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

November 6, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L061 - Thu 6 Nov 1986 / Jeu 6 nov 1986

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

REMUNERATION OF TRUSTEES AND COUNCILLORS

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

REMUNERATION OF TRUSTEES AND COUNCILLORS

AFTERNOON SITTING

RICK HANSEN

GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF HANSEN ACT

REMEMBRANCE DAY

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CASE OF HARRY KOPYTO

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

BRAVERY AWARDS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

OUTSTANDING DISABLED ATHLETE OF THE YEAR AWARD

HOSPITAL FUNDING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

EDUCATION FUNDING

EXTRA BILLING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PROVINCIAL SYMBOL

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ROBERT SMART CENTRE LABOUR DISPUTE

DOWNSVIEW REHABILITATION CENTRE

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

HIRING PRACTICES

LANDFILL SITE

VISITORS

PETITIONS

SUNDAY RACING

BOUNDARIES ACT DECISION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Foulds moved resolution 62:

That in the opinion of this Legislature, because of the devastating economic situation facing northern Ontario, including serious layoffs in single-industry towns, the potential destruction of jobs due to the American proposed countervailing duty on the softwood lumber industry and a current unemployment rate twice that of the provincial average, including in some communities, such as Hearst and Atikokan, an unemployment rate in excess of 35 per cent, the Treasurer of Ontario should accept recommendations not only of the New Democratic Party since 1977, but also of the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment (the Fahlgren report) in 1985, the Advisory Committee on Resource Dependent Communities in Northern Ontario (the Rosehart report) in 1986 and the standing committee on resources development in 1986, and establish immediately an independent northern Ontario economic diversification fund, managed by northerners, in order to diversify the northern Ontario economy, especially in single-industry towns.

Through loans, grants and joint ventures, this fund would be invested in development projects that meet the priorities set through community, regional and provincial planning, as well as through specific community resource planning agreements signed between the provincial government, the local communities and the resource industries involved. The moneys to establish the fund would come from a consolidation of existing northern development funds and programs and, in addition, through an earmarked percentage of provincial revenue from resource industry taxation.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion of this for his wrapup.

Mr. Foulds: I will reserve whatever time is left for the end.

The last time I had a private member's resolution debated, with help from all members in this Legislature, the resolution was passed. That resolution endorsing medically necessary travel for northerners was implemented by the present government. It is my fervent hope that the Legislature and the government will see fit to do the same with the resolution before us today. In my view, it is even more important than medically necessary travel, if more difficult.

If medically necessary travel was justified and just for the people of northern Ontario, then economic equality and self-sufficiency are even more justified. While the rest of the province enjoys an economic buoyancy at present, the north suffers an unemployment rate twice that of the province as a whole, and communities such as Hearst and Atikokan have real unemployment rates of 35 per cent.

I am pleading us earnestly and passionately for the economic needs of the north now as I did then for the needs of northerners to get equal access to health care. It is only by giving the tools to northerners to rebuild their economy and create jobs for themselves and their children that we can ensure not only their economic, but also their social, medical and educational wellbeing. This resolution makes two modest economic proposals, which will give at least two economic tools that northerners can use to control their own destinies and futures.

First, the resolution proposes there be a fund established to help diversify the northern economy. This fund would be managed by northerners and, thus, help put them in charge of their own destiny.

Second, the resolution proposes that the government create a new partnership with the single-industry communities of northern Ontario.

It proposes that the province take the leadership to ensure that planning agreements, which will be formal documents signed by the province, the local community, the workers and the company, be designed for resource-based companies operating in one-industry towns. Only by having such planning agreements will the interests of all of the parties, all of the co-signers, be respected. Such agreements would ensure that all the partners in the enterprise of developing our northern resources would benefit.

I understand the fact that in Ontario we have a mixed economy, but does anyone seriously argue in 1986 that the interests of corporate investment should be the only interest? Does it not make common sense that the interests of the community, the interests of the workers, the interests of the province, and the investments by those parties also should be given equal consideration?

Let me elaborate on the northern Ontario economic diversification fund. New Democrats have been advocating this for years. My colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) first suggested this in the Legislature in 1977, when he proposed amendments to the act which established the Ministry of Northern Affairs. His amendment would also have established the northern Ontario tomorrow fund. Unfortunately, the government of the day did not see fit to accept them.

However, the north has seen fit to accept them. The idea has taken hold. It has currency in the north and throughout the whole province. This fund would be modelled after the heritage funds established with great success by the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. We would, however, have to adapt them to the unique northern Ontario situation.

Recently, several Ontario reports from various parts of the political spectrum have endorsed and legitimized the idea. The Conservative-appointed Fahlgren commission recommended the idea in 1985; the all-party standing committee on resources development looking into the Sault and Wawa situations recommended such a fund in 1986, and the Liberal-appointed Advisory Committee on Resource Dependent Communities in Northern Ontario, commonly called the Rosehart report, recommended the idea.

This is an idea whose time has come. The fund could be financed initially as suggested in recommendation 28 of the Roschart-Wildman report. I want to pay tribute to the work my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) put into that report. To quote from that report:

10:10

"Historically, residents of the north have been concerned about the depletion of the natural resource base and the outflows of the mineral and forest wealth. Present estimates place the value of the northern minerals and forest production in excess of $15 billion per year. Little of this money has traditionally been reinvested in the north and the situation is further compounded by the continued depression of base metal prices and weak commodity prices for pulp and paper products.

At the present time, a variety of government programs exist, both federally and in Ontario, that can be used to stimulate development in new business and industry. Such initiatives, although laudable, have failed to create a significant long-term focus for development in the north. It is the belief of the committee that the opportunity exists and the political will is present in Ontario to provide such a focus for development."

If I may say, as an aside, this morning we have an opportunity to see that this Legislature has the political will to provide such a focus for development.

The recommendation of that committee was such: "That there be established a northern Ontario fund for northern Ontario. The fund would be administered by an independent board of seven northern residents appointed by the government for various terms with no appointment for more than four years (including reappointments).

"Administratively, the fund would report to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines on a yearly basis and be fully accountable to the Provincial Auditor.

"The initial moneys to establish the fund would come from the following sources:

"(

i) The transfer of assets of the Northern Ontario Development Corp. to the northern Ontario fund;

"(ii) The consolidation of line ministry financial programs such as Nordev and AgriNorth;

"(iii) The transfer of 50 per cent of the special $100-million commitment to northern Ontario made during the 1985 budget to the northern Ontario fund;

"(iv) An additional commitment financed through a percentage of provincial revenues from resource industry taxation; the appropriate percentage can only be determined by observing the initial operating year or two of the fund;

"(

v) A negotiated yearly federal government financial commitment through the federal government's Canadian Jobs Strategy program."

I want to add that I believe there are two other sources available for this fund. At present, the rich gold deposits at Hemlo provide enormous wealth to those who have an interest in those deposits. We, as a province, should be looking at assessing a five per cent public smelter royalty on the production of gold bars, which would be designed to offset the windfall profits at those mines. Such a royalty would yield approximately $3 million annually once full production was reached.

This would be in line with recommendation 5 of the Foulds report, entitled the Economic Challenge to Northwestern Ontario, Report 1, the Mining Sector. I might add it would also be possible to add some, if not all, of the little known Treasury and Economics program, called the community economic transformation agreements program, in which the present government has salted away $25 million. With an adaptation of that program, at least a portion of that fund could very well be adopted by, or sent to, the northern Ontario fund.

I want to emphasize it is only by having such a fund -- accountable to the province but managed by northerners -- that the first basic tool of economic renewal of the north will not be at the paternalistic discretion of a southern Ontario government, but in the hands of northerners themselves. It is the only way that the objective of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), of giving northerners the responsibility for developing their economy, can be achieved. We have got to give them the tools to do the job.

Let me turn to the planning agreements. Obviously, these are easier to develop when an industry first starts or moves into an area. Let me assure all members that I see this as a true partnership of all of the parties involved. Let us take the rich gold fields at Hemlo as an example. Those fields are so rich and so profitable that it is almost unbelievable. They are the richest gold fields in the entire world.

What return does the province or the community get from this God-given wealth? What guarantees do we have that the community, the citizens and the workers in the mines, living in Marathon, Manitouwadge and White River, will benefit not only now, but 25 years or 50 years from now, from these, the richest gold deposits in the world?

At present, we are doing nothing differently to what we have done for the last 100 years. With the present situation, the present tax structure and the present economic structure, we have no guarantee there will be a future for those communities in 25 or 50 years.

However, with the planning agreements I am proposing now, which have been suggested in the past by the so-called Rosehart report, we could expect a good deal of benefit. There is no reason in the world why this four-cornered partnership, of the provincial government, the local communities, the companies and the workers, cannot work.

Bo Eckmann, senior vice-president of Volvo in Sweden, indicated at the recent Premier's conference in Sault Ste. Marie that co-operation and planning can work. The province, the communities and the workers have a right to know what the companies' plans are year by year, well in advance of any growth or proposed contraction or shutdown. On the other hand, the companies have a right to know what government policies will be well in advance and what kind of work force they can expect in the future.

More important, the minute a new resource enterprise begins, be it mining or forestry, joint planning agreements would give northerners and single-industry towns a mechanism for diversifying the economies of their communities from the beginning of the exploitation of the original resource. These agreements would help avoid the boom-and-bust cycles that these towns have traditionally experienced. This is one of the best ways for us to get value-added, manufacturing and spinoff industries associated with our resource industries. It helps to build, as the Premier wants, on the strengths we already have in the north, our resource industries.

In recent months, the Premier has encountered the reality of the two economies of northern Ontario and southern Ontario. He has told northerners in Terrace Bay, Longlac, Geraldton, Wawa and Sault Ste. Marie that they must go it alone, that they must find solutions themselves. All I am saying on behalf of northerners is that this government should not send us into battle as unarmed men and women. It should give us the tools to rebuild the northern economy.

I have said on a previous occasion in this House that about two years ago I came to the heartbreaking realization that my own two sons, aged 12 and 13 years, would in all probability have to seek their fortunes, their futures, their jobs and their ideals outside northwestern Ontario, the area I have tried to represent and tried to fight for during the past 15 years.

I plan to spend all of my political life doing my damnedest to ensure that not merely my sons but also the sons and daughters of all northerners at least have the option of fulfilling their dreams, their hopes and their ambitions in the land I love, in the land which I have spent my entire political life trying to represent, trying to get for it some measure of social and economic justice.

Inside or outside of politics, whatever the future holds, I will not rest, the New Democratic Party will not rest and I hope the Legislature will not rest until northern Ontario takes its rightful place in the mainstream of Ontario's economic life. One small but significant step would be the passage of this resolution by this Legislature today.

