announced closing of the Georgetown mill of Domtar Fine Papers Limited with, if memory serves me, about 175 people to be thrown out of work? Has the minister looked at the company’s reasons for closing the plant and some of the problems the company alleges it has? Is the ministry involved in any alternate work opportunities for the employees?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The hon. Leader of the Opposition is almost totally accurate in his estimate of the number of employees. It is exactly 176.

Yes, the ministry has been busily involved in examining the reasons given by Domtar regarding the need to close this plant; and their reasons for suggesting that a reasonably large number of the employees there may in fact move to the other plant where they can be employed. We are involved in an employment adjustment service within our ministry and with the federal government.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Since there are, I believe, some 66 employees with more than 15 years of service, many of them now in their 50s or beyond, is it possible for the ministry to take charge of the alternative employment opportunities and perhaps make a progress report to the employees over the next few weeks?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Each individual employee is interviewed in our programme, and consultant services are provided in terms of exploring job possibilities and job potentials, and, indeed, the counsellors assist the employees in finding new jobs. Each one is dealt with on an individual basis, and I’m sure that they are aware of the activities which go on within the employment adjustment programme.

Mr. Reed: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister be prepared to present her findings on the alternative possibilities and the results of the studies that her ministry is doing at the present time?

Hon. B. Stephenson: This will be an ongoing programme for at least the next eight, 10 or 12 weeks, and at the end of that time I’d be very pleased to provide the information.

REFORESTATION PROGRAMME

Mr. Lewis: To the Minister of Natural Resources: In light of the public controversy over reforestation, will the minister be introducing supplementary estimates, as other ministers are, within the next month or so to be applied directly to a stepped-up regeneration programme?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That’s a subject we’ll have to discuss within the government, and when we’re prepared to make that statement it will be there.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There could be a lot of trees planted between now and March 31.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary: What did the minister mean when he said in that meeting up in northwestern Ontario that the government was a year and a half behind in its reforestation? A year and a half behind what?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The comment I did make in Red Lake and Ear Falls where 450 people at Red Lake supported the Reed proposal --

Mr. MacDonald: I’m not interested. I want the answer to the question.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Two hundred people in Ear Falls hailed the document as one of the greatest documents in the history of northwestern Ontario.

Mr. Roy: They thought you were just great, eh?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I indicated that in our policy option for the year 2020, which guarantees that by the year 2020 we will have 9.1 million cunits of wood fibre available for the industries of this province. We are approximately a year in a pause period, and we will be catching up on this shortfall.

Mr. Nixon: You are not going to be here in 1977.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Are you going to be here, Bob?

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Is it not a fact that unless the minister gets additional moneys to spend on forest management regeneration, he is into timber mining instead of reforestation of a renewable resource?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, Mr. Speaker, we’re not in timber mining at all. We’re in forest management and forest harvesting.

Mr. MacDonald: That’s what the foresters say.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In fact, I would say to the hon. member since we embarked on a very ambitious industrial expansion of the resources of northern Ontario in which we’ve brought a new paper mill into his community, a new waferboard plant into his community, a new waferboard plant into Atikokan, a new pulp mill -- an expanded pulp mill -- in the riding of the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), that we are now reviewing our 2020 programme. In fact we’re looking for a 2050 programme, which will guarantee that by the year 2050 we will have over 12 million cunits of wood fibre available for that particular area.

Mr. Foulds: Point of order: I know that the minister did not intend to mislead the House, but in fact there is not a new pulp mill in my community. There was an expanded one.

WINTER WORKS PROJECTS

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Premier, in the light of the unemployment figures which emerged I guess today, is there any intention on the part of cabinet for a special winter works undertaking -- a special winter works programme?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t looked at the figures carefully myself yet. I think they are marginally less than a year ago, which is somewhat encouraging. They still are much higher than I think any of us would like to see. We’re not contemplating at this moment a particular winter works project, say comparable to the elm tree programme or matters of that kind. The Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) and the government are constantly monitoring the economic situation, of course, but we are not contemplating a programme of that nature at this moment.

[2:15]

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary to the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Is he not aware that the seasonally adjusted figure is up from 6.1 per cent to 6.3 per cent, and that 20,000 more workers are out of work?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand there are 20,000 more workers out of work, seasonally adjusted, than a month ago, yes.

UNITED ASBESTOS PLANT

Mr. Lewis: Just one question to the Minister of Natural Resources: May I ask him a question which will, miraculously, bring credit to his ministry rather than disrepute?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In that tone?

Mr. Lewis: May I? Thank you. I feel strongly about it.

Mr. Laughren: He won’t know how to handle it.

Mr. Lewis: Could the minister give much greater currency and publication to the recent test results at Matachewan, which while they still indicate significant room for improvement, show also very important improvements since the previous series of tests, and demonstrate I think, that when you put -- or would the minister not agree with me -- that when you put really severe pressure on a company like United Asbestos they can end up implementing the changes that they said initially were not possible?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, certainly I’d be glad to take that suggestion. I’m sure the hon. Leader of the Opposition is aware that we are providing his caucus --

Mr. Lewis: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- with regular reports of the testing that’s going on. If he wants to speed those up, we’ll attempt to work very closely with the Ministry of Health and get those out to him as quickly as we can.

Mr. Lewis: Okay. May I ask a supplementary: Has the minister conducted -- these tests are now mid-October, with some major plant changes in process -- has the ministry taken another series of tests in the last three to four weeks?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I could check on that, Mr. Speaker, but I would say that our staff is there on a weekly basis and there have been tests coming out on a fairly regular basis. Just the exact timing of that I’m not sure, but I’ll get the information for him.

Mr. Lewis: No further questions, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bain: Supplementary: I’d just like to inquire of the minister: Does he feel that he’s had sufficient staff to monitor mines across this province? Considering that this portion of his ministry will be transferred into the Ministry of Labour, if it hasn’t had sufficient staff, what target does he feel is necessary in order to carry out an ongoing monitoring system so that we don’t only deal with problem areas, but have the whole area of mining adequately covered and monitored?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think this question will be adequately answered in the weeks ahead, as the branch gets moved into a new ministry and as we co-ordinate our activities with regard to the inspection of that particular industry. I’m sure the member will be looking forward to the results of that change.

LINGUISTIC RIGHTS

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I had not been aware of it until I read about the grievance lodged by a francophone worker at Inco who has complained that he was unable to lodge his grievance in his own language. We have been exploring this problem and we will be reporting to the House later about it.

Mr. Breithaupt: One supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to this matter of linguistic rights: Will the minister enter into any general review of the various areas of heavy industry, where particular safety problems might occur quite quickly, to ensure that there is proper availability of safety manuals and instructions in the particular languages that might be used substantially by the members of the work force, whether, for example, it might be the need for the Italian language in Toronto or some other language to ensure that the workers are getting the best possible balance of protection in these cases?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Since occupational safety and health is one of the highest priority activities in the Ministry of Labour and since communication is a very important part of that activity, we shall most certainly be attempting to ensure that communication is as complete as possible in all of the languages which are necessary.

Mr. Laughren: In view of the fact that mining is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) still, I believe, would she check with him, in view of the fact that he already knew that this problem existed and had not done anything about it?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The responsibility for this activity will remain under the Ministry of Natural Resources until this House agrees to the legislation which we have proposed, which I hope will be in the not-too-distant future. In the meantime, I shall be pleased to consult with my colleague.

Mr. di Santo: I’d like to ask the Minister of Labour whatever happened to the pilot safety project in Italian and does she consider that that kind of project can meet the needs of the Italian workers in Metro Toronto?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The results of the Italian project are not entirely tabulated as yet. I think it was a useful exercise. I do not think it can meet the needs completely, but I think it is one way of making Italian-speaking workers aware of the availability of assistance when they have problems in terms of health and safety.

DEATH OF INCO WORKER

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Minister of Natural Resources: Is the minister aware of the inquest into the death of an Inco worker, Samuel Beals, and the recommendation of the coroner’s jury calling for changes in The Mining Act regarding, in particular, the re-railing of ore cars? If so, does he plan to correct this dangerous situation which apparently occurs daily in the mines?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, I am very much aware of that. In fact, we have a committee within the government now working very closely with labour, with industry and with my own ministry in bringing forward and recommending changes to The Mining Act. I will personally make sure that they are aware of the recommendations of the coroner’s inquest.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: While the minister is recommending changes, would he also recommend that miners themselves be allowed to sit on inquest committees when there are fatalities in the mining industry?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, I would be glad to recommend that to the committee looking at revisions to The Mining Act for their consideration.

INTERMEDIATE CAPACITY TRANSPORT SYSTEM

Mr. Breithaupt: A final question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Can the minister report to us on the progress of the intermediate capacity transit programme undertaken by UTDC, specifically whether it’s under budget, over budget or whatever it may be? Secondly, why have we had no announcement as yet concerning the location of the proposed test track, which appears to be long overdue?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The programme is proceeding on schedule. I have not had a report recently from the corporation as to the budget; I’ve not had any report, however, that it is any different than what was budgeted. I expect within the next two weeks to be able to make an announcement to the House on the location of the test track site.

Mr. Breithaupt: When he makes that statement, would the minister as well give us the information, since there has been a great deal of controversy over the state of UTDC’s finances, with respect to exactly how much money the government will have injected at that time into this corporation for the ICTS project or any other project?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes.

Mr. Roy: I have a supplementary dealing with this particular project. In view of the fact, as I understood it, that in the Krauss-Maffei situation we were left with parts, test tracks and everything else in Munich, have we been making use of all that equipment? If we have, has the minister got his little sign out saying that it is part of the Ontario government contribution?

Mr. Breithaupt: He is getting decals made.

Mr. Nixon: They don’t emphasize that any more.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The UTDC did make considerable use. I understand, of the test facilities in Munich.

Mr. Roy: In Munich?

Hon. Mr. Snow: They made all the use they required of what was available to them. They’re not using them at the present time.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary on this?

Mr. Speaker: One more supplementary.

