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

April 4, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L053 - Thu 4 Apr 1996 / Jeu 4 Avr 1996

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

VISITOR

CITIZENS' UTILITY BOARDS

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

CITIZENS' UTILITY BOARDS

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

CITIZENS' UTILITY BOARDS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ALEX SKEAD

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

SCARBOROUGH BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARDS

FAMILY SUPPORT OFFICES

PRIVATIZATION OF ONTARIO HOUSING CORP

MEMBER'S WEB SITE

ADULT EDUCATION

KIDS' COUNTRY CLUB

TARTAN DAY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TORONTO ISLANDS COMMUNITY

DEREGULATION OF BUS TRANSPORTATION

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY LEGISLATION

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

TORONTO ISLANDS COMMUNITY

DEREGULATION OF BUS TRANSPORTATION

TORONTO ISLANDS COMMUNITY

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

DEREGULATION OF BUS TRANSPORTATION

CONSTABLE MIKE GULA

ORAL QUESTIONS

FOOD BANKS

MINISTER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TRADE AND TOURISM

WORKFARE

UNEMPLOYMENT

SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS

SMALL BUSINESS

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

COMPUTERS IN SCHOOLS

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

NATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

HIGHWAY SAFETY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

TAX REDUCTIONS

ALZHEIMER RESPITE CARE

RENT REGULATION

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

RENT REGULATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TORONTO ISLANDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1996/ LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ÎLES DE TORONTO

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD AND PUBLIC VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA COMMISSION DES TRANSPORTS ROUTIERS DE L'ONTARIO ET LA

LOI SUR LES VÉHICULES DE TRANSPORT EN COMMUN

OTTAWA CIVIC HOSPITAL ACT, 1996

LOCKSMITHS LICENSING ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA DÉLIVRANCE DE PERMIS DE SERRURIER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'ORDRE DES ENSEIGNANTES ET DES ENSEIGNANTS DE L'ONTARIO

EDUCATION QUALITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'OFFICE DE LA QUALITÉ ET DE LA RESPONSABILITÉ EN ÉDUCATION

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

Mr Michael Brown moved private member's notice of motion number 10:

That in the opinion of this House, since the northern Ontario heritage fund belongs to northern Ontario, and represents a small share of the resource revenues to the province from the resource sector, and is an important tool for improving economic, social, and health conditions in the north, and since the former New Democratic Party government transferred the legacy of northerners to the consolidated revenue fund of the province of Ontario, and that Premier Harris has expressed his deep concern about the disappearance of the funds from the trust account; therefore, the government of Ontario should return the funds with interest to the trust; update the mandate; and put the funds to valuable use for the people of northern Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): You have up to 10 minutes, each of the other parties will have 15 minutes, and you'll have two minutes to wrap up.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I think the resolution pretty much speaks for itself. For members to understand this, I think we need to know a little of the history of the northern Ontario heritage fund. It was established in 1988. It was established by this House with a very broad mandate. If you read the act, you will find that many things can be done. As a matter of fact, virtually anything that northerners would feel important can be done, given the mandate of this act.

It was felt at the time by the government of that day that it was important for northerners to further refine the mandate. It was said so repeatedly in the House, and that in fact is what happened, that the board of the northern Ontario heritage fund, a group of northerners, decided what the objectives of this fund would be within the broad mandate. That was very important and was a key component of the way this fund was to work. The second part of the fund was a commitment for $360 million over 12 years that would be put into the heritage fund, $30 million each year, every year, for 12 years. That was important.

At the time we had a rather interesting debate. The opposition, at that time New Democrats and Conservatives, were terribly concerned that the $30 million would not be put in every year, and as members know, that concern has proved not to be a problem. Every year the government of Ontario has put $30 million into a trust account, and that's equally important to understand, that that $30 million went into a trust account so that if it wasn't spent in any given year, it could accumulate and so would the interest on it. That is another very important element to know.

So what we had was a fund administered by northerners, did not require them to spend all the money in that given year, and it accumulated. Governments put in the money. And lo and behold, a month before the last general election in this province, the government of Ontario took a sizeable chunk of that money and took it out of the trust fund and put it into consolidated revenue, never, as we know around this place, to be seen again. That surprised me. It surprised me that there was no press announcement. No one in this province knew that it had happened. It was done, so to speak, under the cover of darkness.

The New Democrats did not go out in the last election campaign and wander through northern Ontario saying, "We took $60 million of your money and sent it down to the consolidated revenue fund" -- not a word. They were not very proud of what had happened, but they figured it was under cover of darkness.

So my resolution today is ultimately reasonable. I believe that the New Democratic Party government stole the legacy of northerners, of the people of the north. It was their money. They stole it. They took it from us and they put it into the consolidated revenue fund.

So logically you could say, "Gee, that's too bad," and that's what Mr Harris is saying, "It disappeared," but from where I come from, if you are in possession of stolen funds you're as guilty as the one who stole it. So what we're saying is that Mr Harris obviously understands that the money was taken out of the trust fund, is no longer in the trust fund, that accrued interest could be spent by northerners for northern concerns and was transferred to the consolidated revenue fund. He was quite upset. He's quite upset about that. It disappeared. We saw wonderful press releases all across the province. He was outraged, but he's got the money.

So there's a solution, and the solution is rather simple. If you are in possession of what he believed -- and he said "robbed." If it was robbed from the people, then you can put it back. I think that makes eminent sense, because a basic concern to me is we're losing the interest on that money. It's not being accrued to the fund. If you think of the interest on, say, $60 million, if that's the correct figure, although I've heard a number of figures, that's almost enough to fund, over the next five years, a full additional year of heritage fund operations. And why do we need it?

We need it so we can improve our health care, so we can diversity our economy, so that we can do something about the appalling conditions of northern roads that have been neglected terribly in the last five years. So that's why we need it.

I would suggest to the House that it's just perfectly reasonable. Update the mandate. We agree it should be updated. Say to northerners: "Look, the mandate needs to be massaged a little bit, it needs to be broadened. There are some things that work, there are some things that didn't. Let's change it." It's eight years since the fund was started. It makes sense. Update the mandate and let's start getting that money out into the northern economy, out to northern people, out to fix northern roads, out to ensure that there are physicians. Whatever that board of northerners decides, let's make sure they can do it and let's make sure that money is there.

Mr Speaker, I'm going to reserve the rest of my time for my windup, if that's possible, and cede my place to other members.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I rise to take

part in this debate, which is on an issue that is probably the most dishonest and silly that I've encountered in all my years in the Legislature. The member for Algoma-Manitoulin is compounding the silliness and the dishonesty of this issue. I can tell you that right now.

When I read in the paper under the byline of Jeff Harder, Queen's Park bureau, Davos, Switzerland, where he was travelling with the Premier -- the headline is, "Ontario Coffers Missing $100 Million" -- an outright lie. If Jeff Harder was a reporter of any substance or significance, he should be reported to the Ontario Press Council, but because he's not, I won't bother doing that.

I can tell you exactly what happened. A year ago, there was in the coffers of the northern Ontario heritage fund a lot of money. The heritage fund is allowed to spend $30 million a year on northern heritage fund projects -- $30 million a year.

Interjection.

Mr Laughren: I didn't interrupt the member for Algoma-Manitoulin.

There was in the fund over $100 million sitting there while we're out borrowing money on international markets at a greater rate than that money was receiving sitting there. So we said, what's the sense of having over $100 million sitting there in a pool, drawing less interest than we're paying on money that we were borrowing? How does that make any sense? You'd have to be some kind of idiot to have a fund sitting there and then go out and borrow money that's costing you more than you're getting.

All the heritage fund was allowed to spend was $30 million a year, so we said rather than leaving all of that pool just sitting there, we negotiated with the heritage fund and you know what? When the heritage fund annual report was brought down for the year 1994-95, guess who signed it off as being appropriate? Chris Hodgson, the honourable Minister of Natural Resources, responsible for the heritage fund. He signed it off. So either he didn't know what he was signing or he didn't understand it or he was part of the big lie from Davos, Switzerland, and the Toronto Sun. That's what it came down to.

I have never in my life seen anything so silly, because the money is there. Do you know how much money is in the heritage fund right now? It's probably even more than this: about $80 million, and on April 1 it was supposed to have transferred into it another $30 million. So there's still $110 million sitting in the fund. So where does the headline, "$100 Million Missing" come from? From Jeff Harder and Mike Harris, who were cuddling up together in Davos, Switzerland. That's exactly where it came from.

If the Tories want to spend more money in northern Ontario, they've got the money in the fund now. Do you know how much --

Interjections.

Mr Laughren: I'm not trying to tease the bears. Would you just calm down and let me finish this?

This is what's so laughable about it and so dishonest, what the Tories did. Here you've got this money there, about $100 million sitting there, and at the same time do you know how much money the Tories spent since they got elected? Do you know how much money?

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Who was the Treasurer who lost $60 million? Who was the Treasurer?

Mr Laughren: Oh, listen to the member who comes to northern Ontario and then crosses the border to eat his supper in the United States; won't even eat in Fort Frances. I don't need a lecture from you. I don't need any lecture from you on northern Ontario. The people in the north rejected you people for good reason.

Let me finish my story, Mr Speaker, and I trust you'll allow me the right to do that, because the yahoos over there don't want to hear the truth.

Since the Tories formed the government, despite the fact there's $30 million in the fund, guess what the Tories spent out of that fund? Zero, a big fat zero, no money at all. How's that for a commitment to northern Ontario? And then they come up with a big lie that says there's $100 million missing. There's not a penny missing, not a penny.

If you want to spend more money in northern Ontario, go ahead and spend it. You haven't spent it at all. Do you know how often the northern Ontario heritage fund board has met since you people formed the government? Zero, not one meeting. So tell me about a commitment to northern Ontario. What I want to hear is some Tory with some integrity stand up and admit that this was nothing but a big lie. Do you know why? You're trying to cover up your ineptitude in northern Ontario and the fact that you've abandoned the north.

This party, when we were in government, had no apologies to make. We did more for communities in northern Ontario than you ever did or ever will do. All you've done is cut norOntair service completely out -- norOntair, servicing small communities -- took it right away from people. You have reduced road maintenance budgets all across northern Ontario. You have done nothing. And you've turned the forests, instead of being owned by the people, over to the private sector. You are a laughingstock in northern Ontario, a complete laughingstock. Please don't give us any lectures about money in northern Ontario.

I chose my words very carefully when I talked about this being a big lie, because that's all it was. Between the Premier's office and the Toronto Sun, they thought they could bamboozle people in northern Ontario. They're not that stupid, and the evidence of that is that they rejected you in the last election.

Mr Murdoch: It certainly gives me pleasure to speak to this motion today, and to Mr Brown from Algoma-Manitoulin. Some of his resolution is good and some of it is not so good. I thought we should talk about it and go through it.