The Deputy Speaker: The member is reserving five minutes and 45 seconds.

Mr. McGuigan: I am pleased to join the debate this morning. I want to begin by congratulating the member on his resolution and for bringing a focus at this time on developments in northern Ontario. It comes at a proper time after the Conference on Northern Competitiveness, which was held earlier this week.

We in this party support the objectives of the resolution. We appreciate the strength, emotion and commitment the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) brings to this resolution. I appreciate the statement that he is going to work and do his best in his time in this great chamber to bring to northern people the advantages that by comparison appear to be here in southern Ontario.

10:20

I have to say we are not in agreement with a specific fund because a fund has a lot of apparent advantages, as the member has pointed out, although it also has a lot of disadvantages. Compare our system in Ontario, where we have a consolidated revenue fund, with the system in the United States, where they have a great variety of funds. It is a great cop-out for political people to say, "We cannot do anything at the present time because that particular fund is empty." It may be that another fund is overflowing, but with that system they cannot reach over into that other fund for the moneys.

I guess the most glaring example in the United States was the highway fund, which was established at a time when the automotive business was really taking over. Everybody had a car and funds flowed into the highway fund to the point that the amount of money it had was a disgrace. In the meantime, railroads withered on the vine because no funds were available for them.

Mr. Wildman: Look at the Swedish example and not the American one.

Mr. McGuigan: We can look at many examples, but this one is certainly well known to people here in Ontario. We know what happens over there. I heard a statement at a US conference that said if you were riding on an American railroad and it suddenly became smooth you knew then that you were off the track.

Mr. Pouliot: Let us be positive. Give us a chance.

Mr. McGuigan: The government is going to be positive. It is going to put money into the north, and lots of it, but we want the flexibility to be able to put in that money irrespective of where it is generated. The money being generated today in Ontario is from manufacturing, and I say this very sadly from my perspective as a farmer and as a representative of a rural riding in southern Ontario. Unfortunately, the future relies too much on manufacturing.

I was saddened while attending a conference a year ago. A director from the economics department of the federal Department of Agriculture pointed out that in the development of a country the savings going into the banking system to provide the capital to make the whole system work come from agriculture in the beginning. The money also comes from resources. The money to provide the banks, insurance companies, the huge buildings we see here in Toronto -- the infrastructure: highways, canals and so on -- came from farm families and resource industry families.

Mr. Pouliot: And from the Vancouver exchange to develop Hemlo.

Mr. McGuigan: Unfortunately, that was true; but not under our regime.

That is where the money came from. Dr. Hedley, who was the director, said it has now shifted to manufacturing. One would say political power is going to shift there too and that segment is going to run the show. This Liberal government has determined it is going to use the moneys from manufacturing or whatever source to try to bring about a balance in this great province.

They have not done that in the United States. They have not brought about a balance. They have fantastic imbalances in that economy. In this province, we are determined we will not have those imbalances. We will put the money in those sectors where it is required, where with government help and their own initiative it should work. We are going to bring balance to this great province.

I was at a meeting yesterday on the future of agriculture in Ontario. It was really a repetition of the future in northern Ontario, because --

Mr. Wildman: There was nothing about agriculture at the northern meeting.

Mr. McGuigan: It was not in your policy paper either, I noticed.

Mr. Wildman: True. We had a policy paper.

Mr. McGuigan: But you did not have agriculture in it. That is noted, I am sure, by the agriculturists of the north.

Mr. Wildman: We did have tourism in it, though. You guys did not.

Mr. McGuigan: You are taking up my time. I want to point out the similarity between the two programs. We are in a world of tremendous change. In spite of all the planning we try to do -- we are going to have these five-year plans and 10-year plans and this is the route we are going to take -- the rest of the world does not care a darn about our plans. New developments come along, new technology comes along and it is coming at such a fantastic rate, and so often in so many fields, that planning really can put you in a bind and on the wrong track. What we have to have to succeed is some pragmatism, the ability to move quickly and the will to move quickly.

This government has that will. I know we disagree on the ways we might bring it about, but it has the will to meet the immediate challenges and to take advantage of those things that open up. There are many things we can do.

I can sympathize when I hear them talk in the north about trucking. I used to try to truck my apples from southern Ontario to Winnipeg over the same route. I found that in Winnipeg there was all sorts of grain that had to come back to Ontario; but I could not bring back grain, so I had to bring an empty truck back. Eventually, we had to give up the venture, because one cannot run trucks empty on those long trips. I would like to ship apples into northern Ontario, but I cannot bring back paper or whatever they have.

These things should be opened up. I hope they will be opened up, because it just seems silly that we tie ourselves to the old ways of doing business that simply do not work today. From my standpoint, and I am not the Minister of Transportation and Communications --

Mr. Foulds: He is right behind you.

Mr. McGuigan: I am sure he is listening.

Mr. Pouliot: That man knows all about the regulations.

Mr. McGuigan: I certainly recommend to him, to the member opposite and to the House that we make changes; not to put the business completely on its own because I know enough about trucking to know what happens. I finally quit putting loads on because one man, I discovered later, drove for 48 hours. I said, "I just have to get out of that kind of business; I want nothing to do with it." I stopped shipping my products long distance. We have to have some regulations, but at the same time we have to adapt and make them as open as we can to meet the challenges of today.

In conclusion, we commend the member and we agree with his objectives. We are going to try to work with him and with all northerners to achieve that objective. We do not really see a fund, because in many ways that fund could be an excuse for doing nothing; it could be too limiting. This government is committed to doing things for the north and for the south.

Mr. Bernier: I rise in support of this resolution. I do want to commend the member for Port Arthur for bringing it forward at this time. I rise in support of the principle of the resolution, but I have some difficulty with the specifics of the resolution itself. I will get into that as I continue my comments.

10:30

Let me again commend the member for bringing it forward at this time. As a northerner, I think any focus we can attract to the problems of northern Ontario is very meaningful and very timely. This is a topic that has been tossed around this Legislature for the past few days, particularly since the Premier has indicated some interest in the problems of northern Ontario by focusing on the economic problems at a conference in Sault Ste. Marie. I hope the government will give heed to the results of this debate and very carefully go over the comments made by the various members involved.

"There are many reports on northern Ontario, but in my opening remarks I should put on the record one of the recommendations made in the Rosehart report, which reads as follows:

"It is the opinion of the committee that at this most uncertain time in terms of where the north is going that a major political and public commitment by the people of Ontario is necessary to support government policies that will treat the north in a different way than the rest of Ontario."

That speaks well of how northerners feel with respect to their economic problems and the way they are treated by the rest of the province.

I do not have to spell out the number of reports we have had in northern Ontario. The member for Port Arthur has mentioned some of them. The Royal Commission on the Northern Environment, the Rosehart report on single-industry communities, the Stokes report on air travel in northern Ontario and The Atikokan Story, which he forgot; all are reports that carry recommendations on what we should be doing about the problems in northern Ontario. There are more than 300 recommendations in those various reports.

The point I am trying to make is that we do not want more studies. The studies are behind us. We can go through any one of those reports and get the recommendations we need that will in time rectify the problems we have in northern Ontario.

I do not have to reiterate the problems we have in northern Ontario. It is fair to say, as other members have said, we are not enjoying the economic upturn that has occurred in southern Ontario. I get very upset when I turn on the national news and hear economists relating the economic conditions or the upturns in Canada as a whole. Then they go across this nation. They start by mentioning how bad things are in Newfoundland. They go to the Maritimes, come to Quebec and then lump Ontario together as a whole. They talk about the six per cent unemployment in Ontario.

Then they go to Manitoba and talk about how that province is doing, then Saskatchewan, right on across to British Columbia. The point I disagree with is the way they lump all the economic information into one parcel.

We are different. Ninety per cent of the land mass is north of the French River, but we have only about nine per cent of the population; we are different. Our unemployment up there is well over 13 per cent. In fact, in Sault Ste. Marie I think it is in the 20 per cent bracket. The point is that we are different and we should be treated differently.

We are, I might say, like the Maritimes. We are an example of regional disparity; there is just no question about that. I had the pleasure of being with the Minister of Finance and with the Deputy Prime Minister recently in Sudbury, and I made the point that in its regional programs to bring equality across this nation the federal government never looks at northern Ontario as a separate unit. It lumps it with the rest of the province. We should be treated like the Manitobas, like the Newfoundlands and like the Maritime provinces. It is on that basis that they should recognize the special needs of northern Ontario.

In the past 18 months -- and I am not saying this because of the change of government -- some very disastrous happenings have occurred in northern Ontario. To recite a few: at the Griffith mine at Ear Falls, 325 jobs are lost; at the Great Lakes waferboard plant, Thunder Bay, 60 to 70 jobs are lost; the pulp mill and the stud mill at Terrace Bay are in jeopardy. We know what happened at Sault Ste. Marie. The iron ore mine at Wawa is now in jeopardy. The list, which causes us who live there more concern each day, goes on and on.

The point I am trying to make is that the basic economy of northern Ontario is resource-oriented. We all know that, but it is very fragile. We are at the mercy, at the command of international markets. Outside jurisdictions really control how things move with the resources of northern Ontario. It is out of our control with respect to the markets and the products we produce for international sale.

We are unique. We have special problems and, as I said before, we cannot lump them into one basic strategy for all Ontario. When we look back to our own experiences when we were in government, we established the Ministry of Northern Affairs. That was a major step forward. It was the first regional ministry in this province's history. It dealt directly with the affairs and the problems of northern Ontario.

The member for Port Arthur mentioned some very successful programs: the northern Ontario regional development program, which the present government has continued, has increased and expanded upon; the EduCap program, which saw funds going into the school systems of northern Ontario, and the EldCap program that saw senior citizens' units attached to northern Ontario hospitals.

All these programs designed for northern Ontario in that ministry were designed by northerners and they were administered by northerners, because 70 per cent of the staff of that ministry were located in northern Ontario. They responded in a very special way. The applications were simple and our turnaround time was six to eight weeks. That is very important to those people in northern Ontario.

I cannot stress too strongly the successes we have had on an ad hoc basis. We can refer to the problems of Sudbury when we reacted to the problems of that community with funds for the 2001 project -- $600,000 over a three-year period. We moved on the goat project. Members all remember the goat project in Sudbury. That was a local initiative. They wanted to establish goats in the Sudbury basin. It was not successful; but the local people had their ideas and they wanted to try it, so we funded it.

Right through the whole system -- we see Atikokan and Pickle Lake -- there are all kinds of examples across the north where the government of the day moved in an expeditious way to respond to those particular needs.