Mr. Roy: Could the minister just be more specific and tell us what use was made of it, in view of the fact that that test track out there, as I understood it, was for vehicles without wheels and the vehicles proposed in the new programme have wheels?

Mr. Ruston: Can it go around corners?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t believe they make use of the test track for the current intermediate capacity system at all. I believe they did make use of it to test out certain other components.

Mr. Peterson: Are you for or against the wheel?

Mr. Speaker: Was that the final question?

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

TEXTILE EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Samis: A question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism: Can the minister tell us what special action he is prepared to take to help find alternative sources of employment in the Millhaven area in view of the fact that 216 employees were permanently laid off last week, in view of the fact that of 452 employees laid off in the spring only 100 have been called back and in view of the fact that the federal government doesn’t seem to be willing to move further than the action announced recently? And in saying that, Mr. Speaker, I do recognize the efforts of the minister to pressure the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it would be of interest to the House that representatives of the textile field, to which we are referring in this question, along with provincial representatives, will be meeting with Mr. Chretien later this week to discuss the possibilities and the alternatives that the federal government might be able to implement to try to bring back the Canadian market and thereby secure some of the employment. Until that meeting has concluded, sir, I have no further comments to make, other than that Ontario will be making a very strong case at that meeting.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary: I wonder if the minister could explain a statement in the November 4 issue of the Kingston Whig-Standard, made by the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Taylor), who said that he knew of some plans for the area and explained: “I know there will be other developments that will assist and they should gel soon.” Does the member know of something that the minister doesn’t in this regard?

Mr. Roy: It wouldn’t be the first time, eh, Claude?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I would have to consult with the member for Prince Edward-Lennox to find out which particular project he was referring to. But let me assure the hon. member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) there are several projects we are looking at in that particular area --

Mr. Roy: Remember Edwardsburgh?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- whether they be a direct supplement for the textile industry, I’m not prepared to say at this moment.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, I’d like to assure the Minister of Industry and Tourism that this isn’t just happening in the other member’s area. In Markdale yesterday --

Some hon. members: Question!

Mr. McKessock: -- they got notice that in eight weeks’ time their only factory is closing down, and in Palmerston there is a similar situation. Can the minister tell me why the companies are moving out of Ontario to Montreal in these two cases?

Mr. Lewis: It is in anticipation.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Are you kidding? They are on their way back.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in defence of Ontario companies, I would have to say I am not aware of any great number of them --

Mr. Breithaupt: René Levesque made them an offer they couldn’t refuse.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- indeed, I am not aware of any one in particular that is moving in that particular direction at this moment.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It’s a one-way street.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Their leader was ahead of his time.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: And I would think that until some time after November 15 there will be very few decisions made about moving in that direction.

BUS DECAL PROGRAMME

Mr. Peterson: A question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, Mr. Speaker: I would like to pursue, if I may, the matter we were discussing yesterday when the minister was saved by the bell. Could the minister tell me the total cost in the province of Ontario of his programme to put these decals on the sides of the various buses?

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is my understanding that there are roughly 4,500 transit vehicles in the province; that includes buses, streetcars and subway cars. As I stated yesterday, the cost of the decals is 71 cents each and the cost of the installation would be very minimal. They are very simple decals to install.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister aware of Michael Warren’s comment that in Metro Toronto alone it will probably cost $25,000 to implement this programme because they have to move decals and the many complications in the programme?

Mr. Shore: Better check those figures for him.

Mr. Peterson: Is the minister aware of that and what is his response?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am very much aware of Mr. Warren’s comments. He is completely off-base on that comment --

Mr. Lewis: Michael Warren?

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- as he has been on several other comments.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary on this by the hon. member.

Mr. Peterson: Does the minister not feel, in view of the restraint programmes that the rest of his cabinet colleagues are talking about, that if he is going to do it, at least he should put on the decal that it is being paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario and not his government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: So are the machines.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I think that is one and the same thing.

Hon. W. Newman: Aren’t you proud of the province?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary?

Mr. Roy: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: All right. One final supplementary on this question.

Mr. Roy: By way of supplementary, I wonder if the minister might explain if the decal, as he calls it, has to go pursuant to the instructions at the front of the curved roof panel above the right front wheel shield just to the right of the “no smoking” decal? Is that exactly where he wants it? Why does he bother with this --

[2:30]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Snow: A letter went out from my ministry to the transit authorities requesting that this decal be installed. It did request that it be installed preferably in a certain location. I did not see the wording of that particular letter before it went out.

Mr. Peterson: Are you denying responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is not necessary as far as I am concerned that the decal be in that particular location, if it interferes with --

Mr. Roy: A no smoking sign.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- the colour scheme or another insignia of the transit authority.

Mr. Mancini: You know where it should be.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As soon as this was brought to my attention I made that known to the operators.

Mr. Roy: Are you going to put signs in front of schools?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, that is what your federal friends do.

Mr. S. Smith: Put them on the hospitals.

Mr. Lewis: John, relax.

Mr. Roy: Try to control yours, Mr. Rhodes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: How was your meeting with Pierre, Stuart?

Mr. S. Smith: Next time I will bring you a cigar.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transportation and Communications has the answer to a question asked yesterday.

ICE STORM DAMACE

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) raised a question regarding a supplementary grant which was made available, I believe, to a municipality within his riding, relating to the additional costs that municipality had from the severe ice storm in western Ontario last year. He inquired as to whether that was the only municipality which got such a grant and whether it was because the mayor of that municipality is a PC candidate.

I’d like to answer that question a little more fully than when I replied yesterday. The following municipalities got supplementary grants relating to the ice storm:

The town of Ridge town; the town of Forest; the town of Petrolia; the town of Wallaceburg; the city of St. Thomas; the town of Exeter; the regional municipality of Niagara; the city of Port Colborne; the town of Fort Erie; the township of Wainfleet; and the township of East Williams. That makes a total of 11 municipalities which got a total allocation of $138,600 for this purpose. I was unable to determine definitely but to my knowledge, the mayors of all 11 of those municipalities are not Conservative candidates.

Mr. Roy: Your recruitment is down in that area.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Look at your own recruitment.

Mr. Roy: You have to give them odd jobs like looking at condominiums.

ONTARIO HYDRO SUSPENSIONS

Mr. Bain: I’d like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy. Would he direct Ontario Hydro to cease and desist its programme of suspending for one day all employees who joined in the national day of protest on October 14 against the anti-inflation programme? Would he further instruct or persuade Ontario Hydro to restore the day’s pay of all those who have been so unjustly suspended and docked a day’s pay?

Mr. Kerrio: They gave two days’ suspension.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first

part is, no. The answer to the second

part is, no.

Mr. Peterson: Says he with a sneer.

Mr. Bain: A supplementary: Does the minister not think that his attitude and the attitude of Ontario Hydro is going to accomplish nothing positive? Does he not feel it is going to further disturb relations between management and the workers?

Mr. Speaker: We are debating the question now. Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Maybe they will stay at work next time.

REMOVAL OF TEXTBOOKS

Mr. Givens: A question of the Minister of Education: How does the minister reply to the accusations levelled at him by Professor Kenneth McNaught of the department of history of the University of Toronto, who has charged that he is directly culpable of thought control, censorship and supine surrender because he acquiesced to the removal of a number of textbooks from the list of books approved for use in Ontario schools because of the intervention of Professors L. M. Kenny, and J. R. Blackburn of the University of Toronto’s Islamic studies department and by the Canadian Society of Moslems?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I plead not guilty.

Mr. Roy: Plead insanity.

Mr. Givens: Mr. Speaker, is there indeed an office in the minister’s department which deals with the question of censorship of books on the ministry’s approved list for use in Ontario schools and what are the criteria that such a person uses with respect to the censorship of such books?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that we don’t censor any books and we certainly would never consider censoring books.

Mr. Peterson: Well, what about Roy? Does Roy agree with you?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Our concern is that there be used in this province textbooks that are free of bias. Now, I realize when I say that, that that’s a very difficult thing to achieve because to one person what is biased and what should be taken out because it is outright bias is perhaps to another person a case of censorship. But we try to achieve in the textbooks that are used in the schools of this province no sex bias -- now in saying that I don’t mean that every book that is used in this province doesn’t have sex stereotyping because there still are some that do -- because we can’t remove all books and have books that fulfil that criterion overnight.

We are trying to remove racial bias particularly as it pertains to the native peoples of this country; a bias which is today thought to be out of place but 20 years ago perhaps was not -- so it is a very difficult area.

In regard to the books that you are referring to concerning the Islamic religion and Moslems, we have been working over the last year and a half, not with the people from the University of Toronto but the Council of Moslem Societies and some very reputable people in this province, concerning certain textbooks which they felt cast some biased slur on the Islamic religion.

After much discussion with them we decided to remove several of them from our Circular 14 list and we have under consideration several others but certainly the kind of charges attributed by the good professor at the university against what we are doing, I think, are unfounded. All we are trying to do is achieve in this province a situation where no group can charge that the textbooks used in our schools are casting unfair bias on another racial group. But I would be the last one to suggest we should ever consider censorship and I think it’s a very fine line -- we have to tread that fine line but we have to be concerned about bias in textbooks.

Mr. Givens: Supplementary: Does the minister personally look at these books that his ministry has occasion to remove from the approved list?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I purposely try to not look at the books because I don’t want people to attribute political bias to what we do and really unless someone has --

Mr. Peterson: That’s a refreshing change.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- specifically drawn it to my attention, I leave it to people in our ministry, working with other groups, working with the Ontario Human Rights Commission and others, to do this job. Now what is basically done --

Mr. Mancini: Does Roy look at those magazines?

Mr. R. S. Smith: I don’t think you should look at the budget either.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- is that we don’t censor. We will look for people who are publishing new textbooks. We will look at the manuscripts and if there are indications of areas that might have bias we will suggest to them that these perhaps are areas where bias is present. It is up to the publisher whether he wants to publish that book then or not.

