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

May 21, 1987

33rd Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L014 - Thu 21 May 1987 / Jeu 21 mai 1987

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO HYDRO RATES IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS

ONTARIO HYDRO RATES IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MULTICULTURALISM

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

TAX INCREASES

PLANT SHUTDOWN

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EDUCATION FUNDING

PRESERVING ONTARIO'S ARCHITECTURE

PREPAID SERVICES

RESPONSES

EDUCATION FUNDING

PREPAID SERVICES

PRESERVING ONTARIO'S ARCHITECTURE

ORAL QUESTIONS

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

EDUCATION FUNDING

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

EDUCATION FUNDING

PUBLIC SERVICE

PROVINCIAL INCOME TAX

TRANSIT SERVICES

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

CHILD CARE

DEFICIT

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

RETAIL SALES TAX

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

VISITORS

PETITIONS

PROVINCIAL TAXES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

DRUG PRICING

HOMEMAKERS WEEK

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON RETAIL STORE HOURS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMITTEE SITTING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PREPAID SERVICES ACT

PUBLIC HOSPITALS AMENDMENT ACT

FARM MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT ACT

MENTAL HEALTH STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

GAME AND FISH AMENDMENT ACT

FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT

RECORD OF DEBATES

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE

SCHEDULE

COMMITTEE MEETINGS

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

ROYAL ASSENT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO HYDRO RATES IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Gordon moved resolution 11:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing:

That Ontario Hydro, as a crown corporation, is to be used as a public policy tool in the service of the economic development of Ontario;

That northern Ontario has not enjoyed the economic boom currently being experienced in southern Ontario and has developed fundamental economic structural problems that must be addressed with imaginative and resourceful policymaking;

That longer winters in northern Ontario mean that northerners must consume more electricity and this, in turn, contributes substantially to the higher costs of living and doing business in northern Ontario;

That the Rosehart report on resource-dependent communities in northern Ontario identified higher energy costs resulting from harsher weather conditions as one of the key factors in the higher cost of doing business in the north;

That the challenge of economic renewal in the north must be addressed on all fronts because of its far-reaching social and economic benefits;

That lower hydro rates will help established northern resource industries to compete on a worldwide basis;

That lowering hydro rates in northern Ontario will stimulate the development of new industry and jobs for northerners;

That lowering hydro rates will return money to the pockets of ordinary northerners who pay more for energy;

Therefore, we call on the government of Ontario to develop a policy that uses Ontario Hydro as an instrument for the economic and social transformation of northern Ontario through the lowering of hydro rates in northern Ontario, thereby ameliorating the high costs of living and conducting business in the north.

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

Mr. Gordon: I want to make it clear this morning that this resolution represents another attempt at finding home-grown solutions to the economic problems that exist in northern Ontario.

Northerners have known for years that high energy costs not only play a major role in taking money out of the pockets of ordinary northerners but also, over the years, have dissuaded some industries, manufacturers, etc., from locating in the north. As a matter of fact, manufacturers have faced energy costs as high as 10 per cent and 20 per cent more than they would have expected to pay in the south. When they find this out, they decide that instead of locating somewhere in northern Ontario they are going to locate in an area such as Toronto.

In my view, we have for years -- and this government is as guilty of it as any -- approached the symptoms of the economic problems in the north rather than looked at the strategic, structural problems that exist there. It is my view that the time has come to come up with a clear policy, a clear way in which this government can help the north to attain the same type of economic stability and opportunity that we see here in southern Ontario.

To date, there have been a few in the north who from time to time have pointed out that one of the ways in which the north can be helped is through the lowering of hydro rates, but it was not until just last week that the regional chairman for Sudbury, Tom Davies, started a campaign, and quite rightfully so, to see that hydro rates were lowered in northern Ontario. To their credit, the regional chairman and his council have initiated a campaign that is now spreading throughout northern Ontario. This Legislature and this government can expect to hear much more about this particular issue over the coming months.

As I indicated at the beginning, one of the fundamental problems is those of us who live and work in the north know that the high cost of energy has a direct effect on job opportunities for our people. The solution that would make northern Ontario competitive with southern Ontario would be the lowering of hydro rates. That is not an earth-shattering idea, is it? I can see the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) over there smiling benignly. Of course we do not want him to give us a benign look -- at least not of benign neglect.

What we want is his intervention at the cabinet table to see that this idea, which is approaching the problem of structural unemployment in the north with an innovative solution, such as lowering of hydro rates, is something that should be discussed at that table and should be given every consideration. Of course I know he is going to push for it to go through.

Nevertheless, we in the north are tired of being ripped off. We are tired of seeing our people without jobs. We are calling upon the government today to recognize that for too long there have been two Ontarios. For those members who are not aware of the two Ontarios, I might point out that there is the prosperous south where at the present time unemployment is only 4.7 per cent, where every few months we see automobile plants or parts plants being established, and where in the past 18 months alone 75,000 new jobs have been created in the finance sector.

Then there is the other Ontario, which the Premier (Mr. Peterson) wants to drag into the space age by making us high-tech hewers of wood and water; the other Ontario, which is still struggling through a recession, which has an unemployment rate of 13 per cent and which has lost 20,000 jobs in the past two years. That is the other Ontario. There can be no mistake about it: northern Ontario is quite unlike the south.

If the government is still not convinced, let me draw another mental picture of what is going on in the north, and it is not a pretty picture. I see a few of the government members have taken this opportunity to step out of the legislative room. Perhaps it is a picture they do not want to be reminded of, but we pay a price in the north for this underdevelopment in terms of family violence, family breakdown and mental stress. It is no more appealing to us than it is to the government.

Northern Ontario makes up 87 per cent of the territory of this great province. It contains nine per cent of the population and eight per cent of the labour force; but also 11 per cent of all Ontario's unemployed, 73 per cent of all mining unemployed and 70 per cent of all forestry unemployed. In the past six years, we have lost 26 per cent of our mining jobs. The number of unemployed in northern Ontario is nearly equal to that of Newfoundland and is actually greater than the number of unemployed in Saskatchewan.

Our climate is harsher, requiring greater energy consumption, both residentially and industrially. There are longer distances between population centres, which of course results in isolation and high transportation costs, a subject we tried to address just a week ago. The majority of communities are dependent upon single-resource industries. The municipal tax base is much narrower than those of southern Ontario communities. As a result of that narrow industrial base, the participation rate of women in the work force is much lower than anywhere else in Ontario.

In actual fact, secondary manufacturing throughout northern Ontario is almost negligible. The northern share of the provincial population has been declining over the past 30 years and the unemployment situation has been growing steadily worse. All the negative population, labour force and other economic and social trends are directly attributable to the north's dependence upon resource industries.

Diminishing economic opportunity in labour force growth rates have seen northern Ontario's labour force grow by only 49 per cent since 1961. This compares poorly to the 91 per cent labour force growth rate for southern Ontario, 65 per cent for Prince Edward Island, 72 per cent for Quebec and 87 per cent for Canada as a whole.

In my view, and in the view of many people who live in the north, the key to ending northern Ontario's dependence upon the extractive industries and to freeing the people from the vicious boom-bust cycles we have experienced over the past years would be the lowering of hydro rates in northern Ontario. This is one way in which we can work to diversify northern Ontario.

This is not to say we should ignore the traditional resource-based industries. In fact, their competitive position needs to be improved in order to protect existing jobs in this area as well as to create new jobs.

The lowering of hydro rates for northern Ontario would be a catalyst to economic development for the entire north. It would mean that for the first time we would be doing something concrete to ensure that more manufacturing jobs moved into the north. That is the key to the future economic development of northern Ontario.

Let us take an example of that. Northern Quebec has been experiencing quite a boom of new industries moving into northern Quebec. One of the chief reasons for that has been that the Quebec government has been following a policy of providing better hydro rates for those firms that locate in the northern part of Quebec. This is a policy, and this is the kind of policy this government here in Toronto, in Queen's Park, should be putting into place, and this is a policy that was sadly lacking in the throne speech. This is a policy that showed no evidence of being anywhere in that budget that was brought down yesterday.

In northern Quebec at the present time, there are 53 -- count them; 53 -- new industries because the provincial government has instituted a policy of lower hydro rates in northern Quebec. These are high-tech industries. These are industries that provide jobs, labour-intensive jobs, for many Quebeckers. I can see no reason why this government could not take similar policy steps.

To ask that Ontario Hydro's rates be lowered as a means to ameliorate some of the most outrageous inequalities between northern and southern Ontario and as a means of spurring the economic development of the north is not a new or radical idea in itself. I want to stress that; it is not a new or radical idea in itself.

Let us go back to November 3. I am sure the government members on the other side can remember November 3, 1986, at, I believe, the Holiday Inn in Sault Ste. Marie. There was a conference on northern competitiveness. At that conference, the Premier said, "We have to look at Ontario Hydro as a development tool." He further said, "I invite you to use your creativity in that regard, because Ontario Hydro's instructions are to work with local people, work with entrepreneurs and work with the north to build a stronger economic base here."

That is exactly what this motion does, so I am sure the government members on the other side will heed the Premier's words today and will be voting for this motion unanimously.

I would also like to quote a well-known columnist in the Toronto area, and that is Rosemary Speirs. In one of her insightful columns, she wrote, "Northern and eastern Ontario are not sharing in that prosperity today, and that raises the question of whether cheaper hydro rates or Hydro projects should be used to promote regional economic development." Yes, Rosemary, we are asking that question today here in the Legislature.

The connection between cheap energy and economic prosperity is well established. There is a high correlation between energy consumption and employment opportunities. That is a well-known fact in Ontario, and we have to go no further than the current chairman of Ontario Hydro to be reminded of it. Tom Campbell, chairman of Ontario Hydro, told the Legislature's select committee on energy only two years ago, and again I would like to quote the eminent Mr. Campbell:

"Electricity has always been a building block of our economy and it plays an even more significant role today. It has helped businesses convert to lower-cost and more efficient processes, to remain competitive and to preserve jobs." Then he added, and I think this is particularly significant for the government, "Its reliability and reasonable rates have been a factor in industries choosing to locate in Ontario."

I sat on that select committee on energy, and every time the Hydro people appeared before us the one point they kept making about Ontario Hydro and its effect on attracting industry or keeping industry in Ontario was the fact that it was so competitive and its rates were so good. Why cannot we in the north have some of those good rates? What is wrong with us? Why do we have to put up with a further 20,000 people being unemployed over the past two years? Why can we not share in some of the prosperity?

Why does this government walk out on the streets and say: "We located 280 new government jobs in Sudbury. Look what a great thing we have done." My goodness, does the government not know that only a few short years ago the federal government put 2,500 jobs into Sudbury? The government gives us 280 civil service jobs that blue-collar people cannot do; blue-collar people do not work in civil service jobs.