Getting back to the resolution itself, we certainly support the idea of a northern development fund. We think it should be within the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. A minister of this government, or any government that is in power, should have direct responsibility for that fund. The establishment of that regional ministry, which is located mainly in northern Ontario, provided the sensitivity to be able to respond to the urgent and unique needs of those communities that may be suffering because of resource extraction declining and coming to an end.

The fund itself should not be a tax on the resources that are coming out of northern Ontario. We think that would be a mistake because it may put those resource companies in a very uncompetitive position. We must remain competitive in a world situation. We contribute to the economic life of this province with the resources that come out of northern Ontario. The province as a whole should put funds into that special fund that would be earmarked to a special line in the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, where we, as northern members, could watch over that fund to see how it is administered in the best interests of northern Ontario.

10:40

Mr. Wildman: I rise to participate in this debate because I think it is timely, not only because there was a conference in Sault Ste. Marie dealing with northern competitiveness at the beginning of the week, at which our caucus presented a positive 10-point program that included the two proposals made in the resolution by the member for Port Arthur, but also because we are facing a terrible economic crisis in northern Ontario, one that must be responded to in a positive way by government.

It is almost a cliché to say that as soon as a mine opens in northern Ontario, or anywhere in the world, it is beginning to close. As soon as you put the first shovel in the ground, you are depleting the resource and eventually it will run out. That is why it is so important for us all to recognize the need for planning so the community that grows up around the mining operation will have a future as that resource is depleted.

Thus, I was very disappointed to hear the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan), a man for whom I have a great deal of respect -- and I appreciate the fact that he attended the conference in Sault Ste. Marie as someone from southern Ontario interested in the concerns of the north -- say, first, that he did not think planning was a way to go; plans did not make much difference because circumstances change. Obviously, circumstances do change and any planning must be flexible, but that does not mean we should not have planning.

I was also disappointed to hear him speak, apparently on behalf of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), against the idea of a specific fund. It is certainly well known in this House that the Treasurer and the officials in his ministry are not in favour of doing anything that would take away from the consolidated revenue fund. That is old-time thinking, it is inflexible thinking and it is the kind of thinking that has left northern Ontario in the economic state it is in now.

To suggest we should not have a specific fund because it might run out some time just indicates why we need to have planning. Obviously, we do not want a fund that is going to run out. We want a fund that is going to be self-sustaining and ongoing.

The member looked at the situation in the United States. I know that when he was at the conference in Sault Ste. Marie he heard the gentleman from Volvo, Bo Eckmann, who is hardly a social democrat, speak about the experience in Sweden. It was very interesting and very important. He talked about many different aspects in Sweden, but the main thing he talked about was the attempt to work together, through planning, to deal with economic problems; he identified a number of types of funds in Sweden that have worked to assist to stimulate growth and investment in the northern part of that country.

Sweden is a country that is very similar to ours in many ways. It has an economy that in the north is based on resources and in the south is based heavily on manufacturing. It has a population about the same size as ours; the topography, the geography and the climate are very similar to those of our province. Obviously, there are cultural differences and historical differences. We cannot transplant their experiences here, but we can learn from them.

In my community, the area I represent, we face a tremendous threat. Algoma Steel Corp. made an announcement last spring that there would be a layoff of 12,000 people. Specifically, that affects the Algoma Ore division in Wawa, where 175 people have been laid off and where there is the threat that the whole operation will shut down because of costs.

The Algoma Ore division is a very productive mine. It is one of the most productive underground mining operations in the world, and certainly in North America. Unfortunately, it is competing against open-pit operations and Third World operations; it is not competing against other underground mines and that makes it very difficult.

That is why I thought it was important for us to have the conference that was held in Sault Ste. Marie, and it is why I was so disappointed that the government and the Premier had absolutely nothing to offer at that time. In essence, what the Premier said at the conference was that we need entrepreneurship. He was telling northerners they have to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

None of us in this House, certainly not the northern members, would debate that northerners are very resourceful and skilful people, and given the resources -- the financial resources -- and the infrastructure, they can make our economy recover. But they cannot do it completely by themselves. To say, "You must pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps," ignores the fact that if the Algoma Ore division shuts down a community such as Wawa does not have any boots.

Mr. McGuigan: He did not say that.

Mr. Wildman: He said: "Do it on your own. Do not blame others."

That conference completely ignored the countervailing duty on lumber; it did not even mention it. It indicated we have problems in the global economy but did not deal with the immediate problem of an unemployment rate that is twice the provincial average. It made no positive proposals. The only positive proposals came from the floor and from the New Democratic Party. Nothing was presented by the government. As a matter of fact, nobody from the government was at the podium except to introduce and thank speakers.

Mr. McGuigan: We want northerners to do it.

Mr. Wildman: That is exactly what we are talking about. The member says, "We want northerners to do it." Northerners can do it, and northerners have made suggestions as to what should be done, but they need the will of the government to provide the financial resources to make it possible for them to do it.

In the resolution there is mention of a number of studies that have been done in northern Ontario. I participated in one of these, the so-called Rosehart committee, and we made a number of recommendations. The two recommendations in this resolution were among the recommendations made by the Advisory Committee on Resource Dependent Communities in Northern Ontario.

In response to that report, the government has said a number of times -- the Premier said it yesterday -- that we already have a northern Ontario fund. We have a so-called northern Ontario fund of $100 million available over five years; that is $20 million a year for the whole of northern Ontario. Do the members realize the layoff of 1,200 men at Algoma Steel Corp. takes a total of $45 million per year in payroll out of the economy of Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma district? That is $45 million a year out of the economy in one community, and we have $20 million a year for the whole of northern Ontario from this government. It is a pittance.

This is not the Norland fund from Sweden. It is not an attempt to provide financial resources that northerners can control and direct for investment in the north to help to diversify and stimulate the economy in northern Ontario, to diversify one-industry towns such as Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa. It is a continuation of the kind of ad hoc dropping of money and dropping of programs here and there in northern Ontario that we had from the Conservative government for years in this province.

It does not work. It does not work to leave it to that kind of fund on the part of the government. It does not work if one does not have planning. It certainly does not work if it is all left to the private sector, because the private sector is the system that has got us into the situation we are in now. If we are to continue as we always have, we will not have change.

The member for Port Arthur has proposed a resolution with positive suggestions for planning and for financial resources to make it possible to begin the recovery of the economy in northern Ontario. I wish we could learn from the mining town of Kiruna in northern Sweden and apply that to Wawa, Ear Falls or Atikokan. I wish we could develop a Kiruna Truck in northern Ontario that would provide mining equipment for the world market. I wish we could develop the kinds of space centres and the kinds of geological mapping they have in northern Sweden, instead of having government contract it out to southern Ontario consultants, as it contracted the whole conference to a southern Ontario consultant.

We have had enough made-in-Toronto solutions for the north and enough made-in-Toronto consultants' studies. We need the political will on the part of the government to implement this resolution. If the Premier is serious about trying to resolve the problems in the north, the first step he can take is to have his caucus vote for this resolution on the floor of the Legislature and then have his cabinet implement it as soon as possible.

10:50

Mr. Ramsay: I wish I had more time this morning, because it is a very serious resolution that is before this House. Like the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier), I believe in the principle of this resolution. I am a little disappointed in the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), who spoke in contrary terms, and I wish I had more time to debate with him. He first asks that the Premier come up and solve the problems with a made-in-Toronto solution and then on the other hand criticizes the past government, saying that we should not have made-in-Toronto solutions and that the past government was at fault because it used Band-Aids and threw money at problems. We cannot have it both ways.

This resolution does address the problems of the north and the principle is sound.

Mr. Foulds: We want it only one way.

Mr. Ramsay: I wish the member for Port Arthur had been around 70 years ago, because this resolution should have been passed by this House 70 years ago, when that wealth was extracted from northern Ontario. Now, most of the wealth is gone. Millions and billions of dollars of silver and gold were taken 70 years ago, when the Cobalts were starting, and 60 years ago, when the Kirkland Lakes were starting. That angers people.

The government's response to that anger is the northern Ontario development fund. The people of the north feel they have been left with a hole in the ground; those resources having been extracted and they are angry. But to take a portion of the taxes coming from the resources is the wrong answer, because the taxes are not there. We have company after company coming to us for tax breaks. The revenues are not there. The resources are depleting.

I see that $100 million and more, which is to come as an answer to that problem and which is to come out of the general fund, as money owed from the past, money we should have taken by means of a resolution such as this years ago. We deserve that in the north, and that is what this is a response to. It is a serious problem, and we are starting to address it.

There are many points in this resolution. One of the key issues is management by northerners. With our economic development councils we are starting to be the generator of ideas on how that money is to be spent. The member is right. The ideas should not be coming from people in Toronto; they should be coming from northerners. Those economic development councils are a good cross-section of people in our community, especially in mine. We have a representative of the steelworkers' union, mayors, people in business and many other municipal people. They are the people on the ground, the grass roots.

They are people in the towns, people in the unions and people who work in the companies in our area. We are getting that input. The councils were a little slow getting started, but now they are going. These people are enthusiastic, these are the people the Premier will be listening to and these are the people who are going to be coming up with the ideas.

We have some money in place. By the way, the member for Algoma said there was only $20 million a year out of the $100 million. The Premier said in Sault Ste. Marie on July 6 that in the second year it would be accelerated to $35 million. The pressure is there. The Premier knows the problem. The pressure is there from me, and from the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine), to accelerate that fund and put more money into it. That is what we are going to do, because the problem has to be addressed.

I feel it is very important that we do not apply Band-Aids to the problems of the north. Not only do the solutions have to come, but they have to be lasting solutions, they cannot be temporary. We have to start to encourage and to act as cheerleaders, if you will, to get the mentality of the people of the north turned around. I have always felt in our area that many of the people in my constituency have felt like losers because they have felt exploited. That attitude is starting to turn around now. We are starting to have confidence in ourselves that we can do it ourselves. The ideas have to come from us.

They cannot be applied from somewhere else. They have to be based on what we have and on who we are. That is what we are going to do and that is what we are starting to do.

It is coming. We are doing it now and it is building. It is necessary to keep the pressure on. Members should keep us honest, because we need that, and that is what the people in my constituency are doing. We are going to work together. Let us not quibble over exactly how we get the money to the fund; the money is there. Let us get together and decide with the people of the north how we are going to invest the money in the north for the future, for jobs for our people and the people to come.

Mr. Foulds: I thank all members for their contributions, but I want to say as clearly as I can that we in the north have been studied, analysed and scrutinized to death. If we keep on doing that analysis, that scrutiny and that studying, the north will die. I say that not in a sense of doom and gloom, not in a sense of despair, but because that is the economic reality.