His resolution says, "That in the opinion of this House, since the northern Ontario heritage fund belongs to northern Ontario...." There's nothing wrong with that and I certainly agree with that. That's a good statement and I think we all can agree with that, that the fund does belong to northern Ontario and that's where it will stay. There's no problem with that statement in your resolution.

It says the fund "represents a small share of the resource revenues to the province from the resource sector." Right on. I can agree with you on that -- no problem with that. That is right on and there's no problem with that. The resources in the north should be shared by the north. For too long have the resources gone to southern Ontario and the north hasn't had its share. I will agree with you on that -- no problem there.

The fund "is an important tool for improving economic, social, and health conditions in the north." Right; that's what it was for. Unfortunately, sometimes with some of the previous governments it was given to different people who made unfair trading, unfair commerce, things like that. But you're right, that's what it was supposed to be used for, and we can agree with that, can agree with that all the way.

Now we get into some trouble. "[A]nd since the former New Democratic Party government transferred the legacy of northerners to the consolidated revenue fund of the province of Ontario...." That's a shameful thing. We just heard from one of the ministers of the previous government that had six or seven ministers from the north and did absolutely nothing for the north -- stole money from the north, stole the money and put it in the revenue fund so that when they had an election they wouldn't look as bad as they were.

They left us with a $100-billion debt and they stole $60 million from the northern fund to try to cover it up. They stole it right out of the fund, put it into the revenue, thinking all the time -- and I don't know how they ever felt this -- that they would win the election and they'd be able to sneak it back in and nobody would know.

Then we have the former Treasurer stand up and say this is a lie. I'm disappointed that he would do that. I know he did a lot of things in the past five years: put us $50 billion more in debt, left us with a $100-billion debt, $10 billion a year in debt he put this province in, and then stole $60 million out of the north, which he represents, along with six or seven other ministers. They were in the north and did absolutely nothing for the north and then they can stand here today and talk about how they looked after the north?

This is utterly ridiculous, utterly ridiculous. Here's what they did: They took away the money from the north, from their own legacy, stole the money.

He goes on to say, "Premier Harris has expressed his deep concern about the disappearance of the funds from the trust account." This is true.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane South is out of order.

Mr Murdoch: Our Premier is from the north, along with the Treasurer. They are concerned about this. As you will know, Mr Speaker, we travelled the north and came out with a voice for the north, and in that voice for the north we committed to keeping this trust fund in the north -- not taking money from it to put into consolidated revenue, like the former government did. The former government took $60 million out of the fund, took it away from its northern friends, from the people of the north; took it out and didn't even bother to tell them about this.

If you can believe this, they thought they would get re-elected. I don't know how they ever thought that. They thought they could take the money out, put it in the consolidated revenue and then put it back when they got elected. Unfortunately, they didn't get re-elected -- probably fortunately for the rest of us, for Ontario. It is really unfortunate that this would happen.

In this resolution, the member from Manitoba -- from Manitoulin --

Interjections.

Mr Murdoch: Maybe he should be from Manitoba. The member from Manitoulin, and I know that's where he lives, says, "the government of Ontario should return the funds with interest to the trust." I can understand why the member from the Liberal Party would want us to try to put this money in, and I'm sure that anyone thinking about it would want to do that too, but I challenge the member, you tell me where we can find this money, you tell me where the money is. We were left with a $100-billion deficit from 10 years of free spending by the Liberals and by the NDP, 10 years of free spending by these --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga South on a point of order.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Speaker, it's been a few Thursdays since I've been attending private members' business, and this morning I'm here on behalf of another colleague. I ask you to call this House to order. Interjections, particularly from a member who's not even in his seat -- we now have young people in the gallery. I ask you to either eject the members or call them to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: You're out of order.

Mr Murdoch: It's unfortunate that the members from the north don't want to listen to this. They have stolen money from the fund and now they are afraid to face the facts.

Back to the member who put the resolution forward. I challenge you, you find the money. After 10 years of free spending by your government and by that government there, you have left this province in debt to the tune of $100 billion. Now you come around and say, "Oh, put the money back in." That's what the Liberals would do, raise taxes to put it back in. Is that what you would do? You already did that 30-some times in your three years of government, and then you left it up to these guys over here. Of course they just went on a spending spree and left us with a $100-billion debt.

Those members from the north over there can say we don't have a clue. Well, the ratepayers of this country, the people in this country voted and told you that you didn't have a clue over there. What they didn't realize is that you'd stolen $60 million from the north, from your own people. This is terrible. Now the member wants the heritage fund updated.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Cochrane South will not be warned again.

Mr Murdoch: On this resolution, while I say it has its good points and its bad points, I can support it. The fact is that our member over here is going to find the $60 million for us. He probably wants to raise taxes, but that's nothing unusual for a Liberal government. Updating the plan is what we're doing right now. Our deputy minister is working hard on doing that right now. It needs redirection, no doubt about it; after being in the hands of the Liberal government and the NDP government, there's no doubt that it does need redirection, and that's what is happening.

I can promise you that the funds will be used in the north. The $30 million that goes into that fund annually will be put into that fund, and that fund will be used on projects that the municipalities want in their municipalities. We will be listening to the people in the north, not taking the money from them and dumping it into the consolidated fund, like our friends from the NDP, who had seven members in the north who were ministers who allowed this to happen. You can't believe how upset the northern people are about this. Unfortunately, they don't go back home any more to listen to them, and this is the problem. Then they got away with doing this, thinking they were going to get elected.

As I've said, this resolution has its good points and its bad points, but I think overall we can support it to see that the things will go on, that the funds will be updated and that the $30 million that goes in every year will be put back. I challenge the member over there on his resolution to help us find the $60 million. We cannot raise taxes.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): It seems to me that the member for Nickel Belt doth protest too much, or the member for Grey-Owen Sound would like to support the resolution.

I'm very pleased to join this debate today, and I want to thank my colleague the member for Algoma-Manitoulin for providing us with something this government has yet to do, which is an opportunity for open, honest and forthright dialogue on the matter of economic development in northern Ontario.

I think it's important for us to discuss the heritage fund today and to do a bit more of a history lesson because, almost to the day, we are at the eighth anniversary of the introduction of the heritage fund in this House by René Fontaine, our Liberal Minister of Northern Development, a man who truly understood the needs of the north.

I think it's interesting to look back at some honourable members in terms of what they said at the time of discussion back in those days.

For example, I was shocked to look back upon the indignant comments of the then Nipissing MPP, Michael Harris, on the subject of the heritage fund back in 1988, because when it comes to political history on the economic needs of northern Ontario, this Tory government is clearly operating under one shameful philosophy, "That was then, this is now." Back then, Mr Harris was known to spew such memorable one-liners as, "This government is paying lip-service to the north." On the matter of the heritage fund, he was very concerned about the delay in getting the proceeds going.

If this bill had been brought in and introduced before March 31, then the moneys could have been put to work for the north. Indeed, that was then, Mike Harris, this is now.

For 10 months, we've been waiting for news on the heritage fund. Since June of last year, we've been urging this government to move on introducing its version, any version, so we could debate it, of a newly outfitted heritage fund to benefit the people of our part of the province. "Let's get busy," we said. "Work to benefit the north." The word we got back, in August, September, November and January, was: "It's under review. We'll get back to you soon. It's under review. We can't make our minds up yet. It's under review."

Well, 10 months is simply 10 months too long for the people of northern Ontario, 10 months too long to wait for programs that we need to attain our economic goals and our community objectives. Eight years ago, Mike Harris said that an eight-month wait was too long for something this important, and despite this government's obvious penchant for moving quickly on other fronts -- slash and burn, slash and burn -- we've heard nothing on the fund; that is, until February of this year when suddenly $60 million was missing from the northern Ontario heritage fund -- $60 million gone, vanished into thin air.

Then it was revealed that the former government had siphoned off the $60 million from the accrued worth of this fund and plunked it into the general revenue coffers.

The reaction of this government to that news was bizarre and phoney. Suddenly we had a perplexed Premier, an outraged finance minister, an evasive Minister of Northern Development, all of them tripping over themselves in shock when the truth about the funds was no further than page 9 of the 1994-95 annual report of the heritage fund. The minister had meekly accepted the $60 million less and signed off on it.

The resolution at hand is simply this: Return the $60 million that is owed to northerners back to the heritage fund; renew the mandate so that it can be put to work for the north. But also the minister must consult with northerners. During the campaign, this government proudly spoke of the need for a greater voice for northern concerns, of an increased empowerment to the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, making it a true lead ministry. Well, as this ministry threatens to slip into irrelevancy, this Minister of Northern Development and Mines has emerged as more leaden than leading.

As far as the heritage fund is concerned, I have reason to believe that this government has undertaken very little, if any, consultation. I've talked to many people in the north -- municipal leaders, economic development boards, all kinds of volunteers. I've asked: "Have you heard from the minister? Have you been included in any formal consultation to review and renew the heritage fund?" They've all said no.

We in the north have been patient, waiting for a clear signal from this government that it is truly committed to hearing what we have to say and to addressing our economic needs. Support of this resolution today by everybody might give us that first sign. Better late than never.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I am very pleased to participate in the debate this morning because it gives me the opportunity to expose the very empty rhetoric of both the Liberals and the Tories when it comes to concrete support of the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp and concrete support of northern Ontario.

The fact of the matter is that the Conservatives couldn't care less about job creation in northern Ontario, because this fund, the one single fund that, under legislation, has been specifically targeted for business development in northern Ontario, has been frozen since the Tories took government in June 1995. There has been not one single cent of money allocated to northern Ontario through this fund, and there has been no new job creation, no new job promotion in northern Ontario as a result. The minister should be here today to defend that, because he should be embarrassed about that situation.

Let me talk to you about the Liberal position now, because as it's put forward in this resolution, it clearly shows that the Liberals don't support business development and job creation in northern Ontario either. Instead of using this opportunity to slam the Tories for freezing the fund, as they have since June 1995, the Liberals come in here today and they support the contention that somehow the money is missing, because the resolution says that, and they also support the point that there should be a change in the mandate of the fund.

I suspect, if they want to ally themselves with the Tories around the change of the fund, what you're going to see is a capital fund where line ministries offload all of their responsibilities on to NOHFC and we have no new money whatsoever to help business development. I say shame on the Liberals too for supporting that kind of position.

Let me start with the Liberals. The member for Algoma-Manitoulin conveniently neglected to mention that, as a consequence of the deal that was made, this fund was extended at least another three years in northern Ontario. If he doesn't support that, if he doesn't support the fact that the fund can be used for an additional three years beyond the mandate that his government set out, then he should get up and tell the people of norther Ontario just that. I say shame on you. That was a progressive, positive step by us to continue that funding. You should have been supporting that deal.