UNIVERSITY ENROLMENT DATA

Ms. Sandeman: A question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities: Could the minister please tell us to what use the ministry intends to put this massive collection of computer data from Statistics Canada, USIS data base, particularly in view of the fact that most of the statistics contain therein a breakdown of university enrolment based on the country of origin of the students and further country of origin of students in individual programmes and individual faculties, by university?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I must confess I haven’t seen that publication. If the member would like to send it to me, I will take a look at it later and report to the House.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: May I ask you to look at it in the context of the concern that it is causing in some of the university circles over the use that might be made of information quite as explicit as that in identifying backgrounds of every individual student in individual programmes? Some are quite concerned.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, I will take a look at it.

TOWNSEND SITE

Mr. Nixon: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Has he received notice from the council of the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk requesting that the government’s programme to go ahead with the development of the new town on the Townsend site be postponed for a period of time so that the serviced lots presently available in the area will be used up, rather than going on with the expenditure of funds for the servicing of the town?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, I received notice that they had requested that there be a delay in the project. No, they have not suggested the reason was to use up the existing serviced lots.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: I wonder if the minister could tell us what his response will be to the request? Does he recall a report that was commissioned within the Ministry of Housing which was made public, I believe, last June which recommended that the ministry set a new timetable, since there was a real chance that up to $40 million in servicing would be spent in the new townsite up to three years before it might be required?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is my intention to meet with the regional council, as it was their request that we meet with them -- myself and two of my colleagues -- to discuss what their concerns are. We had not anticipated the expenditure of funds for servicing to be three years ahead of schedule. I think, as the hon. member knows, the intention was that we would be in a position to begin building houses in that particular area in 1978, and that the servicing would be available for the initial stages of that development.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that if he suspends the development of the Townsend site that will allow the speculators in that area to jack up the prices of land to exorbitant levels?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I have never at any time suggested that we would suspend development of the site. As the hon. member knows, we have been progressing towards the goal of having that land on stream and ready for building in 1978. If the regional council of Haldimand-Norfolk has some information that we are not aware of, then, of course, we would like to discuss it with them. There has been some concern, I understand, expressed by the regional council that our population projections are overoptimistic. Our original figures for the early part of that project in 1978 are not, I suggest, out of line with those that are being used by the region. But we want to discuss the matter with them.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transportation and Communications has the answer to a previous question.

Mr. G. I. Miller: One further question.

Mr. Speaker: All right.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Is the townsite on

schedule at the present time?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: To the best of my understanding, the planning process has gone along and is now on schedule. We were and still are anticipating that if things go as they have been projected to go we would have housing built by 1978.

CNR TRANSFER

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yesterday the hon. member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) asked me a question regarding the possible transfer of certain wheel-manufacturing facilities from Toronto to Montreal by the CNR. I have had an opportunity this morning, to make a preliminary inquiry to the Canadian National Railways. I have established the fact that CNR has never had a wheel-manufacturing facility in Toronto. CN advises that it does certain processing of wheels and, I believe, rebuilding of wheels in Toronto and that this operation, which was done until recently at its Toronto shop, has been transferred to Montreal.

However, I am advised that a formerly Montreal-based CNR maintenance operation, requiring essentially the same type of employees and, I believe, maybe a slightly larger number, has been moved to Toronto. In essence, there will be no loss of jobs in the Toronto area as a result of CNR changes in its maintenance facilities.

OHIP DENTAL BENEFITS

Mr. Foulds: I have a question of the Minister of Health: Is the minister aware that changes implemented by OHIP in July with regard to oral surgery have caused severe hardships to many patients who have been denied hospital care when such was obviously necessary for health and safety purposes?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am very familiar with the topic the hon. member discussed and I am not sure he is correct in his conclusions. Certain changes were made in the dental benefits under OHIP which in effect eliminated one of the abuses of the system -- the abuse that led to people having a number of teeth taken out simply to qualify for free dental coverage.

[2:45]

Mr. Bain: That is a case for a free dental programme then.

Hon. F. S Miller: However, we left it clearly evident any person who needed to be in hospital for dental treatment because of their general health or for any other reason -- for example, a severe heart patient, a child who may have epilepsy, this type of thing -- could have the coverage in hospital prearranged. Some dentists were not quite familiar with the new procedures; some also felt we didn’t accept their assessment or other people’s assessments properly. I’ve talked about this within the last week or two with the ODA.

I believe the original misconceptions and misunderstandings are being pretty well worked out, and that in fact we are paying for hospital benefits when a person should be admitted to hospital for any dental treatment.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Would the minister then consider the following cases abuses, or does he think they should have been admitted to hospital -- which has been rejected by OHIP -- a 72-year-old-man who requires extraction of 24 teeth and suffers from chronic ulcer disease; a 62-year-old gentleman requiring nine extractions who had a lung removed --

Mr. Speaker: May I suggest we’re going into too much detail? I think you’ve quoted enough examples.

Mr. Foulds: -- a female patient, requiring 14 extractions, 73 years old with a chronic ulcer?

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Order, please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have seen one or two that I think errors were made on. I’m quite willing to have any specific case that was denied looked at.

Mr. Foulds: One final supplementary: How does the minister justify OHIP’s direction to two oral surgeons in Thunder Bay that they cannot have their patients referred to a general physician for a medical history before they proceed with their surgery?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’m not going to try to until I find out something about it.

COMPANY RELOCATIONS

Mr. McKessock: A question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism: In view of the fact that the minister is not aware that Junior Footwear, of Markdale, Mount Forest and Aurora, is moving to Montreal, and also Heritage Kitchens of Palmerston, and now that the minister is aware, what is he prepared to do to help these small towns that desperately need these industries?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I sent a note across to the member asking him if he would inform me of the companies because I’d be pleased to look at the situation. The leather industry in this province has been in trouble for a great number of months, if not years, as a result of, again, low cost imports coming into this province and into the country. I will take the names of the companies and have it looked into. I think it’s likely an amalgamation.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism: What role did his ministry play in the establishment of new CKD units for General Motors of Canada in Tillsonburg and the parts and service department in Woodstock? What incentives did the ministry give to General Motors to do that?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We in the ministry have not added any incentives for General Motors to locate in any of the different parts of the province of Ontario. I will admit to this House that the Minister of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, the Minister of Housing, the Resources Development policy field and myself have met with the executive officers of that corporation to discuss their future development plans in this province.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary: I wonder if the minister -- since he’s not being very specific about this -- now has a policy of allocating unemployment to industrial areas? In this instance, he took 350 jobs out of that Oshawa situation and put 60 people under the benefits of the Workmen’s Compensation Board disability pension. Is that his policy in this area, to allocate from existing industrial bases to other areas of the province?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, we have given advice and suggestions to private investors in this province, and in luring new investors into the province as well. We have never in this government taken the initiative nor the position, nor are we intending to, to start dictating to companies where they must invest their dollars for industrial development in the province of Ontario.

We will try to explain to those investors where we believe their funds would be best invested in the economic interests of the province of Ontario, but in the final analysis the economic interests of the companies must also be kept very clearly in mind if they are to survive and continue to produce an economy worthy of the province of Ontario.

Mr. Moffatt: Supplementary: In the light of the answer by the minister, I wonder if the minister could assure us that he has read the document tabled by the Treasurer last May, entitled “The Durham Subregion,” in which it is indicated that a number of jobs will have to be created in that area? If he has read it would he please tell us how that jibes with his statement this afternoon?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, we make known to the industrialists coming into Ontario or those presently here how we see the advancement of the province of Ontario. In that document -- or in any of the other documents we’ve produced -- it was not a compulsory direction for industry to go, but a very clear indication of where the opportunities and the potential will exist in Ontario.

SUMMER EMPLOYMENT FOR STUDENTS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities, National Student Day and all that --

Hon. Mr. Davis: What is the “all that”?

Mr. S. Smith: Can the minister tell us whether he’s aware of the student employment survey prepared by the Carleton students’ association in which it’s indicated that students who come from low-income homes have had considerably more difficulty than other students have had in finding summer employment this year? Is he aware of this study and has he drawn any implications from that study with regard to future government policy in student aid programmes?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Yes, I’m very aware of it. I had the pleasure of being at the University of Western Ontario this morning and there was a very excellent presentation which outlined that particular study plus many others. I thought it was a good presentation and I have taken a look at it.

I’m not quite prepared to agree with the leader of the third party that one can draw a straight-line relationship between the two facts he presented. We’re well aware that there are differences in the socio-economic mix. We’re not too certain -- and I don’t think anyone is yet prepared to state categorically that they are certain -- of the causative factors of that socio-economic mix.

We feel that with the generous student assistance programme in this province -- I made the statement this morning at Western that it’s the most generous of any province in Canada and there was not a single soul there who denied that or indeed challenged it -- I think with the generous student assistance programme of this province, which is aimed directly at helping those in the lower income brackets, we are making a very strong effort to overcome that factor.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Has the minister any studies in his own ministry to determine whether or not it is a fact that students from low-income households have the further disadvantage of being unable to find summer employment? Can he tell us whether he is drafting his new policies to take that into account and what he is going to do to take that into account?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would think that before too long the government’s announcement of next year’s programmes will be made. I think there are two or three programmes which are well under way in that regard.

I have looked at that. We do not have a direct study on the subject matter but I think that involves more than just my ministry. Indeed, all the various ministries of this government are concerned. I think the member knows that a very extensive programme was in place last year and I would expect it would be in place in a future year.

Mr. Speaker: Just before we call on the hon. Attorney General for an answer to a question asked previously, perhaps we might have the lights turned down now that the cameras have gone? Thank you.

The hon. Attorney General.

Mr. Peterson: But the Attorney General is getting up, Mr. Speaker. Get more lights for him.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I understand he’ll throw some light on another situation.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have a preliminary --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why is the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) so worried about the lights being on?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let’s hear the answer. Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We’re trying to conserve energy.

Mr. Peterson: I’m worried about Roy.

RACIAL ATTACK

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I have a preliminary answer to a question the leader of the Liberal Party asked in this Legislature on October 26 and yesterday regarding an alleged assault on September 30 during a religious festival on Weston Road.