That is it in a nutshell: Tom Campbell saying, "Its reliability and reasonable rates have been a factor in industries choosing to locate in Ontario." I think the members of this Legislature should note that Inco Ltd. has begun a $25-million project at its Crean Hill mine. It is all electrically run, and that is the wave of the future for mining. If we want to help the resource industries as well as attract manufacturing into the north, then the time has come to ensure that hydro rates are lowered in the north.

We are not asking for handouts. We are tired of being turned into a banana republic in the north. We see we are being turned into a third world; there is the other Ontario and it is us. There is no reason for it. Lower the hydro rates. Give us a chance to compete on an equal footing with the rest of Ontario and the rest of the world, and give our people something to hold on to.

The Deputy Speaker: The member wishes to reserve five minutes and 50 seconds for his windup, I believe.

Mr. Foulds: I rise to support the resolution, although I have some mixed feelings. It is the classic case where one has to divest oneself of one's sort of argumentum ad hominem; that is, the argument against the person. I really do think that in 42 years, when the Tories had power, they could have brought some control over Ontario Hydro to make sure Ontario Hydro was an instrument for regional development, particularly in the north, and they failed to do so. However, there is nothing like a good healthy dose of opposition to make a former government party realize how important hydro development is in economic development.

In developing nations, one of the first cries, for example, when India got its independence from the British Empire, the two main planks in the platform were electrification and education. Those symbolized both the hardware and the software, the social services and the hardware services that were necessary to bring that nation into the 20th century.

I do not say that the north is not in the 20th century. It certainly is. It is into the 1980s good and properly, partly because the former Tory government failed to deal with the structural problems in the economy of the north. While I support this resolution and think it will go a small way to helping the economic development in the north, much more is needed.

Let me talk first about Hydro in northern Ontario. For years, northern Ontario business could not get the preferred commercial rate from Ontario Hydro for economic development. For years and years under the Tories that was true, and I say that has a lot to do with the underdevelopment of our industry in northern Ontario. It is something that must come.

Second, I want to say that this government failed with Ontario Hydro when it refused to negotiate a contract with Manitoba Hydro for an assured power supply in northwestern Ontario. They could have got an assured power supply for centuries by upgrading transmission lines. I have on record a letter from the Manitoba Minister of Energy in the mid-1970s indicating that he was anxious for that assured power supply, which would have been hydro power and cheaper, and would have given us an assured economic development or helped to give us an assured economic development.

The government may say -- and the Tories of the past always said -- that Hydro was governed by the Power Corporation Act and therefore could not be used in the way we want it to be used because it had to deliver power at cost. It depends on how you figure out that cost and it depends on how you figure out the customers and so on. A lot can be done with accounting to fiddle around with that, to put it very mildly.

Let me give credit to the former Tory government in one respect. They have used Ontario Hydro as an economic development tool in one case. My friend the member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce) will know where that happened, and that is in the town of Atikokan, where they made a deliberate decision to place a thermal generating plant which was needed. It was not a gift, it was not something new, it was needed in the area and in the system. They decided to place it in Atikokan because Atikokan at that time was suffering an economic downturn. How much better it would have been if that plant had been planned for Atikokan in the first place, as we knew that the mine was running out.

I think a second part of the Hydro development in northern Ontario has to be the development of small power stations, mini stations. Hydro has to be condemned for assuming that all Ontario had to be part of this magnificent province-wide grid. I suggest that when it comes to the electrification of small villages like Armstrong, north of Lake Nipigon, it makes much more sense not to deliver, as it does now, very expensive diesel power, but to throw a small generator into a small stream near that village and simply draw the electric line from that generator to that village, instead of trying to plug it into the whole system.

We could do that in many small, remote villages in northern Ontario and do it quite effectively and inexpensively. That too would help the economic development of tourism in those areas. They would have cheaper hydro rates because it would be hydraulic power and not expensive diesel power and it would mean they could have more than mere residential electricity, which is all they have now at the very best. They are not able to have enough in their system to have either highly developed commercial activities or highly developed industrial activities.

The one part of Hydro's plan for economic development in the north that we want no part of is putting the nuclear waste into northern Ontario. That ain't, if I may say so, economic development. They are simply absolving themselves from the responsibility for the huge problem that is being created. The nuclear industry never knew how to get rid of nuclear waste; it still does not and it is trying to bamboozle the public on that point. If the storage of nuclear waste is safe, then it should be stored near where the producing plants are. If it is safe, then it is safe near an established population as well as in a remote area of the province.

I just want to conclude with a couple of points. First of all, I note that it is very interesting that my good friend the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) is here to participate in the debate. I am sure he will participate with the usual vigour, emotion and heartfelt commitment that he has for the north.

But I regret very much that the new member of the Liberal Party from the north, the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay), who appeared to be so happy over the shafting the north took in the budget yesterday, is not here for this debate. I would have thought that, of any debate, the member for Timiskaming should be here participating in a debate that has to do with the economic development of northern Ontario and Ontario Hydro.

There are three or four other points that I would like to make without being too provocative. First, we need not merely the narrow kind of economic development that this resolution brings forward, but we need to develop a genuine heritage fund and not the kind of wishy-washy underfunded program that the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) announced yesterday that will be at the pleasure of the government and at the pleasure of Queen's Park bureaucrats with the advice of Liberal-dominated economic advisory committees.

The member for Cochrane North should note that it is only advice; that is the thing. Those economic committees have no power, and I have to say to him that it is going to be the minister, his bureaucrats and his southern-Ontario-dominated cabinet that are going to make those final decisions. We need the kind of economic heritage fund that will be managed by northerners. It has to have the substance so that they can devise the tools to create their own solutions.

Second, we need the diversification of industry in many areas. If the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) were as sincere as he believes about energy prices, he would talk not only about bringing Ontario Hydro under control and giving better rates for northern Ontario but also about taking the private sector under public control, if not ownership, because natural gas and the distribution of natural gas in northern Ontario are a scandal.

What we should have for cheap power for heating and other purposes is a much better distribution system of natural gas throughout northern Ontario, particularly to many of the one-industry towns. That would help not only industrial development but also with the bills northerners face because of the heating of their homes in remote communities with electricity, which is very expensive over a long period.

Finally, I want to say that I find it ironic that this motion is brought forward by a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, who was a member of government and who, if I may say so, did absolutely nothing when Premier Davis killed the select committee on Ontario Hydro after the Conservatives got their majority back in 1981. They tried to cover up the inadequacy of Hydro in terms of economic development and in terms of its nuclear imperialism.

M. Fontaine: C'était avec grande surprise ce matin que j'écoutais mon ami le député de Sudbury parler sur l'économie du nord de l'Ontario -- l'économie qu'il dit vient d'arriver dans le nord de l'Ontario depuis deux ans. Je veux rappeler à mon ami de Sudbury que le nord de l'Ontario existe depuis au moins 100 ans et, si on est dans une situation économique très grave, c'est l'héritage du Parti conservateur.

C'est l'héritage dans le sens que, après la guerre, il n'y avait pas de division ou de décentralisation du sud de l'Ontario. Il n'y avait pas de décision d'amener au moins quelque

partie de l'industrie de l'automobile, non plus de décision d'amener l'industrie de pièces d'automobile. Plutôt, on a pris l'argent de l'industrie du nord de l'Ontario. Les ressources donnaient presque $15 milliards-$14.9 milliards d'argent -- mais dans le tour, ça ne vaudrait rien.

Aujourd'hui, le député de Sudbury vient de nous parler d'une nouvelle vision du nord de l'Ontario. Mais, elle est tard, sa vision. La vision a dû être là après la guerre.

After the war, the division of northern Ontario from the rest of the province should have taken place. It is not my fault and it is not the fault of the Liberals that there was no decentralization of power and no decentralization of industry after the war. That was the previous government's fault. It did not even bring one industry, the automobile industry, to the north. It did not even bring one little part-industry to the north. Now that the Conservatives are in opposition, they say, "What is happening in the north?" It is happening because that is the heritage of that party to us in the north, to my children and my grandchildren. It has nothing to do with Hydro at this point.

They had their chance with Hydro in 1977. They had their chance all their lives with Hydro and they did nothing for us. We suffered in the north. We in my little town were given hydro in 1956. Mr. Kelly came to us, and like a little baby we had to beg him, and he said, "I will give you a little hydro;" and after 50 years we had hydro in Hearst.

That was the real test of that party. We were blinded by all the promises: a little school over here, a little airport over there and a little road over there; and that is it. If their vision of the north had been to bring other industry, then today we would not be in this economic situation. The situation did not happen in two years. It has happened over 42 years of history, not two years.

Mr. Gordon: You have done nothing, absolutely nothing.

Mr. Fontaine: The member said we did nothing about Hydro since I arrived over here. I had many meetings with Hydro. I will tell the member something. We recognize the economic problems experienced in the north.

Mr. Gordon: You have done absolutely nothing. All we have seen is --

M. Fontaine: Je dis au membre de laisser faire et lui dis de fermer sa gueule. Je veux lui parler. Il m'emporte, lui.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order. Voulez-vous, s'il vous plaît, retirer la remarque que vous avez faite vis-à-vis le député.

M. Fontaine: Quelle remarque?

Le président suppléant: De fermer sa gueule.

M. Fontaine: Je la retire.

For a few months we have been working on exploring, in connection with the other ministries, ways in which Ontario Hydro can be used as an instrument for promoting economic development in northern Ontario. Two weeks ago, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) announced an advisory committee to study the matter we are talking about here today.

Mr. Gordon: Anything from that is two years down the road.

Mr. Fontaine: It will not take that long. There are people from the member's mining community; there is a woman, a native, on it. Last year, we formed another committee to study the Hydro grid on the Hudson Bay coast.

Another thing we are doing right now is we are working in conjunction with the pulp and paper industry to try to find out a way of cogeneration to produce 180 megawatts. At the same time, we are working with sawmills. We will be in the north, in Cochrane, on June 5, about a cogeneration plant there; and there will be another one. We are looking at Longlac for cogeneration. Another thing we are doing is we are working to try to keep our plants economical in northern Ontario. We are working with pulp and paper to find ways and means to give them a chance to build thermomechanical pulp or chemithermomechanical pulp. That is what we have been doing for a year.

At the same time we opened up the process to give a chance to the private entrepreneurs to be part of the hydro in northern Ontario, to use our rivers and build some smaller dams. They will not only produce hydro, but they are going to sell to Hydro. The Ministry of Energy has upped its rates to give a chance to the entrepreneur to survive. We tried that in Hearst in 1976 but Hydro killed us.

We spent over $500,000 of government money. When it came to the end, Hydro told us in Hearst that the rate would not grow by more than 4.2 per cent. It is funny, after this project was crushed and the plant was shelved, the hydro went up nine per cent, 10 per cent, 8.2 per cent, until about two years ago when it went down four per cent. But they told us 4.2 per cent because they did not want us to build in Hearst.