Secondly, to somehow defend the Harris contention that money disappeared from the fund is to defend the indefensible. How can you stand here, member for Algoma-Manitoulin, and defend the Premier's contention that the money was missing? All that shows is that neither the Premier, the minister nor you can read a financial statement.

If you take a look at the financial statement, the annual report of the NOHFC, it clearly says on page 7 that there was a repayment to the province in the order of $60 million; "See accompanying notes to the financial statement." You go over to page 9 and you can tell that the deal is all listed there. That was signed by the minister, signed by the Provincial Auditor, signed by the general manager. You can't read a financial statement; that's your problem and his. The money is there.

Nothing is missing, nothing is wrong, and as a consequence of the deal, we will have at least three extra years of funding for northern Ontario from this fund.

The resolution from the Liberals also indicates that they support an update in the mandate of NOHFC. As far as I'm concerned, that plays right into the hands of what the Tories want to do. We know from the press release that was issued by the Tories before the last election that they intend to significantly change the mandate of this fund. What they want to do is to create a capital fund for infrastructure.

That is not the role of the NOHFC, that is not the role of the board of directors; that is the role of the direct line ministries that have a responsibility in northern Ontario, like the Ministry of Transportation, like the Ministry of Health, like the Ministry of Environment and Energy. Those responsibilities should not be offloaded on to NOHFC, and they are going to be. There's no doubt in my mind, when we see the new mandate, that that's exactly what the minister has in mind.

I think that's shameful, because now, more than ever before, northern business needs support, and it won't come from this government and it won't come from that kind of revised mandate. It's a real shame that that's the kind of thing the Liberals appear to have bought into.

I want to talk about the Tory position, because the minister should be here today. He should be here to explain to the people in northern Ontario why it is that as Minister of Northern Development, he has been in line with the Premier to freeze this funding since June 1995. We have had no new job creation in northern Ontario as a consequence. I want to compare that to what we did when we were in government and when I was minister.

During the time that I was Minister of Northern Development and chair of this board, we retained 7,000 jobs in northern Ontario and created 2,500 new ones during the course of our mandate. I am proud of that record, and I would compare that record against the record of this minister any day of the week. We assisted northern communities at a time when banks and other financial institutions didn't want to touch those companies because of the recession, and I am proud to say that in community after community we saved jobs and communities, because we used those funds to support northern business. That's the way it should be. That's the way it should continue to be.

This lack of support for NOHFC just reinforces where the Tories have been not only as the government but, frankly, as the opposition. I heard the parliamentary assistant try and say in here today that our government did nothing for the north. I want to remind him of what we did at Algoma Steel, what we did in Kapuskasing at Spruce Falls, what we did at Provincial Paper in Thunder Bay, what we did in Elliot Lake to diversify its economy. If we had left it to you, my friend, if you had been in government, those communities would have gone down the toilet, all of the jobs, all of those people.

Those communities would have been shut down under your government, so don't come in here and say to me today we did nothing. The fact that you got no new seats in northern Ontario in the face of a Tory sweep tells me that people in the north recognize who helped them. It was us, and that's why you folks, except for the two seats you already had, were completely and utterly shut out of northern Ontario.

Let me just talk a little bit about the missing fund fiasco, because that's all it is, and frankly it just demonstrates the incompetence of the Minister of Northern Development that such a story even came to light in the first place, because all it showed was that he couldn't read a financial statement, one that he in fact, as minister, had signed before the report went to publication. It also showed that the Premier of this province, as well, doesn't understand how to read a financial statement.

I also believe as strongly as I can that in the very first meeting that the manager of the heritage corporation would have had with the minister, he would have very clearly and carefully explained to him that transaction, because that's the kind of capable manager he is. So either the minister didn't understand anything that was told to him or he was just as interested as Jeff Harder in the Toronto Sun in putting out the big lie, because that's all it is. It was a big lie, there was no story here, and it was really sad that the Toronto Sun would have run it in the first place.

It was even more sad that the Premier would have called for some kind of silly investigation for money that wasn't even missing. It's been a ridiculous situation from start to finish, and both the Premier and the minister and, frankly, the Toronto Sun should be embarrassed by the whole thing, because you folks were a laughingstock in northern Ontario on this issue.

Just to reinforce it, in an interview that the general manager did with CBC, even the general manager of the fund said Premier Harris has asked northern development minister Chris Hodgson to look into the matter, but Kochanowski says Hodgson approved the fund's annual report last year, and it contains all of the details of the $60-million deal.

It's very clear to me that what we're going to see when we see a new heritage fund corporation is one where all of the financial responsibilities and all of the responsibilities of the front-line ministries are going to be offloaded on to this corporation. As a minister who was in charge of this fund for four years and as a minister who was very proud to work with other northerners on that board to sustain and create jobs in northern Ontario, I think it is shameful that we are going to allow that to happen. We need to support northern business. They should be supported through this fund, and it's a bloody shame that that's not going to happen under these Tories in the next few months.

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I welcome the opportunity to speak on this resolution, which has obviously touched a nerve in the third party today.

While I've spent most of my life outside what is strictly defined as northern Ontario, I did have the opportunity to begin my working life in Kirkland Lake, where I spent some time and learned a little bit about the region's economic challenges. I recognize that economic activity in the north is at a different level than it is in southern Ontario, and it's quite clear that opportunities for commerce in the north are limited. That's why I think we can agree the heritage fund provides a necessary opportunity base for northern development.

My riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay is located just outside the border of what is defined as northern Ontario. However, programs in the north often have a significant impact on my constituents. Issues related to resource management, economic development, tourism marketing and health care -- these are all areas which don't always obey arbitrary regional borders.

The northern Ontario heritage fund has been a significant factor in our northern Ontario development since its inception in 1988. I understand the concern that the member for Algoma-Manitoulin has with respect to the future of the fund and his frustration and outrage with the previous government's so-called management of the fund.

The mandate for the northern Ontario heritage fund is currently under a much-needed review. Previously, the mandate of the corporation was to provide assistance to single-industry communities experiencing economic disruptions and to assist the development and adoption of new technologies. The fund was set up to support special projects designed to diversify and strengthen the economic base of northern Ontario and help small businesses get started, expand, modernize or diversify.

Just over a year ago, the previous government took $60 million from the corporation and placed it in the consolidated revenue fund. This act may have, at least in the minds of the previous cabinet, made the provincial ledger appear a little more presentable, but I fail to see what this fiddling with ministry accounts did to promote economic development in the north.

As promised during the election, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp is now being refocused. The minister has said that in the near future he'll announce new program and eligibility criteria for the corporation. It's time the focus of the funds mandate is shifted so that money is no longer earmarked on grants and loans for individual businesses. Northerners agree the fund should instead centre its efforts towards infrastructure and development opportunities. I have a special interest in tourism issues and I can see many ways the fund could benefit the northern Ontario tourism industry if it followed an approach that fostered sector-wide development.

Northerners also want a greater say on who's appointed to the board. By providing greater say for those most directly affected by the fund, there will be no repeat of the sad performance which occurred in the previous government's last-minute election panic.

As indicated by my colleague from Grey-Owen Sound, finding the money to top the fund up is going to be tough. But I'm confident that with the completion of the minister's review, northerners will see a fund which has addressed their many concerns, a fund which promotes economic development of northern communities and a fund which listens to those northerners who are most affected.

While I understand the concern which led to the introduction of this resolution, I think it's critical to wait for the minister's announcement and to let him, as the chairman of the heritage fund, take responsibility for the fund's future.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Let me first start off by clarifying the record just a little bit. First of all, with regard to the member for Sudbury East, she not only reads financial statements creatively, but she also reads election results creatively. The Liberals had a net gain of two seats in the north.

The member for Nickel Belt states that the money is in the northern Ontario heritage fund. The member for Grey-Owen Sound says the money isn't in the heritage fund. It's amazing. There must be an IOU somewhere around here. We read the press clippings: "Ontario Coffers Missing $100 Million." "Heritage Fund Cookie Jar Isn't Empty After All."

Listen, this reminds me of Bud Abbott being the government and Lou Costello being the third party in the skit "Who's on First?" Who's on first? I don't care. Who's on second? What? I don't care. I know one thing. The Liberals are on third. We don't know. We don't know what happened to the money. We don't know why the money isn't back in the fund. We don't know why the government isn't putting the money back into the fund. We don't know why the interest isn't being put back into the fund, along with the original $60 million.

All we know is that when we get to home base, which is northern Ontario, we want the $60 million back in the fund, plus interest, so that we can go back to the people of northern Ontario and say, "People of northern Ontario, all three parties acted in good faith and we're going to fulfil the mandate of the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Act instituted by the Liberals which states the objects of the corporation are to advise and make recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor in Council on any matter relating to the growth and diversification of the economy of northern Ontario, to promote and stimulate economic initiatives in northern Ontario and see the commission studies and enters into contracts in connection with the objects as set out in articles A and B." In other words, when we get to home base, which is northern Ontario, we want the money intact to be used by the people of northern Ontario to improve northern Ontario.

We don't care where it went, where it is now; we want it back.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to make a few comments with respect to the resolution from the member for Algoma-Manitoulin. There obviously is some debate as to whether there was $60 million taken out or whether there was more money taken out. The former Treasurer stands up and says it's all there, you know, it really didn't disappear. The member for Manitoulin says it's gone. Jeff Harder says it's gone. I must confess, I quite frankly would accept the position of the member for Algoma-Manitoulin; I think that money's gone. So I understand his resolution.

I see the member for Cochrane South is here today. I spent some time in Timmins earlier this year and there's no question that the area in northern Ontario needs to be treated a little differently and needs extra funding to simply survive in many other areas.

Surely you're not asking our government to be responsible for the errors of the former New Democratic government. They have spent, I heard, $100 million at one point. Whether it's $60 million or whether it's $100 million -- I understand that. Here we are, trying to restructure. We've got a big problem in this province, whether you acknowledge it or not. We've got a spending problem. We've got a revenue problem. Money is just not going to come out of the air.

So your resolution -- I understand the intent of it and I think everyone in this House will agree with the intent that northern Ontario needs special attention. The question is, where's the money going to come from. These people spent it, notwithstanding what the Treasurer says. And one of the other members stood up with some report that talks about it's really there. I quite agree with you; I think it's gone. They spent it. In the middle of the night they came in and they thought they could get away with it, and they didn't get away with it, fortunately for people like you and Mr Harder and others.

There's no question it's gone, and I guess where I do have difficulties supporting your resolution is where the money's going to come from. Your resolution says, "therefore, the government of Ontario should return the funds" -- because they're gone, they're spent --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member's time has expired.

Mr Tilson: I'm speaking against the resolution, Mr Speaker.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I congratulate my colleague for bringing this most important issue to the forefront here in the Legislature this morning. We've heard many things here this morning. We hear from the NDP, who claim that it was not wrong for them to take that $60 million out of the fund in order to reduce their deficit and, again, in the darkness of the night, as we've heard, without telling the people of the north, without consulting with the people of the north, $60 million just happens to drift off into the consolidated revenue fund.