Upon receiving a letter and attached petition from Mr. B. N. Sarkar, dated October 9 and received in my office on October 21, I requested that a full report on the incident be made available to me.

I now understand that my colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth), had made a similar request of Chief Adamson on October 7 in response to a query from the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) and that he is in receipt of a preliminary report dated October 19 from an inspector of No. 12 division of the Metropolitan Toronto police force.

I’m also informed that Chief Adamson personally has appointed a sergeant from the complaints bureau to investigate the matter further. It is anticipated by Chief Adamson that a full, detailed report will not be available for about another 10 days. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to point out that the incident of September 30 and the complaints arising from the incident are being viewed most seriously, and consequently I’m satisfied that a very detailed investigation has been undertaken.

Mr. Roy: I wouldn’t count on it.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

REPORTS

Hon. Mr. Kerr presented the annual report of the Ministry of the Environment for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is my pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to present through you to the members of the House the annual report of the Algonquin Forestry Authority covering the period beginning April 1, 1975, and ending March 31, 1976. The report summarizes the first full year of the authority under the operational direction of the general manager, Mr. I. D. Bird, whose appointment became effective on April 1, 1975.

As the members are well aware, the authority’s objectives are defined in the Algonquin Provincial Park Master Plan, published by my ministry in 1974. I am most pleased with the progress achieved by the chairman, Prof. Vidar Nordin, and his board of directors of the authority in establishing a new venture in an atmosphere of apprehension and controversy.

The successful year recorded in this report is a reflection of the excellent support and collaboration of the forest industries as well as other agencies and individuals, too numerous to identify, who support the multiple-use concept of park resources.

An hon. member: It is, coincidentally, after the estimates -- just a coincidence.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, as we are approaching November 11, the day of remembrance, could I on your behalf, sir, and on behalf of the members of the Legislature, bring the greetings of all of us to the Royal Canadian Legion, who are bringing to a close the celebration of the 50th anniversary of their founding.

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday the hon. member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) introduced a bill to amend The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act. It has been brought to my attention that as this bill calls for an expenditure of public moneys it is out of order for a private member and must be removed from the order paper. The member has been so informed and agrees.

ANSWER TO WRITTEN QUESTION

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I wish to table the answer to question 141 standing on the notice paper. (See sessional paper 131.)

Mr. Breithaupt: All that for one question?

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 8

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved resolution No. 8:

Resolved: that the order for adoption of the final report of the select committee inquiring into Hydro’s proposed bulk power rates be discharged but that the House adopt the following resolution in lieu thereof:

“That the Legislature adopt the policy direction of the select committee’s report and the modifications as proposed by the government to specific recommendations as follows”:

III-7. (re bulk metering) That the Legislature endorse the study of bulk metering practices now being conducted by Ontario Hydro and the municipal utilities to be completed within 12 months, and that, recommendations from Ontario Hydro be considered by the government at that time; and that, in the interim, the Legislature further endorse the moratorium on conversions to or from bulk metering which has been initiated by the municipal utilities;

III-11. (re revolving capital pool for industry) That pending study by the government as to the financial implications and statutory requirements of a revolving capital pool for industry, and as to whether this would be the best technique to encourage energy conservation by industry, a decision on this recommendation be deferred;

III-18. (re peak reduction targets) That the government make an interim report to the Legislature within two months on the specific peak demand reduction targets which are to be met by Ontario Hydro for each year over the next 10 years, and the changes, legislative and otherwise, which must be made to permit a workable load management programme;

III-23. That pending the development of, and experience with, Hydro’s load management programme, Ontario Hydro not further reduce its targets for adding generation capacity in the next 10 years;

III-24. That pending the development of, and experience with, Hydro’s load management programme, Ontario Hydro not develop a new generation plan which would reduce its planned growth in its generation capacity;

III-27. (re James Bay) That the government request Ontario Hydro to continue its investigations of the potential which might exist for Ontario from developments of the hydro-electric potential in the Baie James area of Quebec; and that in view of public hearings being held by the royal commission on electric power planning and their intent to make recommendations to the government on hydro-electric resource development in the province, the government advise Ontario Hydro that there will be no development of the Albany River at this time;

III-28. (re examination of nuclear commitment) That the Legislature endorse the review of nuclear power being conducted by the royal commission on electric power planning;

III-29 (iii) (re monitoring select committee) That in order to permit sufficient time to implement the recommendations approved by the Legislature, consideration of a monitoring select committee be deferred for one year;

IV-3. That, considering water power is an energy resource in the same vein as coal, uranium, oil and natural gas, Ontario Hydro not be exempt from water power rentals.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I offer these few remarks at the beginning of the discussion and with the intention of making the bulk of my comments at the conclusion of the debate. The past five years has been a period of intense scrutiny of Ontario Hydro. The select committee’s report on Ontario Hydro’s 1976 bulk power rates is but the latest of a series of such examinations. Other recent studies include: the advisory committee on energy, Task Force Hydro, the Solandt commission, and the Ontario Energy Board rate review and system expansion hearings.

[3:00]

The work of the select committee without question has made a valuable additional contribution to that of the earlier studies. It carried out an illuminating and constructive review of Hydro. In addition, of course, the royal commission on electric power planning has been holding hearings for some time now on the broader issues of Ontario Hydro’s long-range planning programme and is involving all interested persons and groups in this major review. As I stated last week, the government accepts the tone and policy direction proposed by the select committee.

Of the 40 recommendations made by the select committee the government accepts 31 outright; others are accepted in principle with only differences in details of implementation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Can we have some order, please?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In most instances, in fact, we have already taken actions to put these proposals into effect. For instance, the select committee’s recommendation III-22 reads as follows -- that:

“Ontario Hydro change its planning process to emphasize meeting Ontario’s electrical energy needs after implementation of conservation and load management programmes, with the minimum amount of new generation that is consistent with sound planning.”

The government has accepted this recommendation and I have directed Ontario Hydro to take fully into account implementation of conservation and load management programmes in planning to meet Ontario’s electrical energy needs.

Similarly in recommendation III-19, the select committee proposed that:

“Ontario Hydro develop a measure of the reliability of the generation system that includes all significant variables, and indicates with the highest possible degree of clarity and accuracy the frequency, duration and scale of probable outages.”

The government agrees with this recommendation, and accordingly I have directed Ontario Hydro to continue its investigation of the value to the customer of different system reliability levels and to make an interim report to me within six months. The report should include an analysis of present and future reliability levels under the present generation station and transmission line construction schedule.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Will the minister tell me what is the use of the whole exercise if he has the right to veto what he wants?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Sargent: It’s a hell of a good point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy will resume.

Mr. Sargent: It’s an exercise in futility.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Sargent: Nothing is going to happen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy may continue.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A third example relates to recommendation III-8, which proposes that:

“The Ontario government make available additional research funds for the development of energy-saving technology.”

As the hon. members are aware, I recently tabled information on the government’s new energy conservation initiatives which include several research and development projects for energy-saving technology including, for example, solar heating and wind power. These new initiatives represent a significant expansion of the scope of our energy management programme.

In addition, Ontario Hydro has significant research and development programmes of its own relating to energy-saving technology in such areas as heat pumps, more efficient transmission and distribution of electricity and more efficient insulation of buildings.

In 1975 Hydro allocated $11 million on research alone and still more was spent on development. The complete list of responses by the government, together with the reasons underlying these responses, are set out in the report I tabled last Thursday. It is not my intention to repeat these details. I would like, however, to touch on a few highlights so as to put Ontario Hydro and electrical energy into an overall energy policy framework. This is particularly important with respect to Ontario Hydro’s capability to meet the future demand for electricity.

When I met with the select committee just prior to the Ministers of Energy conference last February I stated that:

“Canada’s energy future, given present patterns about price, energy availability and diminishing tolerance to energy producing facilities, is serious. It is serious yet still manageable. There is no doubt that as Canadians we have some immediate and perhaps painful decisions to make. We can no longer afford to have it both ways. We can no longer expect to keep energy available on demand and with unfailing reliability in everlasting quantities and yet at the same time expect that the physical plants, whether refineries, natural gas fields, electric generating stations, transmission lines or whatever, will somehow be unnecessary. We can no longer realistically expect energy to be cheap.

“That may not be an easy message to deliver. However, as you know, we in Ontario must depend on receiving 80 per cent of our energy needs from outside of this province. And, as you are aware, some of those jurisdictions are demanding higher and higher prices for their energy resources. Even when we do have some control on the supply of a particular energy source, as with electricity, we are finding that there are other factors which dictate whether we can realistically deliver all of the energy we estimate may be needed at the price we have become accustomed to paying.

“One such factor -- and one which is becoming increasingly important -- is the availability and the price of capital to finance the building of facilities. Energy policy-making is becoming more complex and more subject to uncertainty. However, if I were to describe our policy objectives in one sentence I should say we are endeavouring to balance competing and conflicting objectives, wants and desires, in order to ensure that the people of Ontario have access to a variety of energy alternatives at as low a price as possible, keeping in mind our position with other jurisdictions.

“As energy prices increase and become a more visible and significant component of our personal and business budgets we have not only to look at the actual cost of energy, but to become more conscious of the relative costs vis-à-vis other provinces and countries.

“Ontario has an important role to play in the Canadian energy scene. We are by far the largest consuming province in Canada. But as I have mentioned, we are especially vulnerable to decisions made by others, particularly by governments over which we have no control.

“In the past year we have taken a number of important initiatives designed to protect Ontario consumers and the competitiveness of our industry. These are and will continue to be the objectives of paramount importance.”

Mr. Speaker, these remarks, which I made last February, clearly are very relevant to this afternoon’s debate.

Ontario Hydro has played a key role in the economic and social development of this province. The founding of Hydro in 1906 brought a new service of energy for the commerce and industry of the province and lit up the homes and streets of our municipalities. The rural electrification programme in the 1930s was a giant step forward for the farmers of Ontario, which provided them with power to modernize their farms and to live in comfort. In the late 1940s the key decision was made to standardize the system frequency at 60 cycles, and this programme set the stage for the postwar growth and development of our provincial economy.