We have spent $500,000 of the government's money, plus another $100,000 to $200,000 from the industry and another $1,000 from the town of Hearst. We spent close to $800,000 on that project. It was a viable project. The report is still there in the files of the government. It is called the Hearst Hydro Project. The same project was used later in Chapleau, and now in Cochrane and maybe Longlac: but Hearst, no; Hydro did not want it.

We opened up the process for that kind of little industry; we opened up the process to the entrepreneur, the small guy, to build those hydros to give us more power and to try to give us a better rate there.

I agree with my friend the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) that we should change the act one of these days. I want to remind the member for Sudbury that the Conservatives had 42 years to change the act and they did not.

Mr. Gordon: This Liberal government has done nothing -- all words, words.

Mr. Fontaine: We are not Quebec. Quebec has a different way with hydro. The member can ask his friends in the industry. Quebec is different. They negotiate rates, and I wish that Ontario would do the same thing. Maybe we will see it in a year, maybe we will see it in two years, but it is going to be a long process and it is going to be up to us here in the House to do it. We must change the act. The act does not change like that; it is a law. I think we will have to work towards this.

I want to remind my honourable friend that northern Ontario was not born only two years ago. It is on account of his party's policy, when the Conservatives were in government, that we are stuck as we are right now. If they had had a vision about northern Ontario they should have given us hydro in 1940 or in 1935, and not, in my area, in 1956.

It has been the same thing with roads. They came to pave the roads in 1968 and after that they came back in 1982; that is all. Every 10 years they come back to give us a little thing. After that, they come here and tell me in the House that after two years it is our fault. It is going to take us more than two years to put northern Ontario on the right track. It is going to take 10 to 15 years.

Mr. Foulds: What?

Mr. Fontaine: I said 10 to 15 years.

Mr. Gordon: But the member will not be part of the government for 10 or 15 years.

Mr. Fontaine: The member knows that because he studied that. You cannot repair damage that fast. One thing we have to do is to work in a way that will enhance industry. I agree that Hydro is part of it. In my first speech in northern Ontario I said there were three things that should happen, using Hydro as a development tool. This speech by the member for Sudbury came from my first speech in northern Ontario. I discussed Hydro in Sault Ste. Marie, in Thunder Bay and in Kenora.

On my first trip using my $100,000, I did not use the money to go on a fishing holiday as some ministers used to do, taking the government plane to go fishing on the lakes or go to the big town of Sutton River. I used that money to go to every little village in northern Ontario to listen to them and what they told me.

I told them that Hydro should be used as an economic tool and that our transportation system should used as an economic tool. The government, with the help of my friends across from here, with the help of New Democratic Party ideas -- I agree they gave me a few good ideas -- is going to use that to give northern Ontario a better way. I support the resolution in principle.

Mr. Pierce: I do not know whether I can be quite as energetic as the member for Cochrane North, but I will certainly do my best to prepare myself for the debate and speak on behalf of the resolution moved by the member for Sudbury.

First, we have to clear away the myth that all the people in northern Ontario have hydro. What we are doing is arguing about the cost of hydro once it is provided. Since I was elected in 1985, I have had a fairly large file of people in northern Ontario who are without hydro. On a recent trip to Taiwan, travelling through some of the remotest, roughest and hilliest country any of us had ever experienced, you could look off in any direction and see lights that were servicing small individual homes in the mountains. That is not the case in northern Ontario.

Let me give just a small sampling of what it means to try to get hydro in northern Ontario. A single-parent mother has asked for service in her residence. She lives one mile away from the last hydro line. Ontario Hydro has responded to her request by saying: "There is no problem in servicing your property. It will require from you $25,224.21.

If you are having trouble, Ontario Hydro has an arrangement with the Royal Bank on bank-approved loans where up to $10,000 can be loaned at an interest rate of 7.0 per cent." I am sure this is very comforting to this single-parent mother with two children who depends on nobody for anything but asks that she be given hydro service. This is part of the cost of hydro in northern Ontario.

I have another request for hydro service for 27 customers who border along a lake and who at present are not serviced by hydro. Hydro calculations to these 27 customers are that if they require hydro and they agree to enter into a signed agreement with Ontario Hydro, it will cost them individually $19,684.

I will give members another example. A couple living in the northern part of my riding asked that Bell Canada provide telephone service on existing hydro lines. Bell Canada is not prepared to use the existing hydro lines because they are not tall enough and has asked the customers to install a new line at their own cost.

Another couple whose hydro line had deteriorated went to Ontario Hydro because they wanted to upgrade the service from 100-amp service to 200-amp service. Ontario Hydro's response was: "No problem. We will change the 30-foot poles to 40-foot poles. It will cost you $294 plus provincial sales tax of $20.64, for a total of $315.45 for each pole replaced."

We are now in receipt of correspondence from Ontario Hydro in northern Ontario looking for line extension and an east-west tie line to bring eastern Ontario power to northern Ontario.

One of the earlier speakers, my colleague the member for Port Arthur, said Ontario Hydro had made one positive move in assisting economic development when it constructed the thermal generating plant in Atikokan. Ontario Hydro could make a second good economic move by increasing the size of the power generating plant in Atikokan.

He also talked briefly about the supply of power from Manitoba. Certainly, there is a supply of power. When I was at the mine in Atikokan as electrician we did not have assured power from Manitoba. I could bring out the old logbooks from the pelletizing plant and show members on record the power failures we experienced because we were dependent on hydro lines that went over some fairly rough terrain and were subject to a lot of damage in heavy storms.

Mr. Foulds: And they were inadequate.

Mr. Pierce: That is right. The lines were inadequate, the service was not assured service and there was a reluctance on the part of Ontario Hydro to upgrade the lines because of the nonassurance of the power being supplied by Manitoba.

Certainly, during the drought in northern Ontario, when the hydraulic plants were not producing power, all the coal-fired plants were up to maximum capacity and we suffered load rejection, which meant that the industry in northern Ontario was shut down because there was not enough power available. When we talk about moving industries into northern Ontario, it is not long before their experts look back into the records and find out what the guarantee of service is if you move out of the main core of Ontario.

When my colleague the member for Sudbury talks about two Ontarios, there is no question in the minds of the people of northern Ontario that we have two Ontarios. In talking to an editor of a local newspaper yesterday after the budget, he said to me, "Jack, the budget means one thing and one thing alone: if you have not already moved east it is time to move now." That is an editor of a local newspaper making that kind of comment. That is indicative of what is happening in this province today.

We talk about low unemployment rates and again we have to talk about industrial development. Low unemployment rates exist in eastern Ontario. High unemployment rates exist in northern Ontario because there is not a commitment on the part of the government to make sure industrial development takes place in northern Ontario.

In order to encourage industrial development, we have to assure those industries that they will get the necessary services to make their industries work. Whether we do it by lower hydro rates, whether we do it by lower transportation costs, whether we do it by tax incentives or however we do it, it has to be done and it can only be done by government. Private industry is prepared to put up its money but it has to have a commitment on the part of the government.

I will be voting in favour of the resolution by the member. I applaud him for bringing this resolution forward. It is another step in identifying the problems that exist in northern Ontario today. They existed yesterday and they will be there tomorrow unless somebody has the political will to stand up in the cabinet and in Management Board of Cabinet and say: "Yes, gentlemen, we are going to do something about the problems in northern Ontario, and we are going to deal with them in this way: we are going to deal with them in a way that will encourage that industrial growth in northern Ontario."

Mr. Wildman: I rise to support the resolution. As a former member of the Advisory Committee on Resource Dependent Communities in Northern Ontario, as was the member for Rainy River and yourself, Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the need to see Ontario Hydro as an economic tool that could be used to stimulate growth in the north.

Members from southern Ontario must get a little bit tired of hearing northern members get up to talk about the serious problems we are experiencing in the north. I suppose they might sometimes be forgiven for thinking we are just a bunch of people who carp all the time and do not have positive suggestions to make.

This is one. This is a positive proposal for government action that could be taken to try to deal with the very serious economic problems we face.

The Rosehart committee did identify this as a serious problem, not just hydro rates but energy rates in general. Because of the harsher weather conditions and the greater distances in the north, we have much higher costs. The committee made a number of suggestions for ways in which those costs could be lowered to help stimulate economic growth in our part of the province.

I participate in this debate with a feeling of disappointment, more in sadness than in anger, about the lack of commitment on the part of the government to northern Ontario.

In a sense, after listening to the budget of the Treasurer yesterday, we have a feeling that we have been left by this government to freeze in the dark in northern Ontario; either that or we pay a great deal more in an economic and social situation which is much worse than it is in southern Ontario where we have the economic boom.

There was no mention at all yesterday -- not one mention -- about energy costs in northern Ontario. There was no mention of hydroelectricity costs and there certainly was no mention of gasoline costs and the higher prices of gasoline we pay in northern Ontario, which has been a subject of debate from time to time in this House.

I anticipated that this government was at least going to say that because we have higher energy costs and higher gasoline prices in the north it would make an equivalent commitment for highway construction. Instead, it committed $26 million for highway construction -- about 40 miles of highway -- in northern Ontario, which is less than half the extra amount we pay for gasoline because of higher prices.

In dealing with hydro costs, I agree with the member for Rainy River that we must deal with the question of service, not just rates, in northern Ontario. Many communities have hydro service, but it is inadequate. I think of the community of Hornepayne in my riding where, in the winter, people experience many outages of long duration and the hospital and other facilities in the community have to switch to Delco generators because they cannot get adequate service from the hydro that is supplied from Kapuskasing to Hornepayne.

Also, I think of a very small community in my riding, Aubrey Falls south of Chapleau, which is close to one of the largest Ontario Hydro hydraulic generating stations but does not have service. In order to obtain service across seven miles of territory from that generating station, Ontario Hydro says: "We would be quite happy to put in the line at your expense. We estimate it would cost about $125,000 to put in the line." This government has no solution for that. The previous government had no solution either. So that community is dependent on diesel-fuel generators for electricity at rates that are enormously high.

We also have to deal with the question of rural rates. Members will recall that the previous government, after a lot of debate, said it was going to give a subsidy to Ontario Hydro so that it could lower the differential between what people in rural Ontario pay for electricity and what people in the towns and cities pay for electricity. They brought down the differential by about a half. Now that Ontario Hydro is applying for an increase, it is talking about a greater increase for rural customers than for urban customers.

The Liberal Party, when in opposition, argued against the differential. It has done nothing. There was no mention in the budget yesterday. There has been no mention from the Minister of Energy about at least equalizing electricity rates between rural Ontario and urban Ontario, much less dealing with the rates in northern Ontario by lowering them so that we can stimulate the economy of the north.