We've heard from the member for Dufferin-Peel who talks about the uniqueness of the north and, yes, there are many uniquenesses in the north. We've heard from other Conservative members, the Conservative economic development minister, who branded this move as politically dishonest. He too agrees that there is a problem, there is uniqueness in the north that deserves this fund. We've heard about how the fund does come back into the north. It comes back into the north to actually realize the royalties that are taken out of the north, the royalties on forestry, on mining.

This is money that is used in the north, that is taken out of the north to help us develop our road system, our economic development, our health care. Another former speaker just indicated tourism, how this money is important to us in tourism.

We have members from all three parties acknowledging the uniqueness and the need for this fund. All I'm suggesting is that we ensure that the fund is there for northerners to use, and to hear that the money is not there is kind of astonishing.

We've heard the parliamentary assistant as he refers to updating the plan. The plan needs redirection, the fund needs redirection. But I cannot emphasize enough that the plan redirection, the northern Ontario heritage fund, needs the money. Without the money there for northerners, it will not be a plan for redirection, it will not need redirection. We need that money back into the fund for northerners to decide to do some unique things with the fund.

As I indicated, we've heard nothing, very little, from this government in terms of what it is going to do, in terms of what redirection it is planning on. What are the plans? We have a parliamentary assistant who travels the north, and we hear nothing back. We hear nothing in terms of his consultations with the people who are going to be putting that fund to use, the people who are going to ensure that those dollars are redirected to observe, again, the unique circumstances that we face in the north and that the fund was initially established to address.

I must stress to the parliamentary assistant -- unfortunately the minister is not here today to partake in this debate -- but I must stress the importance to the parliamentary assistant that he takes the message back to the minister that this is a fund set up for these uniquenesses and a fund that must be directed by northerners to ensure that it is put to proper use in the north.

I cannot see why all three parties would not want to support this most important fund, a fund that we've seen used throughout northern Ontario for the past many years since it has been established and a fund that really is put to good use in northern Ontario to address the uniqueness.

Again I congratulate the member, my colleague, for bringing this again to the forefront in the House today to allow people to discuss what happened to the money, whether it disappeared, it went here, it went there. But the most important thing is that it must be put back into the place where it is deserved and most needed, into the northern Ontario heritage fund.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): The first thing I would like to do this morning is to congratulate the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, my colleague Mike Brown. I'm very proud to be able to stand in my place and speak in support of this, and I'm very pleased that the member brought this to the attention of the House through private members' hour.

I want to tell you quite frankly that I have a lot of respect for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. He's a good person, and I have worked on several committees with him. But I'll tell you what the difference is in not being a northerner and living in the north: You don't really understand the depth of feeling that northerners have for a fund such as the heritage fund and where it comes from.

Where it comes from, quite frankly, is that northerners over the years have felt exploited through resource extraction and that many times, through mining for instance, you actually are left with holes in the ground in our communities. We physically can see the resources being taken out of the ground and taken down to the affluent areas of southern Ontario where wealth is generated, and basically, literally in many cases, a hole is left in the ground.

Most parties in this House and most northern members believed there needed to be some redress to this. We came together back in the 1980s and felt that a northern development heritage fund would be the way to redress this grievance that northerners have had.

To find out that the previous government had taken that money out from the dedicated fund -- because it was important to northerners that the fund be dedicated, that we did get a share of the resource revenue that was generated from resource extraction, totally dedicated to northern Ontario -- for that to be taken away is offensive to northerners. That's why the member for Algoma-Manitoulin has brought this resolution before the House today: to implore this government to put the money back.

In his speech, one of the members from the government side had asked, "Well, where are we going to find the money to put it back?" The money is there. The money has been generated from the extraction of resources in northern Ontario. It has been generated. As the member says in his resolution, this is only a small proportion, a small share, of the resource extraction revenue that has come from northern Ontario.

We're asking the government to put it back, to do the right thing, so that northern Ontarians have their heritage fund back, a fund that we can manage, that we can use to help to stimulate the economy, to stimulate business and jobs in northern Ontario. We see it as our birthright and we're really afraid that now that this fund has been absconded with and put down into general revenues, we're never going to see it again.

So I ask the parliamentary assistant who's here, and through him to the minister who's not today, to put that money back for northern Ontarians. It is our heritage, it is our birthright, and we need it in the north.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Algoma-Manitoulin, you have two minutes.

Mr Michael Brown: I appreciate the comments of members that have been made this morning. I find some of the comments, though, a little bit interesting. The member for Sudbury East, for example, said I had some problem reading financial statements. I want to quote to you what the heritage fund annual report says. It says, "As part of refinancing arrangements approved by treasury board of cabinet, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and the corporation, the corporation repaid $60 million to the Minister of Finance on March 31, 1995." I don't know what you think that means.

I know what I think that means, and what that means is that the heritage fund had $60 million taken out of its trust account and paid into general consolidated revenues in the province of Ontario and will never be seen by northerners again.

It is a pure and simple fact that it was done by New Democrats. I heard Mr Murdoch, the parliamentary assistant, say the money was stolen. His government is in possession of the stolen dollars. In any court in the country, someone who's in possession of stolen goods is guilty. The money should go back.

I agree, as all northerners agree, we have a financial problem in this province, but we are somewhat surprised that we are expected to pay more than our share towards that deficit difficulty. We are most concerned that we are being asked to make a sacrifice above and beyond any group, any region in the province of Ontario. We are not asking for anything more than, as Mr Ramsay so aptly put it, our birthright, our legacy to be returned to us.

The member for Nickel Belt, Mr Laughren, said you can't spend more than $30 million a year in the heritage fund; it's not allowed. He's wrong. It only receives $30 million from revenues a year, but you can spend what you need to in any given year, and that was the beauty of the whole plan. It is as if the New Democrats chose not to put --

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

Mr Michael Brown: I had about three minutes --

Mr Miclash: The Speaker agreed.

The Deputy Speaker: I'm informed that the member cannot use any of that time; he can only use the time that is assigned to your caucus and to him as speaker.

Mr Miclash: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The previous Speaker who was in the chair agreed with the member when the member asked to have the remainder of his time allocated to the end of the debate. The Speaker agreed at that time. He agreed.

Mr Murdoch: On a point of order: We did agree with that and he does have the time. That's what we did agree to. I agree with that. He gets his time.

The Deputy Speaker: The Speaker has no authority to make that, but this House does. If we have unanimous consent of the House, then we could. Is it agreed? Two minutes? It's agreed.

Mr Michael Brown: As I was saying, it appears to us that an amount which the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party, in 1988, believed to be woefully inadequate -- $30 million a year was not going to be adequate. That was the major argument against the northern Ontario heritage fund. And what did we have? If you net this out, we've actually had the New Democratic government not contribute for two of those years, if that's the way you want to look at it.

What I'm saying is, this should not be a terribly partisan issue. This is about northerners, it's about our economic climate, it's about our roads, it's about our social structures, it's about health care, it's about those things that northerners may choose to make their own particular priorities. All we're saying to the government is, look, you've got a revenue stream of, I don't know, $40 billion, maybe $45 billion a year. Maybe out of that $45 billion, or whatever it is that is the exact number that flows into the provincial treasury, put back the money that the previous government stole.

Otherwise you're complicit. Otherwise, you, the Conservative government, are just as guilty as the former government. Do the right thing.

I would expect that all members of this House can support such a reasonable representation that I'm making this morning, and my Liberal colleagues are. For the good of northern Ontario, for our legacy and for our birthright, I urge you to support this resolution.

VISITOR

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair would like to bring to the attention of the House, in the west members' gallery, Mr Mark Morrow, former member for Wentworth East.

CITIZENS' UTILITY BOARDS

Mr Marchese moved private member's notice of motion number 11:

That in the opinion of this House, since it is in the public interest that public utilities and banks be more accountable to the citizens, ratepayers and consumers they serve; and that cutbacks in government funding are forcing non-governmental consumer organizations and government ministries alike to make drastic reductions in their watchdog and consumer support activities, with detrimental effects on accountability; and since some of Ontario's public utilities may be privatized, making the need to ensure accountability all the greater; and that citizens' utility boards can be established that would further the goals of public input and involvement and be operated without public funds or additional regulation; and that public utilities can be required to facilitate the operation of citizens' utility boards without adding to their own costs of doing business; therefore (

a) the government of Ontario should move promptly to introduce legislation creating citizens' utility boards and requiring public utilities to facilitate their operation; and (

b) the government of Ontario should urge the federal government to take similar action with respect to banks.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member for Fort York has 10 minutes.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I'm very happy to be here today to speak to this motion. I will ask that the audience who is watching excuse my sore throat. I have a virus. I hope I didn't catch it in here; I'm sure I must have caught it outside. But it was an important resolution for me and I wanted to be here to speak to it.

This resolution is a new idea to strengthen consumer advocacy. That's the substance of this resolution. Before I get into some of the arguments around it, I want to give some brief background as to what a citizens' utility board is all about.

I should point out that citizens' utility boards are in existence in the United States. They are non-profit, arm's-length, state-wide organizations of residential utility ratepayers in four American states.

What do they do? What does a CUB, a citizens' utility board, do? It advocates for fair electric, gas and water rates and sensible energy policies before the utility regulatory boards or before a state Legislature. CUBs are made up of voluntary, dues-paying members and they enjoy enormous popularity in the states in which they exist. In Illinois alone, it is reported that the citizens' utility board members have saved ratepayers $2 billion since 1983. It's a remarkable figure. What it speaks to is the power of citizens and consumers to effect change that in this particular instance is not hurtful to the general public.

CUBs work as follows: Customers of public utilities will receive a CUB-funded insert with their utility bills four times a year. The insert allows the citizens' utility board to reach out to consumers and ask them to join the citizens' utility board. Membership dues and donations, not government financial support, enable the association to have resources to hire economists, experts, organizers and attorneys to represent consumers. They are non-profit. They're run democratically by the membership through an elected board of directors.

In my view, this is the way we can grow democracy. This is a tool the government can give to consumers to control utility rates, unfair practices and deal with the lobbyists of those various utilities, having the membership, the dues, the democratic structure to hire those people to be able to represent them in such a way that the interest of the public is protected.

If the government cares about tools, and Lord knows it has given enough tools to municipalities to raise taxes, if it wants to give yet another tool to consumers which wouldn't cost the government a penny, wouldn't cost municipal governments a penny, it would allow the establishment of citizens' utility boards, thereby giving them real democratic tools to be able to tackle the problems of a utility. This is how we can help to democratize institutions and to institutionalize a practice where consumers are empowered to take on a utility.