Ontario Hydro’s future role in our province is no less crucial than its past role. Clearly we must be cognizant of the total energy scene within which electricity plays its role in Ontario life. Clearly, too, we should not concentrate solely on the expansion of the supply of energy. We must also limit our demands.

There is no question that we must take every appropriate measure to reduce wasteful demand for electricity, as with other forms of energy. The select committee came to that conclusion and the government concurs with its assessment. Starting in the fall of 1973, the government, including Ontario Hydro, has initiated numerous programmes to conserve energy. These programmes will be expanded significantly. Energy conservation must become part of our way of life.

Conservation is essential if we are to cope with rapidly rising costs for those non-renewable resources which are required to manufacture electricity -- coal, crude oil, natural gas and uranium. It is essential if we are to cope with the rapidly rising construction costs and limited financial resources, all of which undermine Hydro’s ability to keep electricity rates at reasonable levels.

Conservation, however, can only reduce the growth in demand. It cannot entirely eliminate such growth, unless electricity is rationed or its use is otherwise forceably restrained. The government has rejected that course as a matter of policy, except, of course in times of crisis.

Contrary to the expectations of some, neither the total consumption of energy nor peak demand has decreased in 1976. In fact, primary electricity consumption, that is, total energy generated, is forecast to be up 6.8 per cent over 1975. Actual primary energy consumption and peak demand in September of this year were both up more than 10 per cent from the equivalent figures in September, 1975.

Conservation will help to reduce future increases in consumption and peak demand. But nonetheless we can expect Ontario to require more electrical energy each year, barring major crises.

One of the crucial issues, therefore, with which the government has dealt over this summer in its review of the select committee’s recommendations is: How much reduction and growth of electricity demand can be achieved, over what period of time, and how can this reduction be effected in a publicly-acceptable manner? A further and perhaps overriding question which the government asked is: How much risk should the consumer be asked to accept?

Or, to put it another way, how likely it is that the consumer will be unable to get the electricity he or she will need in the future and how much less expensive will electricity be as a result of the additional risk assumed? I think the select committee clearly established that Hydro rates cannot be reduced appreciably even though considerable extra risk is assumed by the consumer.

I should emphasize there is no conflict between the government’s objectives and the select committee’s recommendations. Only our appreciations of the level and the speed with which the growth and demand for electricity might realistically be reduced differ. Specifically, I refer to the prospects for further cutting back on generating capacity expansion on the basis of an assumed value for interconnections with other utilities and on the basis of reductions in peak demands through load management.

Over the summer, Ontario Hydro again has contacted the electrical utilities in other jurisdictions surrounding us to determine the potential for surplus power and to obtain information on which to base a reasonable value for interconnections. The picture with respect to the availability of surplus power is not promising. In fact, power which Hydro has purchased in the past from jurisdictions such as Quebec will not be available once the present contracts terminate in 1977.

Similarly, the committee’s recommendation III-18, to reduce peak demand by a targeted amount of one per cent per annum to 1985, on examination is considered to be too ambitious given the legislative, technological and other changes which would need to be put in place first before any significant impact can be made. A case in point is the potential which exists to affect the peak load by reducing the demand for residential water heating. Here, the simple fact is that only 18 of the 353 electrical utilities in Ontario now practise this kind of load management. Time would be necessary in order to gear up those other utilities where savings could be effected.

Given this and the considerable doubt which exists as to whether a one per cent per annum reduction in peak demand is even realistic the government has decided that while it accepts the principle it cannot at this time accept the target. Nonetheless, the Ministry of Energy will quantify the potential for reducing the peak demand on the electrical system through load management.

I will report to the Legislature on the specific demand targets which are to be met by Ontario Hydro for each year over the next 10 years and the legislative changes and otherwise which must be made to permit a workable load management programme. I expect to make that interim report in two months.

I would hope that there is no misunderstanding. Since July, 1975, Ontario Hydro has reduced its construction programme over the period from now until 1985 by $6.5 billion. It has meant a reduction in its system expansion rate from the historic growth rate of seven per cent to six per cent per annum. This represents a delay of 1,000 megawatts of installed capacity in 1979 and more each year thereafter. It means that 5,700 megawatts which would have been available to meet consumer demand in 1985 will not be available at that time. That is almost three Pickerings.

In order to accommodate this loss of capacity, Ontario Hydro will have to operate with lower reserve margins thus increasing the risk to the consumer. There is a limit to how much risk the government feels the consumer should bear, especially when he or she will not benefit from appreciably lower rates by further cuts in generating capacity. In view of this, the government believes the most prudent course is to direct Ontario Hydro to continue with its revised system expansion plan adopted earlier this year which would increase generating capacity at an average annual rate of six per cent.

In

summary then, the government agrees with the tone and the direction of the select committee’s report.

Because events and subsequent analysis have tended to overtake some of the recommendations, a resolution calling for the modification of certain recommendations has been made, dealing with bulk metering, recommendation III-7; the establishment of a revolving capital pool for industry, recommendation III-11; peak reduction targets, which is recommendation III-18; reduction in generating capacity, recommendation III-23; a new generation plan, recommendation III-24; James Bay development, III-27; examination of the nuclear commitment, III-28; the monitoring select committee, III-29; and water power rentals, III-43.

[3:15]

I might say that by way of the assistance of staff of the former select committee, the three parties have agreed on amendments to recommendations III-23, III-24, III-28 and III-29, which I will table with the Clerk of the House. In the circumstances, I believe these to be responsible and appropriate modifications to the select committee’s report and trust that the hon. members will agree to the adoption of this resolution as amended.

Mr. Peterson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the minister going to read those in at this time?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, I hadn’t intended to. The representatives of the other two parties are familiar with them as we discussed them earlier on.

Mr. Peterson: At what point will they go in the record, just for my own edification?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Correct me if I am wrong, I believe the fact that I have tabled them puts them into the record.

Mr. Peterson: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, could you give us a ruling on this?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been suggested that the Clerk can read them at the table if you wish.

Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Timbrell moves:

“(

i) That, concurrent with Hydro’s load management programme and the establishing of specific peak demand reduction targets for each of the next 10 years, Hydro develop a new generation plan which would reduce its planned growth.

“(ii) The Ontario government appoint a select committee as the appropriate public forum to examine Hydro’s nuclear commitment not later than the fall of 1977.

“(iii) That the government commits itself to the appointment of a monitoring select committee to commence work not later than the fall of 1977.”

Mr. Peterson: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, maybe I have the wrong understanding. Was there a figure given to the planned growth?

Was that not part of the agreement? Perhaps I am misinformed.

Ms. Gigantes: Under load management?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister can clarify that, if he wishes.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The amendments as tabled and just read into the record of the House are as discussed among the hon. member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes), the hon. member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. Reed) and myself. It did not include a specific figure, no.

Ms. Gigantes: The reading of the minister’s new motions obviously changes the context in which this debate is occurring. I think what we have seen in his motions is an acceptance more of the spirit of the select committee’s work than we had seen in his initial response tabled last Thursday with the House.

I will speak to the main points which are contained in the minister’s motions today, because I think they represent the very essence of the recommendations and the spirit of the recommendations of the select committee’s work. We have already had two mini-debates which touched on the subject of the recommendations of the select committee on Hydro established last fall by this Legislature. The report was tabled in June and was accompanied by brief comments from the opposition and government.

Just last week we debated the proposed Hydro rates for 1977. Despite his glowing words of praise for the work of the committee, despite his claim to welcome the recommendations of the committee and despite the initiative he has undertaken in response to those recommendations, despite all these things the minister still does not seem to grasp the spirit of the report produced by the select committee. I say that, even in the light of the motions which we see from him today.

In the months since the report was tabled, the minister has had a period of time, several months, to consider the details of the committee’s work. He has had time to reflect on the import of the broad scope of the conclusions reached by the select committee. His considered response was tabled in the Legislature five days ago.

While it is heartening to see how much of our work has already been accepted, and indeed today he accepts more of the import of our work, I had and I have some real concern about the way in which some important elements in our recommendations were neglected or rejected by the minister and still seem to be given grudging acceptance.

As a background to the points I’d like to make, I would like to refer to

chapter III,

section 4, of the report of the select committee. It is the

section of the report about which all the members of the committee felt very strongly. It is entitled “Ensuring Adequate Follow-up.” I quote from the first two paragraphs:

“It is essential that these recommendations be seen not in isolation but as integral parts of the whole new direction. The report must be viewed in its entirety, as the new direction is a substantial redirection for both Ontario Hydro and the government.

“The new direction will also require a substantial change to the government’s approach to energy. The traditional arm’s-length approach to Ontario Hydro is changed by the joint commitment to conservation and load management objectives. A more vigorous government role in electric energy is set out -- from increasing the extent of industrial electricity generation to working towards energy efficiency standards for appliances. And there will be a new urgency to articulate an overall energy policy for the province.

“The committee expects that the government, in formulating its energy policy, will follow the committee’s lead in taking immediate action before flexibility is lost, to build an economy that deals more realistically with the wise and efficient use of our energy resources.”

I want to stress and re-stress the importance of those paragraphs. Anyone who has the patience to read back through the volumes of transcripts of the proceedings of our committee will come time and again to prolonged discussions that we had about how we could, to the best of our ability, bring about a change in the fundamental attitudes of Ontario Hydro and the government which oversees our gigantic public energy corporation.

I think I can speak for all members of the committee, Mr. Speaker, when I say to you that we were preoccupied with the need for a new understanding and a new policy on Ontario’s energy future. That preoccupation was a direct reflection of our conviction that Ontario will not have an easy energy future, even if we adopt the best of policies. We came, on the committee, to the awful comprehension that our province will be vulnerable and must be wise.