Listening to the budget yesterday, in my view it was a Conservative budget, a budget that could have been introduced by any former Tory Treasurer such as Darcy McKeough, the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), or even the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman). It is a stand-pat budget. It does not do anything for northern Ontario. It purports to answer the problems of northern Ontario by establishing a heritage fund at such a low amount that one might as well forget about it. It is much less than half of what anyone would have expected.

I appreciate the comments made earlier by the member for Cochrane North, for whom I have a great deal of respect and affection. I consider him a friend. Since his removal from the cabinet I feel there obviously is a lack of a voice for northern Ontario in the government.

Since the Premier is the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, one might have expected there would have been a great deal of commitment by the government, at a time when it has so much more revenue because of the economic boom in southern Ontario, to actually deal with the problems of northern Ontario; but this government, in its budget, has failed completely. It is an indication that the northern voice on that side of the House is so weak that it is not listened to and not heard by this government.

As an opposition member, one might think, since we are perhaps going into an election campaign, I would be happy this government has failed to respond to the north. I am not happy. I am disappointed because I thought we had a chance to respond to the serious economic problems of that other Ontario. This government has failed. Perhaps they decided there are not enough seats in the north and they do not have to worry about it. It means that northerners are going to continue to experience serious economic problems. If they would act on this resolution, at least it would be a step in the right direction.

Mr. Gordon: I guess what I find particularly disturbing about the government side is that the Premier of this province went into northern Ontario and said: "Look, I am here to listen to what you people have to say. What I am interested in are home-grown solutions to the problems you have. We think you are the people who should be telling us what you need in the north."

Do members know what happened? This is not fair, but do members know what they did? First of all, they heard from all the municipalities in northern Ontario, from the chambers of commerce, from ordinary people writing in, that the people of northern Ontario believed that the price of gas was too high, that we should have equality of gas prices between north and south. That is what the Premier was told.

Do members know what the Liberals did in their budget? They turned around and said: "We know you do not like high gas prices, but we, the government, believe after listening to you that we know better what is good for you. So you know what we are going to do? We are going to spend an additional $26 million on roads in northern Ontario."

I heard the New Democratic Party member a few minutes ago saying he thought it was 40 miles. The average two-lane highway in northern Ontario right now runs between $1.5 million and $2 million a mile to build. So for $26 million we are looking at 18 to 25 miles at most.

Not counting the rural roads in northern Ontario, we are talking about the main roads, we have probably 20,000 miles of major roads in northern Ontario. The Liberals are going to add 22 miles and people are going to have to continue to go around paying higher gas prices every time they go to the pumps. This is money that comes directly out of their pockets and they are not going to be able to spend it on the things they want to spend it on.

The Liberals say they are listening to the people in the north. They are not listening. They are not listening at all and it is not fair; it is not fair at all.

Let us take it one step further. Using Ontario Hydro as an instrument of economic and social policy makes good sense in this province. We have done that ever since we started Ontario Hydro in this province. We have used Ontario Hydro to create industry, to create more jobs for people. We see that here in southern Ontario. Yet when we ask for that here in this Legislature, we have to listen to the former minister, the member for Cochrane North, come out with a lot of drivel. He says: "We are looking into that. We are holding meetings; we are doing this; we are doing that."

Two years have gone by and nothing; there was not one word in the throne speech about doing anything about hydro rates in the north, not one single word. There was not one single word in the budget about doing something about hydro rates for northern people.

It is time this government quit putting Band-Aids on the north. It is time this government took a look at one of the root causes of the loss of jobs in the north. One of the root causes is the fact that our industries there are finding it more and more difficult to be competitive with the rest of Ontario, if not the rest of the world. It is time for the government to say: "Look, we are not going to put any more Band-Aids on the north. What we are going to do is attack those root causes. We are going to do something positive in our policy. We are going to equalize -- we are going to do more than equalize we are going to lower hydro rates in northern Ontario."

This will attract manufacturing jobs into the north. We have seen it happen in Quebec already. We have seen 58 new firms move into Quebec; high-tech firms, firms that are creating employment, firms that are taking people off welfare, firms that are providing employment for people. Why should we have anything less?

Sometimes people say, "You northern members, all you do is cry; you want more; you are always asking." Look, we are always asking because there is a difference between north and south. There is a difference in prosperity. There is a difference in the standard of living. In northern Ontario people have a lower per capita income.

If we really want to help the north, we are going to take care of hydro rates. We are not going to put measures in budgets like the Liberals just did, where they say: "No, we cannot do anything about gas prices. That would put something back in the pockets of every northern Ontario citizen; we cannot do that. Instead, we are going to give you about 20 more miles of road and you should be happy."

Just think about this. The Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the Premier, tells us in the north that tourism is going to be the big plus for northern Ontario. First, they are service jobs so they are low-paying jobs, but we are supposed to accept that. Second, he tells us the way to do that is by building more roads, so he gives us 20 more miles of highway and leaves gasoline prices the way they are.

Are the Liberals saying they have an economic plan for northern Ontario? They do not have an economic plan. It is time they started listening to some of their northern members. I am surprised the Premier has not already but that is what happens. We get all these people elected from other parts of Ontario and all these other voices drown out the voices from the north. It is time to lower those hydro rates in the north.

CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS

Mr. Harris moved resolution 8:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing the historic agreement in principle reached at Meech Lake with respect to Canada's Constitution and recognizing that the details of the agreement have not yet been determined or finalized, the government of Ontario should not ratify the agreement until such time as a committee of this House conducts open, public hearings on this important issue and its impact on transfer payments, immigration programs and the change in federal-provincial relations.

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

Mr. Harris: I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this resolution today and also to speak to it.

While we appreciate the importance of parliamentary debate in contributing to the constitutional process, our party maintains it is essential that the voices of experts, of interest groups which may be greatly affected by this accord, and of individual Ontarians be heard and that they be placed on official record through the process of public hearings.

I suggest this is similar to what is going on right now on this very same issue in Manitoba and similar to what is going on right now on this issue in Quebec. I find it inconceivable that the government of Ontario would not consider this to be of sufficient importance to allow some public input here in Ontario.

We are not suggesting these public hearings have to go on for three years or two years or one year. We are suggesting there are key groups and key individuals who should be given an opportunity to come before this Legislature and give their opinion.

The purpose of this resolution, then, is to call upon the government of Ontario to hold public hearings on an initiative we feel, in the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, will have great implications for this province.

First, I would like to make it very clear that we are not against the Meech Lake accord in principle, and we have stated that. Rather, we are in fact pleased that an agreement has taken place and we welcome the spirit of national unity in which this accord was fostered.

However, we are concerned about certain aspects of the accord, ones which we anticipate will alter the way Ontario's affairs are planned and implemented with respect to not only provincial policies but also those of national significance. Ontarians have concerns, not only as to how ratification of the Meech Lake accord will affect our province but also as to how it will affect Canada as a nation.

Because of the challenges which lie ahead, we feel public input is necessary before the final agreement is signed in the upcoming weeks. Simply put, we in the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario want the public to have the opportunity to come in, to hear the deal, to study the draft wording and to comment upon it.

Considering the concerns aired by various interests in recent days, both federally and provincially, we feel public input would be helpful to the process, would allow all of us to better understand the agreement and would allow a lot of groups that might have some comments on it to participate in the process in a free and democratic way.

We know now that specific concerns have been raised regarding the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, immigration policy, Supreme Court appointments, spending powers and Senate reform.

Let us look at Quebec as a distinct society.

Section 1(

b) of the accord recognizes "that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society." This phrase can be subject to different

interpretations by individuals, courts and governments, and the people of Ontario really should have an opportunity to make their position known.

If the Constitution of Canada is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the existence of Quebec as a distinct society, what influence could this have on the

interpretation of the other sections of the Constitution? What constraints could this impose on the ability of the Parliament of Canada to serve and legislate for all Canadians? Could the preservation and promotion of Quebec's distinct society come in conflict with freedom-of-expression guarantees in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? These are some of the questions the public is asking.

On immigration: Ontarians want to express their views on the subject of immigration outlined in the Meech Lake accord. Will the provisions on immigration provide for different immigration rules for each province? Will freedom of movement within Canada for new arrivals be diminished? This is a very important consideration. Will people be arbitrarily forced to one province or will a unification of families be frustrated by that provision based on individual provinces setting their own immigration policies?

Would Ontario ever adopt measures similar to the Cullen-Couture agreement on Quebec on the selection of independent immigrants, visitors for medical treatment, students and temporary workers? We need to hear about this from the Premier (Mr. Peterson), and the public surely has a right to comment.

Supreme Court appointments: Ontarians also want to be heard with respect to the changes in the selection process for judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, which will give the provinces the right to select the candidates for those appointments.

Spending power: The Meech Lake accord states, "Canada must provide reasonable compensation to any province that does not participate in a future national shared-cost program in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction if that province undertakes its own initiative or programs compatible with national objectives."

Naturally, as the public in Quebec and as the public across this country have questions, we have several questions here. We would like specific

definitions regarding this provision.

Would programs such as post-secondary education, health care, pensions, child care and language rights be part of this provision? Will Parliament be compelled to provide money for provincial plans that do not meet national standards -- that is the way it is now -- but which the courts decide are compatible with national objectives? That is the wording that is being looked at.

As well, we perceive some contradictions between Ontario and Quebec on this proposal. On the one hand, the Premier of Ontario has stated, "Ottawa's ability to set up new social programs will in some ways be strengthened." Premier Bourassa of Quebec has stated, "The country will be much more decentralized regarding these matters." Surely both are very contradictory statements by the two Premiers of the two largest provinces of this country.

Quebec's Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, Gil Rémillard, was quoted recently in the media as stating, "Quebec wants a clause written into the Constitution outlining its right to stay out of future national cost-shared programs and be compensated, even if it does not set up its own program in precisely the same field" -- not even "meeting the national objectives in a field," but not even "in precisely the same field."

Consequently, these apparent differences imply future national policies may not be national at all in terms of uniformity. We feel public concerns in this area ought to be heard by this government.

On Senate reform, the accord transfers the nomination of senators to provincial governments pending Senate reform. This provision cannot be changed without the consent of all provinces.

Let me pose a question. Why would Ontario or Quebec, each presently with 24 senators, desire Senate reform? Specifically, we are concerned about the western goal of a triple-E Senate where all provinces would enjoy equal representation. Prince Edward Island, with fewer people than many of our ridings, would have equal representation as Ontario. In our view, this would go against the principle of representation by population, so key in our democratic system of government in the western world and surely here in Canada.

Therefore, we would like to hear the government's response to this proposal. We would like to hear how Ontario intends to make its case known and what policies, if any, the present government has in regard to the idea of Senate reform.

I would like to conclude my remarks at this point and reserve some time. These are just some of the concerns that have been raised recently on the Meech Lake accord. I believe these concerns are legitimate. They are not solely held by this party but also by many individuals in Ontario and in Canada. Given the potential changes implied by the accord, we feel it is only fitting that the public be allowed some time to give its input to this historic agreement.