Such questions as these: Do you have any clout at all when utility rates are increased? If your answer is no, we have a problem and it speaks to the need for a strong consumer association. Do you think you can do anything if utilities waste your money or operate inefficiently? If your answer is no, this is a tool that can give you power as a citizen to tackle such questions. Here's another one: Do you have a voice at the Legislature to speak out against utility lobbyists? If your answer is no, as I believe it is likely to be, then you are the person out there who is looking for a citizens' utility board to be established.

Democracy is a relative term and it can grow or diminish depending on the actions of citizens and governments. If we as a government are interested in growing democracy and giving greater independence to the public, and diminishing the dependence of the public, if we're interested in that, then this government has through this citizens' utility board the potential to create something that allows them to be able to deal with the utility boards in a way that sometimes governments have not been able to do properly.

We have a tendency in Canada to create mammoth public agencies which seem out of keeping with the relatively small size of our province, sometimes our country, relative to other countries that are much larger, vis-à-vis the US. Given this fact, I believe it's the job of governments to balance the scales by providing citizens with more direct power.

It is a citizen watchdog for public utilities such as hydro, water, gas, the banks at the federal level, could be auto insurance -- you could add anything you deem it important to have. A citizens' utility board would be a departure from the old-fashioned Canadian tradition of setting up a government agency or an ombudsman. We have done that often, and often members of this assembly have decried the number of agencies we have and the number of things such as ombudsmen's offices. The point of the citizens' utility boards is that they do not require public money to operate, they do not require more government regulation of utilities and they are not even a government body.

It should be appealing to all of us irrespective of our political tendencies. It is something I think should appeal to the government in particular, because it's a government that says: "We're creating a more efficient workplace around here. We're getting rid of waste." Although they don't say it publicly, and publicly they vacillate on the issue of privatization, privately I suspect they're salivating at the idea of privatization. If you privatize such an institution as Ontario Hydro, then I argue there's much more of a need to create a citizens' utility board that would become the watchdog of these utilities.

It would watch the operations of that utility, the waste, the inefficiencies and the lobbyists of such operations in a way that balances the power to citizens, to consumers, to your taxpayers.

The government's role is simply to help to establish CUBs and after that they're on their own. The only thing that is required is for the government to pass a law or a regulation that would establish these citizens' utility boards. What may also be needed is for the government perhaps to pay for the first mailing it would do, but subsequently CUBs would insert in those mailings done by the utilities an insert that speaks about what a citizens' utility board is, urging people to join such a utility board for $5 or $10, whatever it is.

For example, if only 2% of Ontario Hydro consumers replied to such a mailing, Ontario would have an instant public utility consumer watchdog with a staggering 200,000 members. Imagine the power, imagine how we grow democracy and the power it gives to citizens if we do this.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Thank you very much for the opportunity to be able to respond to this resolution. I certainly compliment the member for Fort York in the delivery, under trying circumstances, but the content had a lot to be desired.

This resolution is to create a citizens' utility board. Already we have an acronym, CUBs. Frankly, I'm disappointed that we're going to be spending an hour debating this particular issue. As I read the resolution it certainly was not clear to me what we were going to be debating and the direction it was going to go in. Were we talking about public utility commissions in local communities, or were we going to be talking about provincial utilities such as Ontario Hydro, gas, water etc? Certainly, the member for Fort York helped to explain that here this morning.

He referred to it as a non-profit organization at arm's length and already operating in four states. Repeatedly, the NDP has been all upset about anything that comes from the US, and I'm surprised they would identify that their ideas are coming from the United States of America. They mention it being a non-profit organization. Well, I can tell you, we've run into a lot of non-profit organizations that have been extremely profitable to some sectors, and really non-profit organizations have not been all that successful.

We talk about tools for the consumers. If it's such a marvellous idea, I'm left wondering why, when they had almost five years, they wouldn't have brought in one of these tools that's so marvellous. The last year in government, they literally brought nothing into the House. They only sat for some 22 days, and all I can assume is that it was not acceptable to the NDP caucus of the day, and so they're trying to bring it forward at this point in time.

It appeared to me on reading the resolution that it was going to be a watchdog organization, and in fact this is what the member for Fort York has explained to us, that it is in fact a watchdog organization. But I'm left wondering if he doesn't trust the public utility commissions in his community. I certainly trust the ones in ours. Maybe he doesn't trust Ontario Hydro and maybe there's good reason there with some of the things that have been happening, particularly during the last five years.

It would appear to me what this member is trying to do is to bring in another layer of bureaucracy and certainly that is in fact a trademark of an NDP government, and I would recommend to all members of the House to vote against this particular resolution.

As I look at all the whereases in this resolution, the first one starts off:

Whereas "it is in the public interest that public utilities and banks be more accountable to the citizens, ratepayers and consumers they serve."

First, as the member knows, banks are a federal responsibility so we can drop that one, and then we move on to public utilities. The public utility commissions that I'm familiar with are served by elected members or appointed by elected bodies, and I ask you, how can you improve on accountability any more than having people elected to serve in those particular roles?

Maybe he's referring more at the provincial level and, yes, I can respect some of the concerns he has there, but is he also suggesting that maybe we should create citizens' utility or citizen watchdog groups for municipal governments, for provincial governments, for federal governments, for hospital boards, for school boards? It does seem rather redundant, especially when you start wondering how they would be created. Would they be elected? Another approach.

The people that are watching are already elected and that is certainly accountable enough, so why should we have watchdogs watching watchdogs watching watchdogs? It's just quasi-court being laid one on top of another.

Would they be appointed? We heard yesterday from one of the would-be leaders of your party, really upset over how appointments are being made, and then it was demonstrated to the NDP how you went about making appointments, and that certainly does not seem to be a satisfactory way of creating them.

How many would serve on these boards? There's just so many questions about how these boards would operate. Remember that we already have all kinds of voluntary boards that do in fact monitor various elected groups and utilities, such as ratepayers, for example, and I'm sure you're familiar. In my area we have the Hamilton ratepayers and they just do an excellent job. They get 100 out to their monthly meetings and they monitor and work with, not against work with, the elected people.

What level of power would you give to this group? Would you give veto power to the others? These are questions that have to be understood before you start bringing forth a resolution such as that.

Then we move on to the second

whereas:

Whereas "cutbacks in government funding are forcing non-governmental consumer organizations and government ministries alike to make drastic reductions in their watchdog and consumer support activities, with detrimental effects on accountability."

How are the cutbacks on non-governmental organizations going to have an effect? They're out there doing their thing. Are they going to always depend on government money to function? If they do, then they have a built-in bias. They're going to operate on their own.

If money was the answer to making things accountable, then we would have absolutely a marvellous province to live in today with the amount of money that's been thrown at things in the last 10 years. We'd have, I think, an absolutely perfect province. Obviously, that is not where we're at. The province of Ontario, as has been said many times, is a great place to live, but it certainly has not been a great place to do business recently. But in the next four years, I can assure you, it will be a great place to do business.

Move on to the third

whereas:

Whereas "some of Ontario's public utilities may be privatized" -- oh my dear, that's terrible -- "making the need to ensure accountability all the greater." I would suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that privatization would increase the accountability of utilities. We would have municipalities monitoring what public utilities would be carrying out.

I expect you've introduced this resolution so you can try and beat up on our present government over thinking about looking at examining the possibility of privatization. I would suggest to the member that it's not all about public versus private; what it's about is, do we have a pure monopoly or do we bring some competition into a monopoly? I can assure you that competition in any area is healthy. If you don't think it's a healthy thing to have, then why would we have a third party competing in the province of Ontario if they don't believe in competition? They're basic groups.

To compete politically means they do support competition, so I have a little trouble with why they're opposed to privatization.

We're so concerned about privatization that maybe you support that 649 people should make over $100,000 in Ontario Hydro. Do you support that fact that industrial rates in Ontario are 5.42 cents per kilowatt while in Manitoba it's 2.97, half the price? Where would an industry go, to Ontario or to Manitoba? The Ford plants in Ontario, in the US and in Mexico, having plants in 17 different areas, up until 1986 had the lowest-price power in the province in Ontario. Now they're down to 12th out of 17. That's where monopoly has taken us.

We have all kinds of protection organizations, from ratepayer groups, Consumers' Association of Canada, and Pollution Probe that looks after environmental issues. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that this resolution is inconsistent with our government policy. We believe in increased local autonomy. We don't, as a provincial government, want to be micromanaging the local level. We believe in reduced bureaucracy, if you're looking at a watchdog level, for the provincial utilities level.

We certainly believe in less red tape and getting rid of the useless regulations, particularly the large numbers that have come in in the last 10 years. We believe in reducing costs significantly. Government must increase efficiency and must become more effective. I can assure you that over the next four years that indeed will happen.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Before I give a few thoughts with regard to this motion, I want to thank the member for Fort York for obviously thinking out a very, very complex issue. When we look at CUBs, we find out that they're really not very new. Although they're not as structured as the member for Fort York would like, they are in existence in many of the ways that the previous speaker spoke about. Let me just outline from a very, very parochial perspective with regard to this motion.

Although it's complex and although I think it's very unusual when you get a right-wing idea coming from the left-wing party, we all have trouble with this and we all have trouble comprehending. In fact, is there an underlying reason for the motion?

It doesn't really bother me that somebody from the left would have a right-wing idea, because if you look at the way Ontario is going, I'm fearful that the move to the extreme right, is starting to catch on. It's certainly not catching on with the party in the middle, the party that tries to find balance, the party that tries to find fairness, the party that tries to find justice in both sides of the House, the government's right-wing approach and of course the third party's left-wing antics and ideas.

But let me tell you, I think this is quite simple. I think the CUB idea is simply what we already have in existence: community action groups. You know what? The best things happen when the public is motivated to make things happen. You don't have to legislate that. You don't have to mandate that. You don't have to encourage that. Let me give you some concrete ideas, because I think community action groups are a way of the future, a way of ensuring that maximum human resource potential is brought to its highest peak.

Let me talk to you for a moment about Sudbury, our acquisition of the MRI at the Sudbury General Hospital. The government might like to take credit for it, but had it not been for Sandra Gardolfo and the group that she put together, the MRI would not have happened. It was a community action group motivated because of a tragedy.

Let me talk to you about the northeastern cancer research centre for a second. Had it not been for Gerry Lougheed and the group put together who saw the need for people from the north to be serviced in the north when they had that dreaded disease, the cancer centre wouldn't have happened. It wasn't because of governments, regardless of whether they were Progressive Conservative, Liberal or New Democrat; it was because a group saw a need, an individual had a dream. That happened because the community was motivated.

We look at Science North, now a provincial institution. Certainly, it wouldn't have come about unless we had the dreamers to make it happen, the community to see we need to have a world-class science centre in the north. It happened because the community was motivated.

The Sudbury Theatre Centre, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary, thanks to the Nurmi family, thanks to Dr Masserolla, wouldn't have happened unless there was a dream, the community action group got together and they made it happen.