I for one, without any false sense of boosterism, without any false sense that says, "Let us rah-rah our way into the confidence of the 20th century," believe the north will survive, will develop, will grow and will be there 100 years from now; but it will only be there, it will only survive, it will only grow, if we stop having this colonial mentality from the government and from parties based in this Legislature.

The reason I say the fund must be managed by northerners is the very reason the Liberals are giving us. We cannot have made-in-Toronto solutions; we cannot have made-in-Toronto attitudes. What we must have is power to the people of northern Ontario.

I want to say directly for the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay) that it is not too late. Do not despair, my friend. In excess of $15 billion of wealth is being extracted from the north annually, every year and even today. That is not the New Democratic Party's figure. It is not something we have conjured up out of the air. That was researched in detail by the Rosehart committee, which the Premier is endorsing and backing so much in the person of Bob Rosehart.

If in excess of $15 billion a year in wealth is being generated in northern Ontario does it not make sense to put a portion of that back into the north? I say to my friend the member for Timiskaming, let us take some money out of the consolidated revenue fund, which we have subsidized and added to for the past 100 years. Let us take the other six steps I suggested to create that fund. Let us also, to give the northerners the tools, do the planning agreements.

The riding of my friend and colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) and the ridings of my friends the member for Kenora and the member for Timiskaming could probably benefit from the planning agreements. Any new development that starts now, if we get in on the ground floor and plan, not only the money but also the economic, social, medical and educational futures of that community from the ground floor, we can do in this way.

We can do it creatively, we can do it now and we can do it so secondary industry and other enterprises, commercial and otherwise, can be developed in those communities and so those communities can live and thrive, and our children and their children can be there after the mines are gone and after the forests are cut. It is not enough -- and I say this with all seriousness to all members of this House -- to say we support the principle.

I regret that the Premier is not here. He said the New Democratic Party produced a skinny little, 10-point program. That is better than the zero-point program he is producing. We produced not only that 10-point program but also, for every one of those points, documents to back it up. We are not saying they are magic solutions. We are not saying all of them will work perfectly. We are saying in this resolution that the government should give us the opportunity to prove we can do it with two of these economic tools.

Give us the strength, give us the weapons, give us the tools to build our economy, because it is important, not merely for the north, not merely for one region of this province, but for this entire province. I point out that six out of the 10 jobs associated with the forest industry, directly and indirectly, are in southern Ontario, not in northern Ontario.

The economy of this province, the future of this province and the future of the people of this province are dependent on the wellbeing of the north's economy. We plead not merely for our children, not merely for our future but for the future of the whole province and the future of whole generations to come.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): This ends the debate on ballot item 23.

11:00

REMUNERATION OF TRUSTEES AND COUNCILLORS

Mr. Callahan moved resolution 37:

That, in the opinion of this House, as the public does not understand the method of establishing levels of remuneration of boards of education and municipal councils and as there is no consistent principle province-wide, the Education Act and the Municipal Act should be amended so that any increase in honorarium to a board of education or municipal council may be made only once in a term of such board or council and within 60 days of the date on which an election is to be held.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation, and he may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Mr. Callahan: At the outset, let me assure members of the House that this is not an effort to interfere with local autonomy. The purpose of this bill is to elevate the image of municipal councils in the eyes of the electorate.

As members are aware, municipal councils are currently entitled to set their own honorarium as they consider to be appropriate, and it is appropriate that they be entitled to do that. They are the locally elected representatives. They are the form of government closest to the people. However, I suggest that without some change as proposed in this bill or in a vein similar to what is proposed in this bill, the electorate voting at municipal elections is going to continue to be somewhat apathetic.

The reason people may be apathetic is that they see councils throughout this province hoisting their fees or their honorariums by large percentages. The newspaper reports on this are legion. A municipality raises its honorariums by 61 per cent, 24 per cent, 34 per cent, and the people do not understand that. They do not understand the background or the basis for those increases.

I am not suggesting taking away the right that exists for local representatives to set their own honorarium. I am saying there should be a mechanism that will allow it to be done in advance of an election and thereby allow the voters to question the members who are running for re-election. It allows the people who are running for the first time in an election an opportunity to be questioned on the logic behind that raise.

I suggest it would help municipal politicians in that, if they have perhaps arrived at that increase through the use of a private group of citizens who review the salary and determine whether it is appropriate, they would be able to go out to the public with their heads held high and defend it. I suggest this would increase the turnout at municipal elections. It would satisfy the electorate in that it would have the politicians saying up front what the honorarium for the next council would be.

Unfortunately, it works both ways. It works against the elected officials because, if they are politically shy to raise their honorarium by the appropriate amount, they are always playing catch-up. This becomes very difficult and results in blazing headlines, such as "Council Raises its Honorarium by 50 per cent," or 60 per cent or 70 per cent. The public does not understand that. It also results in a council waiting until after the election, which occurred in my own riding. A week or so after they had been installed in office, they raised their honorarium by 40 per cent.

It may well be that the members of council in my own riding were entitled to that 40 per cent, but a perception is created by its being done at that stage of the game.

As well, I am suggesting that if the legislation was to be amended to simply provide something along the lines of what my bill proposes, it would encourage municipalities to bring in private citizens' groups to look at the question of how hard a municipal councillor works to arrive at an appropriate increase. If that increase happened to be 40 per cent, so be it. What happens is we are treating the municipal councillors fairly in that we are providing them with an honorarium that reflects the nature of the time they spend in their job and the seriousness of the issues with which they deal.

I think the public will accept that; but when you leave it the way it is, it usually happens in a way that makes the public very cynical as to how the elected representatives at the local level are operating. That is very wrong.

This issue strikes at the heart of the question of making certain that our democratic system is viewed by all people as being fair and above board. By that, I am not suggesting there is anything below board but the perception of democratic justice has to be apparent as well as actual.

I want to go back into the history of this legislation because I think it is of some importance. Under the pre-1968 Municipal Act, municipal councils did not have the right to set their honorarium. It was fixed subsequently, I believe as a result of a resolution from Toronto council in 1966 and 1967 that drew to the attention of the provincial government at that time that the honorariums did not reflect, in an appropriate fashion, the increased responsibilities of the members of that council and that it should be reviewed.

In 1967, the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, Wilfrid Spooner, established a committee of seven individuals who did a rather deep insight into the whole difficulty. They made recommendations to the provincial government of the day that a maximum should be retained but it should be increased, and that the increase should be related to the populations of municipalities and the responsibilities of those councillors.

The bill came before the provincial Legislature. At that time, the minister was Darcy McKeough. According to the records I have, the bill passed through this House very quickly; in fact, far more quickly than anything passing through this House these days. I suppose in those days they had a majority. In any event, what happened, in effect, was that municipalities were given the right to determine their own honorariums.

Once again I have underlined the fact that I am not saying this provincial government should interfere in any way with that, because that is the responsibility of those who are elected and who are accountable to the electorate. I am simply saying there should be a revision of the appropriate legislation to let the public realize that the determination of these salaries is made some time prior to them going to the polls.

One can say that is an interference in itself, but this Legislature had the wisdom to do that to the school boards. I must apologize; in my notice of motion I refer to school boards as well. That was inappropriate, because there was legislation in 1982 that stated trustees currently sitting on the board of education in any municipality can set their honorarium but it does not take effect until after the election and in a new term.

11:10

I hope that creates for the public an image that would also apply to municipalities by the members here agreeing to my motion with reference to municipalities. Once that honorarium was set, the only power the school board would have when the election was completed would be to decrease the amount; it would have no power whatsoever to increase it.

Many of us come from the municipal arena. We have run for elections and voted for pay raises for ourselves. When it comes down to the question of voting for a pay raise, I suppose all of us feel very sheepish. We should not feel sheepish. If we, as municipal representatives, ask for an honorarium that is appropriate to the constituency we serve and the work we do, whether it is full-time or part-time, we should not be ashamed at all. I am sure the public in its wisdom would, in fairness, accept that. However, I submit that the present situation and the present state of the law has not allowed that to happen.

I wonder about the turnout at municipal elections. The two I checked into in my riding were 16 per cent and 17 per cent. I wonder whether that is a direct reflection of the fact that the public sees these things happening. They say, "We have no control over it, so why should we go out and vote?" Perhaps it would enhance the electoral process. People would come out and question the people standing for re-election and the people espousing the position itself.

In addition, the people who run for office would know in advance exactly what they were running for. In that respect, this would create an aura of fairness because municipal councillors would get the money they were entitled to. It would also be fair to the perception of the public that they do not try to play games immediately upon being elected.

I will give an example. While I was serving on the Brampton council in my riding, a citizens' group came forward and spent a considerable amount of time looking into the question of our remuneration. They spoke to each councillor individually to determine how many hours he put in. The situation was very expansive. It took them a week or two to interview all the councillors. These were people from the public who were getting nothing for doing this, but they were responsible citizens.

They determined that the members of Brampton council were entitled to a 25 per cent increase because they had fallen behind in years past. The net result was that the council voted itself a six or seven per cent increase. The reason it did that was because of the political pressure they felt there would be in coming forward with a 25 per cent increase and then having to go to the electorate to justify it. They would have had every entitlement to go to the public because it had been determined by a private group.

If this were enshrined in legislation and if the public were made aware these decisions had to be made beforehand, local representatives would not have this difficulty of worrying about the political effect of coming up with an increase. However, it is not enshrined there.

One of the people who served on that committee, whom I know very well, came to me after our council had made the decision to increase the stipend by seven per cent and said: "Why did you waste our time? Why did you have us go to all this trouble and then make that decision?" I had to agree with him. A 25 per cent increase -- I am not sure of the exact figure -- was found just and proper by that citizens' group at that time and the council of the day took seven per cent. The effect of this is quite obvious. If we perpetuate this, if we snowball this, we constantly get behind. At some point, it requires a catch-up.

When that catch-up takes place, it gives a black eye, not just to municipal councils but also to every politician in this province and in this country.

If the democratic system is to survive, is to be vibrant and is not to be treated with cynicism by the voters, we have to take every step in a legislative fashion to ensure not only that the system actually is fair but also that it is perceived to be fair by the electorate.

That is all I have to say at the moment on this issue. I would like to reserve the balance of my time to respond to my colleagues.

The Deputy Speaker: The member is reserving six minutes and 30 seconds.

Mr. Davis: First of all, I believe the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) should apologize to the House for his inaccuracies, for not doing his homework and for placing before us a motion in which he indicates that it should be applicable to the education system in this province when it has been since 1982. A person who wants to bring a resolution to this House should have his homework well in hand. Perhaps our colleague would like to go back to grade school and learn how to do his homework.