The Deputy Speaker: The member has reserved eight minutes and 30 seconds for his windup.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The member for Nipissing has moved an important resolution for the consideration of this House, and I rise to support the resolution. I want to do it in the context of my own involvement in the constitutional process here in the Ontario Legislature and from my experience recently in Nicaragua on the question of how one develops a constitution.

I sat on the select committee on constitutional reform that was established back in 1980. We had meetings at the Legislature and met with legislators around the country during that time. I was just reviewing some of the speeches that were made in the House in November 1980 in conclusion of that discussion as the first part of the patriation of our Constitution took place.

One thing that struck me in looking over those remarks at that time, my own included, was the absence of public input from the average person on the street into the whole question of the patriation. It was really a matter of the will of the Prime Minister at that time, Mr. Trudeau, and his desire to push ahead with this. It was under the control of 11 people essentially, the Premiers and the Prime Minister, in terms of how it should be undertaken.

Even at the legislative level here in Ontario, we got to play a bit

part in the process and held our own travelling show, travelling around the country as I said, but there was no real participation by the people in the determination of whether that patriation should take place, what should be involved in it at that time and what should be part of the accord.

This speaks to a major problem that we have in politics in Canada; that is, a real separation of the people from the political process.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Are you not the representative of the people?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The member for Kitchener is making a very interesting point, because we do rely almost entirely in our process upon representatives for decision-making; and the representative notion of our democracy, which is so important to its orderly functioning, often gets in the way of the direct participation of the people in important processes.

All of us have a great fear of the notion of referenda in terms of their abuse, but in some ways it also is a fear that is brought about by our own desire to protect the representative control that we have as members for four years, usually, between elections.

Then at the provincial level, we put on a 37-day campaign in which the people are bombarded with messages in as simplified a fashion as possible and asked to choose which of us is going to hurt them the least. They make their decision on that basis and then they go back to relying again on representation as the means of dealing with political matters.

If we think about that in terms of the Constitution and allowing a very small group of people at the top of the representative pyramid -- that is, the Premiers and the Prime Minister -- to make decisions that will be fundamental to the evolution of our country, members can see there are some real problems with that.

For the member for Nipissing to be raising this issue at the moment is almost like trying to close the barn door after the horse has gone many miles away, because the people have never been involved in the constitutional process in our country. But surely some limited hearings here at the Legislature, to have an airing of views of the various issues that are involved in the Constitution, would be a breath of fresh air in terms of the notion of who has the right to speak about the Constitution.

In my speech in 1980, I talked about having entered the select committee process feeling that the Constitution was a very dry and musty kind of thing, something which only lawyers or other people could understand and therefore perhaps should not be, as a layperson representative here in the Legislature, even part of my responsibility or my capacity to deal with.

I soon learned that the Constitution is anything but, or should be seen as anything but, a dry document. It is the rock, the foundation and the concepts upon which our country is based. It is interesting that the only attachment to our Constitution as it exists at present that I can see out there is the Charter of Rights and the notion of the individual rights protections.

There has always been a major debate, of course, around

section 133 of the old British North America Act and the whole question of the preservation of language rights; whether Ontario should participate in making French an official language. That was a huge concentration of our considerations back in 1980. On the whole, people do not think about how that document sets the tone for how our country should operate.

I look at things that are happening now in this society in terms of the free trade decisions that are going to be made by a huge majority in Ottawa soon without any major public input in terms of that process. If we look at our Constitution, there is little in it about economic rights, whether they are individual rights or our notion of what our sovereignty is in economic terms.

The failure to put that into our Constitution has left us very vulnerable now at a time when the free trade notion is being postulated around the country by a large majority at the federal Parliament level who can fundamentally affect our ability to be a sovereign nation. We are seeing that at present with the increased demands that are being made by the United States in that debate.

I remember the Dennis Lee poem, Civil Elegies, talking about ourselves as being an outposted empire. I think there is a real point to that in economic terms and it looks as if we may even be able to incorporate ourselves more within the empire of the United States soon by virtue of those economic changes, with no protection in our present Constitution for it.

If we had thought more about that back in the 1980s and had not allowed this to be some esoteric move by the Prime Minister of the country to somehow repatriate an old document but rather a way to talk about what kind of country we want in Canada at the end of this century and moving into the next, we might have come up with a very different kind of document.

I agree with the member for Nipissing when he says the issues that are involved in Meech Lake are important and need to be debated, and not just by us.

The kind of balancing between the centrist notion of having all social programs done just through the federal government with all provinces complying, versus the notion that any province can opt out and receive assistance from the federal government to choose and operate its own programs, is a very interesting and important balance as you look at the evolution of social policy in the country. I do not think the kind of debate that is required took place before this Meech Lake accord went through. Do we want to maintain the present drift that we are in or do we want some changes in that? Should the public not be involved in those decisions?

The immigration question in Quebec is another one which I think needs to be aired. I do not have the same concerns that I know rest with other people around that issue, but it is one that needs to be talked about. The whole question of the recognition of Quebec as a distinct community is another thing which needs to be talked about, not just among politicians but among the people in general, to gain a better understanding of the real nature and guts of what Canada is all about.

From my point of view, as an abolitionist, I think the notion of the Senate reform move that is being talked about here is incredibly dangerous. I am very nervous about any kind of notion of a move in that direction. I think people need to talk about it. It is not something that needs to be suppressed.

I stand as somebody who has, as Lee put it, a "bloody-minded reverence" for my country. I believe it is shared by the people of the country, and the debate about the most crucial element of our country, our Constitution, the foundation of the country, should be open to the people. If it can only be done in a gesture of limited hearing here in the Legislature, then so be it. Let us at least do that for the present time.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I expect this will not be the last time that I or other members of this House have an opportunity to address the historic Meech Lake accord. I certainly feel we are entering into a new era, but for most of our lives Canadians have wrestled with the ignominy of not having had our own patriated Constitution. The debate really has evolved through the lives of the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) and others. I think we have all been aware of it.

From my earliest childhood, I have recollections of this debate going on through the 1950s, including Bruce Hutchison's book, The Unknown Country, through the debate through the 1960s, through the Fulton-Favreau formula that was debated so thoroughly in the 1960s, through the meetings that John Robarts formulated and negotiated in the late 1960s, through the Victoria conference of 1971.

Surely we learned something from the failure that actually occurred in the Victoria conference of 1971 when we thought we had a formula for success, when we thought we achieved success only to find that in the days and weeks that followed, one province -- Quebec as it turned out, under Premier Bourassa -- was unable to deliver what he felt at Victoria he was able to promise.

Are we going to go through all this yet again, this time to have the Ontario Legislature doing the nitpicking which results in what fabric of agreement is there being dissipated?

After Victoria, the patriation of our Constitution had to wait a full decade in which the Prime Minister of this country, Pierre Trudeau, never ceased to work towards this accord. We had various proposals throughout the 1970s: Senate reform, for instance, in 1978; the federation of the provinces concept, which was debated; and then in 1981, finally, the matter was settled, not with a massive Athenian democracy of 25 million people getting together to decide exactly what they should say in their Constitution, not with public input from every street corner, not even really with debate in every one of the 11 provincial Houses and two federal legislative bodies, let alone hearings in committees.

We are the elected representatives -- the member for Nipissing, the member for Scarborough West; we are each elected representatives of our people. We speak for our constituents. We are here to make decisions on their behalf.

In actual fact, when the Constitution was formulated in 1981, it really came down, as mythology tells us, to three people, as I understand it, Jean Chrétien, Roy McMurtry and Roy Romanow, in a kitchen, putting together the concept which finally resulted on April 17, 1982, in the signing of a Constitution with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protects the individual. It was representatives who negotiated that charter to protect individual rights.

That is not a perfect document. It is a document which is still being honed and fashioned by the courts, as it should be. I happen to have been the first lawyer in Waterloo region to challenge a law within the courts within a couple of days of that charter being signed. That is the purpose of the courts in interpreting a Constitution.

While a Constitution of necessity needs to be honed and fashioned by the courts, this Constitution had one major flaw. Quebec was not represented in the kitchen on that fateful night, and as a result, nearly one third of all Canadians are opted out of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are not yet full members of the Constitution process. Quebec has been an orphan of Confederation.

I hope and expect that Meech Lake will rectify that, but as always, when lawyers try to put an understanding into writing, there is pulling and pushing as to words, as to terminology, and we are right now at that very fragile point. Compromises on innuendo and wordings are taking place right now. In fact, meetings occurred as recently as yesterday. The first ministers will be agreeing on this final resolution within a few weeks at most, and then they can, and indeed must, put this resolution before the nation's legislatures, including this one.

The ship is still on course, but let us keep it on course. After the resolution is prepared -- and as I say, this will occur within a few weeks at most -- we will have ample opportunity to have a full debate. In fact, according to the Constitution Act, we have three years to have a full debate. The Premier has promised us we will have a full debate on that resolution. Even if there is some attempt by the government not to keep that promise, the rules of this House apply amply for a full debate.

I feel strongly that while a debate is warranted, it is warranted not before the final agreement is available for us but afterwards. It is presumptuous and indeed threatening to do otherwise, but it is fortunate that the member for Nipissing has so crafted his resolution as for it to be, in fact, a mere opinion. In view of the usual ganging-up and obstruction tactics that are occurring in the opposition on this resolution, it should be very clear on the record that this is, in fact, a mere opinion. As I understand it, this is a mere sentiment which does not in any way bind this House in the future.

If the parties of Sir John A. Macdonald and Tommy Douglas want to play politics with the nation's leaders attempting to forge a historic agreement, the final building blocks of this nation from sea to sea, I say there should be a sense of shame for their so doing.

The constitutional process has to go through and reach its proper conclusion within the next few weeks. Debate is warranted, but how can we debate a resolution which we do not yet have in front of us? When we do have it in front of us, let us take as much time as we need -- three years, if necessary -- to debate it to its proper conclusion.

Mr. Guindon: It is a great privilege to have the opportunity to speak in support of the motion of my friend and colleague the member for Nipissing. On May 1, the Prime Minister and the 10 Premiers came to the historic agreement to bring Quebec into the Constitution. I applaud the efforts of all those involved in reaching this agreement. I do not see the Meech Lake accord as a mere political victory for the negotiators; it is a victory for all Canadians. When the Premier of Quebec signs the Constitution, Canada will once again be a whole country.

While the accord does signal that all parts of Canada can work in harmony to achieve a common goal, it is important to allow those most affected by such an agreement to have some input. That is why my party has been pushing for open, public debate on the formal agreement prior to a vote in this House. Setting aside one or two weeks of time so that interested members of the public will have the opportunity to express their views is a democratic way to proceed. Ontario, in itself, has many diverse areas. The people of each of these areas will, no doubt, have varying opinions on the content of the agreement.

