PinkLucy is correct in a later post that nobody has done much of anything for the north. Hydro rates are higher for everybody but the distribution costs hit rural/remote areas much harder. In many areas of the north, it is also the availability of power sufficient to support resource industries. There are concerns that some mining projects might not be able to go into development due to a lack of capacity.
The typically resource-based economy has been hit hard in the last several years. Much is the result of forces beyond provincial control, such as the collapse of the pulp industry, and it is difficult to grow that type of economy when either the 'inputs' are costly to find or bring on line, or the market simply isn't there. But the sentiment is that the government hasn't been there for the area in many aspects. The government did move some ministry offices to area cities, but no more than other communities in the south. It could be argued that this was offset by the closure of many, many field offices in the smaller communities that had a significant local negative impact.
Noront mining is supposed to select their site for a refinery mill this year and then it will be telling to see what government support comes available. A sticking point is electricity rates. Not so much of an issue for their initial development which will be platinum-nickle-copper but a much larger issue when the farther ferrochrome site gets developed, which will be very energy intensive. Noront has said if they don't get a favourable deal the ore may go elsewhere. Offshore might be a stretch but it could go to norther Quebec just as easily as anywhere in Ontario.
I'm often concerned by the 'investment' of government in Natural Resource extraction.
If its economically viable and profitable to extract the resource, then why is government support required?
But no roads or rail lines I hear someone shout..............AND? If the government expends 1B to allow a private company to extract 5B worth of 'stuff'; then collects a
5% royalty.....or 250M, the government, meaning all of us, is out 750M.
The notion that investment is good, no matter the amount of public investment required to make it happen (ignoring, for them moment, an environmental concerns), is bizarre to me.
I like 'stainless steel' as much as the next person, but if every faucet needs to cost an extra $20 to extract the minerals required, so be it; if that causes companies to consider alternative materials, that's ok too.
But I'd rather not subsidize the extraction, anymore than I wish to subsidize a new fast food franchise. By all means, let folks set up businesses to make a profit; but don't extract my money in order to lower your costs, so that you can make one.
****
I get the argument that people in the north need gainful employment and quality of life.
IF there is economic merit to the resource extraction business, then things can go on as they are; just w/o public subsidy.
Leave government to make sure the north has good hospitals and schools etc.
Alternatively, if the existing model is not sustainable, I'm all in favour of helping people who are financially challenged w/moving.
OR
Helping northern Ontario obtain success by adopting a more southern model, w/larger, more complex urban centres, and fewer small towns.
That might be a good use of public dollars.
But subsidizing resource extraction just does not work for me as a model.