It goes on and on. We have Fringe Nord, Théâtre du Nouvel-Ontario, Cinefest. They all happened because people have an idea, people have a dream, the community comes together and we make it happen. I think underlying the CUB concept, if I understand it correctly -- and I agree with the previous speaker: It is certainly cumbersome in nature. What I'm understanding is that the member for Fork York wants people to get involved. You know, it's happening here.

I look at the member for Oakwood and I think he was asking community action groups to come together, to ensure that they inform the Minister of Transportation about the pothole problem across the province. So he is the visionary. The member for Oakwood has the dream. He wants the community from all over Ontario to come together, and let's find out just how many potholes there are and how severe the problem is.

Mr Speaker, I know, I'm taking a little bit of licence here and I apologize. I will come back to reality to tell you that I can't support the motion because I believe by and large it's already in existence and it's working well: Science North, MRI at the general hospital. There are all kinds of examples, not only in Sudbury, not only in the region of Sudbury, but all over Ontario. I encourage those people, if they firmly believe that a person has a good idea, to get involved in a community action project, become involved.

The underlying tone of the motion, I'm sure, is simply that: He wants people, he wants average citizens, much like the member for Oakwood wants, to get involved and let the government know its shortcomings and how it can improve.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Any further debate?

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): There most certainly is, Speaker, and I'm pleased to comment on what is a very innovative and unique and most appropriate proposition here.

I want to as well recognize that among our visitors today are Tammy Stowe and Jennifer Wilkinson, both students at Orchard Park Secondary School in Stoney Creek who are going to be spending the day here at Queen's Park scrutinizing what it is that this Legislative Assembly does.

I want to express some real gratitude to Rosario Marchese, the member for Fort York, for bringing this matter forward. Again, this isn't unexpected from Mr Marchese. He has been an advocate not only for the residents of Fort York throughout his years here at Queen's Park, but has as well embraced the broader perspective. He's accomplished what very few parliamentarians have been able to do, and that is to be a strong, effective voice for the people in his constituency, but at the same time perform an effective role in the Legislature dealing with broader provincial issues.

One has to refer specifically to the resolution and recognize that nobody's calling upon the government to legislate the creation of CUBs. Take a look closely. I'm concerned that other members in having commented on this haven't recognized what's the viscera, the guts of this resolution, and that is requiring public utilities to facilitate their operation. That's really what's it's all about: requiring public utilities to facilitate their operation.

Some of the people commenting on this resolution have made reference to local public utilities. Please, look what we're talking about here and let's understand one thing: that we have a number of regulatory bodies here in the province of Ontario, and in this country, regulatory bodies which primarily are designed to respond to the very specific and unique roles that monopolies have, or quasi-monopolies.

Federally, take a look when we talk about the rate-setting for cable television. Look at the uproar that ensued here in the province in response to some recent changes in rate-setting and recognize that there was no effective way for consumers to have participated in the regulatory decision-making such that consumers' interests could be represented. Oh, I know we have a Consumers' Association of Canada, which sadly has been to the largest extent not only bankrupt financially but bankrupt in terms of ideas.

If it regards itself as a watchdog, and I'm sure it would want to, it has been a somewhat -- it's like my old beagle Charlie: rather slow, toothless and not quite as eager as Charlie was in his youth to bark when strangers approached.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): I'll pass that comment on to Helen Anderson.

Mr Kormos: I certainly hope that comment is passed on.

What we have here is a response to a vacuum in this province and in this country. Look, we haven't had a strong tradition, as has the United States, and no doubt not only in no small part but due very specifically to the leadership of Ralph Nader in the consumer protection/consumer advocacy movement, and before him there were people like Saul Alinsky, who very much matured through the process of community organization into some very specific consumer advocacy in designing techniques, means, whereby consumers could have their voice heard.

In Canada we're blessed with Duff Conacher, who provides leadership for an organization called Democracy Watch, Duff Conacher, an acolyte of Ralph Nader and the Nader movement in the United States, having been one of Nader's Raiders. But there's an imperative that there be an opportunity for the consumer to participate in the regulatory process.

The Ontario Insurance Commission, where approval is acquired by the private sector, profiteering auto insurance industry, which has always had short arms and deep pockets and doesn't hesitate not only to rob from premium-payers, but to also beat up on the victims, the innocent victims of motor vehicle accidents: Who is there to advocate for the consumer when the Ontario Insurance Commission is called upon to approve the premiums set by the auto insurance industry? There's a vacuum.

Who is there to advocate for the consumer when the cable television industry -- increasingly becoming a monopoly, one can say; if not a monopoly, surely a quasi-monopoly -- who's there to advocate for the consumers? Who's there to advocate for the consumers when Bell telephone rates are being set? Because Bell telephone -- again, a corporation whose motive is to make as much money as it can at the expense of people -- fails to recognize that that sort of telecommunications is imperative. Do I believe that telecommunications should be within the public sector? You bet your boots I do.

But until it is, it's imperative that Bell telephone, regulated as it is, and regulated because it is a monopoly, it's imperative that there be consumer participation.

Without that -- as a matter of fact, one must refer to the learned

article in one of the University of Toronto law reviews which pointed out very clearly that regulatory bodies -- this is a pattern -- almost inevitably tend to be co-opted by the industry that they purport to regulate. The author of that University of Toronto Law Review

article was none other than Ian Scott, former Attorney General, whose acumen in this regard cannot be disputed.

We're blessed with class actions, because that's one vehicle -- and again, recognizing that the concept of class action in this jurisdiction was initiated by Ian Scott, but certainly under the leadership of Howard Hampton, the Attorney General for the last government, acquired the mechanism and meanings whereby class actions can become effective. We don't have a strong products liability litigation movement in this jurisdiction or in the country, in contrast to the United States. There's been a persistent attack on tort, first by the Liberal government.

The last government certainly didn't help, and this government is carrying on in its attack on tort and the remedies that provides for consumers.

What this resolution proposes is simply this, and it's within the provincial jurisdiction to require this even of federally regulated industries like Bell telephone, like cable communications: that those industries in their billing process facilitate the creation of CUBs so that people can choose voluntarily, democratically, to join or not to join. A mere nickel, dime, quarter apiece could fund the effective watchdogging that's essential with the sort of regulatory boards I've spoken to.

The support of this resolution is essential if we're ever going to acquire democracy for consumers in this province, if we're ever going to acquire a meaningful advocacy for consumers at the regulatory level.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to make a few comments with respect to the recommendations made by the member for Fort York. I always admire the member for Fort York. I believe he always believes what he says. I know he works hard. For example, his staff sent me a package of what he's trying to put forward. I know he's been working on it for a couple of years, so that he's researched it well. I've spoken to him privately and he may not believe that I still understand, but I can tell you that I appreciate his dedication, the very fact that he's here today. I know he's not well, but he has come to put forward something that he truly believes in.

My belief is that this resolution is in fact creating something we already have. I know the member for Fort York will say, "Well, this group" -- which works, as I understand it, in four states, from the material that I was sent; I could be corrected -- is "citizen-run and -financed, democratically elected." I'm reading from the press release the member for Fort York had released. The problem is that we already have, as the member for Northumberland said, public utilities commissions. I have two in my riding, very hardworking individuals who are elected and do whatever they can to make sure those utilities are being run properly.

With due respect to the member for Fort York, it's typical of an NDP position. The NDP loves to have commissions. The favourite debate my friend from Fort York and I have had is on the Advocacy Commission, and they had the Employment Equity Commission, the Environmental Bill of Rights commission, we had the wonderful IWA, which was trying to create superdumps around the southern part of the province, and we even had a commission on alleged race riots with respect to Yonge Street a couple of years ago, all of which costs a great deal of money.

I think that's the fear, that when you put forward something like this -- we all support ratepayers' groups, but the difficulty is when you start to put forward these groups with suggested government funding. The member will stand up in reply and say, "But there's not going to be any government funding." Well, I've seen these groups sponsored by government, whether it be non-profit corporations or not-for-profit organizations. Somehow -- and it's happened in their government and it's happened in the Liberal government -- these corporations, these creations, end up costing the taxpayers thousands of dollars. That's the reluctance I have to support this resolution.

We have very good ratepayers' groups. We all can talk about the ratepayers' groups we have in our respective ridings, whether they're fighting against gravel pits or whether they're fighting against dumps or whether they're fighting against high taxes or whether they're fighting against high energy rates or whether they're fighting against actions being taken by government -- very informed people. I'll tell you, if you take on one of these ratepayer groups, you'd better know what you're doing and what you're talking about or you're going to be in very deep trouble.

Those actions by those ratepayers' groups, those citizens' groups, don't cost the government of Ontario a nickel. They don't cost us anything. In fact, they have an effect on how we think.

Our whole philosophy on this side of the House is that we've got too many politicians in this province, too many regulations, and that's what we're cutting back on. The member for Fort York will say, "You still don't understand my resolution," but in my view this resolution is creating more politicians, because he's suggesting that they be elected; at least that's a consideration. He's creating more levels of red tape. We simply have a great deal of concern.

The biggest thing is the issue of cost. The taxpayers can't sustain any more cost in this province with respect to these issues.

Although I admire the member, as usual, for his beliefs and his tenacity in putting forward his resolutions, I believe we're well looked after by the ratepayers' groups of this province, the elected groups of the public utilities commissions. In my riding, I have one public utilities commission in Orangeville and another in Caledon, both of which do a very good job with respect to making sure there's proper service with respect to energy in our riding.

I will not be supporting the resolution because I think it's another level of bureaucracy and another cost that we simply cannot sustain.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I haven't made up my mind yet whether I should support this resolution and I would like to ask a few questions of the member who introduced the resolution.

We're all concerned about privatization. Even some members from the government have asked questions of certain ministers in the House concerning privatization because of the concern about how these private companies will provide the services the government was providing before, and at what cost, and will the government be a loser or a winner? I realize the present government is trying to cut back on funding to private utility service agencies.

I ask the member, in creating these citizens' utility boards, what power will these people have? If it's a simple committee of ratepayers or citizens in place to simply take a look at what privatization has done -- he's asking for more accountability, and if the member is really looking for more accountability, the utility boards must have power. Are we creating another Ombudsman in the province? We all know what that office is costing us. I simply ask the member to please tell me what these people will have in place, what tools they will have, to make these companies more accountable.

The Acting Speaker: Any further debate?

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le Président. Comme d'habitude, votre distinction dans le siège est très aimable. J'ai besoin de faire ça pour mes provocations d'un peu plus de bonheur.

I'd like to speak in favour of the motion that's been brought forward today by my colleague. I believe it is going to become more important than ever to make sure we have the mechanisms in place to have watchdogs out there to take a look at the question of public utilities. This is important more than ever, I would say, because of the agenda of this government and its aim to privatize Ontario Hydro. I can't resist the opportunity to put on the record a couple of things in regard to that. The first thing we have to ask ourselves is, if Ontario Hydro is privatized, who in the end is going to benefit? Will the consumers benefit?