I need not remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the makeup of the select committee. We came from all the parties represented here in this House. We were senior members of the Legislature and very junior members. We were lawyers, teachers, businessmen, farmers, actors, firemen and politicians. Politicians above all. And we agreed unanimously on every phrase of the report.

Let me refer you at this point, Mr. Speaker, to pages two and three of the minister’s response to our report tabled last Thursday. He says: “The select committee is but one of a series of examinations of the electric power planning system generally” -- he repeated those words today -- “and of Ontario Hydro specifically, initiated by the government in the past few years on various aspects of Hydro’s operations and its relationship to the government.”

He goes on to list six bodies which were commissioned to examine Hydro since 1970 -- everything from the Ontario Advisory Committee on Energy through to the current royal commission on electric power planning, the Porter commission. He sees the select committee as “but one of” those.

Mr. Speaker, I insist that the work of the select committee was not “but one of” a series of examinations of Ontario Hydro. It was absolutely without parallel in modern Hydro history. It was a political examination of our public energy corporation by members of all political parties represented in this House, and it came to unanimous conclusions about the letter and the spirit of what we called a new public policy direction for Ontario Hydro.

I stress this point, because I think it was the missing link in the minister’s understanding in his initial response, and indeed in his response today, to the approach that we have developed in our report. Our report was done by politicians, people who seek public office and are paid to represent the needs and guard the future of the residents of this province. We were not experts on power planning systems. We were not familiar with the engineering or the physics or chemistry of power generation. We weren’t trained as systems analysts. We were not economists. We knew little about the mysteries of Wall Street.

We were politicians. We were helped by three excellent staff people, and we learned enough to make us fully aware of how little we knew and how very important questions have not been asked or answered about Hydro in the period from 1970 to 1976, the period the minister refers to.

We politicians were being paid to find the questions which experts and government appointees will not find. We were being paid to find those questions and to lay out the way to some answers, and we did -- and we agreed on every question and on every direction embodied in the report.

The Minister of Energy has seen and will see many reports on Hydro, but none have been of this nature. I hope that the minister will come to understand the difference between reports which are produced by appointed experts or appointed non-experts and reports which are produced by politicians. Let me illustrate what I mean by mentioning a few specific points in the minister’s response to our report which trouble me.

Let’s look first at Hydro’s plans to expand generation in the next 10 years. Hydro is now offering delays in expansion on some plants and cancellations. Bruce C will be cancelled, Bruce D, Wesleyville and Darlington postponed two years, and six other projects will be postponed one year.

The committee recommended, as recommendation III-23, that Hydro further reduce its plans for generation expansion in the next 10 years. On page 11 of his response, the minister rejected this recommendation and as usual he employed the old threats, the old “brownmail” -- blackouts, brownouts and what he calls “allocation of electricity,” which is an interesting new refinement on the same theme. He pointed out what the committee already knew and had reported to him, that according to current Hydro estimates the deferral of Bruce B or Darlington would be unlikely to decrease the charges to Hydro’s customers in the next 10 years.

What he failed to acknowledge, and what he fails to acknowledge today, is our judgement that though the deferrals would not be likely to reduce rates significantly in the next 10 years, they would produce savings of three-quarters of a billion dollars to Hydro in those 10 years and would have an impact on rates to customers between 1985 and 1990, an impact which we must plan to create. That’s our responsibility.

Let me turn to another response by the minister which concerned me. Recommendation III-18 of our report called for Ontario Hydro to “adopt immediately a programme specifically aimed at reducing peak demand by a target amount of one per cent per annum per year.”

This is a very important recommendation, because it’s a recommendation which is in addition to our outline of the necessity for general conservation. We noted, as a prelude to our recommendation, that we recognized that peak load management requires careful planning and a flexible approach, that it has been employed in other countries with proven success, and that, given Hydro’s current position of excess generating capacity, it offers no problems to Ontario in the early years of experimentation.

We also noted that we were setting the one per cent target because this target would be -- and this, Mr. Speaker, is a very temperate expression of opinion -- “an effective way of providing a focus and incentive for immediate action.”

We set the target because we thought this target might be achievable. We thought that Hydro could, if it would, probably set out a programme which would give a cumulative saving of 10 per cent of peak load within the next 10 years. We’re now told by the minister that he will bring us a report in two months on this subject. I hope it will meet some of the standards that we set. We set the target because we thought Hydro would not feel the necessity of trying out a serious programme of peak load management unless it was committed to a 10-year target.

Let me quote from the minister’s response, from page nine of his reply to our recommendation: “While load management is accepted in principle the specific target proposed by the select committee is too ambitious, given the technological and other difficulties inherent in its achievement.”

What we were recommending in our target amounts to a cut in increased demand of about 2,500 megawatts by 1985, the equivalent of a Pickering unit.

It’s a very serious recommendation and we considered it with great seriousness. We decided that it does not mean that Ontario factory workers will have to work from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. and Ontario women will have to use their clothes dryers on the midnight shift, though this is the scenario that the Treasurer has been bull-horning in anxious public ears.

We decided that Hydro needs a target now. The Minister of Energy decided that we can afford to wait and we have to wait now another two months. The Minister of Energy didn’t share our sense of urgency; he didn’t share our understanding of how slowly a giant institution reacts to need for change. Let me quote once again from our recommendations, page III-21. We say, “With Hydro’s approach, the risk is that too little will be done too late.”

[3:30]

When we approved that statement in our report we had full recognition of what we were saying. We have that fear.

I will cite another example of the gap between the minister and the committee. Our committee heard expert testimony, the best of expert testimony, on the subject of conservation and space heating. I should point out that the greatest increase in demand for electrical energy in this province is coming and has come for the past few years from the commercial sector. The commercial sector includes such sources of demand as schools, hospitals, shopping malls, car sales outfits, apartment towers and high-rise hotels. That’s where the demand on our Ontario electrical system is really booming.

Our committee heard testimony from experts in space heating on this specific subject and we learned that commercial structures can now be designed so that they are almost completely energy self-sufficient. We weighed the evidence presented to us and we recommended the following: “The Ontario government establish energy efficient standards at an economically optimal level for all new commercial structures.” That’s not a tough recommendation.

We knew it was quite economic for new commercial structures to meet these standards. All that we would require is that large government and business structures do not continue unnecessarily to gobble up our future supply of electricity. This is the response we got, and I quote from page six of the minister’s reply, which he labels “accepted.”

“In February, 1976, the Minister of Government Services (Mrs. Scrivener) announced that new provincial government buildings with more than 70,000 square feet of floor space must meet energy efficient standards. The Ministry of Energy, with the support of other ministries participating in the energy management programme, has initiated a study entitled Energy Budget for Commercial and Institutional Buildings. The purpose of the study is to establish reasonable norms of energy requirements for both existing and proposed buildings” -- listen to this -- “which may eventually be published through the Ontario Building Code as guidelines for annual energy use in buildings.”

Mr. Speaker, I ask you -- where is the Minister of Government Services planning to build that we haven’t heard about? Why is the minister talking about “may eventually be published” when the technology is here? I must underline the point because this was a recommendation which the minister said he accepted.

Let me turn from a point which the minister said he accepted to one which he says he accepts in modified form. I refer to our recommendation III-28, which says, “The Ontario government appoint a select committee as the appropriate public forum to examine Hydro’s nuclear commitment.”

This was a serious recommendation. It was made not by experts, not by appointees, but by politicians who had informed themselves enough to become seriously concerned about the future of people who live in this province and will have to live with the results of Hydro’s current plans for expansion of nuclear generation of electricity. We had informed ourselves enough to know that we were not well enough informed to make a judgement.

We were also very tired by the months of hearings and none of us was at all eager to take on more hearings of the same burden, either then or in the near future. We had been appointed, after all, to solve the problem of the 25 per cent increase in Hydro rates for 1976. We had done much more than that and we had worked through to June, 1976.

For what? Only to feel the irritation of the public and our own colleagues in each party that we had “allowed” Hydro to increase its rates by 22 per cent in 1976. And that we had insisted that Hydro publish its predictions of rates for 1977, 1978 and 1979 for which we are now also taking the blame.

I say this not because we expected more sympathy than we got but precisely because we knew, as politicians, how little sympathy we would get but thought it our duty. We knew how unappealing another select committee would look to us and our critics, and we knew we didn’t want to have to participate in another select committee of this kind. In spite of all this, we came to the considered, reluctant conclusion that we must recommend another select committee to examine Hydro’s nuclear commitment. I will not attempt to put the reasons for our concern at this time about that nuclear commitment. I will refer to

chapter III of our report and the detailed discussion of this question in many sections of the transcript of the hearings of the select committee. Let me simply quote from the minister’s response to our recommendation, his initial response of select committee review. On page 14; it is a reply:

“Accepted in Modified Form,” is the headline. “The principle of a review of Ontario’s commitment to nuclear power is accepted. Indeed, this was initiated with the appointment of a royal commission on electric power planning. The chairman of the royal commission, Dr. Arthur Porter, has recently announced a programme for a review of the part nuclear power should play in Ontario’s system. This programme is extensive and will involve the public and all interested groups. In view of the royal commission’s activities a select committee would be an unnecessary duplication and expense.”

I am relatively new to politics, but I was not alone in my judgement that the forum for a thorough examination of our nuclear commitment should be a forum of politicians, a select committee. When we made our judgement, we knew of the existence of the Porter royal commission. Dr. Porter himself had been before us to tell us how Ontario would participate in the future of Hydro from 1985 to 1995. But we were, and still are, politicians and we know the difference between expertise and common sense.

We know the power that information carries and we know how ill-equipped the ordinary person in Ontario is, if he or she wants to question Hydro on common-sense grounds, to question Hydro as non-experts.

I have come to feel very strongly about the efficacy of appointed bodies: They are useful when everything is going right; they are an impediment when things get sticky -- everything from the boards of health in Ontario to the board of Ontario Hydro. They are appointed, their mandate is to manage, and they are not chosen or paid to do more than manage.

A royal commission is different. A royal commission has a wider mandate. A royal commission is usually set up by a government which does not want to get a message right now; maybe a few years from now, maybe never.