My colleague indicates that the public would more appropriately understand such a situation if they were aware of the salary increases that a municipal council was going to implement after it was elected. Before I comment on that, I will suggest to my colleague that perhaps he would like to amend his motion to include members of provincial parliament, so that 60 days prior to an election the government would indicate to the people of this province what it intends to pay its members; that would be more fair to the municipal councillors of this province.

I would point out to my learned colleague that in 1982, when the Education Act was revised by the government of the day, which happened to be the Progressive Conservative Party, the revision was such that a board of education had to indicate prior to the next election the salary increases that would occur during the next three years.

My colleague should check the records of 1982 and 1985 and he will find that giving this information to the public prior to an election did not increase the number of people who came out to vote. In fact, no trustee in this province, to my knowledge, lost his seat because of the increases that occurred, and in 1982 in Metropolitan Toronto those increases ranged anywhere from 60 per cent to more than 135 per cent.

What did happen, as could happen in this case, is that in one particular board in this province a large number of trustees were not running. They were of the conviction that trustees were adequately paid, and therefore they made a motion that there would be no increment resulting in the forthcoming three years. The individuals who were elected to that board had no power under the Education Act to overthrow that; they could only reduce the fees set and therefore they were penalized by the outgoing trustees on that board. That is unjust and it thwarts the democratic process.

My learned colleague suggests that local municipal councils could be required to create a citizens' group to suggest to them what the wages should be. He must be aware that such a committee already exists in Scarborough and in the city of Toronto. Each council takes a look at that recommendation and in many instances implements it.

It is interesting that he would like to implement that kind of format in this province when we have it here in the House. It is part of our parliamentary process, I understand, that a nonpartisan body recommends yearly to this House the kinds of increases we should see as members. It is interesting to note that the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) ignores its suggestions and recommends instead a 3.9 per cent increase, basing it on the fact that it is a democratic process of the government to make those determinations.

I suggest most strongly that it is a democratic process and the prime responsibility of municipal councillors to set their own salary structures. I suggest also that if the electorate is unhappy with the kinds of salary settlements that the councillors initiate, it has the option, which is the option of the people of Brampton, to terminate that alderman or the member because of that action. My learned colleague suggests they should set it for three years. Let us look at what happens.

11:20

Let us assume councillors are making $25,000 a year, which is not unusual for the kind of work load they are now carrying, and let us assume they use only the inflation rate of four per cent. What they do is front-load. They take the three increments, fold in the necessary increments that would occur and wind up with $3,000 or $3,125, which they add to their salaries; so they start with a base salary of roughly $28,125, rather than a base salary of $25,000. The public is therefore already behind, because it is paying out additional salaries that would not normally kick in until the second or third year, as indicated in the Education Act.

I find it appalling that this government continually puts its fingers into every aspect of our society. We now have the learned member suggesting, without consultation with any of the municipal councils, to my knowledge, that we should determine by

an act of legislation that henceforth municipal members will have to set their salaries 60 days prior to an election. He bases that premise on the fact that people will take more interest in the democratic electoral process. That just does not bear out in fact.

Had he taken the time to do his homework, he probably would not have mentioned this legislation. He should have checked what happens in the education area in elections. There is no great turnover. In fact, as I stated before, trustees were not thrown out because they set their salaries beforehand. This matter should have been left to the resolution of the members of council.

I find that the democratic process is fair. I do not hear people crying out, as my learned colleague suggests they are, in revolution against councils that set their salaries. I assume most councils act with decency and honour as they establish their own salary rates for the work they are doing. Certainly, each council has the ability to set it in the determination of its own jurisdiction. One knows a council member in Wawa does not make $40,000, because his work load may not be the same as the work load of the council member in Brampton, for example.

It is very interesting to note that the process my learned colleague wants to introduce is a process that is used in this House and ignored, and I suggest to him it would be ignored by the councils of this province. I also suggest it will not increase participation among the electorate of this province and that the present system is working well.

Somewhere, somehow, I remember someone saying -- I believe it was the present government -- that if things are working well, why monkey with them and change them? It is apparent that this new government, which was not even elected to be on the other side of this House but somehow got there, has now developed the kind of image that demands that it tinker with everything in society, from the affairs of the pharmacists to the doctors, to the municipal councillors, to lawyers. Soon there will be no avenue in society that this government has not put its fingers into to stir up to see whether there is something it can try to make better, when everything is working well.

I certainly will not be supporting this motion at this time. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to respond to my learned colleague, who has not done his homework again.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to participate in this debate today. I will start by saying the resolution does not do a great deal, but it offers an opportunity to get into something that may be one of the hottest little political discussions we can ever get involved in, that is, the salaries of those who serve the public.

I want to make some allowances for the member who sponsored the resolution. First, I should point out to the previous speaker that it is a resolution. It is not a bill and it is not legislation, but a motion of the House expressing an opinion. From that point of view, it offers me the opportunity to be a little kinder to the member than I normally would be. It is not going to be a law that is passed here this morning. It is the voicing of several opinions, and we should be grateful for that opportunity at the very least. Second, there are some errors in the resolution.

I write it off to the fact that the member who proposed the resolution is a lawyer, and we should not expect anything better from anybody in the legal profession. Unlike the previous speaker, in the kind and loving world I would like to live in, I will forgive the member for being a lawyer and for making errors in his resolution. I am going to support it on the basis of the fact that nothing evil will happen if we do. No law will change tomorrow, but an opinion will have been voiced. We should be grateful for that.

I want to say two or three things about the intent of the resolution, which I think is worth while. The member raises the question of how people on school boards and councils and, indirectly, everybody else who is elected to anything might settle their compensation. I have been in politics for quite a while now, a decade or so, and I could tell him tomorrow who will write a letter to the editor of the Oshawa Times denouncing whatever pay raise is proposed by any politician at any level.

It does not matter to these people whether the raise is two per cent, 20 per cent or 200 per cent; they will sit down tonight in a fearful fit of anger and they will write this. It does not matter how large the amount is and it does not matter who it is; they hate anybody in public office getting paid for their work. They would also be the last people who would ever get out and do any work for the public, but they hate everybody who is elected. There is nothing we can do about that.

I am sure in most of our constituencies we could sit down now and write the letters that would go to the editors tomorrow morning and we could probably pretty closely identify who will send those letters. The amount does not matter. We should recognize that there are some people in our society who do not like us. It would be tough to find a group of people in our society who do not have a counterpart out there. There is always that to deal with.

I believe the government of Ontario tried to set out ranges in the Education Act, but it is very difficult to do. Having observed councils and school boards over the years, some of them do not do a great deal. The staff, the administration or the agency runs the show. That is a shame. It runs against the whole democratic process and is quite wrong.

I could muster a pretty good argument that people on a council or on a school board of that nature do not deserve very much. The problem with that argument is that we have a democratic society. Theoretically, we say our councils control huge budgets, and they do. Many millions of dollars available to school boards and municipal governments all over Ontario are spent each year. How ironic then that somebody would be expected to take an honorarium of a couple of thousand dollars to sit on a school board. They would not do that in the private sector. That is for sure. Why do we expect that in the public sector?

I do not think we get better elected people locally by paying them more money. I do not think that axiom works out at all. If someone is a competent individual and knows he will be entering into an activity that will have an economic impact on his life, he will think about what the honorarium is. For example, if I am going to be elected to my local council and it means I have to give up my job, I have family responsibilities, I have responsibilities to people to whom I owe money and I have mortgages to pay, so an aura of the practical does enter it.

People sit down at the kitchen table and say, "Can I afford to run for public office or do we need both incomes?" I doubt very much that people stay in the political process for the money.

Most of the members in this chamber are taking a loss in economic terms to be here. That is a reality. Every year I go home and my wife tables in my kitchen a document called the salary agreement between the Durham Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board and its teachers, and each year she carefully and painstakingly points out how much money I am losing by being a member. It is not a great deal of money, but it is change that I could surely use. But that is not the critical difference. You do not run for public office because of the amount of money you are paid. I think people understand that much.

11:30

Second, you do not stay in public office because it is a well-paid position either. That is also true. My experience tells me that public life is a strange animal at any level. You either like it or you do not like it, and there is not much in between. If you do not like it, there is no amount of money in the world that can make you take this kind of abuse. That would be my comment to people who are thinking about running for public office.

You never really know it until you hold public office and get an opportunity to experience the anger and the frustration that is out there in our society, and either you try to change that and make the world a little better place at any level of government and you are driven by that cause, or you will not stay in public office.

I do not know of anybody who could not leave public office and make more money. I am saddened somewhat by the fact that at all levels of government the current trend is that people are leaving public office to make a potful of money. People are saying, "Our federal members of Parliament are overpaid." They are overpaid until they quit, and then they double their incomes. The same is happening provincially, municipally and on school boards -- at all levels. One of the things that is a bit of a tragedy is that I know a number of people who have held public office and have quit because, frankly, at some point the financial drain on the family income was one that could not be sustained.

I know this resolution is not going to do a great deal for anybody, but it does point out that councils, school boards and, I suggest, ourselves and the federal members of Parliament, have this terrible problem around honorariums, salaries and incomes; and they shy away from it.

I know the political realities out there, but I also know this: if we raised our incomes substantially this afternoon, I know who would phone me tonight and tomorrow morning and I know how long the rage would last. I know they would tell me the exact same thing whether we voted $1 more or $100,000 more, and that is true for politics at any level.

If a school boards sets its honorarium at $2,000 as opposed to $3,000, do they really think they are going to get a flood of phone calls the next day saying, "Weren't you wonderful?" People will probably write in and say: "Weren't you stupid? Why did you do that?"

I think part of the converse is true. The fact that we do not pay people very much to sit on local councils and school boards is not an overwhelming influence, but is a sign to the public at large that it cannot be a very important position. If we pay them only $2,000 or $3,000, that really cannot be something of much importance. That is rather sad.

The resolution before us is flawed; we should all recognize that. But we should also recognize that the world will not end tomorrow morning if this resolution is passed. I urge members to use it as an occasion to vent their opinions, as I have, on how people set these, what the levels should be and when they should be set. To that extent, the resolution is worth supporting.

I wish it had been put together in a slightly better form. There are things that could be done that would assist this process. It could have been better drafted. It could have acknowledged reality; that would have been a help too. But I do not think we should ask too much of new members in this chamber. When they have an opinion and they want to voice it, one of the things about a parliament is that even if you are wrong, sometimes even if you are dead wrong, you do have a right to voice your opinion. That is what the member for Brampton is doing this morning. He is certainly welcome to do that.

I am going to support his resolution. It seems to me relatively harmless. The discussion, though, is worth while, and to that extent at least we ought to support it.

Mr. Epp: I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate on this resolution. I am going to speak against the motion and I am going to vote against the motion.