When we look at the spending powers of the federal government and the opt-out clause, there seems to be a considerable amount of confusion and contradiction. The Premier and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) are of the opinion that this

section of the Meech Lake accord will strengthen the federal government's position by allowing it to get more involved with provincial social programs.

Premier Bourassa has been quoted as saying this clause will help to decentralize the federal government. Obviously, there is a significant difference of opinion as to what this

section means and says. Did the Premier know what he was agreeing to? This clause has proven to be one of the most fruitful in demonstrating the difference of opinion between Ontario and Quebec. If only to clarify this one issue, public hearings would be most beneficial.

Looking at Quebec as a distinct society for a few minutes, I have several questions of the government over this clause of the agreement. What will happen if Parliament or a provincial legislature fails, in the opinion of a linguistic minority, to live up to its commitment? Could the minority appeal to the courts? These too are questions to which the people of Ontario deserve answers.

The Meech Lake agreement also allows provinces to submit lists of names to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court of Canada. The president of the Canadian Bar Association would like to know: What if the federal government does not agree with the province's list and the province refuses to submit a second list? Does the seat remain vacant?

In 1985, the bar association offered a report that suggested appointments be made by a panel removed from the political process. This would have been a viable alternative to what was agreed. Was it put forward for discussion or totally ignored? With the agreed scenario, a deadlock could occur should a provincial government not favoured by the federal side try to plant political judges.

The Premier also agreed to Senate reform that would likely result in all provinces having equal representation. While some reform is needed, I do not see why Ontario or Quebec would want to lose their strong representation in the Senate. Again, the people of Ontario should be consulted before any steps are taken towards Senate reform.

I would also like to touch briefly on immigration. The accord would seem to give Quebec the power to bring forward its own immigration policy. Will Quebec be allowed to select immigrants? Will the accord restrict the movement of immigrants trying to find work or be with families? These again are questions that must be answered and the people of Ontario have the right to put them to their legislators.

My party's leader has requested several times in this House that there be open, public hearings on this formal agreement. Each time, the Premier has said the debate that will be held is sufficient. I disagree. The people of this province deserve to be heard. In defence of having public hearings in Quebec, Quebec's Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, Gil Rémillard, said: "The hearings were just to have the point of view of experts and the public. It is the democratic way to have these reactions."

Does the Premier not believe in democracy? The people of Ontario deserve the same right as the people of any other province in Canada. Overall, I am extremely happy that we have been able to come to a mutually agreeable solution to bring Quebec into the Constitution, but I am concerned that the Meech Lake accord may diminish the powers of the federal government. I would be hard pressed to support any constitutional agreement that would turn the federal government into a cheque-signing and tax collection agency.

We owe the people of Ontario a chance to give their input on this very important matter. I disagree with the Premier's opinion that there would not be enough interested people to hold public hearings. If he truly believes this, I must inform him that he is sadly underestimating the people of this province. Ontarians deserve better. They have the right to be heard. I encourage the government to allow a committee of this House a week or two of time to hold public hearings on the federal agreement prior to a vote in this House.

Mr. Breaugh: I am pleased to join in the debate this morning. I am going to support the resolution before the House. I have a little reluctance and I want to put that on the record for a start. It is my view that a rather impractical notion has been put in this resolution, but the principle is one that I would adhere to. I do not want to have three years of hearings before a committee or to put the government of Ontario in a position where it cannot ratify anything until this long, unending hearing process is completed. To me, that is widely impractical and is not the way we should go.

However, I would argue that, as has been done in Quebec, it would be very appropriate for a committee of this assembly to hold out a vehicle to the public in Ontario. It would be appropriate to say to one of our committees, "For a two-week or three-week period, or whatever, you are commissioned to sit and receive opinions from the people of Ontario." I suspect there are a number of them who have thought a lot about constitutional matters, who will bring to us different perspectives from law and the professions, from labour and from special-interest groups and who want to get on the record their opinion of the Meech Lake accord. I think we could do that.

This resolution does not quite do that. Unfortunately, we cannot amend members' resolutions as they are brought before us, but I am supporting the principle, however woolly-eyed the resolution itself might be. It is important for us to note that there are practical problems in carrying through with it all this way, but the principle of a committee of the assembly being available so that the public can record its opinion on this very important matter should be the overriding principle.

Second, I have heard some rather distressing news from the government side this morning, a government member saying he did not want politics to enter this. I have a respect for the political process in this country which he obviously does not share. I believe in this political process. It is a process that has made this country what it is, warts and all. It is the best we have. The absence of it is some kind of tyranny. I have some concerns that a constitutional agreement of this calibre that does not get a lot of public scrutiny is one which is going to be in trouble.

I am told this morning that the government House leader, for example, is going to try to get a debate on the Meech Lake accord in the assembly next Tuesday afternoon, and that is before even the rough draft has been circulated to the members, let alone a polished and final form is available. So next Tuesday afternoon, we will be debating, I am told, something that most of us as members have never even seen. Somebody should put the brakes on this process. There is a time in the political process to call a halt to things and to have sober second thought, so to speak, to rationally analyse what is being proposed. It is not happening here.

I want to move very quickly into some of the substance of this Meech Lake accord, which other members have touched on, some of which, I am going to say out front, is a little strange to me. I do not understand why in western Canada there is a great move on to reform the Canadian Senate, but there is. Though I do not understand it, as a Canadian I am bound to at least listen to what they have to say. If I am so discourteous as to dismiss it out of hand, I run the risk of alienating many people in western Canada in exactly the same way as we have alienated people in Quebec for a long time. We do not have to agree with them; all we have to do is listen to them.

Although I am not really a great fan of the Canadian Senate and would probably say that under current circumstances the most kind and humane thing to do would simply be to do away with that chamber, there may well be those who have an argument contrary to that. My only obligation is to listen to their argument and to see whether we can accommodate one another.

I have some great concerns about the nature of the country if this accord is put into the Canadian Constitution. At the very least, we will have to say that the country called Canada will operate in a rather different manner if the Meech Lake accord is fully implemented. Because of the rather dramatic consequences that could happen from that accord, we need to analyse this thing rather carefully. That is the reason I am advocating some limited form of public hearings as being desirable.

Maybe I am wrong, but I thought I heard a government member say this morning that it does not matter what this assembly says here today, that it makes no difference to the government whether the majority of members in this assembly are in favour of public hearings or not; the government will do whatever it wants. That is not a great way to start a discussion on constitutional matters. That is precisely what got this nation into some considerable difficulty: one group of people in Canada saying, "We do not care what the rest of you say; we will do what we want."

This nation is a tenuous one. If you were trying to put together a country, it would not look much like Canada. It would not have all these blank spaces with no people. It probably would not be quite as big as this in geographic terms. This country has evolved under rather difficult circumstances. It has to face some unfortunate facts, and they are simply put.

In the Maritimes, for example, there is an economy which is totally different from what you see in southern Ontario, and there is not much connecting the two except the federal government. In the northern part of this province, there is an economy that is not much like the economy of the southern part of Ontario, and there is not much holding those two together except the provincial government. The west is totally different from the east. All of these different groups of people, all of these different types of geography, all of these different needs, make up Canada. To try to get it into a functional nation is not easy.

I have long been one who says that one of the biggest problems Canada has is that we are not proud enough of the things we do, of the accomplishments we achieve.

My daughter goes to the University of Texas, and I have been there on a couple of occasions now. I am really awed by what the Americans do about themselves, how proud they are. Some of us, as Canadians, will take exception to this; we do not like the way the Americans brag about their achievements. But I have to say it works. At the end of the process, they are incredibly proud of their accomplishments, right or wrong. We do none of that in Canada. Perhaps we should do more. Perhaps we should exhibit more of a nationalist feeling. Perhaps we should try to accommodate these people in a different way. Perhaps the Meech Lake accord is the route to go.

I would say this: As members of the assembly, we will have an opportunity to debate some kind of motion approving the Meech Lake agreement, and that is fine. That is our role in the political system. I have a considerable respect for that.

There are also many others who deserve a chance to be heard and deserve to be heard in a formal way before a committee of this assembly. That is essentially, warts and all, what this resolution calls for. I support that. I believe this government would be incredibly well served if it were to slow things down just a bit and open up an occasion when people who want to speak to us about this constitutional agreement get an opportunity to do that in a formal, acknowledged way before a legislative committee. I do not think that would do anybody any harm.

I know there is a rush to create a Premier who is a nation-builder; there is an urge to create an image here. I am not saying that is a bad thing either; I am simply saying it should not preclude a hearing process for everybody else. That is all the motion asks for.

If the government begins this process of ratifying the Meech Lake accord by saying it does not matter what the assembly itself says that the assembly this morning can support the idea of public hearings and the government will choose to ignore it -- it will be starting off on the wrong foot.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: It is the way it is drafted. It is an opinion.

Mr. Breaugh: In much the same way, the member for Kitchener is so busy interjecting right now that he has no time even to listen to an opposition member. All we are asking the government to do is shut up and listen to people for a change. It should not be that hard.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member please retract the words he used, "shut up"?

Mr. Breaugh: It is not unparliamentary, but if it offends, I will retract it. Everybody is very sensitive.

The pertinent point is that the government does not have all the knowledge in the world. It would do well to listen to the people of Ontario who want to appear before a legislative committee. It would serve our purposes as members to have the opportunity, in a formal way, to let these people appear before a legislative committee. Then we would be well equipped to debate the Meech Lake accord.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: But they are not prepared to talk to you. They talked to me.

Mr. Breaugh: If the Speaker is going to say to me that I cannot tell the member to shut up, he has an obligation to see the member does not interject. It is as simple as that.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member again please retract those words?

Mr. Breaugh: I will retract the words "shut up" if the Speaker will make sure they do not interject while I am speaking. Is it a deal? I am happy to retract it.

The Acting Speaker: Your time has expired.

Ms. Caplan: In the few minutes remaining, I would like to participate. I know the opposition benches will be most attentive while I speak, so we can conduct this debate in perhaps a more normal tone than we have found in the last few minutes. I find it rather distressing, especially when there are students in the gallery and people watching us on television, that we get into that kind of bickering. I hope during question period we will not have that kind of interjection from the opposition as well

Mr. Wildman: We are all in favour of open government.

Ms. Caplan: Open government.

As we enter this kind of constitutional debate and constitutional amendment process, it is very important that we remember what that process is and how it was established some five years ago -- and that is one of consultation and ongoing debate throughout this country -- as we reach that kind of accord and decision. The timing of the debate, the actual structure, is left to the individual provinces to determine how and when they want to respond. There is a three-year time period in order to formalize, under the amending formula, an agreement to an accord.

I think we are at a point in time right now which is very delicate. A few years back, not only would we have reacted favourably, but also I can remember many of us venturing into Quebec during the time of its referendum. I think it is significant to remember what we would have offered at that time to have had the kind of accord and the proposals we have today, and how much we in this country wanted to make sure that Canada was unified coast to coast and that all our provinces were partners in our Constitution.