In Canada, we’ve had some superb royal commissions. But these royal commissions concern subjects on which ordinary people could give testimony from their own personal experiences on health, on taxation, labour disputes, and similar questions. But few ordinary, non-experts in Ontario can relate their personal knowledge to a royal commission on nuclear power planning.

The Porter royal commission is another in the series of appointed bodies which reviews expert testimony. Some of the members of the Porter commission are experts themselves in this field. This is not good enough, and we know it is not good enough. From Sweden and the United States we are learning that nuclear power planning and the choices it involves must ultimately involve political decisions. Politicians must inform themselves, declare themselves and provide leadership on the question of nuclear power.

If war is too important to be left to the generals, nuclear power planning is too important to be left to the engineers. Too much is at stake for us to leave the question about nuclear power planning to the experts. As responsible politicians we must face up to our responsibilities and make our decisions before the options are closed off by experts.

I have attempted to give specific examples of what I feel is a general attitude on the part of the minister toward Ontario Hydro. His attitude has differed substantially from the approach which was developed in the report of the select committee. I will remain apprehensive about his attitude until the government proves by its action that it accepts a duty to guide our gigantic public electrical energy corporation in new ways.

If we are ever going to regain public control of Ontario Hydro the time is now. We may never have another chance. I hope the minister will come to understand more fully the gravity with which the select committee approached its work and I hope he will also come to understand more fully the sense of urgency with which we outlined a new public policy direction for Ontario Hydro.

There is much that is new and promising in the minister’s response. As we see today, the minister’s response is modified daily. Today we get more modification in his response to our report. I hope for more. There is much that is new and promising --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: You are getting to him, Evelyn, you are getting to him. Sounds pretty suspicious to me.

Mr. Moffatt: Even though he isn’t here, he is listening.

Ms. Gigantes: There is much that is still old and hesitant in his response. I hope his views will continue to change, and I hope they’ll change quickly enough that we still have time to change Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, to rise and endorse the report of the select committee of Ontario Hydro gives me the opportunity to say to this House that the functioning of this select committee and the result of its work is an example of the better things minority government has to offer. If all of our deliberations rose to the level attained by this committee, and if the results were as fruitful, we would have good government indeed. I think it is obvious by the very nature of this report, its expansive deliberations and its pointed yet constructive recommendations, that we see the product of genuine dedication and a pooling of talent that is indeed rare.

The adoption of this report and, more importantly, the application of this report, will result in constructive change in the operation of Ontario Hydro which will allow it to evolve creatively and effectively and to provide a standard of service to the people of Ontario unparalleled in North America.

Hindsight is always better than foresight, and those of us who have studied the report in detail, and indeed have been part of its creation, cannot help but wonder why the questions that are asked, deliberated on and hopefully answered in this report were not considered 15 or 20 years ago when Ontario Hydro made the necessary decision to enter the age of thermal generation in this province. It is indeed this transition that has been the cause of so many of the problems that face Ontario Hydro today.

One can speculate that if we had become serious about conservation, renewable energy development and renewable resource maintenance, if we had had the vision at that time to implement the load management techniques so necessary with thermal generation, it would be safe to say that the increases in rates that are upon us now would not have occurred on nearly the same scale. But then, as I have said, hindsight is always better than foresight.

We trust that this report will change the attitude in which electric power is generated, marketed and used. We hope it will teach us to give electric power a much higher value than we have in the past -- not so much monetarily as in the terms of the grade of energy that is delivered. Ontario Hydro has been told in this report to broaden its concept of what it actually does. It has been told that with the employment of certain management techniques, it can even have a certain amount of control over the amount of electricity that is used and the degree of peaking.

It has been told that it must not continue to consider itself the only creator of electric power in this province. It has been told that in terms of reserves, in terms of the value it must place on interconnections with other provinces and parts of the United States, and with its development of capital for future expansion, that the time has come to leave the luxuries behind and become practical and Spartan.

In paying tribute to my colleagues on that select committee -- colleagues of all parties in this case -- I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that I was pleasantly surprised and encouraged by the fact that the politics of the occasion did not cause conflict often. And I must admit that at least once, I was the perpetrator of that political injection into the select committee.

If there was an absence or blank spot in this report -- an area of omission, if you like -- it was the in-depth consideration of the fact that Ontario Hydro’s size and the magnitude of its movements as it has grown have made it difficult to avoid adversely affecting people. So I became Peck’s bad boy in order to point out to the select committee how I felt about that effect that Ontario Hydro has on people. The medium I used was the Bradley-Georgetown corridor, one of the interconnecting links of a large expansion programme.

That, because of the implementation of this report I may say, may yet prove to be redundant in the overall scheme of electric generation in this province.

[3:45]

The select committee ruled that the issue was not central to the terms of reference to the committee’s work and that was so stated in the select committee report. Because of its omission, of course, there are a few of us -- some of us on the committee and some who are not -- who must continue the fight to make Ontario Hydro aware that it must change its methods of dealing with people or face resistance worse yet than the situation I have been so closely connected with.

There are some specific areas of the report that I would like to allude to. First is the recommendation that a forum be provided through the select committee process to hold a full scale debate on nuclear power. It is obvious that we are drawing to the time when we must make a decision not as to whether we will have nuclear power in Ontario but whether we will plan and work toward the second generation of nuclear plants, those which will be using recycled rods and burning plutonium.

I think every one of us realizes that because of decisions that were made 20 years ago or more we must face the reality of the nuclear system and play out its life cycle. It is the feeling of the select committee that this large scale commitment that will eventually herald the entry into the plutonium age should be a decision made after full scale public debate and not an after-the-fact discussion, as we are presently having.

I would urge the government to consider that this is one of the key recommendations for the long term. I was particularly distressed to see a

section of the amendment of the minister which would relegate the nuclear debate to the royal commission on electric power planning and endorse and recognize that commission through the amendment.

Let me point out, first of all, that the royal commission has not yet finished its deliberations. The House could not, if it wanted to, endorse recommendations that do not yet exist. I would envisage the very important findings of the Porter commission as being a basic part of the input to the select committee that is recommended in our report, and I am pleased the minister has reconsidered his position on this matter.

Secondly, I would like to refer to those parts of the amendment put forward by the minister that would take away the challenge we gave to Ontario Hydro to continue to refine its projected needs for expansion and change its long range goals from six per cent per year imposed by the restraints of the Treasurer to the further reduction endorsed by this select committee. To this date, so far as we know, there has been no new evidence which would give any substance to the premise that the generating target must remain at six per cent. We currently enjoy a reserve margin over peak, that magic peak which occurs for a few hours every February, of over 35 per cent and upwards of 38 per cent.

We also recognize that there are certain aspects of the expansion programme which cannot be turned back without great economic loss. The select committee recognized this and as a result left it up to Hydro to choose the brightest economic path. The point is, though, if we don’t set goals we will never achieve the desired results. We recognize that the end results of this effort toward load management are as yet unproven and must he established, but at the same time we will continue to endorse the objectives originally laid down by the select committee.

Thirdly, I would like to refer for a few moments to the proposal that would amend the select committee’s intention to re-form in the spring of 1977 in order to monitor the progress that has been made by the government and Ontario Hydro on this subject.

The government’s amendment to the establishment of a select committee in the fall of 1977 rather than the spring points out that the spring of 1977 is perhaps too early for enough concrete change to have taken place to make the re-forming of the select committee worthwhile, and with that aspect, we do agree and will concede that the select committee should be re-formed in the fall of 1977 rather than the spring. However, we continue to hold the government to a commitment to that re-formation rather than to a “consideration of.” The differentiation must be made distinct and clear.

There are certain recommendations in the report which show clearly that Hydro must utilize as many resources as are available within the borders of this province. With some we are favoured with a sophisticated and highly developed technology. I refer to the further development of hydraulic power in the province, especially those small on-site locations which can be developed on existing dam installations and sites in southern Ontario and can be run on a remote basis.

I urge Ontario Hydro to attack this economically feasible challenge immediately. As members know, the select committee also recommended that the hydraulic potential of the Albany River system and that area of northern Ontario be examined so that Ontario receives the maximum reasonable benefits. The government has accepted this proposal in a modified form, deleting any possible development of the Albany River area.

I wonder, at the present time, if that amendment to the original proposal was not made from a more political consideration than a practical one, considering the recent conflict over the development of natural resources in the north of Ontario. I wish to go on record as mentioning that I am sure there is no one on the select committee who is not deeply concerned and aware of the rights of native peoples in northern Ontario. That is precisely why the word “reasonable” was injected into that proposal.

We want to make it clear that not one of us would want to proceed with development in the north without first having consultation with and participation of the native peoples. I am sure members recognize that that concern has been made very clear in the recommendation of the select committee.

I would also like to ask why is the minister revising this recommendation since its intentions have already been stated? Does he truly feel that the amended recommendation is more fluent and expressive? I wonder.

I would like to deal with some areas on which we all have agreed but I think are worth stating, considering that their subject matter is new to Ontario Hydro and presents some of the area of broadening that the corporation will undergo in years to come. First is the whole area of that subject known as solar power which might be more adequately described as renewable resource utilization since it encompasses subject areas such as the production of energy from plant life and wind power as well as the direct utilization of the sun’s rays.

I had the good fortune to spend a week this summer at the solar energy conference in Winnipeg which was attended by more than 2,000 delegates. We were presented with a picture of the potential of solar power -- using it as the all-inclusive phrase -- that would give us great reassurance for the future standard of living in Ontario if we will only undertake to develop and adapt it to our circumstances.

The United States has led the way. With a commitment of roughly 50 cents per person in that country they have unleashed a multitude of development projects which are already beginning to show great promise. The province of Ontario must not be allowed to take a back seat in these matters and a similar commitment on the part of this government would help to assure Ontario of its share of the industrial potential of the manufacture of solar products and the resulting energy in the future.