Mr. Rowe: You had better come over here.

Mr. Epp: I want the member to understand and I want my colleague to understand that it is done in a sincere but friendly way. If the member feels that cannot be done he should tell me, but I am still not going to sit down.

Mr. Stevenson: You simply cannot support the jerk, is that it?

Mr. Epp: I want to speak against it for a number of reasons. I was not a member of this Legislature then, but between 1971 and 1975 there was no increase in the honorarium given to members of the provincial parliament. When they did give themselves an increase it was substantial. As a result, it was felt that members did not deserve it. If they had given themselves the inflationary increase every year -- and I am not saying at this point it should have been inflationary, less than inflationary or more than inflationary -- if they had done it on an annual basis, they would not have met the hostile reaction they met in 1975.

When you do this on a once-every-three-year basis you are going to encounter that. On that basis, I suggest it should not be done once every three years, just before an election, because it may be an unpopular vote and the public can take it out on you. Therefore, you are intimidated into voting yourself a very low increase. The public will not support you at the polls if, all of a sudden, you give yourself a 15 per cent increase once every three years rather than a five per cent increase every year. I think the timing this motion suggests, that you do it within 60 days prior to the next election, is unfortunate.

I am opposed to it on another basis, which is that the motion suggests that the duly elected members at the school board and municipal level, which includes 125 school boards and 838 municipalities, are not in close enough touch with the electorate, that they are going to do something very crazy, very outrageous or whatever it is going to be, that the public is not going to know about it and that therefore they are going to put something over on the public. My feeling is that they are duly elected. They have to appear before the electorate on a regular basis to be elected to the school board or at the municipal level and therefore the electorate can punish them if it wants to.

If it were a body appointed by somebody at Queen's Park or whatever the case might be and if it then did something completely unacceptable, but the public could not in any way control it, that would be different. These are duly elected people. They give themselves that increase, as popular or as unpopular as it may be -- and it is never popular, as the member knows. You cannot give yourself an increase for five years and then give yourself a 10 per cent increase, which with inflation may be only four per cent or 4.2 per cent. The public is down on you because you have given yourself a 10 per cent increase. They forget you had not given yourself an increase in 10 years.

These duly elected school boards and councils are autonomous. We should make them as autonomous as we possibly can, knowing full well they are ultimately responsible to this Legislature, to the 125 men and women elected to this place. I do not know why I, an elected member on a municipal council for 10 years, all of a sudden had a lot more wisdom given to me the day I was elected, June 9, 1977, because I was elected provincially. I could then vote for my increase on an annual basis if I wanted to; but when I was a municipal councillor and mayor of the city of Waterloo for those 10 years, I could not. I did not have the wisdom to do it on annual basis.

I do not know how I got that radical increase of wisdom just because I went through a provincial election. That is what we are saying. We are saying that because we are provincial legislators we are exposed enough to the public that the public knows what is going on, so we can do it on an annual basis, we can do it three times a year if we want to or we can do it whenever we want to.

However, if we are at a school board level or at a municipal level out there in one of those many municipalities or school boards, then all of a sudden we do not have that wisdom, the moderating effect of the media watching us or the wherewithal to vote or not to vote ourselves that increase. I do not accept that principle. Maybe it was not intended that way, but that is the way I read it.

11:40

When we gave ourselves an increase in 1977, after I was elected -- I think it was the fall -- I remember seeing a cartoon drawn by a colleague of mine. I had taught with him for a number of years, and he drew a few cartoons. He had a cartoon showing the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), the then member for Kitchener, Mr. Breithaupt, and myself, and down at the bottom it said, "MPP." He understood "MPP" stood for "More pay, please." Members probably have not thought of it in those terms, but apparently that is what "MPP" stood for in that cartoon.

I thought it meant "member of the provincial parliament," but it just goes to show how wrong you can be when you are elected to this place.

The public did not punish me during the next election, as many times as I voted for my increase, however modest it was. Some members of this Legislature like to stay away when the time comes for voting themselves an increase, because they can always say they did not vote for it; but they have their hands out afterwards, they never turn their money back to the Legislature. They can have it both ways; they can say, "I never voted for it, but I have to take it."

Other people, who have the courage to vote for their increases, will take their lumps with the electorate. That is what I want. I want the members of the councils to vote themselves an increase whenever they feel it is desirous to do so, and the same applies to the school boards. But I want it to be done at an open and public meeting and the public to be made aware of it. If the public wants to punish them, however small or large the increase is, it is up to them, knowing full well what their democratic rights are.

Mr. Pierce: I rise in the House this morning to speak against the resolution. Having been involved in a municipal council for a number of years and having close associations with school boards, I find it a bit difficult to believe that we in the provincial Legislature should be meddling in how municipal councils and members of school boards reach conclusions in setting remuneration.

I also find it a little difficult to understand how, according to the resolution, you could have the bulk of the members on a board, who are not running in the next election, dictating what will happen for the next three years to the people who will be running, by setting the wages for the new members coming in after an election.

It behooves individuals running to be able to determine, after election, what they feel is the adequate remuneration for the job. If the remuneration set by them is not acceptable to the general public which has elected them, I am sure the general public will not hesitate to inform the members of school boards and of municipal councils. If proper attention is not paid to the complaints and if the increases are considered to be above what would normally be accepted, those individuals will certainly know about it in the next election.

I do not think it is the place of this Legislature to determine that people vying to be members of school boards and members of municipal councils are not intelligent enough to be able to set their own remuneration as it reflects on the municipality and on the work load that municipality may be faced with through its school board or municipal council.

In some municipalities, there is no doubt that the amount of time an individual member who has run for municipal council or school board is required to spend on its council or board is limited. However, other municipalities may be faced with problems of growth or problems of declining growth that require long hours, many nights and full days of deliberation to determine the needs of the municipality or school board. For us to say a municipal council or board that is going out will determine what new members coming in will be paid is not the direction in which we want to go in this province.

As was mentioned by the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis), boards of education and municipal councils face a number of problems. These boards are more than capable of determining their needs and requirements in determining their remuneration. As I said earlier, I think it is beyond our ability and scope of control to decide whether municipal councils should be limited by existing councils that are going out.

Also, to suggest that a council, prior to its removal and 60 days before an election, will determine what its salary will be for the next three years is something that is not determined in a lot of collective bargaining agreements, as an example. Most unions and companies like to know they are going to have an opportunity to place their demands in the negotiating process without being tied to a long-range agreement.

If we now say members of councils and of school boards will be tied down for three years with no consideration given to changes in the amount of time or commitment required, we will have members who have been elected for three years resigning their seats short of the three-year term. Then we will be faced with by-elections and appointments to boards and councils, which I am sure is not the wish of this Legislature.

For that reason, I have to say I do not agree with the member's resolution. More consideration could have been given to the motion. All kinds of information out there could be gathered from existing municipal councils and school boards to indicate that they are very much responsible for their everyday actions, are responsible to the electorate that has put them there and are quite capable of determining what is acceptable in the world of politics and in their own municipality with respect to remuneration. They do not require us as legislators to tell them that even though they are elected we will dictate to them legislation as to whether they are allowed any increases.

With those comments, I have to tell the member that I must vote against his resolution.

11:50

Mr. Allen: I rise to speak on this ballot item in the spirit of my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), who suggested the subject and content of the proposal is of such relatively small consequence that he can support it. I am suggesting it is of such small consequence and impact that I can modestly oppose it. It is important that private members' legislation have the opinion of all members of the Legislature as individuals and not just as members of caucuses.

I suggest, however, there is a certain patronizing tone to this resolution. It starts by suggesting the public does not understand. I do not think that is the problem; I think the public is quite capable of understanding. What the member suggests the public does not understand is the method of establishing levels of remuneration for councils and school boards.

He goes on to say there is no method and therefore there is nothing to understand. How can one criticize the public for not understanding something that is not there? He then confesses that the Education Act does have a mechanism; therefore, I am left wondering whether this proposal is meant to confuse the public, the Legislature and, indeed, the boards of education about whether this resolution or the contents of the Education Act should take precedence.

With respect to the question of setting levels only once in a term, we all know what happens to unions when they go out on their multi-year settlements and get tagged with having agreed to a 15, 20, 25 or 30 per cent increase when it is spread over a number of years. The public gets one impression, and one impression only, and any board or council that wanted to minimize that kind of impact should be free to do so.

The question of 60 days is again a major problem. I do not understand why one would want to get into a situation where a council responsibly attempting to deal with its salary levels would put itself in a position where the public would end up debating only salary questions in an imminent election, to the detriment of all the other major issues of the municipality. For the Legislature of Ontario to propose this to municipalities would presume we have some secret wisdom concerning how to settle the question. We have not settled it for ourselves; I do not think we have a right to stand up and try to settle it for other people.

The notion that when you run for election you accept the contract, which is so current in many municipalities, suggests that no municipal council should ever responsibly deal with the question. Locally, a group has attempted to make some proposals in that regard, and my only observation about that study is that while it had some interesting suggestions to make, the study itself did not consult any local member about the nature and range of his responsibilities to devise either a method or a level of compensation.

There are just too many flaws in this proposal for me to be able to support it responsibly; so I do in fact oppose it.

Mr. Callahan: It is interesting that when you raise the question of money in a political forum, everybody gets hyper. I think the time has come when the public should be armed with all the information it requires to determine whether we are paid or underpaid, and I find it difficult to believe the reaction of members of this Legislature, when I started off by telling them this was not a matter of interfering with the autonomy of the local representatives, it was a matter of fairness to the electorate.

I thank the member for Oshawa. He was very kind, and I hope he will vote for my resolution after I blast all those guys, because I suggest the members today probably have flip-flopped.

In 1982, the provincial Legislature did to school boards exactly what I am trying to do to municipalities. It moved legislation to require them to set their stipend before an election so those poor people out there who vote in elections, for me and everyone in this Legislature, get an opportunity to see just how that stipend was arrived at. It seems to me it is time for politicians -- and we have tried it with our government by opening up the government to all the people -- to realize that the public is not stupid and is entitled to know rather than being told five weeks into the term, "Hey, guys, we have increased our stipend by X dollars."

I suggest to members that there are some inconsistencies, and I want to show some of them to my good friend the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen). The population of Toronto is 600,000, according to this report; councillors there receive $59,356. In Hamilton, which has 308,000 people, councillors receive $34,943. In London, there are 278,000 people, and councillors get $57,800. I could go on ad nauseam. There is no consistent program for a voter to look at this intelligently and determine how they arrive at those salaries.

Now I would like to deal with the comments of my good friend the member for Scarborough Centre. My friend was upset because I had not told him that in my research I had discovered school boards had been changed through legislation. He prepared himself on that basis, and when he found he did not have any rocks to throw at me, he decided he would do it by saying it was a poorly worded resolution.