A lot of people don't realize it, but in Ontario we have a system of rural rate subsidy so that no matter where you live in the province, areas of high-density population are subsidizing those areas where it's more difficult to bring hydro in. If you allowed the market to dictate the price of hydro, the price would be quite a bit higher. For example, in northern Ontario we benefit from that policy. I fear that if Hydro is privatized, we're going to end up in a situation where areas such as Metropolitan Toronto which have high-density urban populations would get a good hydro rate but people in rural Ontario and northern Ontario would be in some difficulty to get the same rates.

For people in the north, that's a very important issue. Members here may not understand and know this, but some of the largest hydro customers in the province reside in northern Ontario. For an example, Kidd Creek Mines in the city of Timmins is the single largest customer of hydro for the entire province. I wouldn't want to see a policy, through privatization, that would put the rates in jeopardy. I can tell you, when we froze hydro rates three years ago as the NDP government -- it's a fallacy the present government is giving out that it froze hydro rates.

All they did was continue a good policy of the NDP government to clean up Ontario Hydro, make it more efficient and to freeze hydro rates, and we had started that. But if we hadn't done that, Kidd Creek was seriously looking at going its own way when it came to the generation of hydro. In the end, that might have been good for them but it would not have been good for the rest of the hydro grid and the customers, because it would have meant we lost a lot of revenue from that particular area.

It is very important, in light of what's happening with Ontario Hydro, that we have in place some sort of citizens' utility board. Members here a little while ago cited ratepayers' associations as arguments for why you don't need such an organization. I differ from those members. In my riding, for example, like yours and many others, we have a ratepayers' association with the Roman Catholic separate school board, and that plays quite a positive role in being able to inform the community, the ratepayers, about what is happening.

Mr Speaker, just a quick question. My colleague will get a two-minute wrapup in addition to the time I have on the clock now, right? Very good. Thank you. Somebody had given me a note, but I wanted to make sure I was correct.

The ratepayers' association in the city of Timmins for the Roman Catholic separate school board plays quite a positive role in being able to, first of all, inform ratepayers about what's happening. But to build that link and strengthen the link from the ratepayers to the school trustees that are charged with, through due election, running the school board and making decisions, I see that as a positive thing, because the more public involvement we have in those activities, the much better result that you get in the end.

I can tell you from experiences I've had through the city of Timmins and Matheson and Iroquois Falls, where we have done things in a public way, we have ended up with better results in the end.

I see that what the motion from my friend here is bringing forward would create that. It's not in order to replace the current structures that we have with local municipal utility boards, not at all. I think what the member is trying to say is that we need to learn from the experiences that we have seen through ratepayers' associations and other kinds of watchdog organizations out there that are able to play a positive role to make sure that in the end those commissions do exactly what they do.

If the government moves forward in its deal to privatize, it will become even more important, because what it will mean in some cases is that those municipal utility boards may fall into the hands of the private sector. Then we will have no ability to be able to have public scrutiny of what is happening in regard to that particular utility. I think that runs contrary to everything that we believe as New Democrats and I would argue, to a certain degree, that it's probably contrary to what the Tories have to argue.

I would certainly urge members of this House to support the motion put forward by the member for Fort York. It is a positive resolution that I think is a step in the right direction. It's something that we had started working on in government. I know the member had brought it to our Minister of Environment and Energy in 1994 and I know that Mr Wildman was looking at that issue and looking at how we're able to develop a model to do that. I would urge the government to carry on with that.

I just want to say one thing to my friend from the Liberal caucus in regard to his comments about us having one left wing: It is a heck of a lot better than having two wings on either side and never knowing which way you're going on any issue. I would like to see for once in this House where the Liberal Party can make up its mind which side of the fence it's sitting on. Do you support consumers and people, or do you really support the big business interests, the same interests that are supporters of the Conservative Party?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. You're wasting your time.

Mr Marchese: I know that the Liberal caucus had six minutes left on its time which it has not used. I would ask unanimous consent for me to use that time in order to bring together my arguments.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for establishing order in order for my voice to carry just a little.

Several things: Because I think some of the comments that have been made are not clear in terms of the things that I was saying, what we would do as a government is give the right, by legislation, to enclose a flyer in a utility company's billing envelope. That's all it would do. That's the extent of the government's involvement.

I'm not quite sure when the member for Northumberland talks about all of the things that he speaks of, but the government's involvement is simply to give a right, by legislation, to a CUB, citizens' utility board, to enclose a flyer in the billing envelopes that the utility normally sends out for its own bills. That's all we ask, as a government, to do. What is this extra layer of bureaucracy that you speak of? Are you frightened to have an independent consumer association? That's what it is?

Mr Galt: We have one.

Mr Marchese: We have one what? We don't have one. That's the point.

Mr Galt: Volunteer groups any day.

Mr Marchese: You say that we already have public utility commissions. Is that what you're talking about? You and the member for Dufferin-Peel were talking about the fact that we have public utility commissions. The point of it is that you have a few elected people, but it's not the same as having 200,000 members being part of a citizens' utility board. It's not the same. This flyer would simply urge the consumers to join for $5 or $10. It is self-financing. I was telling the member for Dufferin-Peel that the government doesn't have to put a penny into this.

The government doesn't have to pay a cent, and if you're worried about that, you simply establish that by law. If that is your concern, that you as a government would have to put in some money, simply say that is not its purpose, and then you'll free yourself as a government.

The point is that consumer advocacy here in Canada and in Ontario is literally dead. There is very little consumer advocacy going on, and in fact the Consumers' Association of Canada has never been able to function without government handouts. When you rely on governments that cut back --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: There are too many conversations taking place. I would ask you, please, to either go and speak outside or stay in the House and remain quiet.

Mr Marchese: The Consumers' Association of Canada is literally dead because it relies on government funding and the federal government has cut back. What does it mean? It means that consumers' association can't do an effective job of advocacy. It is therefore a weak consumer association. It cannot defend consumers because it has little money to do its job.

What I'm proposing says this association, CUB, would not rely on the government for money but would rely on its membership for money. It would be elected at a meeting once a year by the members. It has nothing to do with governments. We should not be interfering in such a process. They would hire their lobbyists, their lawyers, their experts, to deal with a utility if they feel that rates or practices are unfair. That's what it should do. What is so wrong with that? Why would the Conservative members on the other side oppose giving a right to consumers to be able to tackle such problems?

Why would you be so worried about allowing such democracy to grow and to take place? Why would you be concerned about not giving them that tool that allows them to do this?

It is not an additional bureaucracy. That bureaucracy would not be there to attack the government, but rather to attack the utility if they found that the rates are too high or the practices are unfair. That's what it's supposed to do. So when the members opposite talk about creating another layer of bureaucracy -- "How would they be elected?" -- it is not a bureaucracy that we control. It's controlled by consumers, elected by consumers, nothing to do with us. It is not set up by us to attack the government on whether it privatizes or not. That's not the issue.

But the member for Northumberland raises it as an issue. That's not what it does. Perhaps you invent that because you want to oppose it, but I think it's wrong to do that. What you are doing is denying the right to a consumers' association, a citizens' utility board elected by the consumers, funded by consumers -- you're denying them the opportunity to grow democratically, to be able to tackle the problems of society, not as politicians but as consumers. I think that's a good thing to do.

Mr Galt: Did you ever hear of volunteers and volunteer organizations?

Mr Marchese: It would be an organization that would elect its structure, its executive, and then they would decide whether they need a lawyer or not to be able to advocate on their behalf.

So what am I saying about this?

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): We're wondering.

Mr Marchese: If you repeat an issue seven times, it's very likely that the members will understand. So when I say, "What am I saying about this?" I say it as a way of repeating what I've said, because it's quite clear that both members opposite spoke against it not knowing what this issue was about. I'll run through it again to assist some of the Liberal members who chuckled about the fact that it wasn't clear to them.

To the Liberal members and the Conservative members who are confused by it, it is a citizens' utility board that would be self-financed by the members. All the government would do is to facilitate the inclusion of a flyer when a utility sends out its rates so that members are urged to join the citizens' utility board. That association would be elected by the members and controlled by the members. The expertise they would hire would be controlled by its membership to attack a problem of unfairness with utilities, utility rates and utility practices.

All that does is to strengthen consumer advocacy, something that it would seem to me Liberals and Tories would want to support. You are denying the public, the consumer, the taxpayer, that right to be empowered to control utilities in ways that governments are not as effective to do. I urge the members opposite to reconsider and not take a party position that is clearly adversarial and wrong.

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 17, standing in the name of Mr Brown. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Brown has moved private member's resolution number 10. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: It's carried. There's no vote.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Recorded vote.

The Acting Speaker: I will ask the question again: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Take your seats. We'll deal with the second item, and after that we'll call in the members for a vote.

CITIZENS' UTILITY BOARDS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with the second ballot item, number 18, standing in the name of Mr Marchese. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Marchese has moved private member's resolution number 11. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members; there will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1203 to 1208.

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Brown has moved private members' resolution number 10. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Fox, Gary

Martin, Tony

Arnott, Ted

Froese, Tom

Martiniuk, Gerry

Baird, John R.

Galt, Doug

McGuinty, Dalton

Bartolucci, Rick

Grandmaître, Bernard

Miclash, Frank

Bassett, Isabel

Gravelle, Michael

Munro, Julia

Beaubien, Marcel

Grimmett, Bill

Murdoch, Bill

Bisson, Gilles

Hampton, Howard

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Boushy, Dave

Hastings, John

Pettit, Trevor

Boyd, Marion

Hudak, Tim

Phillips, Gerry

Brown, Jim

Johns, Helen

Pupatello, Sandra

Brown, Michael A.

Johnson, Bert

Ramsay, David

Carroll, Jack

Johnson, Ron

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Castrilli, Annamarie

Klees, Frank

Ross, Lillian

Christopherson, David

Kormos, Peter

Sampson, Rob

Churley, Marilyn

Kwinter, Monte

Shea, Derwyn

Colle, Mike

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Skarica, Toni

Crozier, Bruce

Laughren, Floyd

Smith, Bruce

Doyle, Ed

Leadston, Gary L.

Tilson, David

Duncan, Dwight

Marchese, Rosario

Wood, Len

Fisher, Barbara

Marland, Margaret

Ford, Douglas B.

Martel, Shelley

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wood, Bob

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 61; the nays are 2.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

CITIZENS' UTILITY BOARDS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with the motion of Mr Marchese.

Mr Marchese has moved private member's notice of motion number 11. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Churley, Marilyn

Marchese, Rosario

Bisson, Gilles

Hampton, Howard

Martel, Shelley

Boyd, Marion

Kormos, Peter

Martin, Tony

Christopherson, David

Laughren, Floyd

Wood, Len

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Galt, Doug

Murdoch, Bill

Baird, John R.