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the positive impact on the economy of this province if 50 per cent of our imported energy was redirected to the utilization of renewable resources within the boundaries of this province? Can you imagine the impact on agriculture that would grow the products which make the energy? Can you imagine the impact on manufacturing, on the process of distillation and all of those other attendant bonuses in the economy? Can you imagine the effect on our provincial balance of payments?

We do have a long way to go in the development of renewable resources but the economic potential is tremendous. If we do not make this decision and begin now to move in that direction, we will once again be buying technology and hardware from our neighbours to the south. Let us proceed in this matter with imagination and vision.

I would like to refer as well to the recommendation regarding industrial generation of electric power. Industrial generation or, as it is more commonly known, co-generation, is one of the ways in which the thermal system can be made more efficient. As I have said often, and it is a well-known fact, two-thirds of the energy we put into a thermal generating plant at the present time is lost as waste heat. With co-generation, a great proportion of that waste heat can be utilized by industry as processed steam or in-plant heating. It is up to the government to encourage that development in every way possible. I am pleased to see that resolution in the select committee report.

The economics of co-generation are obvious and the efficiencies gained as a conservation measure are obvious. The techniques, the technology, is not new, having been highly developed in Europe because of the thermal configuration which they have had to deal with for some generations. This thrust will provide one of the great alternatives to the vast expansion programme now contemplated and under way by Ontario Hydro.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, it is the select committee approach involving more than the government party that has brought these issues out of stagnation. Minority government appears to have its effect, even on the Minister of Energy himself. A year ago I challenged the minister during estimates about his priorities and why a more concentrated commitment was not being given to the development of renewable resources. The minister simply denied the feasibility at that time. Last Thursday in the House the Minister of Energy announced increased concentration on the development of renewable resources.

Finally, in

summary I should like to state my party’s position on the select committee report. We feel that this report, being a combination of a combined party effort, is one of the most important documents addressing the problems of Ontario Hydro that has ever been put together.

Mr. Lane: I would like to take

part in this debate this afternoon. I wasn’t an original member of the committee, as I replaced the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Maeck), but I was a member of the committee during the early part of this year. We had a good committee, a very concerned committee, a great chairman and great members on the committee to work with and an excellent staff. I think we made some very good, sensible recommendations.

I think that the affluent society in which we have been living for the past few years has allowed many of us to waste too much, and one of the things we have wasted is energy. We are all guilty of using more heat, light and power in our homes and places of business than is required. Most of us drive our cars when we could perhaps stay at home or walk to work, thus saving some gasoline and energy. I think we should be concerned about these things. We should train ourselves and our families to save in as many ways as possible, especially on energy.

Ontario Hydro has made some cutbacks, as a result of the recommendations made by the select committee, but I doubt that it would be wise for them to continue to make further cutbacks. While I have said we all must save on power and energy, I don’t think the people of this province are ready to accept brownouts or blackouts because the capacity to generate power has not been developed.

For the past three or four years Ontario Hydro has been looking at a possible site for a power generating station that would be located on the north shore of Lake Huron. I am rather surprised that they are still talking and thinking about a site at La Cloche Island because this particular area is in the boundaries of the north Georgian Bay recreation area. Even though some people in my riding would like to see this type of development in that area, it doesn’t make any sense to me at all. However, it does make a great deal of sense to me that this type of operation should and could be located at Spragge or Blind River where the jobs are really needed.

[4:00]

I think the power is going to be needed in the not-too-distant future. I would say that Hydro should get on with the job and should not be hampered by further studies. I understand the Porter commission will report on all of these things some way down the road and --

Mr. Foulds: Coal power or nuclear?

Mr. Lane: -- I, for one, in the north, and I think many more people, think we’re studied to death in the north. Let’s get on with some development.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I just want to speak very briefly about the report of the select committee and the government’s response to it with respect to Ontario Hydro and perhaps to echo some of the matters raised by my colleague, the member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes).

I think the concern and the uneasiness which we in this party felt about the government’s response to the report, not only now but in its initial response after it was tabled in the Legislature earlier this year, was a sense of whether the government in fact was committed to the title of the report, whether in fact it was committed to “A New Public Policy Direction for Ontario Hydro.”

I may say that the acceptance today of two modifications of the proposed amendments to the report, suggested by the government in its response, goes some way to relieve that sense that I have of a lack of positive commitment by the government to the purposes of the report. But I still have those misgivings. Perhaps they’re now only reservations, but there’s an element of misgiving about them and I want to spend a minute or two emphasizing what we believe we were trying to say in the report, leaving aside many of the specific recommendations which are dealt with in some detail in the report and have been stated to be acceptable to the government.

The very first recommendation that we made to the government was that “the Ontario government develop and clearly articulate government policy towards Ontario Hydro.” Then, in the

chapter of the report dealing with ensuring an adequate follow-up, we dealt with the consequences to Hydro of an acceptance of this new direction and the concern which we had that if this Legislature as a body, through a select committee of the assembly, did not have the opportunity to monitor and follow-up the implementation of the recommendations in the report by Hydro, that a good deal of the momentum would be lost; indeed, it would lead us to believe that the government itself was not prepared to accept the implications of the major recommendation, the very first recommendation, about the need for an acceptance by the government of responsibility for the policy of Ontario Hydro.

We said in that particular recommendation relating to the select committee, which we had hoped to be set up in the spring of 1977 but which the government now is committed to set up by the fall of 1977: “It is of fundamental importance that until the redirection becomes clearly established Hydro policy, steps taken by Ontario Hydro to implement the thrust of the report be monitored periodically in an organized manner.” It was with that purpose in mind that we recommended the appointment of the select committee, which has been accepted by the government for appointment.

It was also designed to give the government, concurrently with that opportunity, the sense of responsibility for the policy of Ontario Hydro and to give to this assembly a clear and continuing statement of the policy that is to be adopted by the government for Ontario Hydro. In a very real sense we are saying that the time has come that the responsibility for Ontario Hydro’s policy be that of the government and that the accountability be to this assembly through the kind of select committee which was envisaged in our report.

It is not too far an analogy to say that we are saying about Ontario Hydro what we say in the estimates, that the government must be responsible to the assembly, either by legislation or in the estimates of the House, for the policies which are embodied in the estimates and in the budget and in the Speech from the Throne and in the legislative programme of the government. We are now saying that in addition to that, at this particular point in time in the history and development of Ontario and the demands of a sound energy policy, the government is responsible for that policy and that this assembly is the place to which the government must account for the implementation of that policy.

I am delighted that the government has seen fit to modify its position since last week and to accept the appointment of that select committee of the assembly.

I want to spend just one or two minutes on my concerns about the James Bay area. My concern about the James Bay area relates mainly to the developments which have taken place in commitments and feelings which I have had for some considerable time about that whole area of the province. I’m not engaged in beating anyone over the head about the questions of whether Reed Paper should or should not proceed, or what the relationship to that project should be.

I have been, over a period of time, more and more convinced that the northwestern part of the province of Ontario, the very watershed that we were talking about in this report with respect to the possible potential for electric power development, requires an overall look by the government to determine the course which we are going to take, and that that overall look would best be carried out through a commission similar to the Berger commission, to which reference has been made by the leader of this party.

It is no longer possible to isolate one particular area of the north for one particular potential purpose, but the whole of the northwestern part of the province must be looked at as a whole and dealt with that way if we are going to understand the extent to which it is possible to carry out development in the north, with particular attention to the people who live in that part of the country and with particular attention to the very special relationship which this government must have with the Indians living in that area under Treaty No. 9, and to a lesser extent under Treaty No. 3.

In a sense, the overview or perspective from northwestern Ontario through, as we recommend and urge the government to accept, a Berger-type royal commission, which would look into the renegotiation of Treaty No. 9 to which this government is a party, to which the province of Ontario is a party, an over-view of the possibilities of restoring the forest industry in northwestern Ontario and the way in which that industry is to be exploited in the future, is of paramount importance. Coupled with that, of course, is the necessity to look at the availability of hydroelectric power in the James Bay watershed.

I do want to make certain that the assembly is aware of what we were talking about when we made the recommendation about the watershed, and I quote from the report:

“Finally, the committee is concerned about Ontario Hydro’s apparent failure to give serious consideration to the hydro-electric potential of the watershed flowing into James Bay -- both the systems in Ontario and those in Quebec.

“The committee is aware of the difficulties in getting electrical energy from either area. In northern Ontario, the concerns of the native people and environmental problems will have to be dealt with before any development can take place.

“This increases the urgency for starting studies and inquiries now. And, if Ontario is to gain any benefit from the Quebec Baie James potential, the government of Ontario will have to initiate negotiations with the government of Quebec. All the more reasons for setting out the parameters of an acceptable arrangement and doing preliminary calculations of the economics of such a venture.

I’m saying to the government it is our perspective at the present time that that particular recommendation cannot be dealt with in isolation and we therefore have accepted -- not necessarily the exact terminology of the government’s proposal in its acceptance or in its response to our recommendation -- but we have said that that is one of the ingredients which must be a part of an overall commission study of the Berger type in the whole of northwestern Ontario.

It is for that reason, amongst the other reasons which I have enunciated, that we stand by that policy and we urge the government to come to that conclusion itself as soon as possible and to deal with northwestern Ontario in that particular way.

The other amendment which the government accepted, or the other modification of its response which the government accepted, was to take into account that Ontario Hydro and the government had to be committed to a load management policy and that that commitment would, in a very real sense, be measured both by the alacrity with which the interim report, which is referred to in the government’s response, will come before the assembly.

I would assume that that would be early in the next session of this parliament. It would be evidence that that commitment would also be sustained, for us if, as has apparently been accepted by the government, concurrent with the targets being set down for load management, that Ontario Hydro would be instructed concurrently with the achievement of those targets to so modify its generation plan that there would be no delay in implementing a plan which would give effect to the load management target.

With those modifications of the response of the government we are pleased to see that I believe the ministry and the government have now an understanding, at least to some extent, of the immense redirection by way of commitment that the select committee felt was entirely necessary if it were going to be possible to deal adequately with the responsibility of the assembly to the government to make certai