It also makes me wonder about this Legislature, particularly the Conservatives, who are the official opposition. They are the guardians of the purse of this province. They have legislative committee after legislative committee come forward to try to find out how this government is spending money. In one instance, they put 400 questions on Orders and Notices, one of which cost $100,000 to investigate. Yet they are the people who can speak about this whole issue. They do not look at the question of how taxpayers are being treated, yet they are the guardians of the purse. I find that rather unusual.

With reference to my good friend the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) speaking against the issue, what he missed is that members of the public are entitled to all the information they can have when they go out to exercise their franchise. I put the 60-day clause in there to highlight the question so that when members of the public go to vote on this issue, they will have that matter before them and can consider it.

In actual effect, the policy change I am suggesting benefits not only the public but also the politicians, because the municipal politicians will probably get private groups to check into an appropriate salary range and then go to the public and say, "Look, we had a private group do it."

They do not have to try to hide behind it, take a lesser increase and wind up not being paid appropriately. If politics in this day and age has reached a higher plane, I hope it is one where we wish to have the electorate given all the goods and all the evidence so they can make an appropriate disposition.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Callahan: Surely the questions of things such as salary are of paramount importance to electorates. If one looks at newspaper articles, one sees the number of times that people have gone after their councils to try to persuade them to draw back on the salaries. That would not happen under my proposal, because councils would have to justify it. It would be done on an appropriate basis. They would get the increase they were entitled to and not be cutting back and then trying to catch up in another year.

I guess I am naïve, and perhaps that is the reason my resolution is poorly worded. I am a freshman in this Legislature. Perhaps I am naïve enough to believe that politicians have risen to greater heights than being worried about whether the public knows how much they are being paid. If one serves the public well, then people are prepared to pay what one is worth. I am prepared to take the heat of a large increase if I feel I am doing the job. It seems as though some of us would like to sweep it under the carpet.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Callahan: If the members of the Conservative Party are concerned about this issue, then they should vote against it. I imagine they will anyway, but I want them to realize that in voting against it they are saying trustees are to be treated differently from municipal councillors. Trustees have to set their salaries in advance and accept the scrutiny of the electorate; municipal politicians do not.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Foulds has moved resolution 62.

Motion agreed to.

REMUNERATION OF TRUSTEES AND COUNCILLORS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Callahan has moved resolution 37.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The House recessed at 12:01 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

RICK HANSEN

Mr. Speaker: Today is a special day, and I am delighted to welcome an outstanding young Canadian, Rick Hansen, who has become world renowned as the Man in Motion. Rick and his dedicated crew are with us today in the Speaker's gallery. Rick has travelled approximately 32,900 kilometres to reach this destination in his journey to assist others.

As Speaker of the Ontario Legislature, I am pleased to ask all members to join me in welcoming Rick Hansen.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: In honour of our special guest, I ask unanimous consent to call order 121.

Agreed to.

GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF HANSEN ACT

Mr. Shymko moved second reading of Bill 146,

An Act to change the name of the geographic township of Stalin to the geographic township of Hansen.

Mr. Shymko: This bill enshrines permanently in the history and in the land of Ontario for all generations the name of Rick Hansen, which epitomizes the best in humanity, not only to Canadians but to all mankind, following the tradition of other Canadian heroes such as Terry Fox and Steve Fonyo.

His name and theirs have taught us one simple lesson: that true heroism is not in war but in the battlefield of life, to give hope to those who face hopelessness, to give strength to the weak, to give faith to those who are wavering and to show love by one's deeds. The name of Rick Hansen is a symbol of the invincibility of the human spirit, which knows no obstacles and crosses all boundaries, as he has crossed all boundaries.

May God bless him in giving him strength to complete his journey of Man in Motion. Perhaps this is a small journey in the eternity of life, but his tracks are permanent imprints which others will follow in the infinity of the journey of human destiny.

Mr. Rae: I rise to express, together with the members of my party, our pride and the pride of all the people of our province in this remarkable man who has graced us with his presence today as he has graced literally thousands of communities around the world.

When I was in China with the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), who will perhaps recall this, we visited the Great Wall. We were able to walk up a very steep incline past several sentry points. As we were walking up, our host made a point of telling us that this was precisely the place where Rick Hansen had been in his wheelchair a while previously.

I tell members this for two reasons. One, it is very hard to describe the steepness of that place and the really remarkable physical achievement that Rick Hansen has made. Two, I want to tell Rick Hansen that the impact of his visit in China was still being felt. For instance, I visited a hospital in Nanjing, where they commented on the fact that this remarkable Canadian had been in China and had demonstrated what people with disabilities can do when they set their minds to it.

It is not often that people get a chance to meet someone who has demonstrated absolutely extraordinary qualities of courage. All of us are awed by Rick's physical achievements in the sense of the enormous physical stamina that such a trip around the world must require. All of us are even more awed in a genuine way by his courage, by that sense of indomitable spirit and by the absolutely charming humility with which he has accepted the extraordinary fame that his courage has quite rightly bestowed upon him.

Ours is a culture that bestows celebrity on some pretty strange events. Indeed, one wonders sometimes about the attention society and our commercial culture pay to events and to people to whom most of us feel probably not very much attention should be paid. Every once in a while, however, something happens that brings people from all parts of the world and from all backgrounds together in a unique way because they recognize that something literally extra extraordinary is going on.

This tour has done many things. It has provided a sense of hope and a sense of inspiration to a great many people, young and old, who are disabled. It has also shown the world that Canada has produced some very extraordinary people who have demonstrated to disabled people around the world that there is a chance, there is a way of participating and a way of taking part. I know Rick Hansen would want us to think today not only of him and of this extraordinary event, but also of all the people in our community who are disabled and who in their own ways are having to fight their own battles.

All of us in our various jobs have had to face up to the fact that in our community we do not do all that we can do to make the disabled truly part of our community. The unemployment figures are there, the figures on income are there, the barriers are there. They must come down. I do not want to dwell on that today because I do not think it is appropriate for us to engage in that kind of a political discourse on this occasion, but I do want to say on behalf of our party how proud we are of Rick Hansen, how proud we are to recognize his courage today and just what a marvellous symbol he has become to all those who seek to take their place in the sun.

13:40

Mr. Grossman: Today is one of those days that one sometimes believes and is proud to think only Canadians share from time to time, a day when we should not meet and gather to do anything but celebrate, and, yes, remember a Canadian who somehow has epitomized what each of us likes to believe is somewhat special and unique about Canadians.

In every country of the world, in every walk of life, there are many people who face adversity but few people who challenge it. There are many people who dream of dreaming, but there are few people who actually dream. There are people who dream, yet fail to have the courage to implement that dream, to do something about it.

In Rick Hansen we have that unique coming together of someone who dreams, dares to dream and gets out and does something about it, someone who looks adversity in the face and not only fights that adversity and does something about it, but also seeks to reach so far beyond it as to ensure that as few people as possible need ever again face that adversity as a permanent circumstance. Unfortunately, Rick Hansen makes all the rest of us spectators as we admire, revel in and celebrate his accomplishments, determination, dedication and humanity.

He makes the rest of us spectators and challenges us to do what we ought to be doing to make sure that we not only celebrate his accomplishment and his heroic endeavours by virtue of the bill moved by my colleague today, but that we also do what we can to do what he asks us to do, and that is help to solve the problem.

I want to say to Rick Hansen today that this Legislature sometimes greets visitors and ofttimes acknowledges accomplishments. Too often, we do that almost in a perfunctory way. We are genuine about it but still perfunctory. We pause to acknowledge it and then move right on. I want to say to Rick that last week the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) ensured that this Legislature would not just blink and carry on. Somehow, he seemed to seize the magic of a moment and carve into each of us a sense of obligation to make this visit into something far more tangible than just a perfunctory acknowledgement.

The most important thing we can say to you today, Rick, is that we heard the words that were spoken last week by the member for Scarborough West in your absence, but on the occasion of your arrival in Ontario. He made an indelible impression on us. For that we thank him and for that we thank you.

Finally, might I say that night after night, Ontarians and Canadians watch the news. I have been in many circumstances where many people are sitting around watching the television set and watching go by all the news we think we help make and all the things we sometimes believe are so important, and, suddenly, when Rick Hansen comes on the screen, everything stops in those rooms. Everyone's attention is riveted on the day's events and everyone stands in awe, as it should be.

My party, together with all Ontarians, is proud of the response that somehow only Canadians, and especially Ontarians, can have in such a big way. We celebrate your accomplishments. We applaud you. We thank you. We undertake not to forget the message you bring night after night on our TV sets. We stand in awe of you. We thank you.

Finally, we want in a real and sincere way to tip our hats to you. We in this party regret the colour, but none the less we want to take this opportunity, Rick, seriously and with some emotion and sincerity, to tip our Rick Hansen hats to you. Thank you and good luck.

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: On behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the government of Ontario, I am delighted that we have this opportunity to greet and congratulate Rick and the members of the team of the Man in Motion world tour on this historic occasion.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, Ontario has proclaimed this week, November 3 to 9, Rick Hansen Man in Motion Week. The Premier has encouraged all Ontarians to support the goal of the tour. He enjoyed meeting Rick earlier this week and is looking forward to follow-up discussions on matters of mutual concern, scheduled for early next week.

We are indeed proud to have this opportunity to participate in a historic event that has drawn worldwide attention to the achievements that are possible when human beings have the will.

The Man in Motion world tour is much more than a sightseeing trip. For Rick, the distance is symbolic and the goals of his journey are selfless. This remarkable athlete, who was disabled in an accident at the age of 15, hopes to increase awareness of the abilities and potential of people who are physically challenged. He is raising funds for spinal cord research to help others like him and to show the importance of sports and recreation in the rehabilitation of disabled people.

I first met Rick Hansen on October 24 in Ottawa as the minister responsible for disabled persons. I am also responsible for co-ordinating the Ontario government's involvement with the Man in Motion world tour. On behalf of the Premier and the government, I greeted Rick as he crossed the interprovincial bridge from Hull, Quebec. I was already deeply impressed by his courage and dedication to his dream, but after meeting him I admire him even more. Rick displays a rare ability to share his vision with others and to instil in them his enthusiasm.

In closing, I will address a few words directly to Rick himself. Rick, you have covered a lot of ground in the past year and a half and we know you still have a long way to go before you reach home. When you leave our province in another eight weeks or so, you will be heading off in the middle of winter, a challenge in itself. Please know that you will take with you the warmth and support of the people of Ontario. We are proud to have had you with us and proud to have been a part of your dream.