The proposals that have come forward from Meech Lake will require the kind of discussion and scrutiny, coast to coast, that will be appropriate. I think the democratic process allows for members to speak in this House, in their communities and during election time -- and who knows when we might have that opportunity in the not-too-distant future -- so that on something as important as the Constitution, we, as the democratic representatives, use this opportunity and this forum in this House to speak on what I think is the most important issue of our decade.

Mr. Wildman: After public hearings.

Ms. Caplan: How you involve the public across this country is part of what is discussed in this House. I think it is premature at this time, until we see what the accord is, until we have the written document, to make that --

Mr. Laughren: It is too late.

Ms. Caplan: No. I do not believe it is too late. I believe it is the responsibility of the government to bring that back into this House, to have that kind of debate and to use the three years for full public participation.

Mr. Harris: I want to thank the member for Scarborough West, the member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon) and the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) for supporting this resolution.

I note the concerns of the member for Oshawa that the resolution is full of warts, as he says, or wart ed, as it is. One of the difficulties in presenting this resolution is that I do not know what are the time constraints. I do not know whether we have three years or three days for public hearings. I have left it as flexible as I can to say that I think those hearings should take place. Surely, if the intent of this resolution carries, we can then work out when they should take place and at what stage of the process.

Mr. Wildman: They are having hearings in Quebec City, are they not?

Mr. Harris: Yes, starting next week.

I want to say also that I thought the member for Scarborough West hit upon a fairly important point. He indicated that while we are the legislators and will ultimately make a decision and have an opportunity to speak and to vote, we are lay members in most of the fields we end up voting on, and he asked, "Does it make sense that we do not want to hear from the public, from the experts, from the people who can give us their advice, before we have to make up our minds?"

In chatting with the member before this resolution, he pointed out to me -- and members know his interest in Nicaragua and the time he spent down there -- that there a country striven with civil war took the time to take a draft constitution to every village in that country, even as many of them were under siege, and got input from the public. They got input from the people on every street corner and adjusted their constitution accordingly. But for some reason or other, the chief spokesman for the Liberal Party does not feel that is appropriate here in Ontario.

I was particularly disappointed in the remarks from the member for Kitchener and those from the member for Oriole (Ms. Caplan), because she seemed to be supporting this. But I guess the chief government spokesman was the member for Kitchener, who made several very ludicrous statements. One of them was: "The failure of the Victoria charter was the result of public input." That is why it failed: Somebody consulted the public and it failed. What a silly statement to make. It failed because Quebec changed its mind.

To imply that to hear from the public is going to cause this accord to fail does not show a lot of faith in this accord that the Premier is so proud of, that he went down there and supported. If it fails because of public input, it should fail. If it cannot stand up to the scrutiny of what Ontarians want, then it does not deserve to go forward.

The spokesman from the Liberal Party said something -- I do not have the exact quote, but I will paraphrase it. He fears public input from people on every street corner. We cannot have people from every street corner speak to this. Is that not what we are elected for: to listen to people on the street corners, to listen to people throughout all parts of this province? Is that not why we are elected? That is why I was elected and it is the way I operate in everything. The indication was that we cannot hear from people on every street corner. I think we are here to listen to our constituents.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I did not use the word "fear" and I am not being correctly quoted.

The Acting Speaker: This is not a point of order.

Mr. Harris: He said we cannot have it. I interpret that to mean that he is afraid of it. If he is not afraid of it, let him vote for the resolution and he will be able to correct the record right here in this House. If he does not fear it, let him go ahead with it.

I want to get something else on the record. I am a little concerned with the timing of this process. Three weeks ago, we heard that the final wording would be out to us in a couple of days; then it was to be in a week, then in two weeks, and then in three weeks. This morning the government House leader said, "My Premier wants this debated next Tuesday." We still do not have the wording.

The question from the leader of the New Democratic Party was, "Mr. House Leader, will we have the resolution?" "I do not know." "Will a debate proceed without the final wording?" "Yes. That is what my Premier wants." Earlier, the member for Kitchener said, "We cannot have hearings without the final wording." Now we hear the Premier wants this debated without even the final wording.

I am concerned about the time frames. I also heard that the Premiers were going to get back together around the middle of June. Today I heard they are trying to bump it up to June 2. Maybe we will get the final wording by June 1, and then the Premiers will all get together to ratify it on June 2. After that, we will have three years to debate what has already been settled.

To me, that is backwards. I think that is a prescription for failure; I do. Once that wording comes back, they will ask the federal House and the legislatures of the 10 provinces to say yes or no. They will not ask to change one word, because if one word is changed, it will be no. That is what we will be told. They will come back to us and say: "This is it. Yes or no?"

My prescription would suggest that maybe there should be just a little bit more time than one or two days to talk about what it is. Our Premier should go back there to work out wording that has some consensus and some agreement beforehand. Then the debate will not take three years. If it stands up to public scrutiny, if it is everything that the government says it is, if that

interpretation is there -- and surely we will know that once we get it and we get some public input -- it will not take three years of debate to say yes or no. This whole process is backwards.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand -- I guess the member for Kitchener talked about politics. It was alluded to by my friend the member for Oshawa. Can members give me any rational reason why a government would not want to hear from the public?

Mr. Gillies: Yes, because they are afraid.

Mr. Harris: But they are not afraid. I heard him say that he is not afraid, so he is going to vote in favour of it now, I guess. We will see whether he is afraid. We will see very shortly.

The only reason I can think of is the one alluded to by the member for Oshawa; this is a political agenda. We want to go to the people of Ontario with some illusion that our Premier is Joe Canada on the national scene. Then if it fails one, two or three years from now, who will remember? We will have an election and nobody will remember that. This is the backwards process. I have left the resolution vague enough to provide this government with any opportunity.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: It is vague enough that it is not possible.

Mr. Harris: Anything is possible. One day of hearings is possible under this resolution. I suggest it might be more like two or three weeks as the member for Oshawa has suggested, but nothing is impossible under this resolution, and I urge all members not to fear public input but to vote for it.

The Acting Speaker: Mr. Gordon has moved resolution 11.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr. Harris: Was that unanimous?

The Acting Speaker: It was carried.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I asked whether it was unanimous. We heard some nays and we have not been asked to vote on it.

The Acting Speaker: This is a voice vote. It has been carried.

Mr. Harris: With respect, Mr. Speaker, can I then have your determination that contrary to the yelling out that it was unanimous -- you said it was unanimous. If one person is not in agreement, surely you ask for the ayes and the nays. That is a voice vote. You said, "Shall it carry?" I heard some people say "nay."

The Acting Speaker: I did not hear any nays.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, it was very clear that a number of members on the government side voted "nay" with their voices. In that case, you are required under the standing orders to proceed to the next stage of the vote.

The Acting Speaker: I did not hear any nays.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, can I suggest that you put the question again?

ONTARIO HYDRO RATES IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

The Acting Speaker: I did not hear the nays, but for the pleasure of the House, for the pleasure of everyone, I will ask the same question again.

Mr. Gordon has moved resolution 11.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

The House divided on Mr. Gordon's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Barlow, Bernier, Bossy, Breaugh, Bryden, Callahan, Caplan, Charlton, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Cordiano, Dean, Eves, Foulds, Gillies, Gordon, Grande, Gregory, Guindon, Harris, Hart, Henderson, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Knight, Laughren, Mackenzie, Mancini, McClellan, McFadden, McGuigan, McLean, Miller, G. I., Morin-Strom, Newman, Offer, Pierce, Pollock, Ramsay, Reville, Reycraft, Rowe, Sargent, Shymko, Sterling, Treleaven, Turner, Villeneuve, Warner, Wildman.

Ayes 51; nays 0.

CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS

The House divided on Mr. Harris's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Barlow, Bernier, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Dean, Eves, Foulds, Gigantes, Gillies, Gordon, Grande, Gregory, Guindon, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Laughren, Mackenzie, McClellan, McFadden, Morin-Strom, Pierce, Pollock, Reville, Rowe, Shymko, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Treleaven, Turner, Villeneuve, Warner, Wildman.

Nays

Callahan, Caplan, Cooke, D. R., Henderson, Knight, McGuigan, Newman, Offer, Ramsay, Reycraft, Sargent, Smith, E. J.

Ayes 36; nays 12.

The House recessed at 12:21 p.m.

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MULTICULTURALISM

Mr. Shymko: I rise to condemn this government for its shabby and insulting treatment, by yesterday's Liberal budget, of 40 per cent of Ontario's population, representing the nonofficial-language ethnic minorities.

The allocation of $4 million of extra funding for multiculturalism out of almost $35 billion of Liberal government spending has fueled the indignation not only of my honourable colleagues from the opposition but of all Ontarians. This funding represents 0.01 per cent of the total budget. This is shameful for a government that pretends to be sensitive to ethnic minorities and multiculturalism. It adds insult to injury by a Liberal government that has planned to eliminate the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship, wanted to slash its budget by $100,000 and to this day has not announced its multiculturalism policy, due to be announced in February of this year.

When it comes to putting its money where its mouth is, in the eyes of this Liberal government ethnic minorities are worth 0.01 per cent. This is shameful and unacceptable. This is the bottom line when it comes to the sanctimonious platitudes we constantly hear about sensitivity to ethnics and to minorities. It is a shame, and we as Ontarians and as the opposition condemn this government for this treatment.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Foulds: The Liberal government raised incredibly high expectations, especially in northern Ontario. Last November, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said in Sault Ste. Marie that the provincial government had a responsibility to provide infrastructure to stabilize the economic base and to provide a social structure fair to the people of the north.

Yesterday's budget was a grave disappointment.

No action was taken on the ripoff that is northern Ontario gasoline prices. No action was taken to protect the northern Ontario energy consumer.

The extra $26 million for northern highways sounds good, but it will build a mere 13 to 26 miles of new two-lane highway. Some northern development.

With the necessity to twin the Trans-Canada Highway, at least between Nipigon and Shabaqua, Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury and Highway 400, this is totally inadequate. The money is less than half the extra amount northerners pay for gas.

Finally, the northern Ontario heritage fund is a cruel hoax. Thirty million dollars sounds like a lot, but stack it up against $30 million the province is giving to one construction project in Metro Toronto, the SkyDome, the $35 million and $15 million in grants and low-interest loans to Toyota in Cambridge and the $58 million for two hospitals in Guelph and we can see the inadequacy. This is not northern Ontario development; this is not a northern Ontario heritage fund; this is patronizing: Tory patronage economics in a red tie.

WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

Mr. McGuigan: I rise to thank the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) for a move that has been long awaited in southwestern Ontario -- it was long awaited through the years of the opposition's era of power -- and that is the rebate system that was announced for wetlands.