Grandmaître, Bernard

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Bartolucci, Rick

Gravelle, Michael

Pettit, Trevor

Bassett, Isabel

Grimmett, Bill

Phillips, Gerry

Beaubien, Marcel

Hastings, John

Pupatello, Sandra

Boushy, Dave

Hudak, Tim

Ramsay, David

Brown, Jim

Johns, Helen

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Brown, Michael A.

Johnson, Bert

Ross, Lillian

Carroll, Jack

Johnson, Ron

Sampson, Rob

Castrilli, Annamarie

Klees, Frank

Shea, Derwyn

Colle, Mike

Kwinter, Monte

Skarica, Toni

Crozier, Bruce

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Smith, Bruce

Doyle, Ed

Leadston, Gary L.

Snobelen, John

Duncan, Dwight

Marland, Margaret

Tilson, David

Fisher, Barbara

Martiniuk, Gerry

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Ford, Douglas B.

McGuinty, Dalton

Wood, Bob

Fox, Gary

Miclash, Frank

Froese, Tom

Munro, Julia

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 12, the nays 52.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

We have completed all matters related to private members' business. I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed from 1216 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ALEX SKEAD

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I rise in the Legislature today to pay tribute to the life of Alex Skead, an aboriginal leader in my riding who passed away in Kenora on April 1.

Elder Alex Skead, one of Canada's most prominent elders, enjoyed the respect of all who knew and worked with him. I, along with many, will miss his involvement in the many events we shared together. Mr Skead will be remembered for his active participation in a number of community organizations, including the Kenora Indian Street Patrol, the Ojibway Tribal Family Services and the Sacred Circle Healing Centre.

Alex will also be remembered for his work on behalf of the first nation communities of Treaty 3, where he helped build the youth and elders complex, as well as the traditional roundhouse on Powwow Island.

As an elder and spiritual leader, Alex participated in many gatherings of aboriginal leaders throughout the country and was well-known and respected by heads of both the federal and provincial governments in Canada.

Alex gave his life in a positive way, seeking recognition for the rights of aboriginal people in Canada. He believed that our youth are the future, and because of his beliefs he dedicated much of his time and energy visiting schools and universities, sharing his knowledge and wisdom with the youth of our country.

To Elizabeth, his wife, Ruth, Ida, Wanda, Stanley and Patrick, his children, I want to assure them that they are in our thoughts and prayers during these difficult days. Meegwetch.

PREMIER OF ONTARIO

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I direct my statement today to Mike Harris, the Premier of Ontario. I travelled throughout the riding of Cochrane North during the strike and marched the OPSEU picket lines throughout Cochrane, Hearst and Kapuskasing. On March 23 and again the following week, I participated in solidarity marches through the streets of Kapuskasing and in Hearst in support of the OPSEU strike.

"Due to poor job performance on your part and that of your government, I feel that I have no alternative but to dismiss you and the sitting members of your party. You have consistently failed to represent the people of this province," they say to the Premier.

Not everyone voted for you, Mr Harris. Fewer will be voting for you in the next election. I'd like a page to present these to Mr Harris.

SCARBOROUGH BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARDS

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I rise today as the member for Scarborough Centre in order to bring to the attention of this House the business excellence of the city of Scarborough.

Last night, along with my colleagues Jim Brown and Steve Gilchrist, I had the wonderful pleasure of attending the 1996 Scarborough Business Excellence awards ceremony. Hosted by the Scarborough Chamber of Commerce and the Scarborough Mirror newspaper, the purpose of these awards is to highlight the efforts of the city's best entrepreneurs and showcase their talents, while promoting Scarborough as a great place to do business.

Twenty-six businesses were nominated for six awards, and I am proud to recognize the winners today in this chamber: Prototype Circuits Inc, Manchester Plastics Ltd, Reliable Bookbinders Ltd, Dumex Medical Surgical Products, ABCO Office Installations and ABCO Business Interiors and Centenary Health Centre. An honourable mention was given to Audio Products International Corp and Shaw Communications Inc.

Scarborough has a flourishing business community and last evening's awards ceremony is a testament to the success of Scarborough's businesses. I pose the question to every person and organization who chooses to bash the city of Scarborough, "Where were you last evening?"

Scarborough is, hands down, the greatest city in which to live, to raise a family, to relax, to work and, as last night's ceremony proves, to do business.

FAMILY SUPPORT OFFICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I rise today in support of the staff of the family support plan regional office in Thunder Bay and of all the regional offices across the province.

As the members of this House know, this government has taken no pains to disguise its interest in dismantling and/or centralizing this program meant to bring child support dollars to custodial parents.

But like the staff of the Thunder Bay family support plan branch, which covers the terrain from White River to the Manitoba border, I question how this government intends to realize greater compliance in terms of arrears of hundreds of millions of dollars owed to the children of this province by choosing, without any consultation, to shut down an existing system without first working with the experienced staff of these offices to devise a better system to ensure significantly improved compliance, compliance that can only happen with regional staff in place.

How can a centralized Toronto version of the family support plan be successful in northwestern Ontario, for example, when the reduced staff will be located 1,500 kilometres away from their caseload and where voice mail and a 1-800 number will be the order of the day? I certainly don't see how, nor do the 2,500 constituents who've signed petitions in my riding.

I urge the Attorney General to work with the staff of the family support plan in Thunder Bay, to hear them out on their 19-point streamlining plan that would eliminate administration costs but ensure that vital, front-line service is maintained in northwestern Ontario. In short, I ask this minister to keep family support as one of this government's priorities.

PRIVATIZATION OF ONTARIO HOUSING CORP

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I rise today to speak out on behalf of the thousands of tenants in my riding who live in Ontario Housing Corp buildings, who are very fearful, and I think legitimately, of this government privatizing those buildings.

I particularly want to acknowledge that I will be presenting to the House next week letters and petitions from more than 2,700 of those tenants who have committed their names to a public protest of what this government is considering. This was organized by Gwen Lee, Donna Bentley-Ward and Rose McGowan, who have worked tirelessly on behalf of their fellow tenants to try to get this government to understand the kind of devastation that would be heaped upon the people who live in these buildings.

It's interesting. When we look at an

article in the Globe and Mail of yesterday by James Rusk, we see that the Canadian subsidiary of Citibank of New York, in a report regarding the potential privatization, says the cost to the Ontario government to administer such privatization would increase by one third.

We see something that makes no fiscal sense. We see something that makes no sense for the people living there. The only thing that makes any sense is that it fits the ridiculous, hard, right-wing ideology of this government and its Common Sense Revolution. My constituents are hopeful that this government will wake up and --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

MEMBER'S WEB SITE

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): I'd like to take this opportunity to announce that I have launched a home page on the World Wide Web. I want to invite everyone to peruse it at www.clementmpp.org. My Web site will give users the opportunity to access my profile, link with other points of interest on the Internet and send messages directly to me.

This is just the beginning. As the Internet grows, so will my Web site. I'm not simply looking for legislative input. I'm also looking for new ways to improve democracy in Ontario. Ontarians are informed and are anxious to be part of the system. If enthusiasm and faith in the democratic process is to be maintained, we as legislators must investigate new means of communicating with our constituents. My Web site is such an investigation and represents a natural progression of politics in the 1990s. It will make the work of our Legislature more relevant to my constituency, across the province and, with the potential of the Internet, around the world.

This two-way technology will allow us to maintain better links with our constituents and make it easier for us to find out what voters think and ultimately shape public policy to accommodate their sentiments.

In this vein, I've made a personal commitment to my constituents whereby one third of all the questions and statements I pose in this House will be derived from input posted to my site. As legislators, we cannot ignore the changes occurring in the information age and must incorporate technology into our broader communications. I hope I have been able to make a contribution to the enhancement of democracy and accountability in Ontario.

ADULT EDUCATION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I recently visited the Adult High School in Ottawa, a school dedicated to offering a high quality education program to adult students who wish to complete their high school diploma. The students at the school who are concerned about this government's cuts have sent many letters, hundreds of letters, to the Minister of Education and Training.

Adult education works. Ontarians have been trapped in the long-term social assistance loop and are willing to go back to school, to stay in school, to complete their high school education. While the government talks about workfare so that welfare recipients will earn their welfare cheques, all these individuals are looking for is an education so they can earn a paycheque.

Today I'm delivering to the Minister of Education several hundred letters from these concerned students, and I ask the pages to take these to the minister's desk. The letters are personal testimonials about the success of this program. Here are a few excerpts from the letters:

"My main reason for attending Adult High School is to get off the welfare system completely and give my daughter a better future," says a single mother.

"Being a single parent with two children and being on social assistance has not been an easy task to perform. The Adult High School has given me much guidance...that will enable me to get off the social assistance programs and make a better life for myself and my two children."

Mr Minister, listen to these individuals and what they are saying. Your plans to cut funding to adult education will be disastrous. During the election, you promised to protect classroom education. Adult education is part of the classroom. I ask you to reconsider --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

KIDS' COUNTRY CLUB

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I'm pleased to rise today to talk about a wonderful facility in London, Ontario, called the Kids' Country Club. The Kids' Country Club is a respite home which is operated by the parents of technologically dependent children. It is an incorporated, non-profit association of families that have medically fragile and/or technologically dependent children.

For the last two years they have operated a respite care home on weekends for up to four children. They have been extraordinarily successful. They have been funded through the long-term-care program of the Ministry of Health, and they are seeking ongoing funding at the moment. What they want to do is to expand the care that they are able to give during the week for those families that have emergencies during the week, like deaths in the family, like illnesses themselves, so that those children can be cared for. They are seeking that funding.

In their first year they worked with 23 children from 22 different families on 50 different occasions. Some 75% of their clientele are from London and Middlesex. Some come from as far away as Windsor and Kitchener. These are families who are heroes. They spend hours and hours of their day caring for very fragile children who indeed deserve our best care. I will be asking the Minister of Health to support the ongoing funding for this home.

TARTAN DAY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): It is with great pride that I rise before the House today to mark what is fast becoming a tradition in Ontario. This Saturday, April 6, will mark the fifth celebration of Tartan Day in the province. To recognize the multicultural nature of Ontario and the contributions of the Scottish to the economic, political and cultural wellbeing of this province, I introduced a private member's resolution in 1991 to proclaim April 6 Tartan Day. The resolution was supported by all three parties and has gone on to win the support of the people in Ontario.

April 6 is a great day in the history of Scotland. It was on this day in 1320 that the Scottish declared independence. In Grey county we are proud of our heritage. Tartan Day is not only an opportunity for Scots to show their pride, but also gives children the opportunity to learn about their culture.

With Tartan Day activities and the recent success of movies like Braveheart and Rob Roy, Scottish heritage has taken on a new life. More and more young people are getting involved in pipe bands and other proud cultural activities.

It is very im