You will leave behind a legacy of increased understanding and awareness. Obviously, Rick, we need people like you. We cannot all do what you are doing, but you show us that all people can contribute in their own special way. If I may adapt a line that has become quite familiar of late, we would like to say we are all with you, Rick. Good luck in your travels and have a safe trip home.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

13:50

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It might be appropriate to ask for unanimous consent for some remarks pertaining to Remembrance Day.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On Tuesday, November 11, Canadians of all generations across the country will honour those courageous individuals who put their lives on the line to protect and defend those things that we in this county hold to be dear. On behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I would like to take this opportunity to express the government of Ontario's respect and gratitude.

The Canadian effort in the First World War, the Second World War and the Korean war was immense. More than 1.5 million Canadians served overseas, more than 100,000 were killed and many more were wounded. They gave of themselves, and many of them paid with their lives for a heritage they valued and a vision they treasured. Our way of life is their memorial, our freedom is their legacy and the achievement of world peace is the best monument we could erect in their honour.

In this province and in this country, we are very fortunate. For most of us, war is a remote thing. We see it on television, we hear about it on radio or we read about it in the newspapers. We can be grateful that war is not a part of our daily lives. On Tuesday, Remembrance Day, we have an opportunity to express our gratitude and direct it to those to whom we owe such an enormous debt. Their efforts will not be forgotten.

Mr. Harris: Across the province, in communities large and small, people will bow their heads on November 11 for one minute's silence. Their prayer will not be to glorify the past; it will be a thanksgiving for what we enjoy today, for the ideals that underlie our freedom. This thanksgiving prayer will not be made in a spirit of complacency. The message of the 20th century has been that freedom must be continually guarded in a world where more than three quarters of mankind live in the shadow of totalitarian government. Freedom is a precious flame.

Canadians have defended freedom in two global conflicts. We are not a war-like people. We have never taken up arms for conquest, but we have defended ideas and the rights of people to hold those ideas. Today, with the hope that a treaty between the superpowers will strengthen the dream of peace and freedom that inspired earlier generations to put their lives on the line, we have even greater reason to pause next Tuesday. Peace has its victories that are more lasting than those won in battle, but we live in a violent world. Since the end of the Second World War, more than 200 conflicts have been fought.

Einstein once remarked that peace can only be achieved by understanding. November 11 provides us with an opportunity, at least for one minute, to achieve some small fragment of understanding. Remembrance Day is our day to think about the freedoms that so many Canadians gave their lives to preserve, to think about the peace they won but did not have a chance to enjoy. They have thrown us the torch to hold high, and we in this Legislature must work to strengthen their vision of a free world at peace. We will remember them, not just from a sense of reverence, not to glorify the past and not to boast about great victories, but for their sake, for our own sake and for the sake of our children.

Mr. Rae: In 1916, the British poet Siegfried Sassoon wrote a poem called Song-Books of the War, which I would like to read to the House:

In fifty years, when peace outshines

Remembrance of the battle lines,

Adventurous lads will sigh and cast

Proud looks upon the plundered past.

On summer morn or winter's night,

Their hearts will kindle for the fight,

Reading a snatch of soldier-song,

Savage and jaunty, fierce and strong;

And through the angry marching rhymes

Of blind regret and haggard mirth,

They'll envy us the dazzling times

When sacrifice absolved our earth.

Some ancient man with silver locks

Will lift his weary face to say:

`War was a fiend who stopped our clocks

Although we met him grim and gay.'

And then he'll speak of Haig's last drive,

Marvelling that any came alive

Out of the shambles that men built

And smashed, to cleanse the world of guilt.

But the boys, with grin and sidelong glance,

Will think, `Poor granddad's day is done.'

And dream of lads who fought in France

And lived in time to share the fun.

On November 11, we remember, out of that awful experience of the First World War, when literally tens of thousands of Canadian lads from towns, villages and communities all across this country gave up their lives in that awful struggle.

Siegfried Sassoon was writing as if, in 50 years from then, it would be inconceivable that countries and men and women would go to war again, but that has not been the experience of the 20th century. The experience of our century has been very different and very awful.

Canada became a nation in so many ways in that first struggle, and there are still, as we remember them and think of them, a number of Canadians still alive who fought in that terrible war.

I think it would be fair to say that there are very few young lads and, indeed, young women today who would yearn for the fight in the way perhaps generations have in the past. In fact, I think there is a stronger desire for peace in this generation and a better recognition of the horrendous possibilities of war than perhaps ever before.

As has already been said by so many -- and we will have occasion in the next few days to speak our minds as a House with respect to questions of nuclear war, nuclear security and nuclear peace -- without any question, the way in which we can best pay tribute to those young lads, to those women who died in France, to those who died all over the world in the Second World War and to those who died in Korea on behalf of the United Nations, perhaps the best way we can remember them and honour them, and honour and remember their families, their children and their widows is by doing more in our own lives and in our own generation to make sure quite simply that it never happens again.

Indeed, as we speak, wars are going on all over the world, wars as destructive in their way as the wars that were fought by Canadians some 60 or 70 years ago and some 40 years ago. Through our international work we have to do whatever we can to make them stop and to make nations finally realize that nothing is gained by this needless and useless sacrifice of human life.

I firmly believe, as firmly as I believe anything in this world, that the best way for us to pay tribute to those in this country who have died is for us to do everything we can in our own lives and in our generation to see that it never happens again.

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me it would be appropriate if we were to observe one minute's silence in remembrance of those who gave their lives for the benefit of all of us, and more particularly for those of us in this chamber, who enjoy parliamentary democracy.

Please rise with me and observe one minute's silence.

The House observed one minute's silence.

14:02

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

M. Guindon: Monsieur le Président, permettez-moi de vous dire, en tant que député de Cornwall, combien je suis fier de constater que le projet de loi 8 arrivera enfin après tant de retard et de remises en question.

Cette loi viendra enfin consacrer des pratiques qui étaient devenues courantes sous le régime Davis. Nous avons bâti, petit à petit, brique par brique, une maison dont nous sommes fiers, et le projet de loi 8 représente la consécration de cette oeuvre.

Nous reconnaissons toutefois qu'il ne faut pas s'attendre à ce que tout soit en place dès que l'encre du document officiel sera séchée. Nous savons qu'il reste beaucoup plus à faire et nous désirons en avoir l'assurance formelle. C'est pour cette raison que nous du Parti conservateur demandons un amendement réduisant à deux ans, plutôt que trois ans, le délai de mise en oeuvre des services.

Nous demandons également que le mandat des quatre personnes nommées à la commission soit permanent. La présence des quatre permanents au sein de cette commission donnera au gouvernement plus de chance de faire tout ce qui doit être fait dans le cadre des échéanciers prescrits.

En tant que francophone, je suis fier et j'espère que les efforts seront mis de l'avant afin que tous les Franco-Ontariens puissent, dans les délais prévus, avoir accès aux services promis. Au fait, je ne fais pas qu'espérer, j'attends y veiller avec diligence, car comme nous le disons si bien chez nous: chose promise est chose due. Merci.

CASE OF HARRY KOPYTO

Ms. Gigantes: Lawyer Harry Kopyto has been charged, convicted and sentenced for contempt of court by scandalizing the court. His crime was to tell a reporter in florid, everyday language that our courts favour the testimony of police officers and support their behaviour and misbehaviour as opposed to the testimony and rights of other citizens.

The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) decided Mr. Kopyto had threatened the administration of justice. He had Mr. Kopyto charged. Justice Montgomery heard the case in the Supreme Court of Ontario. The defence was not permitted to have witnesses speak to the validity of Mr. Kopyto's statement. Justice Montgomery said in judgement, "The Crown did not doubt the sincerity of Mr. Kopyto. Indeed, no one doubted the sincerity of his desire to right social injustice. What is objected to by the Crown is the hyperbolic and value-laden language and tone used by Mr. Kopyto." He said later, "I find his words were spoken from anger, not conscience."

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers who performed dirty tricks in Ontario have never been punished by our courts. The Attorney General has seen fit to have court punishment meted out to a lawyer who, in conscience, expressed anger about that fact. The Attorney General is guilty of contempt for free speech. He has scandalized the public's belief in the value of truth and justice.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Stevenson: This is entitled The Search for Farming's Tomorrow.

As one soap opera comes to an end, another is in great disorganization. Our Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) refers to himself as the king in the castle, and when he parades in his kingdom, he is known as Cadillac Jack.

In an early episode in his reign, the king stated, "I am in the driver's seat now," and he appealed to those in his kingdom to jump on and enjoy the ride. In another episode, a group of fruit farmers from Niagara had their crops destroyed by hail. The king appeared in his tower with his wizard and shouted to the farmers to go back to the fields because the crops in other regions of the kingdom were adequate for his needs.

In the latest episode, the council of the township of Stanley in the Huron-Middlesex part of the kingdom has asked for disaster relief in the light of the inadequacy of the king's crop insurance program, but the request did not go to the king, it went to his federal counterpart.

Oh, the suspense and suspicion. Will the king get his part of the $6 billion of massive new revenues his Treasurer has raised in the kingdom in the past two years to help the farmers near Varna? Will the king get part of the $400-million windfall in the past six months, or will the king go out on a trip to Atlanta with his queen? Stay tuned, as we search for farming's tomorrow.

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

Mr. Philip: During the next few days, most members will be participating with members of the Royal Canadian Legion and other constituents in services remembering those heroic people who sacrificed their lives to protect our democratic way of life.

The Canadian Legion was established in 1925 and incorporated in the following year. It is well to note that for 60 years members of the Royal Canadian Legion have worked for justice on behalf of all citizens. In 1929, the legion sought a minimum wage for all Canadian workers, and the following year its protests resulted in the cutting of the veteran's indebtedness and the establishment of a pension appeal court.

The legion showed its progressive ideals when, in 1932, it developed a concern about the rights of individual privacy. This resulted in stopping the government from its foul practice of publishing the names, the pensions and the details of disability for disabled pensioners. 1n 1938, the legion took up the cause of inadequate low-rental housing, as Canada was the only western country without legislation supporting accommodation for poor people. The following year, thanks in part to the pressure of the legion, free hospitalization was provided for disabled veterans who could not afford it.

In 1951, the legion asked for a federal increase of one third in the cost of living for disabled pensioners, which was approved in November of that year.

We owe the members of the legion our vote of thanks for what they have done for people in our constituencies and for what they have done for all Canadians.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Ward: For the past 15 years, the people in my community have been waiting expectantly for work to begin on the Ancaster to Brantford portion of Highway 403. I know this has been a matter of great concern not only for myself but also for the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon).

Over the course of the past several years, this project has been the subject of many promises but little in the way of tangible activity. In 1981, the