Under the old program of rebating 60 per cent of the taxes to farm land and none of the taxes for wetlands, even though wetlands were taxed at a lower rate, the net figure was that wetlands paid a greater per acreage tax than did farm lands. The people of southwestern Ontario, particularly around Lake St. Clair, Rondeau Bay and Lake Erie have been lobbying and working for this, as I did when I was in opposition. I am very pleased now that the minister has acknowledged that and is taking steps to bring relief to a very important problem.

As members know, wetlands are important to recreation and to regulating flooding situations. The wetlands are a breeding ground for all sorts of wildlife and fauna and for filtering out and purifying our waters, so we receive this in very great spirit.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Brandt: Since June 1986, several taxes have been increased by the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr Nixon). He has increased personal income tax by four per cent and imposed an additional surtax. He has increased the alcohol beverage markup levy. He has increased fees for drivers' licences and motor vehicle registration. He has increased the corporate tax rate. He has increased the land transfer tax. He has increased the amount of gasoline tax paid by Ontario citizens. He has increased the number of products affected by the retail sales tax. He has increased the tobacco tax. He took an additional $900 million from Ontario taxpayers last year alone.

The headlines from yesterday's budget should be that the Treasurer cut taxes, not that we did not suffer any more increases. Our party says: "Give it back to the people of this province who have created the prosperity and wealth the Treasurer is enjoying. Let the people decide how they want some of their money spent."

There is no doubt in my mind they can do a better job than the current government. Get the money back into the hands of the people so that they can plan for the economic bust the present policies of the current government will create.

PLANT SHUTDOWN

Mr. Mackenzie: Four years ago, the Consolidated Bathurst plant was shut down in the city of Hamilton and 180 workers lost their jobs. The treatment of the workers was so bad that even a previous Tory minister, Gordon Walker, was compelled to say in this House that Consolidated Bathurst was not the best corporate citizen.

These workers went to the Ontario Labour Relations Board on the basis of the company bargaining in bad faith, on the basis that they had negotiated a contract and only six months later the company closed the plant, knowing it was going to be closing it when it negotiated the previous contract. These workers went to the labour relations board and won a $310,000 judgement, based on bargaining in bad faith.

It is a tragedy that this was appealed to the Supreme Court of Ontario by the company. The court upheld the workers on a three-to-nothing decision.

Yesterday the workers found out that now the company has been given leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Four years later, those workers have not seen a cent of that $310,000. They are not getting any of it. There have been workers deceased and suicides in that plant since that time, and there is a perception in Ontario by those older workers who were involved in a plant shutdown that justice simply does not exist in this province today.

It is long past time that this government took a look at what happens to older workers in these kinds of situations and at why they should wait four years with still no decision on money they have won.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Interjections.

Mr. Callahan: I have been in this House for only two years and a little bit, but over that period of time it is obvious I have gained popularity with the opposition.

I want to address something that really bothers me, which is the fact that we all know northern Ontario has a problem. It is not a problem that arose during the two years we have been in office. It arose during the 47 or 46 or 42 years the Tories were in power. They did nothing about it whatsoever. Their contribution was to build or buy Minaki Lodge. That was all they did.

I would think it would be an important enough issue among all members of this House that we would deal with it on a nonpartisan basis and try to come up with solutions. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) has begged the opposition parties to give him ideas. Thus far, we have seen none. The people of northern Ontario know this government is taking steps to try to deal with the problem, probably for the first time in the history of this Legislature.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Stevenson: Yesterday's budget did not address the income side for farmers. Farmers who have cash can get $2,500 for badly needed repairs. For most, it means borrowing even more money to take advantage of a government program. There was no financial support for crop insurance, as recommended.

Maybe the biggest problem with yesterday's budget is the problem of the property tax rebate. The 100 per cent rebate on farm land and buildings was a concept conceived when farm land was selling for thousands of dollars per acre. Today, farms sell for a few thousand dollars more than a house in an adjacent town. It is very clear that if the assessors are not given clear direction, farmers are going to be getting 100 per cent of nothing back and paying through the nose for the value of high-priced homes.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EDUCATION FUNDING

As the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) reported to the House yesterday in his budget, we are spending $100 million in 1987-88 towards the construction of new facilities and renovation of existing buildings at universities and community colleges. This cash flow in 1987-88 will support and enable some $200 million in total for new buildings and renovations at the institutions across Ontario.

As the record will show, this year's allocation represents more than double the capital spending on post-secondary institutions from just two years ago when this government took office. While that is a singular accomplishment and a measure of the substance of our ongoing commitment, it should also be acknowledged that much of what we are doing is made possible by a buoyant Ontario economy. It carries forward the promise of the throne speech to use the current fiscal dividend to invest in Ontario's future.

Je me réjouis du fait que nous soyons maintenant en mesure de poursuivre ce que nous avons commencé l'an dernier, c'est-à-dire, répondre sérieusement aux besoins de revitalisation physique des collèges et universités. La gravité de ces besoins a été abondamment documentée par des conseillers externes, le ministère et les établissements eux-mêmes. Cette situation a d'ailleurs été rapportée à plusieurs reprises par les médias de la province.

It is very important to understand that the very significant capital requirements that our colleges and universities now are confronting are the result of several factors. These reflect the age of the buildings as well as the past restraints on government funding. The most significant need for capital enhancement comes from both enrolments, which have continued to grow through the 1980s, and the requirement to renew our post-secondary facilities to meet modern high standards in teaching and research.

We will be providing a total of $66 million for capital projects in the universities in the 1987-88 fiscal year and a total of $34 million for community colleges. This will include a $20-million renovation fund for universities that will be distributed on a formula basis. There is in addition a $10-million renovation allocation for community colleges, also distributed on a formula basis. These tied funds, which must be allotted to renovation-type projects, will thus enable the institutions to determine their own priorities for renovation expenditures in accordance with their defined needs and planning priorities.

In accordance with this announcement, I will be travelling to a number of universities and community colleges across the province to provide them with the details of major new projects that we now are enabled to support at these institutions. I invite members of the opposition to go on those journeys with me. Indeed, this morning I had the pleasure of making a very important announcement at Ryerson about a new project we will be funding there.

PRESERVING ONTARIO'S ARCHITECTURE

Non. Ms. Munro: I am very pleased to report to the House today a new program that will protect and preserve the province's rich architectural legacy. As the members know, the five-year-old building rehabilitation and improvement campaign, BRIC, recently drew to a close. Our new program, Preserving Ontario's Architecture, has been designed to build on the success of BRIC. This $2.2 million initiative will provide both a financial component, making grants and loans available for architectural conservation and restoration, and a component of education and technical support for communities involved in architectural conservation.

By providing financial support and giving practical know-how to people within the community, the quality of architectural conservation projects will be raised. This will be achieved through seminars, technical literature and support and advisory services.

Financial support consists of four grant and loan components. Three of these components -- designated property grants, revolving heritage funds and conservation district funds -- will be administered by municipalities. The fourth component, commercial rehabilitation grants, will be available directly from my ministry.

Preserving Ontario's Architecture reinforces the commitment of this government to our heritage resources. Let me stress the importance of the educational component of this program. It will enable those interested and directly involved in heritage conservation activity to gain more knowledge and technical information. It will increase community awareness and expertise, creating a new appreciation of heritage buildings and architecture.

The Preserving Ontario's Architecture program will help to ensure that our heritage resources are cultivated and enhanced.

PREPAID SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Later today, I will be introducing the Prepaid Services Act. The purpose of this proposed legislation is to provide increased protection for Ontario consumers entering into prepaid service contracts with clubs associated with health, fitness, modelling, diet, talent, martial arts, sports and dance activities.

The large number of failures of such clubs and their current practice of demanding full, upfront payment of membership and initiation fees has meant considerable financial loss to many consumers. The Prepaid Services Act will reduce the losses a consumer faces when a club fails by imposing restrictions on the terms and length of his contract with the club.

The restrictions contained in the Prepaid Services Act will include a five-day cooling-off period during which time all membership fees must remain in a trust account; the length of the contract must be limited to one year; instalment plans must be made available for payment of all moneys collected and a month-to-month payment option must be offered; sequential or concurrent contracts are prohibited; renewals will be permitted only with prior notification of members, reminding them of their right to refuse renewal; pre-selling memberships is permitted but all moneys received must be placed in a trust fund until five days after the club actually opens for active membership; initiation fees cannot be greater than twice the annual membership fee; and clubs should continue to honour their existing multi-year and lifetime contracts.

I am sure all members of this House are aware of situations where people have paid considerable sums of money for multi-year membership in a club only to find that a short time later the facility is closed and the membership is terminated.

In many of these instances, high-pressure sales tactics have contributed to consumers purchasing long-term, expensive contracts that they do not use and cannot cancel.

The Prepaid Services Act will ensure that all consumers have reasonable payment options available, substantially limit the amount of money they might lose and allow them the opportunity to cancel the contract within five days of signing if they wish.

I encourage all members to support this new consumer protection legislation.

RESPONSES

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Grossman: I wish to speak to the statement made by the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) today in following up, as he attempted to do, on the failure of his government to capitalize on what was clearly a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change directions in this province.

The government announced yesterday in the budget, and it was confirmed today in the statement of the minister, $100 million towards the construction of new facilities for colleges and universities. I should like to address just what kind of commitment this government has to these facilities. First is the framework. The government has had $8 billion in new dollars to play with since it came into office. Yesterday, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) introduced a budget spending $35 billion. What was the minister able to get from him? He was able to get $100 million towards colleges and universities.

How does that break out? It breaks out in this way. For the colleges across this province he is going to provide $34 million. There are 22 community colleges across this province, and with $8 billion available after two years this minister was able to get for the 22 community colleges -- count it -- $1.5 million of capital for each of them.

He was able to get $66 million for 15 universities or $4 million for each university; unless, of course, the University of Toronto, Western and McMaster get a large chunk of that money. In that case, all the other universities can look to another dribble of $1 million coming off the lap of the formerly parsimonious Treasurer sitting on $35 billion. There is $8 billion in additional revenue and what does he have for the colleges and universities? He has about $1 million or $2 million an institution.

I ask the minister, where did the money go? I want to tell the minister where the money did not go. It did not go to his Futures program because in the first budget, the Futures program was announced at 230,000 positions and yesterday the Treasurer stood up and said that 50,000 people, not 230,000 young people, were helped by the Futures program. It was not spent in the Futures program. Where was it spent? It was not spent on the commitment we have heard about for a northern high school of science. It sure has not been spent on the tourism hospitality school the people in eastern Ontario are waiting for.

The people in eastern Ontario are not waiting for a dribble of $5 million out of $35 billion, and an office, let us not forget, in Pembroke and self-help centres. They are waiting for the tourism hospitality school. The government does not have money for that, but it has money for hamburgers and it has money for 5,000 new civil servants, 5,000 more bureaucrats; $200 million for bureaucrats